Effect of energy sources on the apparent total tract digestibility and excretion of nutrients by bovine cattle

ABSTRACT Objective. To evaluate the effect of three energy sources on the intake, total apparent digestibility and excretion of nutrients in cattle diet. Materials and methods. Six ruminally cannulated cows (730 ± 70 kg) were distributed into three treatments in a replicated 3x3 Latin square experimental design, where: (I) Control: Low ether extract diet (3.50% EE); (II) Soybean: High ether extract diet (5.30% EE) with inclusion of 15% soybean and (III) Citrus pulp: Low ether extract diet (3.00% EE) and high pectin involvement with inclusion of 15% citrus pulp. To determine the digestibility of DM and its fractions, chromic oxide was used as a marker. Nutrient excretion was calculated from the digestibility coefficient of each fraction. Results. The soybean treatment reduced (p0.05) of the energy source on the digestibility coefficients of DM, CP, NDF, EE, NFE or OM. The TDN value was higher for the soybean treatment. The excretion of DM, NFE and OM was lower (p<0.05) for the soybean treatment. All energy sources influenced the excretion of crude protein. Conclusions. The energy sources used did not affect the digestibility of the diets and are indicated as high potential sources to be used in cattle

Effect of energy sources on the apparent total tract digestibility and excretion of nutrients by bovine cattle

Objective. To evaluate the effect of three energy sources on the intake, total apparent digestibility and excretion of nutrients in cattle diet. Materials and methods. Six ruminally cannulated cows (730 ± 70 kg) were distributed into three treatments in a replicated 3x3 Latin square experimental design, where: (I) Control: Low ether extract diet (3.50% EE); (II) Soybean: High ether extract diet (5.30% EE) with inclusion of 15% soybean and (III) Citrus pulp: Low ether extract diet (3.00% EE) and high pectin involvement with inclusion of 15% citrus pulp. To determine the digestibility of DM and its fractions, chromic oxide was used as a marker. Nutrient excretion was calculated from the digestibility coefficient of each fraction. Results. The soybean treatment reduced (p0.05) of the energy source on the digestibility coefficients of DM, CP, NDF, EE, NFE or OM. The TDN value was higher for the soybean treatment. The excretion of DM, NFE and OM was lower (p<0.05) for the soybean treatment. All energy sources influenced the excretion of crude protein. Conclusions. The energy sources used did not affect the digestibility of the diets and are indicated as high potential sources to be used in cattle.Objetivo. Evaluar el efecto de tres fuentes energéticas sobre el consumo, la digestibilidad aparente total y la excreción de nutrientes de la dieta en bovinos. Materiales y métodos. Seis vacas (730±70 kg) canuladas en rumen fueron distribuidas en tres tratamientos, en un diseño experimental cuadrado latino 3x3 replicado, a saber: (I) Control: Dieta de bajo extracto etéreo (3.50% de EE); (II) Soya: Dieta de alto extracto etéreo (5.30% de EE) con inclusión de 15% de grano de soya y (III) Pulpa Cítrica: Dieta de bajo extracto etéreo (3.00% de EE) y alta participación de pectina con inclusión de 15% de pulpa cítrica. Para determinar la digestibilidad de la MS y sus fracciones, fue utilizado el marcador de óxido de cromo. La excreción de nutrientes, fue calculada a partir de los coeficientes de digestibilidad de cada fracción. Resultados. El tratamiento con soya redujo (p<0.05) el consumo de materia seca, proteína bruta, extracto no nitrogenado y materia orgánica, de igual manera, incrementó el consumo de extracto etéreo. No no se observó efecto (p.0.05) de fuente energética para los coeficientes de digestibilidad de la MS, PB, FDN, EE, ENN y MO. El valor de NDT fue mayor para el tratamiento con soya. La excreción de MS, ENN y MO fue menor (p<0.05) para el tratamiento con soya. Todas las fuentes energéticas influyeron en la excreción de proteína bruta. Conclusiones. Las fuentes energéticas utilizadas, no afectaron la digestibilidad de las dietas, y estan indicadas como fuentes de elevado potencial en la alimentación de bovinos

A Survey of Empirical Results on Program Slicing

International audienceBACKGROUND:Patients with peripheral artery disease have an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Antiplatelet agents are widely used to reduce these complications.METHODS:This was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial for which patients were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community practices from 33 countries across six continents. Eligible patients had a history of peripheral artery disease of the lower extremities (previous peripheral bypass surgery or angioplasty, limb or foot amputation, intermittent claudication with objective evidence of peripheral artery disease), of the carotid arteries (previous carotid artery revascularisation or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis of at least 50%), or coronary artery disease with an ankle-brachial index of less than 0·90. After a 30-day run-in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral rivaroxaban (2·5 mg twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban twice a day (5 mg with aspirin placebo once a day), or to aspirin once a day (100 mg and rivaroxaban placebo twice a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patient, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke; the primary peripheral artery disease outcome was major adverse limb events including major amputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants.FINDINGS:Between March 12, 2013, and May 10, 2016, we enrolled 7470 patients with peripheral artery disease from 558 centres. The combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (126 [5%] of 2492 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; hazard ratio [HR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·57-0·90, p=0·0047), and major adverse limb events including major amputation (32 [1%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·54 95% CI 0·35-0·82, p=0·0037). Rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day compared with aspirin alone did not significantly reduce the composite endpoint (149 [6%] of 2474 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·69-1·08, p=0·19), but reduced major adverse limb events including major amputation (40 [2%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·45-1·00, p=0·05). The median duration of treatment was 21 months. The use of the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination increased major bleeding compared with the aspirin alone group (77 [3%] of 2492 vs 48 [2%] of 2504; HR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12-2·31, p=0·0089), which was mainly gastrointestinal. Similarly, major bleeding occurred in 79 (3%) of 2474 patients with rivaroxaban 5 mg, and in 48 (2%) of 2504 in the aspirin alone group (HR 1·68, 95% CI 1·17-2·40; p=0·0043).INTERPRETATION:Low-dose rivaroxaban taken twice a day plus aspirin once a day reduced major adverse cardiovascular and limb events when compared with aspirin alone. Although major bleeding was increased, fatal or critical organ bleeding was not. This combination therapy represents an important advance in the management of patients with peripheral artery disease. Rivaroxaban alone did not significantly reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared with asprin alone, but reduced major adverse limb events and increased major bleeding

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used