A randomized, controlled clinical trial on the clinical, microbiological, and staining effects of a novel 0.05% chlorhexidine/herbal extract and a 0.1% chlorhexidine mouthrinse adjunct to periodontal surgery

BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine (CHX) rinsing after periodontal surgery is common. We assessed the clinical and microbiological effects of two CHX concentrations following periodontal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a randomized, controlled clinical trial, 45 subjects were assigned to 4 weeks rinsing with a 0.05 CHX/herbal extract combination (test) or a 0.1% CHX solution. Clinical and staining effects were studied. Subgingival bacteria were assessed using the DNA-DNA checkerboard. Statistics included parametric and non-parametric tests (p<0001 to declare significance at 80% power). RESULTS: At weeks 4 and 12, more staining was found in the control group (p<0.05 and p<0.001, respectively). A higher risk for staining was found in the control group (crude OR: 2.3:1, 95% CI: 1.3 to 4.4, p<0.01). The absolute staining reduction in the test group was 21.1% (9 5% CI: 9.4-32.8%). Probing pocket depth (PPD) decreases were significant (p<0.001) in both groups and similar (p=0.92). No rinse group differences in changes of bacterial counts for any species were found between baseline and week 12. CONCLUSIONS: The test CHX rinse resulted in less tooth staining. At the study endpoint, similar and high counts of periodontal pathogens were found.

Bevacizumab and erlotinib (BE) first-line therapy in advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (stage IIIB/IV) followed by platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) at disease progression: A multicenter phase II trial (SAKK 19/05)

This phase II trial aimed to evaluate feasibility and efficacy of a first-line combination of targeted therapies for advanced non-squamous NSCLC: bevacizumab (B) and erlotinib (E), followed by platinum-based CT at disease progression (PD).

Carbon dioxide insufflation in colonoscopy is safe: a prospective trial of 347 patients

Available evidence suggests that the use of CO(2) insufflation in endoscopy is more comfortable for the patient. The safety of CO(2) use in colonoscopy remains contentious, particularly in sedated patients. The objective of the present prospective trial was to assess the safety of CO(2) colonoscopies. Methods. 109 patients from our previous randomized CO(2) colonoscopy study and an additional 238 subsequent consecutive unselected patients who had a routine colonoscopy performed in a private practice were enrolled from April 2008 through September 2008. All but 2 patients were sedated. All patients were routinely monitored with transcutaneous CO(2) measurement. Volumes of CO(2) administered were correlated with capnographic measurements from transcutaneous monitoring. Results. Of the 347 patients examined, 57% were women; mean (SD) age of participants was of 60.2 years (12.8). Mean propofol dosage was 136 mg (64 mg). Mean CO(2) values were 34.7 mm Hg (5.3) at baseline, 38.9 mm Hg (5.5) upon reaching the ileum, and 36.9 mm Hg (5.0) at examination's end. Mean maximum increase of CO(2) was 4.5 mm Hg (3.6). No correlation was observed between volume of CO(2) administered and increase in level of CO(2) (correlation coefficient: 0.01; P value: 0.84). No complications were observed. Conclusions. The present prospective study, which was based on one of the largest sedated patient sample reported to date in this setting, provides compelling evidence that CO(2) insufflation in colonoscopy is safe and unassociated with relevant increases in transcutaneously measured levels of CO(2).