289 resultados para controlled switching
Resumo:
Background: Macular edema resulting from central retinal vein occlusion is effectively treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections. However, some patients need monthly retreatment and still show frequent recurrences. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the visual and anatomic outcomes of refractory macular edema resulting from ischemic central retinal vein occlusion in patients switched from ranibizumab to aflibercept intravitreal injections. Patients and Methods: We describe a retrospective series of patients followed in the Medical Retina Unit of the Jules Gonin Eye Hospital for macular edema due to ischemic central retinal vein occlusion, refractory to monthly retreatment with ranibizumab, and changed to aflibercept. Refractory macular edema was defined as persistence of any fluid at each visit one month after last injection during at least 6 months. All patients had to have undergone pan-retinal laser scan. Results: Six patients were identified, one of whom had a very short-term follow-up (excluded from statistics). Mean age was 57 ± 12 years. The mean changes in visual acuity and central macular thickness from baseline to switch were + 20.6 ± 20.3 ETDRS letters and - 316.4 ± 276.6 µm, respectively. The additional changes from before to after the switch were + 9.2 ± 9.5 ETDRS letters and - 248.0 ± 248.7 µm, respectively. The injection intervals could often be lengthened after the switch. Conclusions: Intravitreal aflibercept seems to be a promising alternative treatment for macular edema refractory to ranibizumab in ischemic central retinal vein occlusion.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest causes ischaemic brain injury. Arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) is a major determinant of cerebral blood flow. Thus, mild hypercapnia in the 24 h following cardiac arrest may increase cerebral blood flow and attenuate such injury. We describe the Carbon Control and Cardiac Arrest (CCC) trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The CCC trial is a pilot multicentre feasibility, safety and biological efficacy randomized controlled trial recruiting adult cardiac arrest patients admitted to the intensive care unit after return of spontaneous circulation. At admission, using concealed allocation, participants are randomized to 24 h of either normocapnia (PaCO2 35 to 45 mmHg) or mild hypercapnia (PaCO2 50 to 55 mmHg). Key feasibility outcomes are recruitment rate and protocol compliance rate. The primary biological efficacy and biological safety measures are the between-groups difference in serum neuron-specific enolase and S100b protein levels at 24 h, 48 h and 72 h. Secondary outcome measure include adverse events, in-hospital mortality, and neurological assessment at 6 months. DISCUSSION: The trial commenced in December 2012 and, when completed, will provide clinical evidence as to whether targeting mild hypercapnia for 24 h following intensive care unit admission for cardiac arrest patients is feasible and safe and whether it results in decreased concentrations of neurological injury biomarkers compared with normocapnia. Trial results will also be used to determine whether a phase IIb study powered for survival at 90 days is feasible and justified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612000690853 .
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE: To compare epidural analgesia (EDA) to patient-controlled opioid-based analgesia (PCA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. BACKGROUND: EDA is mainstay of multimodal pain management within enhanced recovery pathways [enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)]. For laparoscopic colorectal resections, the benefit of epidurals remains debated. Some consider EDA as useful, whereas others perceive epidurals as unnecessary or even deleterious. METHODS: A total of 128 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resections were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial comparing EDA versus PCA. Primary end point was medical recovery. Overall complications, hospital stay, perioperative vasopressor requirements, and postoperative pain scores were secondary outcome measures. Analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Final analysis included 65 EDA patients and 57 PCA patients. Both groups were similar regarding baseline characteristics. Medical recovery required a median of 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3-7.5 days) in EDA patients and 4 days (IQR, 3-6 days) in the PCA group (P = 0.082). PCA patients had significantly less overall complications [19 (33%) vs 35 (54%); P = 0.029] but a similar hospital stay [5 days (IQR, 4-8 days) vs 7 days (IQR, 4.5-12 days); P = 0.434]. Significantly more EDA patients needed vasopressor treatment perioperatively (90% vs 74%, P = 0.018), the day of surgery (27% vs 4%, P < 0.001), and on postoperative day 1 (29% vs 4%, P < 0.001), whereas no difference in postoperative pain scores was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Epidurals seem to slow down recovery after laparoscopic colorectal resections without adding obvious benefits. EDA can therefore not be recommended as part of ERAS pathways in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
Resumo:
AIMS: Estimating the effect of a nursing intervention in home-dwelling older adults on the occurrence and course of delirium and concomitant cognitive and functional impairment. METHODS: A randomized clinical pilot trial using a before/after design was conducted with older patients discharged from hospital who had a medical prescription to receive home care. A total of 51 patients were randomized into the experimental group (EG) and 52 patients into the control group (CG). Besides usual home care, nursing interventions were offered by a geriatric nurse specialist to the EG at 48 h, 72 h, 7 days, 14 days, and 21 days after discharge. All patients were monitored for symptoms of delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method. Cognitive and functional statuses were measured with the Mini-Mental State Examination and the Katz and Lawton Index. RESULTS: No statistical differences with regard to symptoms of delirium (p = 0.085), cognitive impairment (p = 0.151), and functional status (p = 0.235) were found between the EG and CG at study entry and at 1 month. After adjustment, statistical differences were found in favor of the EG for symptoms of delirium (p = 0.046), cognitive impairment (p = 0.015), and functional status (p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: Nursing interventions to detect delirium at home are feasible and accepted. The nursing interventions produced a promising effect to improve delirium.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Frequent emergency department users represent a small number of patients but account for a large number of emergency department visits. They should be a focus because they are often vulnerable patients with many risk factors affecting their quality of life (QoL). Case management interventions have resulted in a significant decrease in emergency department visits, but association with QoL has not been assessed. One aim of our study was to examine to what extent an interdisciplinary case management intervention, compared to standard emergency care, improved frequent emergency department users' QoL. METHODS: Data are part of a randomized, controlled trial designed to improve frequent emergency department users' QoL and use of health-care resources at the Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. In total, 250 frequent emergency department users (≥5 attendances during the previous 12 months; ≥ 18 years of age) were interviewed between May 2012 and July 2013. Following an assessment focused on social characteristics; social, mental, and somatic determinants of health; risk behaviors; health care use; and QoL, participants were randomly assigned to the control or the intervention group (n=125 in each group). The final sample included 194 participants (20 deaths, 36 dropouts, n=96 in the intervention group, n=99 in the control group). Participants in the intervention group received a case management intervention by an interdisciplinary, mobile team in addition to standard emergency care. The case management intervention involved four nurses and a physician who provided counseling and assistance concerning social determinants of health, substance-use disorders, and access to the health-care system. The participants' QoL was evaluated by a study nurse using the WHOQOL-BREF five times during the study (at baseline, and at 2, 5.5, 9, and 12 months). Four of the six WHOQOL dimensions of QoL were retained here: physical health, psychological health, social relationship, and environment, with scores ranging from 0 (low QoL) to 100 (high QoL). A linear, mixed-effects model with participants as a random effect was run to analyze the change in QoL over time. The effects of time, participants' group, and the interaction between time and group were tested. These effects were controlled for sociodemographic characteristics and health-related variables (i.e., age, gender, education, citizenship, marital status, type of financial resources, proficiency in French, somatic and mental health problems, and behaviors at risk).
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Frequent emergency department users represent a small number of patients but account for a large number of emergency department visits. They should be a focus because they are often vulnerable patients with many risk factors affecting their quality of life (QoL). Case management interventions have resulted in a significant decrease in emergency department visits, but association with QoL has not been assessed. One aim of our study was to examine to what extent an interdisciplinary case management intervention, compared to standard emergency care, improved frequent emergency department users' QoL. METHODS: Data are part of a randomized, controlled trial designed to improve frequent emergency department users' QoL and use of health-care resources at the Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. In total, 250 frequent emergency department users (≥5 attendances during the previous 12 months; ≥ 18 years of age) were interviewed between May 2012 and July 2013. Following an assessment focused on social characteristics; social, mental, and somatic determinants of health; risk behaviors; health care use; and QoL, participants were randomly assigned to the control or the intervention group (n=125 in each group). The final sample included 194 participants (20 deaths, 36 dropouts, n=96 in the intervention group, n=99 in the control group). Participants in the intervention group received a case management intervention by an interdisciplinary, mobile team in addition to standard emergency care. The case management intervention involved four nurses and a physician who provided counseling and assistance concerning social determinants of health, substance-use disorders, and access to the health-care system.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Second line endocrine therapy has limited antitumour activity. Fulvestrant inhibits and downregulates the oestrogen receptor. The mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway is one of the major cascades involved in resistance to endocrine therapy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of fulvestrant with selumetinib, a MEK 1/2 inhibitor, in advanced stage breast cancer progressing after aromatase inhibitor (AI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomised phase II trial included postmenopausal patients with endocrine-sensitive breast cancer. They were ramdomised to fulvestrant combined with selumetinib or placebo. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR) in the experimental arm. ClinicalTrials.gov Indentifier: NCT01160718. RESULTS: Following the planned interim efficacy analysis, recruitment was interrupted after the inclusion of 46 patients (23 in each arm), because the selumetinib-fulvestrant arm did not reach the pre-specified DCR. DCR was 23% (95% confidence interval (CI) 8-45%) in the selumetinib arm and 50% (95% CI 27-75%) in the placebo arm. Median progression-free survival was 3.7months (95% CI 1.9-5.8) in the selumetinib arm and 5.6months (95% CI 3.4-13.6) in the placebo arm. Median time to treatment failure was 5.1 (95% CI 2.3-6.7) and 5.6 (95% CI 3.4-10.2) months, respectively. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events observed in the selumetinib-fulvestrant arm were skin disorders, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, oedema, diarrhoea, mouth disorders and muscle disorders. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of selumetinib to fulvestrant did not show improving patients' outcome and was poorly tolerated at the recommended monotherapy dose. Selumetinib may have deteriorated the efficacy of the endocrine therapy in some patients.
Resumo:
Clinical experience and experimental data suggest that intradialytic hemodynamic profiles could be influenced by the characteristics of the dialysis membranes. Even within the worldwide used polysulfone family, intolerance to specific membranes was occasionally evoked. The aim of this study was to compare hemodynamically some of the commonly used polysulfone dialyzers in Switzerland. We performed an open-label, randomized, cross-over trial, including 25 hemodialysis patients. Four polysulfone dialyzers, A (Revaclear high-flux, Gambro, Stockholm, Sweden), B (Helixone high-flux, Fresenius), C (Xevonta high-flux, BBraun, Melsungen, Germany), and D (Helixone low-flux, Fresenius, Bad Homburg vor der Höhe, Germany), were compared. The hemodynamic profile was assessed and patients were asked to provide tolerance feedback. The mean score (±SD) subjectively assigned to dialysis quality on a 1-10 scale was A 8.4 ± 1.3, B 8.6 ± 1.3, C 8.5 ± 1.6, D 8.5 ± 1.5. Kt/V was A 1.58 ± 0.30, B 1.67 ± 0.33, C 1.62 ± 0.32, D 1.45 ± 0.31. The low- compared with the high-flux membranes, correlated to higher systolic (128.1 ± 13.1 vs. 125.6 ± 12.1 mmHg, P < 0.01) and diastolic (76.8 ± 8.7 vs. 75.3 ± 9.0 mmHg; P < 0.05) pressures, higher peripheral resistance (1.44 ± 0.19 vs. 1.40 ± 0.18 s × mmHg/mL; P < 0.05) and lower cardiac output (3.76 ± 0.62 vs. 3.82 ± 0.59 L/min; P < 0.05). Hypotension events (decrease in systolic blood pressure by >20 mmHg) were 70 with A, 87 with B, 73 with C, and 75 with D (P < 0.01 B vs. A, 0.05 B vs. C and 0.07 B vs. D). The low-flux membrane correlated to higher blood pressure levels compared with the high-flux ones. The Helixone high-flux membrane ensured the best efficiency. Unfortunately, the very same dialyzer correlated to a higher incidence of hypotensive episodes.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Survival outcomes for patients with glioblastoma remain poor, particularly for patients with unmethylated O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) gene promoter. This phase II, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial investigated the efficacy and safety of 2 dose regimens of the selective integrin inhibitor cilengitide combined with standard chemoradiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and an unmethylated MGMT promoter. METHODS: Overall, 265 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to standard cilengitide (2000 mg 2×/wk; n = 88), intensive cilengitide (2000 mg 5×/wk during wk 1-6, thereafter 2×/wk; n = 88), or a control arm (chemoradiotherapy alone; n = 89). Cilengitide was administered intravenously in combination with daily temozolomide (TMZ) and concomitant radiotherapy (RT; wk 1-6), followed by TMZ maintenance therapy (TMZ/RT→TMZ). The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, pharmacokinetics, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Median overall survival was 16.3 months in the standard cilengitide arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.686; 95% CI: 0.484, 0.972; P = .032) and 14.5 months in the intensive cilengitide arm (HR, 0.858; 95% CI: 0.612, 1.204; P = .3771) versus 13.4 months in the control arm. Median progression-free survival assessed per independent review committee was 5.6 months (HR, 0.822; 95% CI: 0.595, 1.134) and 5.9 months (HR, 0.794; 95% CI: 0.575, 1.096) in the standard and intensive cilengitide arms, respectively, versus 4.1 months in the control arm. Cilengitide was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Standard and intensive cilengitide dose regimens were well tolerated in combination with TMZ/RT→TMZ. Inconsistent overall survival and progression-free survival outcomes and a limited sample size did not allow firm conclusions regarding clinical efficacy in this exploratory phase II study.
Resumo:
Background: Emergency department frequent users (EDFUs) account for a disproportionally high number of emergency department (ED) visits, contributing to overcrowding and high health-care costs. At the Lausanne University Hospital, EDFUs account for only 4.4% of ED patients, but 12.1% of all ED visits. Our study tested the hypothesis that an interdisciplinary case management intervention red. Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, we allocated adult EDFUs (5 or more visits in the previous 12 months) who visited the ED of the University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland between May 2012 and July 2013 either to an intervention (N=125) or a standard emergency care (N=125) group and monitored them for 12 months. Randomization was computer generated and concealed, and patients and research staff were blinded to the allocation. Participants in the intervention group, in addition to standard emergency care, received case management from an interdisciplinary team at baseline, and at 1, 3, and 5 months, in the hospital, in the ambulatory care setting, or at their homes. A generalized, linear, mixed-effects model for count data (Poisson distribution) was applied to compare participants' numbers of visits to the ED during the 12 months (Period 1, P1) preceding recruitment to the numbers of visits during the 12 months monitored (Period 2, P2).
Resumo:
Introduction: Frequent emergency department (ED) users are often vulnerable patients with many risk factors affecting their quality of life (QoL). The aim of this study was to examine to what extent a case management intervention improved frequent ED users' QoL. Methods: Data were part of a randomized, controlled trial designed to improve frequent ED users' QoL at the Lausanne University Hospital. A total of 194 frequent ED users (≥ 5 attendances during the previous 12 months; ≥ 18 years of age) were randomly assigned to the control or the intervention group. Participants in the intervention group received a case management intervention (i.e. counseling and assistance concerning social determinants of health, substance-use disorders, and access to the health-care system). QoL was evaluated using the WHOQOL-BREF at baseline and twelve months later. Four dimensions of QoL were retained: physical health, psychological health, social relationship, and environment, with scores ranging from 0 (low QoL) to 100 (high QoL).