Intra-abdominal hypertension(IAH)and abdominal compartment syndrome(ACS)play a pivotal role in the pathophysiology of severe acute pancreatitis(SAP)and contribute to new-onset and persistent organ failure.The optimal ...Intra-abdominal hypertension(IAH)and abdominal compartment syndrome(ACS)play a pivotal role in the pathophysiology of severe acute pancreatitis(SAP)and contribute to new-onset and persistent organ failure.The optimal management of ACS involves a multi-disciplinary approach,from its early recognition to measures aiming at an urgent reduction of intra-abdominal pressure(IAP).A targeted literature search from January 1,2000,to November 30,2022,revealed 20 studies and data was analyzed on the type and country of the study,patient demographics,IAP,type and timing of surgical procedure performed,post-operative wound management,and outcomes of patients with ACS.There was no randomized controlled trial published on the topic.Decom-pressive laparotomy is effective in rapidly reducing IAP(standardized mean difference=2.68,95%confidence interval:1.19-1.47,P<0.001;4 studies).The morbidity and complications of an open abdomen after decompressive laparotomy should be weighed against the inadequately treated but,potentially lethal ACS.Disease-specific patient selection and the role of less-invasive decompressive measures,like subcutaneous linea alba fasciotomy or component separation techniques,is lacking in the 2013 consensus management guidelines by the Abdominal Compartment Society on IAH and ACS.This narrative review focuses on the current evidence regarding surgical decompression techniques for managing ACS in patients with SAP.However,there is a lack of high-quality evidence on patient selection,timing,and modality of surgical decompression.Large prospective trials are needed to identify triggers and effective and safe surgical decompression methods in SAP patients with ACS.展开更多
AIM： To assess the use of capecitabine-based therapy and associated complication rates in patients with gastroesophageal cancer （GEC） in a real-world treat- ment setting. METHODS： Patients with claims between 2004...AIM： To assess the use of capecitabine-based therapy and associated complication rates in patients with gastroesophageal cancer （GEC） in a real-world treat- ment setting. METHODS： Patients with claims between 2004 and 2005 were identified from the Thomson Reuters MarketScan databases. Capecitabine regimens were compared with 5-fluorouracU （5-FU） and other chemotherapy regimens, and were stratified by treatment setting. RESULTS： We identified 1013 patients with GEC： approximately half had treatment initiated with a 5-FU regimen, whereas 11% had therapy initiated with a capecitabine regimen. The mean capecitabine dose overall was 2382 ± 1118 mg/d, and capecitabine was used as monotherapy more often than in combination. Overall, 5-FU regimens were the most common treat- ment option in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, while other non-capecitabine regimens were used more widely in first- and second-line settings. The overall unadjusted complication rate for capecitabine regimens was about half of that seen with 5-FU regimens. In multivariate analyses, capecitabine recipients had a 51% （95% CI： 26%-81%） lower risk of developing any complication than 5-FU recipients did. The risk of developing bone marrow, constitutional, gastrointestinal tract, infectious, or skin complications was lower with capecitabine therapy than with 5-FU.CONCLUSION： Capecitabine appeared to have a favorable side effect profile compared with 5-FU, which indicates that it may be a treatment option for GEC.展开更多
文摘Intra-abdominal hypertension(IAH)and abdominal compartment syndrome(ACS)play a pivotal role in the pathophysiology of severe acute pancreatitis(SAP)and contribute to new-onset and persistent organ failure.The optimal management of ACS involves a multi-disciplinary approach,from its early recognition to measures aiming at an urgent reduction of intra-abdominal pressure(IAP).A targeted literature search from January 1,2000,to November 30,2022,revealed 20 studies and data was analyzed on the type and country of the study,patient demographics,IAP,type and timing of surgical procedure performed,post-operative wound management,and outcomes of patients with ACS.There was no randomized controlled trial published on the topic.Decom-pressive laparotomy is effective in rapidly reducing IAP(standardized mean difference=2.68,95%confidence interval:1.19-1.47,P<0.001;4 studies).The morbidity and complications of an open abdomen after decompressive laparotomy should be weighed against the inadequately treated but,potentially lethal ACS.Disease-specific patient selection and the role of less-invasive decompressive measures,like subcutaneous linea alba fasciotomy or component separation techniques,is lacking in the 2013 consensus management guidelines by the Abdominal Compartment Society on IAH and ACS.This narrative review focuses on the current evidence regarding surgical decompression techniques for managing ACS in patients with SAP.However,there is a lack of high-quality evidence on patient selection,timing,and modality of surgical decompression.Large prospective trials are needed to identify triggers and effective and safe surgical decompression methods in SAP patients with ACS.
文摘AIM： To assess the use of capecitabine-based therapy and associated complication rates in patients with gastroesophageal cancer （GEC） in a real-world treat- ment setting. METHODS： Patients with claims between 2004 and 2005 were identified from the Thomson Reuters MarketScan databases. Capecitabine regimens were compared with 5-fluorouracU （5-FU） and other chemotherapy regimens, and were stratified by treatment setting. RESULTS： We identified 1013 patients with GEC： approximately half had treatment initiated with a 5-FU regimen, whereas 11% had therapy initiated with a capecitabine regimen. The mean capecitabine dose overall was 2382 ± 1118 mg/d, and capecitabine was used as monotherapy more often than in combination. Overall, 5-FU regimens were the most common treat- ment option in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, while other non-capecitabine regimens were used more widely in first- and second-line settings. The overall unadjusted complication rate for capecitabine regimens was about half of that seen with 5-FU regimens. In multivariate analyses, capecitabine recipients had a 51% （95% CI： 26%-81%） lower risk of developing any complication than 5-FU recipients did. The risk of developing bone marrow, constitutional, gastrointestinal tract, infectious, or skin complications was lower with capecitabine therapy than with 5-FU.CONCLUSION： Capecitabine appeared to have a favorable side effect profile compared with 5-FU, which indicates that it may be a treatment option for GEC.
