Infection rate of emergency bolt-kit vs. non-emergency conventional implanted silver bearing external ventricular drainage catheters.

BACKGROUND Bolt-kit systems are increasingly used as an alternative to conventional external cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage systems. Since 2009 we regularly utilize bolt-kit external ventricular drainage (EVD) systems with silver-bearing catheters inserted manually with a hand drill and skull screws for emergency ventriculostomy. For non-emergency situations, we use conventional ventriculostomy with subcutaneous tunneled silver-bearing catheters, performed in the operating room with a pneumatic drill. This retrospective analysis compared the two techniques in terms of infection rates. METHODS 152 patients (aged 17-85 years, mean=55.4 years) were included in the final analysis; 95 received bolt-kit silver-bearing catheters and 57 received conventionally implanted silver-bearing catheters. The primary endpoint combined infection parameters: occurrence of positive CSF culture, colonization of catheter tips, or elevated CSF white blood cell counts (>4/μl). Secondary outcome parameters were presence of microorganisms in CSF or on catheter tips. Incidence of increased CSF cell counts and number of patients with catheter malposition were also compared. RESULTS The primary outcome, defined as analysis of combined infection parameters (occurrence of either positive CSF culture, colonization of the catheter tips or raised CSF white blood cell counts >4/μl)was not significantly different between the groups (58.9% bolt-kit group vs. 63.2% conventionally implanted group, p=0.61, chi-square-test). The bolt-kit group was non-inferior and not superior to the conventional group (relative risk reduction of 6.7%; 90% confidence interval: -19.9% to 25.6%). Secondary outcomes showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of microorganisms in CSF (2.1% bolt-kit vs. 5.3% conventionally implanted; p=0.30; chi-square-test). CONCLUSIONS This analysis indicates that silver-bearing EVD catheters implanted with a bolt-kit system outside the operating room do not significantly elevate the risk of CSF infection as compared to conventional implant methods.

Appropriateness and long-term discontinuation rate of biological therapies in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND Anti-TNFα agents are commonly used for ulcerative colitis (UC) therapy in the event of non-response to conventional strategies or as colon-salvaging therapy. The objectives were to assess the appropriateness of biological therapies for UC patients and to study treatment discontinuation over time, according to appropriateness of treatment, as a measure of outcome. METHODS We selected adult ulcerative colitis patients from the Swiss IBD cohort who had been treated with anti-TNFα agents. Appropriateness of the first-line anti-TNFα treatment was assessed using detailed criteria developed during the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Therapy for UC. Treatment discontinuation as an outcome was assessed for categories of appropriateness. RESULTS Appropriateness of the first-line biological treatment was determined in 186 UC patients. For 64% of them, this treatment was considered appropriate. During follow-up, 37% of all patients discontinued biological treatment, 17% specifically because of failure. Time-to-failure of treatment was significantly different among patients on an appropriate biological treatment compared to those for whom the treatment was considered not appropriate (p=0.0007). Discontinuation rate after 2years was 26% compared to 54% between those two groups. Patients on inappropriate biological treatment were more likely to have severe disease, concomitant steroids and/or immunomodulators. They were also consistently more likely to suffer a failure of efficacy and to stop therapy during follow-up. CONCLUSION Appropriateness of first-line anti-TNFα therapy results in a greater likelihood of continuing with the therapy. In situations where biological treatment is uncertain or inappropriate, physicians should consider other options instead of prescribing anti-TNFα agents.

Clinical study on survival rate of short implants placed in the posterior mandibular region: resonance frequency analysis.

OBJECTIVE Short implants are increasingly used, but there is doubt about their performance being similar to that of regular implants. The aim of this study was to compare the mechanical stability of short implants vs. regular implants placed in the edentulous posterior mandible. MATERIAL AND METHODS Twenty-three patients received a total of 48 short implants (5 × 5.5 mm and 5 × 7 mm) and 42 regular implants (4 × 10 mm and 4 × 11.5 mm) in the posterior mandible. Patients who received short implants had <10 mm of bone height measured from the bone crest to the outer wall of the mandibular canal. Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) was performed at time intervals T0 (immediately after implant placement), T1 (after 15 days), T2 (after 30 days), T3 (after 60 days), and T4 (after 90 days). RESULTS The survival rate after 90 days was 87.5% for the short implants and 100% for regular implants (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the implants in time intervals T1, T2, T3, and T4. In T0, the RFA values of 5 × 5.5 implants were higher than values of 5 × 7 and 4 × 11.5 implants (P < 0.05). A total of six short implants that were placed in four patients were lost (three of 5 × 5.5 mm and three of 5 × 7 mm). Three lost implants started with high ISQ values, which progressively decreased. The other three lost implants started with a slightly lower ISQ value, which rose and then began to fall. CONCLUSIONS Survival rate of short implants after 90 days was lower than that of regular implants. However, short implants may be considered a reasonable alternative for rehabilitation of severely resorbed mandibles with reduced height, to avoid performing bone reconstruction before implant placement. Patients need to be aware of the reduced survival rate compared with regular implants before implant placement to avoid disappointments.

The influence of different fever definitions on the rate of fever in neutropenia diagnosed in children with cancer

BACKGROUND The temperature limit defining fever (TLDF) is based on scarce evidence. This study aimed to determine the rate of fever in neutropenia (FN) episodes additionally diagnosed by lower versus standard TLDF. METHODS In a single center using a high TLDF (39.0°C tympanic temperature, LimitStandard), pediatric patients treated with chemotherapy for cancer were observed prospectively. Results of all temperature measurements and CBCs were recorded. The application of lower TLDFs (LimitLow; range, 37.5°C to 38.9°C) versus LimitStandard was simulated in silicon, resulting in three types of FN: simultaneous FN, diagnosed at both limits within 1 hour; earlier FN, diagnosed >1hour earlier at LimitLow; and additional FN, not diagnosed at LimitStandard. RESULTS In 39 patients, 8896 temperature measurements and 1873 CBCs were recorded during 289 months of chemotherapy. Virtually applying LimitStandard resulted in 34 FN diagnoses. The predefined relevantly (≥15%) increased FN rate was reached at LimitLow 38.4°C, with total 44 FN, 23 simultaneous, 11 earlier, and 10 additional (Poisson rate ratioAdditional/Standard, 0.29; 95% lower confidence bound, 0.16). Virtually applying 37.5°C as LimitLow led to earlier FN diagnosis (median, 4.5 hours; 95% CI, 1.0 to 20.8), and to 53 additional FN diagnosed. In 51 (96%) of them, spontaneous defervescence without specific therapy was observed in reality. CONCLUSION Lower TLDFs led to many additional FN diagnoses, implying overtreatment because spontaneous defervescence was observed in the vast majority. Lower TLDFs led as well to relevantly earlier diagnosis in a minority of FN episodes. The question if the high TLDF is not only efficacious but as well safe remains open.