SEARCH · Search PubMed
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Wound infection and sepsis leading to incisional hernia development are common after emergency colonic operations. Later on, while being operated on to correct an incisional hernia, most of these patients will need colonic resection or bowel continuity reestablishment. Simultaneous treatment of incisional hernias in patients with colostomy or colonic disease remains a difficult challenge, considering the reluctance of most surgeons to treat both conditions at the same time, especially when prosthetic repair is needed. STUDY DESIGN: The aim of this study was to analyze the short-term results of patients undergoing colonic resection or bowel continuity reestablishment and simultaneous incisional hernia repair with an onlay polypropylene mesh technique. Over a period of 6 years, 20 patients were operated on for colonic problems associated with incisional hernias, including 8 Hartmanns' colostomies, 6 colostomies or ileostomies with colonic mucous fistulas, 3 postoperative colocutaneous fistulas, a paracolostomic hernia, a Chagas' megacolon, and a pseudotumoral diverticulitis. A "rule of three" statistical analysis was used to estimate the maximum risk of adverse effects, concerning mesh-related morbidity, after 1- and 2-year followup. RESULTS: A major complication occurred in a patient who developed an anastomotic leakage and secondary wound infection; the patient was treated with parenteral nutrition and antibiotics. Other complications included a minor wound infection, a seroma, and a chronic sinus. One patient died from postoperative problems unrelated to the surgical technique. The occurrence of postoperative wound infection did not prevent mesh incorporation. Followup ranging from 1 to 7 years detected no hernia recurrences; 13 patients were followed for 2 years or more. Our results suggest that risk of mesh-related morbidity does not exceed 15.8% (3 of 19) within the first year and 23.1% (3 of 13) for 2 years followup, with 95% confidence. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that prosthetic repair of incisional hernias associated with simultaneous colonic operations was possible, allowing abdominal wall anatomy reestablishment. There is no reason to believe that abdominal wall prostheses must be avoided in contaminated operations when an adequate surgical technique is used.
Even though a malignant tumor during pregnancy is very rare it occurs in 0.02-0.1%. With the tendency in society to postpone childbirth to an older age, there will be more cancers diagnosed during pregnancy. The coincidence of malignant disease with pregnancy leads to an enormous emotional burden to the patient, the couple and the medical staff. Surgery for malignant tumors during pregnancy seems to be save. Radiotherapy on the other hand should be avoided. Chemotherapy is regarded to be save during the second and third trimester but it should not be applied during the first trimester because of its teratogenic effects. The most frequent malignant disorders during pregnancy are cervical cancer, breast cancer, melanoma and Hodgkin lymphoma. We discuss possible treatment options for breast cancer and gynecological tumors during pregnancy. Ovarian Cancer is a rare event during pregnancy. Because of frequent prenatal visits most of them are diagnosed at an early stage, with good prognosis. In case of advanced stage of ovarian cancer chemotherapy besides surgery is necessary. The former usually is preferred as monotherapy during pregnancy. To treat breast cancer during pregnancy a mastectomy with axillary lymphonodectomy is necessary to avoid radiotherapy. Indications for chemotherapy are the same as for not pregnant patients. Usually AC with and without 5-FU is used. For invasive cervical cancer surgery or radiotherapy +/- chemotherapy is indicated after induced abortion or cesarean section. Early termination of pregnancy is of no survival benefit to the mother in case of breast cancer and ovarian cancer. In these cases systemic therapy during pregnancy and delivery at 34 weeks is recommended.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Large clinical trials have demonstrated that angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are associated with beneficial outcomes in patients with arterial hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, or a combination of these conditions. Other reports have suggested that ACE inhibitors prevent the development or recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF), a common arrhythmia. In the TRACE trial, in patients with reduced left ventricular function after myocardial infarction, trandolapril reduced the frequency of AF. In the SOLVD trial, a 78% reduction in the frequency of AF after infarction was noted with enalapril compared with placebo. Studies in patients with persistent AF undergoing cardioversion suggest that ACE inhibitors improve outcomes and prevent AF recurrences. The mechanism of AF prevention by ACE inhibitors is unclear, but experimental data show prevention or attenuation of pacing-induced atrial remodeling with ACE inhibitor use. ACE inhibitors decrease angiotensin II concentration; angiotension II stimulates mitogen-activated protein kinases, which in turn activate fibrosis formation and lead to conduction heterogeneity and induction of AF. On the other hand, AF induces atrial dilatation, atrial stretch and atrial secretion of ACE. Among other properties, ACE inhibitors have a sympatholytic effect and increase baroreceptor sensitivity. This review discusses the current data on the use of ACE inhibitors for AF prevention. Although these drugs represent a promising therapeutic option for AF patients, the data so far seem only supportive rather than definitive. Prospective trials are required to validate the benefit of ACE inhibitors and to investigate which patients are most likely to benefit from this pharmacological therapy.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a progressive program for the treatment of erectile dysfunction in patients with cardiovascular disease in whom sildenafil citrate (Viagra) was not an option. The study population included 106 patients selected from 267 with cardiovascular disease. The intracavernous injection program consisted of three protocols of increasingly complex combinations of vasoactive drugs, papaverine, phentolamine, prostaglandin E1 and atropine sulfate. Patients who failed the first protocol were switched to the second, and those who failed the second were switched to the third. A positive response was defined as an erection sufficient for vaginal penetration. A positive response was achieved on protocol I in 61 of the 106 patients (57.5%); protocol II in 32 of the remaining 45 patients (71.1%); and protocol III in seven of the remaining 13 patients (53.8%); the total success rate was 94.3%. These 100 patients were included in the 1-year follow-up, and 90 reported successful coitus at the end of that period: 79 patients (87.8%) with intracavernous injection and 11 (12.2%) without injection. The remaining 10 patients (10%) dropped out of the program, seven (7.0%) for health or marital reasons and three (3.0%) because of treatment failure. We conclude that a progressive program of intracavernous injections of vasoactive drugs may be a good alternative for the treatment of erectile dysfunction in patients with cardiovascular disease.
OBJECTIVES: To examine how the slimming drug, Letigen, containing ephedrine (E) 20 mg and caffeine (C) 200 mg (E + C), affects blood pressure in normotensive and hypertensive patients treated with adrenergic beta-receptor blocking drugs and/or other antihypertensive agents, during a period of six weeks. DESIGN: A double-blind, randomised, placebo controlled study of five parallel groups of overweight patients from general practices. SUBJECTS: One hundred and thirty-six patients with Body Mass Index (BMI) > 25 kg/m2 were included consecutively by 25 general practitioners in Denmark and randomized into five groups: (1) Hypertensive patients treated with betablockers and E + C; (2) Hypertensive patients treated with antihypertensive agents other than betablockers, and E + C; (3) Normotensive patients treated with E + C; (4) Hypertensive patients under any antihypertensive treatment + placebo; and (5) Normotensive patients + placebo. All patients were instructed in a 1200 kcal (= 5040 kj) diet. RESULTS: Of a total of 136 patients aged 20-74 y, 112 completed the study protocol. Fluctuations in systolic and diastolic blood pressure were seen in all groups. The systolic blood pressure was reduced significantly (5.5 mmHg) in the patients treated with antihypertensive agents other than betablockers, plus E + C. In the other hypertensive groups the reduction in blood pressure was not significant. In normotensive patients treated with E + C, the systolic and the diastolic blood pressure declined significantly (4.4/3.9 mmHg). At the end of the treatment period heart rate had increased significantly (4.9 beats/min) in the group of normotensive patients treated with E + C. Blood pressure and heart rate measured by the patient at home showed similar fluctuations from baseline prior to and during treatment with E + C or placebo. A mean loss of weight of approximately 4 kg in 6 weeks was significant for all the groups. There was no significant difference between the groups during this short period of treatment. In 56% of the patients treated with E + C complaints/side-effects related to the medical treatment were found at questioning. Corresponding complaints occurred in 21% of the placebo treated patients. In the E + C treated group 7% dropped out due to side-effects. In the placebo group there were no drop-outs. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support the assumption that E + C should cause rises in blood pressure, acutely or during shortterm treatment, in either normotensive or hypertensive obese patients. The antihypertensive effect of the betablockers was not reversed by E + C.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Sirolimus (SRL) provides effective immunosuppression for kidney transplantation and may be useful in patients with delayed allograft function after kidney transplantation. We review our experience with SRL in liver transplant recipients for whom calcineurin inhibitors are undesirable. Fourteen patients with renal insufficiency or acute mental status impairment were administered SRL after liver transplantation (5- to 10-mg load, 1 to 4 mg/d). Immunosuppression also consisted of mycophenolate mofetil and corticosteroids. On resolution of neurological or renal dysfunction (return to baseline mental status or serum creatinine level), tacrolimus (TAC) therapy was initiated. Twelve patients received primary transplants, 1 patient received a combined liver-kidney transplant, and 1 patient received a third transplant. Follow-up was 2 to 7 months. Calcineurin inhibitors were initially withheld in 9 patients, and therapy was aborted because of toxicity in the remaining 5 patients. Mean times to the initiation of SRL and TAC therapy were 5.4 +/- 4.6 and 26.8 +/- 24.4 days, respectively. Serum trough levels of SRL did not correlate with dose or other patient variables. Two patients died after prolonged pretransplantation hospital courses in the intensive care unit. Six patients experienced acute rejection, but only 1 patient required antilymphocyte therapy. Serum creatinine levels at the start of SRL therapy were 2.2 +/- 1.1 and 1.2 +/- 0.6 mg/dL at 3 months. All 3 patients with neurological indications for SRL had a return to their baseline mental status. All patients had improved liver function chemistry test results and prothrombin times. No patients developed leukopenia or thrombocytopenia. SRL is safe after liver transplantation in patients with acute neurological or renal impairment. SRL is an attractive alternative when calcineurin inhibitors are undesirable, but serum trough levels of SRL should be monitored. A prospective randomized study of an SRL-based calcineurin inhibitor-avoiding regimen compared with standard therapy in patients with renal insufficiency will further evaluate the role for SRL in liver transplantation.