Double-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing real versus placebo acupuncture to improve tolerance of diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy without sedation: a study protocol

Background Sedation prior to performance of diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGDE) is widespread and increases patient comfort. But 98% of all serious adverse events during EGDEs are ascribed to sedation. The S3 guideline for sedation procedures in gastrointestinal endoscopy published in 2008 in Germany increases patient safety by standardization. These new regulations increase costs because of the need for more personnel and a prolonged discharge procedure after examinations with sedation. Many patients have difficulties to meet the discharge criteria regulated by the S3 guideline, e.g. the call for a second person to escort them home, to resign from driving and working for the rest of the day, resulting in a refusal of sedation. Therefore, we would like to examine if an acupuncture during elective, diagnostic EGDEs could increase the comfort of patients refusing systemic sedation. Methods/Design A single-center, double blinded, placebo controlled superiority trial to compare the success rates of elective, diagnostic EGDEs with real and placebo acupuncture. All patients aged 18 years or older scheduled for elective, diagnostic EGDE who refuse a systemic sedation are eligible. 354 patients will be randomized. The primary endpoint is the rate of successful EGDEs with the randomized technique. Intervention: Real or placebo acupuncture before and during EGDE. Duration of study: Approximately 24 months. Discussion Organisation/Responsibility The ACUPEND - Trial will be conducted in accordance with the protocol and in compliance with the moral, ethical, and scientific principles governing clinical research as set out in the Declaration of Helsinki (1989) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The Interdisciplinary Endoscopy Center (IEZ) of the University Hospital Heidelberg is responsible for design and conduct of the trial, including randomization and documentation of patients' data. Data management and statistical analysis will be performed by the independent Institute for Medical Biometry and Informatics (IMBI) and the Center of Clinical Trials (KSC) at the Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg.

Different fever definitions and the rate of fever and neutropenia diagnosed in children with cancer: a retrospective two-center cohort study

Background. The definition of fever, and thus fever and neutropenia (FN), varies between different pediatric oncology centers. Higher temperature limit should reduce FN rates, but may increase rates of FN with complications by delaying therapy. This study determined if different fever definitions are associated with different FN rates. Procedure. Two pediatric oncology centers had used three fever definitions in 2004–2011: ear temperature >=38.5°C persisting >=2 hours (low definition); axillary temperature >=38.5°C >=2 hours or >=39.0°C once (middle); and ear temperature >=39.0°C once (high). Clinical information was retrospectively extracted from charts. FN rates were compared using mixed Poisson regression. Results. In 521 pediatric patients with cancer, 783 FN were recorded during 6,009 months cumulative chemotherapy exposure time (501 years; rate, 0.13/month [95% CI, 0.12–0.14]), 124 of them with bacteremia (16%; 0.021/month [0.017–0.025]). In univariate analysis, the high versus low fever definition was associated with a lower FN rate (0.10/month [0.08–0.11] vs. 0.15/month [0.13–0.16]; rate ratio, 0.66 [0.45–0.97]; P ¼ 0.036), the middle definition was intermediate (0.13/month [0.11–0.15]). This difference was not confirmed in multivariate analysis (rate ratio, 0.94 [0.67–1.33]; P ¼ 0.74). The high versus low definition was not associated with an increased rate of FN with bacteremia (multivariate rate ratio, 1.39 [0.53–3.62]; P ¼ 0.50). Conclusion. A higher fever definition was not associated with a lower FN rate, nor with an increased rate of FN with bacteremia. These may be false negative findings due to methodological limitations. These questions, with their potential impact on health-related quality of life, and on costs, need to be assessed in prospective studies.

Pilot study on the comprehensive economic costs of major trauma: Consequential costs are well in excess of medical costs

BACKGROUND: Trauma care is expensive. However, reliable data on the exact lifelong costs incurred by a major trauma patient are lacking. Discussion usually focuses on direct medical costs--underestimating consequential costs resulting from absence from work and permanent disability. METHODS: Direct medical costs and consequential costs of 63 major trauma survivors (ISS >13) at a Swiss trauma center from 1995 to 1996 were assessed 5 years posttrauma. The following cost evaluation methods were used: correction cost method (direct cost of restoring an original state), human capital method (indirect cost of lost productivity), contingent valuation method (human cost as the lost quality of life), and macroeconomic estimates. RESULTS: Mean ISS (Injury Severity Score) was 26.8 +/- 9.5 (mean +/- SD). In all, 22 patients (35%) were disabled, causing discounted average lifelong total costs of USD 1,293,800, compared with 41 patients (65%) who recovered without any disabilities with incurred costs of USD 147,200 (average of both groups USD 547,800). Two thirds of these costs were attributable to a loss of production whereas only one third was a result of the cost of correction. Primary hospital treatment (USD 27,800 +/- 37,800) was only a minor fraction of the total cost--less than the estimated cost of police and the judiciary. Loss of quality of life led to considerable intangible human costs similar to real costs. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma costs are commonly underestimated. Direct medical costs make up only a small part of the total costs. Consequential costs, such as lost productivity, are well in excess of the usual medical costs. Mere cost averages give a false estimate of the costs incurred by patients with/without disabilities.

Multi-vessel stenting during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. A single-center experience

BACKGROUND: Recanalization of the culprit lesion is the main goal of primary angioplasty for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease are, therefore, usually subjected to staged procedures, with the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) confined to recanalization of the infarct-related artery (IRA). Theoretically at least, early relief of stenoses of non-infarct-related arteries could promote collateral circulation, which could help to limit the infarct size. However, the safety and feasibility of such an approach has not been adequately established. METHODS: In this single-center prospective study we examined 73 consecutive patients who had an acute STEMI and at least one or more lesions > or = 70% in a major epicardial vessel other than the infarct-related artery. In the first 28 patients, forming the multi-vessel (MV) PCI group, all lesions were treated during the primary procedure. In the following 45 patients, forming the culprit-only (CO) PCI group, only the culprit lesion was treated during the initial procedure, followed by either planned-staged or ischemia-driven revascularization of the non-culprit lesions. Fluoroscopy time and contrast dye amount were compared between both groups, and patients were followed up for one year for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and other significant clinical events. RESULTS: The two groups were well balanced in terms of clinical characteristics, number of diseased vessels and angiographic characteristics of the culprit lesion. In the MV-PCI group, 2.51 lesions per patient were treated using 2.96 +/- 1.34 stents (1.00 lesions and 1.76 +/- 1.17 stents in the CO-PCI group, both p < 0.001). The fluoroscopy time increased from 10.3 (7.2-16.9) min in the CO-PCI group to 12.5 (8.5-19.3) min in the MV-PCI group (p = 0.22), and the amount of contrast used from 200 (180-250) ml to 250 (200-300) ml, respectively (p = 0.16). Peak CK and CK-MB were significantly lower in patients of the MV-PCI group (843 +/- 845 and 135 +/- 125 vs 1652 +/- 1550 and 207 +/- 155 U/l, p < 0.001 and 0.01, respectively). Similar rates of major adverse cardiac events at one year were observed in the two groups (24% and 28% in multi-vessel and culprit treatment groups, p = 0.73). The incidence of new revascularization in both infarct- and non-infarct-related arteries was also similar (24% and 28%, respectively, p = 0.73). CONCLUSION: We may state from this limited experience that a multi-vessel stenting approach for patients with acute STEMI and multi-vessel disease is feasible and probably safe during routine clinical practice. Our data suggest that this approach may help to limit the infarct size. However, larger studies, perhaps using drug-eluting stents, are still needed to further evaluate the safety and efficiency of this procedure, and whether it is associated with a lower need of subsequent revascularization and lower costs.

Explaining Variations in Client Extra Costs between Software Projects Offshored to India

Gaining economic benefits from substantially lower labor costs has been reported as a major reason for offshoring labor-intensive information systems services to low-wage countries. However, if wage differences are so high, why is there such a high level of variation in the economic success between offshored IS projects? This study argues that offshore outsourcing involves a number of extra costs for the ^his paper was recommended for acceptance by Associate Guest Editor Erran Carmel. client organization that account for the economic failure of offshore projects. The objective is to disaggregate these extra costs into their constituent parts and to explain why they differ between offshored software projects. The focus is on software development and maintenance projects that are offshored to Indian vendors. A theoretical framework is developed a priori based on transaction cost economics (TCE) and the knowledge-based view of the firm, comple mented by factors that acknowledge the specific offshore context The framework is empirically explored using a multiple case study design including six offshored software projects in a large German financial service institution. The results of our analysis indicate that the client incurs post contractual extra costs for four types of activities: (1) re quirements specification and design, (2) knowledge transfer, (3) control, and (4) coordination. In projects that require a high level of client-specific knowledge about idiosyncratic business processes and software systems, these extra costs were found to be substantially higher than in projects where more general knowledge was needed. Notably, these costs most often arose independently from the threat of oppor tunistic behavior, challenging the predominant TCE logic of market failure. Rather, the client extra costs were parti cularly high in client-specific projects because the effort for managing the consequences of the knowledge asymmetries between client and vendor was particularly high in these projects. Prior experiences of the vendor with related client projects were found to reduce the level of extra costs but could not fully offset the increase in extra costs in highly client-specific projects. Moreover, cultural and geographic distance between client and vendor as well as personnel turnover were found to increase client extra costs. Slight evidence was found, however, that the cost-increasing impact of these factors was also leveraged in projects with a high level of required client-specific knowledge (moderator effect).