Explore the vast range of titles available.

Pancreatitis is the most common and serious complication of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP. The aim of this study is to examine the potential patient- and procedure-related risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis in a prospective multicenter study. A 160-variable database was prospectively collected by a defined protocol on patients undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic ERCP at 15 centers in the Midwest Pancreaticobiliary Group and participating in a randomized controlled study evaluating whether prophylactic corticosteroids will reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Data were collected prior to the procedure, at the time of procedure, and 24-72 h after discharge. Post-ERCP pancreatitis was diagnosed and its severity graded according to consensus criteria. Of the 1,115 patients enrolled, diagnostic ERCP with or without sphincter of Oddi manometry (SOM) was performed in 536 (48.1%) and therapeutic ERCP in 579 (51.9%). Suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) was the indication for the ERCP in 378 patients (33.9%). Pancreatitis developed in 168 patients (15.1%) and was graded mild in 112 (10%), moderate in 45 (4%), and severe in 11(1%). There was no difference in the incidence of pancreatitis or the frequency of investigated potential pancreatitis risk factors between the corticosteroid and placebo groups. By univariate analysis, the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis was significantly higher in 19 of 30 investigated variables. In the multivariate risk model, significant risk factors with adjusted odds ratios (OR) were: minor papilla sphincterotomy (OR: 3.8), suspected SOD (OR: 2.6), history of post-ERCP pancreatitis (OR: 2.0), age <60 yr (OR: 1.6), > or =2 contrast injections into the pancreatic duct (OR: 1.5), and trainee involvement (OR: 1.5). Female gender, history of recurrent idiopathic pancreatitis, pancreas divisum, SOM, difficult cannulation, and major papilla sphincterotomy (either biliary or pancreatic) were not multivariate risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis. This study emphasizes the role of patient factors (age, SOD, prior history of post-ERCP pancreatitis) and technical factors (number of PD injections, minor papilla sphincterotomy, and operator experience) as the determining high-risk predictors for post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Background and Aim Diagnostic performance of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) may be compromized due to adherent mucus and foam. In this study, we aimed at assessing the impact of premedication on mucosal visibility during endoscopy. Methods This is a double-blinded (patient and investigator), randomized trial conducted at a tertiary care centre. Patients were randomized into four groups: A (water), B (simethicone [S]), C (N-acetyl cysteine [NAC]), D (S + NAC). Premedication solutions were administered 10-30 minutes before endoscopy and mucosal visibility graded from 1 (best) to 4 (worst) (1 best, 4 worst). Total mucosal visibility scores (TMVS) from six sites ranged from 6 (best) to 24 (worst) points. The primary outcome of study was comparison of TMVS between simethicone and combination (S + NAC) premedication groups. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and impact of endoscopy timing on TMVS. Results Total 800 patients (39 years, 68.8% males) were randomized into four groups. Median TMVS were significantly lower in groups B (7 [6-8]) and D (8 [6-9]) as compared to A (11 [9-13]) and C (10 [8-12]). Proportion of cases with adequate gastric mucosal visibility (score < 7) was 26% in group A, 71% in group B, 36% in group C and 79% in group D. There was no difference in TMVS in groups A and C ( p  = 0.137). TMVS were significantly lower in late (> 20-30 minutes) vs. early (10–20 minutes) endoscopy sub-group (8 [7–11] vs, 9 ([7–11], p  = 0.001). However, TMVS were similar between group B and group D in early endoscopy group ( p  = 0.451). There was no significant difference in the lesion detection rate among the different premedication drugs ( p  > 0.05). Conclusions Premedication with simethicone or combination (simethicone and NAC) significantly improves mucosal visibility during EGD. If early endoscopy is indicated, simethicone provides similar mucosal visibility and may be an effective alternative to combined premedication. Trial registration NCT05951712. Graphical abstract

Background Dexamethasone has been used extensively to prevent hypersensitivity reactions to paclitaxel. However, the optimal dose of dexamethasone is controversial, varying between 20 mg and 10 mg. We conducted this randomized controlled trial to illustrate that these 2 dosages of dexamethasone are non-inferior to the prevention of paclitaxel HSRs. Methods Gynecologic cancer patients who naively receive paclitaxel and carboplatin were invited to participate in this study. All participants received the same premedication with intravenous dexamethasone 20 mg, oral lorazepam 0.5 mg, and intravenous chlorpheniramine 10 mg at the first cycle. If they did not develop hypersensitivity reactions, they were randomized to receive either intravenous 20 mg or 10 mg dexamethasone with the same other premedication. The attending nurse recorded the patient’s symptoms regarding hypersensitivity reactions. The main outcome was hypersensitivity reaction events in each arm, with a non-inferiority margin of 0.11. Results A total of 122 patients were included and randomly assigned to receive dexamethasone 10 mg ( n  = 61) or dexamethasone 20 mg ( n  = 61). The overall incidence of hypersensitivity reactions in patients who received dexamethasone 10 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg was 9.8% and 13.1%, respectively, the risk difference between dexamethasone 10 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg not exceeding the non-inferiority margin of 0.11 (Risk Difference = -0.03, 95% confidence interval = -0.15 to 0.08). Conclusion Dexamethasone 10 mg was non-inferior to dexamethasone 20 mg in terms of prevention of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions.

Research into mechanisms of skin scarring identified transforming growth factor β3 (TGFβ3) as a potential antiscarring therapy. We assessed scar improvement with avotermin (recombinant, active, human TGFβ3). In three double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, intradermal avotermin (concentrations ranging from 0·25 to 500 ng/100 μL per linear cm wound margin) was administered to both margins of 1 cm, full-thickness skin incisions, before wounding and 24 h later, in healthy men and women. Treatments (avotermin and placebo or standard wound care) were randomly allocated to wound sites by a computer generated randomisation scheme, and within-participant controls compared avotermin versus placebo or standard wound care alone. Primary endpoints were visual assessment of scar formation at 6 months and 12 months after wounding in two studies, and from week 6 to month 7 after wounding in the third. Investigators, participants, and scar assessors were blinded to treatment. Efficacy analyses were intention to treat. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00847925, NCT00847795, and NCT00629811. In two studies, avotermin 50 ng/100 μL per linear cm significantly improved median score on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) by 5 mm (range −2 to 14; p=0·001) at month 6 and 8 mm (−29 to 18; p=0·0230) at month 12. In the third, avotermin significantly improved total scar scores at all concentrations versus placebo (mean improvement: from 14·84 mm [95 % CI 5·5–24·2] at 5 ng/100 μL per linear cm to 64·25 mm [49·4–79·1] at 500 ng/100 μL per linear cm). Nine [60%] scars treated with avotermin 50 ng/100 μL per linear cm showed 25% or less abnormal orientation of collagen fibres in the reticular dermis versus five [33%] placebo scars. After only 6 weeks from wounding, avotermin 500 ng/100 μL per linear cm improved VAS score by 16·12 mm (95% CI 10·61–21·63). Adverse events at wound sites were similar for avotermin and controls. Erythema and oedema were more frequent with avotermin than with placebo, but were transient and deemed to be consistent with normal wound healing. Avotermin has potential to provide an accelerated and permanent improvement in scarring. Renovo (UK).

Dexmedetomidine is a sedative adjunct with sympatholytic properties. Despite many beneficial effects, hemodynamic effects limit its use. We performed a secondary analysis of the data from TKADEX study. This single-center, double-blind, two-arm study compared intranasal dexmedetomidine premedication (1 μg kg-1) with intranasal saline in 101 planned subjects undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We analyzed the perioperative hemodynamics, oxygenation, amount of intraoperative bleeding and perioperative change in hemoglobin and thrombocytes. Compared to baseline measurements, mean arterial pressure (MAP) decreased in the dexmedetomidine group 36.3 (1.7) mmHg (95 % CI 32.9–39.7; p < 0.001) and in the placebo group 26.5 (1.7) mmHg (95 % CI 23.2–29.7; p < 0.001), and heart rate (HR) in the dexmedetomidine group 11.6 (1.3) bpm (95 % CI 9.1–14.1; p < 0.001) and in the placebo group 9.7 (1.2) bpm (95 % CI 7.3–12.2; p < 0.001) after induction of spinal anesthesia. Patients in the dexmedetomidine group had lower intraoperative MAP (maximal difference − 8.5 (2.5) mmHg; 95 % CI -13.5 - -3.5; p < 0.001) and HR (maximal difference − 6.1 (2.2) bpm; 95 % CI -10.5 - -1.7; p = 0.007) compared to the placebo group. There was higher incidence of intraoperative hypertension in the placebo group (p = 0.03). There was no difference in oxygenation, in the incidence of intraoperative bradycardia, tachycardia or hypotension, in the amount of intraoperative bleeding or in the change in perioperative blood count between the groups. Intranasal dexmedetomidine appears to be hemodynamically well tolerated premedication for patients undergoing TKA under spinal anesthesia. It appears to lower the incidence of intraoperative hypertension without effects on intraoperative bleeding. •Intranasal dexmedetomidine can be used as premedication for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia.•Intranasal dexmedetomidine is hemodynamically well tolerated in spinal anesthesia for knee arthroplasty.•Intranasal dexmedetomidine premedication reduced intraoperative hypertension without affecting surgical bleeding.

INTRODUCTION:To investigate the efficacy and safety of preprocedural simethicone (S) and pronase (P) for optimal mucosal visualization during esophagogastroduodenoscopy with sedation. The effect of postural change combined with premedication on mucosal visibility was also examined.METHODS:The study randomized 496 patients into 8 groups based on the type of premedication provided and whether a postural change occurred. The premedication in the control group was 100 mL of normal saline solution (NS). The remaining 3 intervention groups were administered 100 mL of simethicone alone (S), pronase solution alone (P), and simethicone plus pronase solution (S + P). Each group was classified into subgroups according to whether there was a postural change (PC). The mucosal visibility score (MVS), total mucosal visibility score (TVS), procedure time, water consumption for mucosal cleansing, and proportion of patients with diminutive lesions <5 mm were recorded.RESULTS:The P and S groups had a significantly better TVS than the NS group (11.86 ± 3.36 in group P vs 14.52 ± 2.57 in group NS, P < 0.001; 12.36 ± 2.93 in group S vs 14.52 ± 2.57 in group NS, P = 0.006). The TVS was better in the P group than in the S group (11.86 ± 3.36 vs 12.36 ± 2.93, P = 0.037). The MVS was significantly better in the esophagus and duodenum and worse in the upper and lower gastric body in the S group than in the P group. The P + S group had a significantly better TVS than the P and S groups (9.81 ± 2.90 in group P + S vs 11.86 ± 3.36 in group P and 12.36 ± 2.93 in group S, respectively, P < 0.001),\\ and had a reduced amount of flushing water during the procedure (0 [interquartile range [IQR]: 0-33] mL in group P + S vs 40 [IQR: 0-70] mL in group P, P < 0.01; 0 [IQR: 0-33] mL in group P + S vs 50 [IQR: 20-98] mL in group S, P < 0.001). The TVS was significantly better in the P + S + PC group than in the P + S group (8.44 ± 2.10 vs 9.81 ± 2.90, P = 0.003). The MVS was significantly better in the gastric antrum, fundus, and upper and lower gastric body in the P + S + PC group than in the P + S group. There was no significant difference in the detection rate of diminutive lesions among the different groups during an endoscopic examination (P > 0.05).DISCUSSION:The combination of preprocedural administration with simethicone and pronase achieved superior mucosal visualization compared with saline, simethicone, or pronase alone in patients receiving upper endoscopy. Postural change maneuvers performed before endoscopy further improved the mucosal visibility in most parts of the stomach when used with preprocedural simethicone and pronase.

IntroductionStandard premedication for paclitaxel-based chemotherapy includes dexamethasone and an histamine 1-antagonist to prevent hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). However, the pharmacological rationale for dexamethasone is limited, and its use is associated with adverse effects such as hyperglycaemia, insomnia and immunodeficiency, negatively impacting health-related quality of life (HRQoL). No clear link has been established between dexamethasone dose, administration route and HSR incidence. Previous studies suggest that discontinuing dexamethasone beyond the second administration does not increase HSR risk. Despite this, dexamethasone remains standard practice. This trial evaluates whether complete omission of dexamethasone as paclitaxel premedication is non-inferior to the standard regimen in preventing clinically relevant HSRs (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade≥3).MethodsThe DEXASTOP trial is a prospective, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority study conducted in four hospitals in the Netherlands. 500 adult patients receiving paclitaxel-based chemotherapy for any solid tumour indication will be randomised 1:1 to receive either standard premedication with dexamethasone or an experimental regimen without dexamethasone for up to five paclitaxel administrations. The primary endpoint is the incidence of clinically relevant HSRs (CTCAE grade≥3). Secondary endpoints include the incidence and severity of all-grade HSRs, the number of paclitaxel administrations before the first HSR, dexamethasone-related adverse events, HRQoL and cost-effectiveness from a healthcare and societal perspective.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Erasmus Medical Centre Ethics Committee (reference MEC-2024-0030, protocol version 3, May 2024). Study findings will be published open access in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international meetings. Results will be shared with patients, healthcare professionals and the public. Positive outcomes will be implemented in clinical practice, and trial data will be submitted to the EU Clinical Trials Information System for public access.Trial registration numberNCT06118710.

Dexmedetomidine (Dex) is a potent and highly selective α2-adrenergic receptor agonist. Within an appropriate dose range, Dex can effectively attenuate the surgical stress response, provide intraoperative hemodynamic stability, and improve the patient recovery quality. High-dose Dex can delay patient awakening from anesthesia and increase the incidence of bradycardia. This randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the effects of low-dose intravenous Dex premedication in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). In total, 100 patients undergoing LC were equally randomized into Group C (premedication with saline) and Group D (premedication with 0.5 µg/kg Dex). The patients were premedicated with saline or Dex, depending on the group, before anesthesia induction. Following this, anesthesia induction and endotracheal intubation was performed, and anesthesia was maintained during surgery. Following the completion of the surgery, the patients were transferred the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and stayed there until they met the PACU discharge criteria. The hemodynamic parameters, consumption of anesthetics, surgical duration, postoperative awakening time, extubation time, postoperative pain, and complications were recorded. No significant differences were observed in the heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) between the two groups before premedication (P>0.05). The MAP and HR immediately after endotracheal intubation and immediately after extubation were significantly lower in Group D than in Group C (P<0.05 for both). The incidence of bradycardia was significantly higher in Group D than in Group C (P<0.05), while atropine was used in neither group. Propofol and remifentanil consumption was significantly lower in Group D than in Group C (P<0.05). The postoperative awakening and extubation times were significantly shorter in Group D than in Group C (P<0.05). The postoperative visual analog scale scores for pain and incidence of nausea, vomiting, and cough were significantly lower in Group D than in Group C (P<0.05 for all). Our data suggest that premedication with dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg) before general anesthesia induction can effectively attenuate intraoperative stress response and postoperative pain, maintain perioperative hemodynamic stability, and decrease the incidence of adverse events, which might be an effective and safe anesthetic protocol during LC worthy of further clinical application.

Background Children under 6 years who need magnetic resonance imaging usually require sedation to obtain best quality images, but the optimal sedation protocol remains to be determined. In 2018, we showed a 22% interruption in image acquisition during magnetic resonance imaging when performing a propofol-based sedation using a bolus approach. As non-pharmacological premedication is often insufficient to reduce the anxiety of children related to parental separation, pharmacological premedication may be useful to facilitate the induction of anesthesia. In our institution, effective premedication is obtained oral intake of midazolam, though its administration relies on patients’ compliance and could also lead to paradoxical reaction. Dexmedetomidine has a safe profile in the pediatric population and can therefore represent an interesting alternative. The primary objective of this trial is to demonstrate the superiority of intranasal dexmedetomidine compared to oral midazolam as premedication in reducing the occurrence of any event requiring temporary or definitive interruption of the examination to allow anesthesiologist intervention in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging under propofol sedation. Methods In this single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active comparator-controlled, superiority trial, we planned to include 250 patients, aged 6 months to 6 years, undergoing a scheduled magnetic resonance imaging requiring the presence of an anesthesiologist. After informed consent, the patients will be randomized to receive either oral midazolam or intranasal dexmedetomidine as premedication. The data will be analyzed in intention to treat, using Kolmogorov–Smirnov Z , chi-square, Wilcoxon, and Mann–Whitney U tests. A P -value < 0.05 will be considered statistically significant. Discussion The MIDEX MRI study will assess the efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine compared to oral midazolam to improve the quality of a propofol-based sedation prior to magnetic resonance imaging, without negative repercussion on the postoperative period. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov NCT05192629 . Registered on 14 January 2022. Protocol version 2.1

Preoperative anxiety is a major problem in paediatric surgical patients. Melatonin has been used as a premedicant agent and data regarding effectiveness are controversial. The primary outcome of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of oral melatonin premedication, in comparison to midazolam, in reducing preoperative anxiety in children undergoing elective surgery. As secondary outcome, compliance to intravenous induction anaesthesia was assessed. There were 80 children undergoing surgery randomly assigned, 40 per group, to receive oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg, max 20 mg) or oral melatonin (0.5 mg/kg, max 20 mg). Trait anxiety of children and their mothers (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) at admission, preoperative anxiety and during anaesthesia induction (Modified Yale Pre-operative Anxiety Scale), and children’s compliance with anaesthesia induction (Induction Compliance Checklist) were all assessed. Children premedicated with melatonin and midazolam did not show significant differences in preoperative anxiety levels, either in the preoperative room or during anaesthesia induction. Moreover, compliance during anaesthesia induction was similar in both groups. Conclusions : This study adds new encouraging data, further supporting the potential use of melatonin premedication in reducing anxiety and improving compliance to induction of anaesthesia in children undergoing surgery. Nevertheless, further larger controlled clinical trials are needed to confirm the real effectiveness of melatonin as a premedicant agent in paediatric population. What is Known: • Although midazolam represents the preferred treatment as a premedication for children before induction of anaesthesia, it has several side effects. • Melatonin has been successfully used as a premedicant agent in adults, while data regarding effectiveness in children are controversial. What is New: • In this study, melatonin was as effective as midazolam in reducing children’s anxiety in both preoperative room and at induction of anaesthesia.