1,721,034 research outputs found
A randomized trial regarding Antimicrobial Prophylaxis (AMP) in Transurethral Resection of Bladder tumor (TURB) in support of antimicrobial stewardship
No full textA randomized controlled trial concerning Antimicrobial Prophylaxis (AMP) in Transurethral Resection of Bladder tumor (TURB): Another step forward in antimicrobial stewardship?
No full textAntimicrobial Prophylaxis in Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: Results of a Randomized Trial
No full textPURPOSE: We sought to determine whether omitting antimicrobial prophylaxis is safe in patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate without preoperative pyuria and a preoperative catheter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial from September 17, 2017 until December 31, 2019 in 5 hospitals. Patients with pyuria (>100 white blood cells/ml) and a preoperative indwelling catheter were excluded. Postoperative fever was defined as a body temperature ≥38.3C. A noninferiority design was used with a 6% noninferiority margin and null hypothesis (H0) that the infection risk is at least 6% higher in the experimental (E) than in the control (C) group; H0: C (antimicrobial prophylaxis group) - E (no antimicrobial prophylaxis group) ≥ Δ (6% noninferiority margin). A multivariable, logistic regression was performed regarding posttransurethral resection of the prostate fever and antimicrobial prophylaxis with co-variates: (clot-)retention and operating time. The R Project® for statistical computing was used and a p value of 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: Of the patients 474 were included for multivariable analysis and 211/474 (44.5%) received antimicrobial prophylaxis vs 263/474 (55.5%) patients without antimicrobial prophylaxis. Antibiotics were fluoroquinolones in 140/211 (66.4%), cephazolin in 58/211 (27.5%) and amikacin in 13/211 (6.2%) patients. Fever occurred in 9/211 (4.4%) patients with antimicrobial prophylaxis vs 13/263 (4.9%) without antimicrobial prophylaxis (p=0.8, risk difference 0.006 [95% CI -0.003-0.06, relative risk 1.16]). We were able to exclude a meaningful increase in harm associated with omitting antimicrobial prophylaxis (p=0.4; adjusted risk difference 0.016 [95% CI -0.02-0.05]). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate the safety of omitting antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate without preoperative pyuria and a preoperative indwelling catheter.status: Publishe
A randomized trial regarding antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) in transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURB)
No full textPURPOSE: To determine whether omitting antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) in TURB is safe in patients undergoing TURB without an indwelling pre-operative catheter/nephrostomy/DJ and a negative pre-operative urinary culture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-centered randomized controlled trial (RCT) from 17-09-2017 to 31-12-2019 in 5 hospitals. Patients with a pre-operative indwelling catheter/DJ-stent or nephrostomy and a positive pre-operative urinary culture (> 104 uropathogens/mL) were excluded. Post-operative fever was defined as body temperature ≥ 38.3 °C. A non-inferiority design with a 6% noninferiority margin and null hypothesis (H0) that the infection risk is at least 6% higher in the experimental (E) than in the control (C) group; H0: C (AMP-group) - E (no AMP-group) ≥ Δ (6% noninferiority margin). A multivariable, logistic regression was performed for AMP and post-TURB fever with covariates: tumor size and (clot-) retention. The R Project® for statistical computing was used for statistical analysis and a p value of 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: 459 Patients were included and 202/459 (44.1%) received AMP vs 257/459 (55.9%) without AMP. Fever occurred in 6/202 [2.9%; 95% CI (1.2-6.6%)] patients with AMP vs 8/257 [3.1%; 95% CI (1.5%-6.1%)] without AMP (p = 0.44). Multivariable, logistic regression showed no significant harm in omitting AMP when controlled for (clot-)retention and tumor size (p = 0.85) and an adjusted risk difference in developing post-TURB fever of 0.0016; 95% CI [- 0.029; 0.032]. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest the safety of omitting AMP in patients undergoing TURB without an indwelling, pre-operative catheter/nephrostomy/DJ and a negative pre-operative urinary culture.status: Publishe
Metamizole versus ibuprofen to treat postoperative pain at home after ambulatory surgery: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial
No full textThe NOMICS study: The neurological outcome after minimal invasive Endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (Endo-CABG)
No full text
The molecular biology of matrix metalloproteinases and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases in inflammatory bowel diseases
No full textMatrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs) are thought to be predominant proteases and protease inhibitors involved in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) through their ability to remodel the extracellular matrix (ECM) in response to inflammatory stimuli and by their immunomodulating effects. An imbalance between MMPs and TIMPs has been linked with acute and chronic inflammation and aberrant tissue remodeling, as seen in IBD. Moreover, recurrent phases of tissue destruction and subsequent tissue repair can cause serious complications in IBD patients such as fistulas and fibrosis. The aims of this review are (i) to summarize current literature on genetic association, mRNA, and protein expression studies with regard to MMPs and TIMPs in IBD patients and various animal models, including those with transgenic and knockout mice; (ii) to compare biochemical and molecular biological data in humans with those obtained in animal model studies and (iii) to critically evaluate and translate how this knowledge may be used in practical terms to understand better the pathophysiology and mechanisms operating in IBD and to apply this for improvement of clinical outcomes at diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic levels.sponsorship: This study formed part of the doctoral program by Magali de Bruyn, PhD (University of Leuven, March 2016), who was the recipient of a Fellowship from the Agency for Innovation in Science and Technology (IWT, 2013-2016). The present study was supported by grants from the Fund for Scientific Research of Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen) (Grant no. G077513N), the Concerted Research Actions, Belgium (GOA 2013/015) and the Charcot Foundation, Belgium (2016). Estefania Ugarte-Berzal, PhD, and Jennifer Vandooren, PhD were supported by Postdoctoral Fellowships to the Laboratory of Immunobiology. Ingrid Arijs, PhD was supported as a PostDoctoral fellow and Professor Severine Vermeire as a Senior Clinical Investigator by the Fund for Scientific Research of Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen). Professor Severine Vermeire reports following conflicts of interest: grant support, lecture fees and consulting fees from Abbvie, Centocor, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Shire, Tillotts Pharma, Hospira, Munipharma, Genentech/Roche. (Agency for Innovation in Science and Technology (IWT), Fund for Scientific Research of Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen)|G077513N, Concerted Research Actions, Belgium|GOA 2013/015, Charcot Foundation, Belgium, Fund for Scientific Research of Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen), Abbvie, Centocor, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Shire, Tillotts Pharma, Hospira, Munipharma, Genentech/Roche)status: Publishe
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
The NOMICS study: The neurological outcome after minimal invasive Endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (Endo-CABG)
No full text- …
