Effectiveness of an early postoperative feeding protocol

Background. The increasing emphasis on medical outcomes and cost containment has made it imperative to identify patient populations in which aggressive nutritional care can improve quality of care. The aim of this prospective study was to implement a standardized early jejunal feeding protocol for patients undergoing small and large bowel resection, and to evaluate its effect on patient outcome and cost.^ Methods. Treatment patients (n = 81) who met protocol inclusion criteria had a jejunal feeding tube inserted at the time of surgery. Feeding was initiated at 10 cc/hour within 12 hours after bowel resection and progressed if hemodynamically stable. The control group (n = 159) received usual care. Outcome measures included postoperative length of stay, total direct cost, nosocomial infection rate and health status (SF-36) scores.^ Results. By postoperative day 4, the use of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) was significantly greater in the control group compared to the treatment group; however, total nutritional intake was significantly less. Multiple regression analysis indicated an increased likelihood of infection with the use of TPN. A reduction of 3.5 postoperative days (p =.013) with 4.3 fewer TPN days per patient (p =.001) and a 9.6% reduction in infection rate (p =.042) was demonstrated in the treatment group. There was no difference in health status scores between groups at discharge and 3 months post-discharge.^ Conclusion. These positive outcomes and an average total cost savings of $4,145 per treatment patient indicate that the treatment protocol was effective. ^

Is sensitization to stimulants time dependent and mediated via NMDA receptors?

Chronic administration of psychomotor stimulants has been reported to produce behavioral sensitization to its effects on motor activity. This adaptation may be related to the pathophysiology of recurrent psychiatric disorders. Since disturbances in circadian rhythms are also found in many of these disorders, the relationship between sensitization and chronobiological factors became of interest. Therefore, a computerized monitoring system investigated the following: whether repeated exposure to methylphenidate (MPD) and amphetamine (AMP) could produce sensitization to its locomotor effects in the rat; whether sensitization to MPD and AMP was dependent on the circadian time of drug administration; whether the baseline levels of locomotor activity would be effected by repeated exposure to MPD and AMP; whether the expression of a sensitized response could be affected by the photoperiod; and whether MK-801, a non-competitive NMDA antagonist, could disrupt the development of sensitization to MPD. Dawley rats were housed in test cages and motor activity was recorded continuously for 16 days. The first 2 days served as baseline for each rat, and on day 3 each rat received a saline injection. The locomotor response to 0.6, 2.5, or 10 mg/kg of MPD was tested on day 4, followed by five days of single injections of 2.5 mg/kg MPD (days 5–9). After five days without injection (days 10–14) rats were re-challenged (day 15) with the same doses they received on day 4. There were three separate dose groups ran at four different times of administration, 08:00, 14:00, 20:00, or 02:00 (i.e. 12 groups). The same protocol was conducted with AMP with the doses of 0.3, 0.6, and 1.2 mg/kg given on day 4 and 15, and 0.6 mg/kg AMP as the repeated dose on days 5 to 9. In the second set of experiments only sensitization to MPD was investigated. The expression of the sensitized response was dose-dependent and mainly observed with challenge of the lower dose groups. The development of sensitization to MPD and ANT was differentially time-dependent. For MPD, the most robust sensitization occurred during the light phase, with no sensitization during the middle of the dark phase. (Abstract shortened by UMI.) ^

New methods for quantification and analysis of quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction data

Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is a sensitive gene quantitation method that has been widely used in the biological and biomedical fields. The currently used methods for PCR data analysis, including the threshold cycle (CT) method, linear and non-linear model fitting methods, all require subtracting background fluorescence. However, the removal of background fluorescence is usually inaccurate, and therefore can distort results. Here, we propose a new method, the taking-difference linear regression method, to overcome this limitation. Briefly, for each two consecutive PCR cycles, we subtracted the fluorescence in the former cycle from that in the later cycle, transforming the n cycle raw data into n-1 cycle data. Then linear regression was applied to the natural logarithm of the transformed data. Finally, amplification efficiencies and the initial DNA molecular numbers were calculated for each PCR run. To evaluate this new method, we compared it in terms of accuracy and precision with the original linear regression method with three background corrections, being the mean of cycles 1-3, the mean of cycles 3-7, and the minimum. Three criteria, including threshold identification, max R2, and max slope, were employed to search for target data points. Considering that PCR data are time series data, we also applied linear mixed models. Collectively, when the threshold identification criterion was applied and when the linear mixed model was adopted, the taking-difference linear regression method was superior as it gave an accurate estimation of initial DNA amount and a reasonable estimation of PCR amplification efficiencies. When the criteria of max R2 and max slope were used, the original linear regression method gave an accurate estimation of initial DNA amount. Overall, the taking-difference linear regression method avoids the error in subtracting an unknown background and thus it is theoretically more accurate and reliable. This method is easy to perform and the taking-difference strategy can be extended to all current methods for qPCR data analysis.^