Effect of BMI and urinary pH on urolithiasis and its composition

Urolithiasis is a common urological disease predominantly affecting males. The lifetime risk of urolithiasis varies from 1% to 5% in Asia, 5% to 9% in Europe, 10% to 15% in the USA and 20% to 25% in the middle-east; lowest prevalence is reported from Greenland and Japan. Such differences have been explained on the basis of race, diet and climate factors. Furthermore, changing socio-economic conditions have generated changes in the prevalence, incidence and distribution for age, sex and type of lithiasis in terms of both the site and the chemical as well as the physical composition of the calculi. The aim of our study was to determine the association between body mass index (BMI) and urine pH in patients with urolithiasis and the influence of body size, as reflected by the BMI, on the composition. The study was conducted in the Department of Biochemistry, Maharishi Markandeshwar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, on urolithiatic patients. The data included patient′s age, sex, BMI, urine pH, serum calcium, serum uric acid, serum creatinine and stone composition. Data from 100 patients, 70 men (70%) and 30 women (30%), were analyzed, with 28 patients having normal weight, 38 patients being overweight and 34 patients being obese. The mean age of the patients was 36.58 ± 9.91 years in group I, 40.47 ± 14.48 years in group II and 37.85 ± 12.46 years in group III (P > 0.05). The stone composition was calcium oxalate (CaOx) in 66 patients, calcium phosphate (CaP) in 60 patients, uric acid (UA) in 38 patients, combined calcium oxalate and calcium phosphate in 28 patients and three stones in 10 patients. The urinary pH levels (mean ± SD) were 7.78 ± 1.49 in group I, 7.15 ± 1.11 in group II and 6.29 ± 1.14 in group III patients (P = 0.0001). Urine pH showed a stepwise decrease with increasing BMI (inverse correlation). Urine pH is inversely related to BMI among patients with urolithiasis, as is the occurrence of urate, calcium oxalate and calcium phosphate stones. Similarly, the serum creatinine increased as the BMI and number of stones increased among the study population

Pantoprazole infusion as adjuvant therapy to endoscopic treatment in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: Prospective randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background and Aim: Following successful endoscopic therapy in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding, rebleeding occurs in 20% of patients. Rebleeding remains the most important determinant of poor prognosis. We investigated whether or not administration of pantoprazole infusion would improve the outcome in ulcer bleeding following successful endoscopic therapy. Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective trial, patients who had gastric or duodenal ulcers with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessel received combined endoscopy therapy with injection of epinephrine and heater probe application. Patients who achieved hemostasis were randomly assigned to receive pantoprazole (80 mg intravenous bolus followed by an infusion at a rate of 8 mg per hour) or placebo for 72 h. The primary end-point was the rate of rebleeding. Results: Rebleeding was lower in the pantoprazole group (8 of 102 patients, 7.8%) than in the placebo group (20 of 101 patients, 19.8%; P = 0.01). Patients in the pantoprazole group required significantly fewer transfusions (1 ± 2.5 vs 2 ± 3.3; P = 0.003) and days of hospitalization (5.6 ± 5.3 vs 7.7 ± 7.3; P = 0.0003). Rescue therapies were needed more frequently in the placebo group (7.8% vs 19.8%; P = 0.01). Three (2.9%) patients in the pantoprazole group and eight (7.9%) in the placebo group required surgery to control their bleeding ( P = 0.12). Two patients in the pantoprazole group and four in the placebo group died ( P = 0.45). Conclusion: In patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, the use of high dose pantoprazole infusion following successful endoscopic therapy is effective in reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirements and hospital stay

Evaluation of prognostic risk models for postoperative pulmonary complications in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and international external validation cohort study

Background Stratifying risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery allows clinicians to modify risk through targeted interventions and enhanced monitoring. In this study, we aimed to identify and validate prognostic models against a new consensus definition of postoperative pulmonary complications. Methods We did a systematic review and international external validation cohort study. The systematic review was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on March 1, 2020, for articles published in English that reported on risk prediction models for postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. External validation of existing models was done within a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Data were collected between Jan 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019, in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. Discriminative ability and prognostic accuracy summary statistics were compared between models for the 30-day postoperative pulmonary complication rate as defined by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine Core Outcome Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC). Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC). Findings In total, we identified 2903 records from our literature search; of which, 2514 (86·6%) unique records were screened, 121 (4·8%) of 2514 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 29 unique prognostic models were identified. Nine (31·0%) of 29 models had score development reported only, 19 (65·5%) had undergone internal validation, and only four (13·8%) had been externally validated. Data to validate six eligible models were collected in the international external validation cohort study. Data from 11 591 patients were available, with an overall postoperative pulmonary complication rate of 7·8% (n=903). None of the six models showed good discrimination (defined as AUROCC ≥0·70) for identifying postoperative pulmonary complications, with the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score showing the best discrimination (AUROCC 0·700 [95% CI 0·683–0·717]). Interpretation In the pre-COVID-19 pandemic data, variability in the risk of pulmonary complications (StEP-COMPAC definition) following major abdominal surgery was poorly described by existing prognostication tools. To improve surgical safety during the COVID-19 pandemic recovery and beyond, novel risk stratification tools are required. Funding British Journal of Surgery Society