Morriston Hospital

About: Morriston Hospital is a healthcare organization based out in Swansea, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 1754 authors who have published 1826 publications receiving 31397 citations.

Guidelines for the use of fresh-frozen plasma, cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant.

Abstract: The indications for transfusing fresh-frozen plasma (FFP), cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant plasma are very limited. When transfused they can have unpredictable adverse effects. The risks of transmitting infection are similar to those of other blood components unless a pathogen-reduced plasma (PRP) is used. Of particular concern are allergic reactions and anaphylaxis, transfusion-related acute lung injury, and haemolysis from transfused antibodies to blood group antigens, especially A and B. FFP is not indicated in disseminated intravascular coagulation without bleeding, is only recommended as a plasma exchange medium for thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (for which cryosupernatant is a possible alternative), should never be used to reverse warfarin anticoagulation in the absence of severe bleeding, and has only a very limited place in prophylaxis prior to liver biopsy. When used for surgical or traumatic bleeding, FFP and cryoprecipitate doses should be guided by coagulation studies, which may include near-patient testing. FFP is not indicated to reverse vitamin K deficiency for neonates or patients in intensive care units. PRP may be used as an alternative to FFP. In the UK, PRP from countries with a low bovine spongiform encephalopathy incidence is recommended by the Departments of Health for children born after 1 January 1996. Arrangements for limited supplies of single donor PRP of non-UK origin are expected to be completed in 2004. Batched pooled commercially prepared PRP from donors in the USA (Octaplas) is licensed and available in the UK. FFP must be thawed using a technique that avoids risk of bacterial contamination. Plastic packs containing any of these plasma products are brittle in the frozen state and must be handled with care.

Genome-wide association study in BRCA1 mutation carriers identifies novel loci associated with breast and ovarian cancer risk

Abstract: BRCA1-associated breast and ovarian cancer risks can be modified by common genetic variants. To identify further cancer risk-modifying loci, we performed a multi-stage GWAS of 11,705 BRCA1 carriers (of whom 5,920 were diagnosed with breast and 1,839 were diagnosed with ovarian cancer), with a further replication in an additional sample of 2,646 BRCA1 carriers. We identified a novel breast cancer risk modifier locus at 1q32 for BRCA1 carriers (rs2290854, P = 2.7 x 10(-8), HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.09-1.20). In addition, we identified two novel ovarian cancer risk modifier loci: 17q21.31 (rs17631303, P = 1.4 x 10(-8), HR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.17-1.38) and 4q32.3 (rs4691139, P = 3.4 x 10(-8), HR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.17-1.38). The 4q32.3 locus was not associated with ovarian cancer risk in the general population or BRCA2 carriers, suggesting a BRCA1-specific association. The 17q21.31 locus was also associated with ovarian cancer risk in 8,211 BRCA2 carriers (P = 2 x 10(-4)). These loci may lead to an improved understanding of the etiology of breast and ovarian tumors in BRCA1 carriers. Based on the joint distribution of the known BRCA1 breast cancer risk-modifying loci, we estimated that the breast cancer lifetime risks for the 5% of BRCA1 carriers at lowest risk are 28%-50% compared to 81%-100% for the 5% at highest risk. Similarly, based on the known ovarian cancer risk-modifying loci, the 5% of BRCA1 carriers at lowest risk have an estimated lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer of 28% or lower, whereas the 5% at highest risk will have a risk of 63% or higher. Such differences in risk may have important implications for risk prediction and clinical management for BRCA1 carriers.

Guidelines on the management of massive blood loss

Abstract: The guideline group was selected to be representative of UKbased medical experts and included the authors of previous recommendations. Preparation of the guidelines included a review of key literature, including Cochrane Database and MEDLINE and consultation with representatives of relevant specialties. Recommendations are based on appraisal of the relevant literature and expert consensus. The writing group produced the draft guideline, which was subsequently revised by consensus by members of the Transfusion Task Force of the British Committee for Standards in Haematology. The guideline was then reviewed by a sounding board of approximately 100 UK haematologists, the British Committee for Standards in Haematology (BCSH) and the British Society for Haematology Committee and comments incorporated where appropriate. Criteria used to quote levels and grades of evidence are as outlined in appendix 3 of the Procedure for Guidelines Commissioned by the BCSH (http:// www.bcshguidelines.com/process1.asp#App3). The objective of this guideline is to provide healthcare professionals with clear guidance on the management of massive blood loss. They do not address the specific problems associated with major obstetric haemorrhage; these are being addressed by the Royal College of Obstetricians. In all cases individual patient circumstances may dictate an alternative approach.

Lamotrigine (lamictal) in refractory trigeminal neuralgia: results from a double-blind placebo controlled crossover trial.

Abstract: Lamotrigine is a chemically novel antiepileptic drug which has not been adequately assessed for its antineuralgic properties. It was used in a double-blind placebo controlled crossover trial in 14 patients with refractory trigeminal neuralgia. Patients continued to take a steady dose of carbamazepine or phenytoin throughout the trial over a 31-day period. Each arm of the trial lasted 2 weeks with an intervening 3-day washout period. The maintenance dose of lamotrigine was 400 mg. Lamotrigine was superior to placebo (P = 0.011) based on analysis of a composite efficacy index which compared the numbers of patients assigned greater efficacy on lamotrigine with those assigned greater efficacy on placebo. Efficacy for one treatment over another was determined according to a hierarchy of: (i) use of escape medication; (ii) total pain scores; or (iii) global evaluations. Eleven of the 13 patients eligible for inclusion in the composite efficacy index showed better efficacy on lamotrigine compared with placebo. Global evaluations further suggested that patients did better on lamotrigine than placebo (P = 0.025). The adverse reactions with both lamotrigine and placebo were predominantly dose-dependent effects on the central nervous system. A 14th patient withdrew from the study due to severe pain during the placebo arm of the trial. It would appear that lamotrigine has antineuralgic properties.