Peripheral endovascular revascularization trials: high noon for uniform reporting standards

In the era of evidence based medicine, proof of clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness need to be firmly based on transparent comparisons between various therapeutic alternatives. Standards for reports are a prerequisite for comparisons across reports and should reflect the patient's perspective. According standards have been successfully introduced in many fields of modern medicine, but not yet for peripheral endovascular interventions. Given the overwhelmingly increasing importance of endovascular revascularization in patients with chronic lower limb ischemia, this report provides an updated outline of the heterogeneity of current reporting practice and highlights the need for uniform reporting standards.

Methodological approach to the first and second lactate threshold in incremental cardiopulmonary exercise testing

Determination of an 'anaerobic threshold' plays an important role in the appreciation of an incremental cardiopulmonary exercise test and describes prominent changes of blood lactate accumulation with increasing workload. Two lactate thresholds are discerned during cardiopulmonary exercise testing and used for physical fitness estimation or training prescription. A multitude of different terms are, however, found in the literature describing the two thresholds. Furthermore, the term 'anaerobic threshold' is synonymously used for both, the 'first' and the 'second' lactate threshold, bearing a great potential of confusion. The aim of this review is therefore to order terms, present threshold concepts, and describe methods for lactate threshold determination using a three-phase model with reference to the historical and physiological background to facilitate the practical application of the term 'anaerobic threshold'.

Systemic prokinetic pharmacologic treatment for postoperative adynamic ileus following abdominal surgery in adults

BACKGROUND: Postoperative adynamic bowel atony interferes with recovery following abdominal surgery. Prokinetic pharmacologic drugs are widely used to accelerate postoperative recovery. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic acting prokinetic drugs to treat postoperative adynamic ileus in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified by computerised searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group specialised register. The reference lists of included trials and review articles were tracked and authors contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled parallel-group trials (RCT) comparing the effect of systemically acting prokinetic drugs against placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Trial authors were contacted for additional information if needed. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-nine RCTs met the inclusion criteria contributing a total of 4615 participants. Most trials enrolled a small number of patients and showed moderate to poor (reporting of) methodological quality, in particular regarding allocation concealment and intention-to-treat analysis. Fifteen systemic acting prokinetic drugs were investigated and ten comparisons could be summarized. Six RCTs support the effect of Alvimopan, a novel peripheral mu receptor antagonist. However, the trials do not meet reporting guidelines and the drug is still in an investigational stage. Erythromycin showed homogenous and consistent absence of effect across all included trials and outcomes. The evidence is insufficient to recommend the use of cholecystokinin-like drugs, cisapride, dopamine-antagonists, propranolol or vasopressin. Effects are either inconsistent across outcomes, or trials are too small and often of poor methodological quality. Cisapride has been withdrawn from the market due to adverse cardiac events in many countries. Intravenous lidocaine and neostigmine might show a potential effect, but more evidence on clinically relevant outcomes is needed. Heterogeneity among included trials was seen in 10 comparisons. No major adverse drug effects were evident. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Alvimopan may prove to be beneficial but proper judgement needs adherence to reporting standards. Further trials are needed on intravenous lidocaine and neostigmine. The remaining drugs can not be recommended due to lack of evidence or absence of effect.