University of Louisville

About: University of Louisville is a education organization based out in Louisville, Kentucky, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 24600 authors who have published 49248 publications receiving 1573346 citations. The organization is also known as: UofL.

Patterns of recurrence after curative resection of carcinoma of the colon and rectum.

Abstract: Data on 818 patients who had undergone curative resection for Dukes' B2 or Dukes' C carcinoma of the colon and rectum were analyzed to determine the timing and patterns of recurrence based on such tumor characteristics as location, Dukes' stage, grade, ploidy and the presence of obstruction, perforation or adherence to adjacent organs or tissues. Three hundred and fifty-three patients (43 per cent) had recurrent disease. There was recurrence in 52 per cent of patients with carcinoma of the rectum and in 40 per cent of patients with carcinoma of the colon. The median time to recurrence for all patients was 16.7 months, with a range from 1 month to 7.5 years. Dukes' C lesions and the presence of adhesion or invasion, or both, or perforation were associated with significantly earlier recurrence. Among patients with recurrence, the most frequent sites were hepatic in 33 per cent, pulmonary in 22 per cent, local or regional, or both, in 21 per cent, intra-abdominal in 18 per cent, retroperitoneal in 10 per cent and peripheral lymph nodes in 4 per cent. Rectal primary sites, when compared with colonic, had proportionally more local or regional, or both, recurrences (p = 0.00003) and fewer involving retroperitoneal nodes (p = 0.022). Both primaries of the rectum and colon at stage C, when compared with stage B, had fewer local or regional recurrences, or both (p = 0.01), but a greater tendency to involve retroperitoneal or peripheral nodes. Primaries of the colon with adhesion to, or invasion of, adjacent organs had a lesser tendency to pulmonary metastasis (p = 0.036). Whereas the grade of anaplasia and ploidy had a strong influence on the rate of recurrence, they did not influence timing or patterns of recurrence. Patterns of recurrence based on the characteristics of the tumor may facilitate selection of the most appropriate adjuvant procedures, particularly those directed toward local or regional recurrence, or both, and also may guide efforts at early recognition of recurrence.

Opioids in the management of chronic non-cancer pain

Abstract: BACKGROUND Opioid abuse has continued to increase at an alarming rate since our last opioid guidelines were published in 2005. Available evidence suggests a continued wide variance in the use of opioids, as documented by different medical specialties, medical boards, advocacy groups, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. OBJECTIVES The objectives of opioid guidelines by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) are to provide guidance for the use of opioids for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, to bring consistency in opioid philosophy among the many diverse groups involved, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, and to reduce the incidence of abuse and drug diversion. DESIGN A broadly based policy committee of recognized experts in the field evaluated the available literature regarding opioid use in managing chronic non-cancer pain. This resulted in the formulation of the review and update of the guidelines published in 2006, a series of potential evidence linkages representing conclusions, followed by statements regarding the relationships between clinical interventions and outcomes. METHODS The elements of the guideline preparation process included literature searches, literature synthesis, consensus evaluation, open forum presentations, formal endorsement by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, and peer review. Based on the criteria of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the quality of evidence was designated as Level I, II, and III, with 3 subcategories in Level II, with Level I described as strong and Level III as indeterminate. The recommendations were provided from 1A to 2C, varying from strong recommendation with high quality evidence to weak recommendation with low-quality or very low-quality evidence. RESULTS After an extensive review and analysis of the literature, which included systematic reviews and all of the available literature, the evidence for the effectiveness of long-term opioids in reducing pain and improving functional status for 6 months or longer is variable. The evidence for transdermal fentanyl and sustained-release morphine is Level II-2, whereas for oxycodone the level of evidence is II-3, and the evidence for hydrocodone and methadone is Level III. There is also significant evidence of misuse and abuse of opioids. The recommendation is 2A - weak recommendation, high-quality evidence: with benefits closely balanced with risks and burdens; with evidence derived from RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies, with the implication that with a weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients' or societal values. CONCLUSION Opioids are commonly prescribed for chronic non-cancer pain and may be effective for short-term pain relief. However, long-term effectiveness of 6 months or longer is variable with evidence ranging from moderate for transdermal fentanyl and sustained-release morphine with a Level II-2, to limited for oxycodone with a Level II-3, and indeterminate for hydrocodone and methadone with a Level III. These guidelines included the evaluation of the evidence for the use of opioids in the management of chronic non-cancer pain and the recommendations for that management. These guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Because of the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a \"standard of care.\

Comparison of the Safety of Early Enteral vs Parenteral Nutrition in Mild Acute Pancreatitis

Abstract: Background: This prospective study was designed to compare the safety, efficacy, cost, and impact on patient outcome of early total enteral nutrition (TEN) vs total parenteral nutrition (TPN) in acute pancreatitis. Methods: Patients admitted with acute pancreatitis or an acute flare of chronic pancreatitis, characterized by abdominal pain and elevated serum amylase and lipase, were randomized to receive either isocaloric and isonitrogenous TEN (via a nasojejunal feeding tube placed endoscopically) or TPN (via a central or peripheral line) started within 48 hours of admission. Results: Thirty patients were studied over 32 admissions (TEN given on 16 and TPN on 16) for acute pancreatitis. There were no differences on admission in mean age, Ranson criteria, multiple organ failure score (MOF), or APACHE III score between TEN and TPN groups. Although slower to approach goal feeding over the first 72 hours of admission, TEN patients received 71.3% goal calories by day 4 vs 85.2% for TPN patients (not significan...

Postoperative nausea and vomiting

Abstract: Numerous pathophysiological mechanisms are known to cause nausea or vomiting but their role for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is not quite clear. Volatile anesthetics, nitrous oxide and opioids appear to be the most important causes for PONV. Female gender, non-smoking and a history of motion sickness and PONV are the most important patient specific risk factors. With these risk factors an objective risks assessment is achievable as a good rational basis for a risk dependent antiemetic approach: When the risk is low, moderate, or high, the use of none, a single or a combination of prophylactic antiemetic interventions seems to be justified. Performing a total intravenous anesthesia (Ti.v.A) with propofol is a reasonable prophylactic approach, but does not solve the problem satisfactorily alone if the risk is very high, reducing the risk of PONV only by 30%. This is comparable to the reduction rate of antiemetics, such as serotonin antagonist, dexamethasone and droperidol. It must be stressed that metoclopramide is ineffective. Data from IMPACT indicate that prophylaxis is not very effective if the patients risk is low. At a moderate risk the use of Ti.v.A or an antiemetic is reasonable and only a (very) high risk justifies the combination of several prophylactic antiemetic interventions. For the treatment of PONV an antiemetic should be chosen which has not been used prophylactically. The necessary doses are usually a quarter of those needed for prophylaxis.