METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, controlled study of 66 eligible neonates with PICCs inserted for the administration of TPN. Infants were randomized to receive TPN containing either 1 IU ml(-1) of heparin (n = 35) or no heparin (n = 31).
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the incidence of blocked catheters between the two groups of infants (heparin: 14.3%; no-heparin: 22.6%, p = 0.4). Although a higher percentage (62.9%) of infants in the heparin group received a complete course of TPN successfully via PICC than those in the no-heparin group (48.4%), the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.3). There were no significant differences in the incidence of catheter-related sepsis, hypertriglyceridaemia, hyperbilirubinaemia, coagulopathy or intraventricular haemorrhage between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Addition of heparin to TPN fluid was not associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of blocked PICCs. However, the sample size of this study was too small to exclude even rather marked differences between the groups.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty patients for laparoscopic surgery with at least one of the determined risks (nonsmoker, female, previous PONV/motion sickness, or postoperative opioid use) were randomized into either an active or sham group. At the end of surgery, Reletex electrical acustimulation was placed at the P6 acupoint. The active group had grade 3 strength and the sham group had inactivated electrodes covered by silicone. It was worn for 24 h following surgery. PONV scores were recorded.
RESULTS: The active group had significantly shorter durations of surgery and lower PONV incidence over 24 h (35.1% versus 64.9%, P = 0.024) and this was attributed to the lower incidence of nausea (31.4% versus 68.6%, P = 0.006). The overall incidence of vomiting was not significantly different between the groups, but it was higher in the sham group of patients with PONV risk score 3 (23.9%, P = 0.049).
CONCLUSION: In patients at high risk for PONV, P6 acupoint electrical stimulation lowers the PONV incidence by reducing the nausea component. However, this reduction in nausea is not related to increasing PONV risk scores.
METHODS: Studies were identified from 4 electronic databases up to June 2019. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the anesthetic success rate of GG, VA, and MI NBs with IANBs in mandibular premolars and molars with irreversible pulpitis were included. The quality of selected RCTs was appraised using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random-effects meta-analyses of risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and random errors were evaluated by TSA. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS: Five RCTs were included; 2 of them were classified as low risk of bias. No significant difference was observed in the anesthesia success rate compared between GG and IA NBs (RR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.82-1.48; I2 = 0%). Similarly, no difference was evident between MINB and IANB (RR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.36; I2 = 0%). Overall, the cumulative success rates for the 3 anesthetic techniques were low. TSA showed a lack of firm evidence for the results of the meta-analysis between GG NB and IANB. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach evaluation showed that the evidence was of moderate quality for GG NB and IANB compared with low quality for MI and IA NBs. Because only 1 study was available comparing VA NB and IANB, a meta-analysis was not performed. The adverse effect associated with MI NB was swelling, whereas it was prolonged numbness for IANB.
CONCLUSIONS: GG NB and IANB showed similar anesthetic efficacy compared with IANB in mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis. However, the success rates for each technique indicate the need for supplemental anesthesia. Further well-designed RCTs evaluating different anesthetic techniques with and without supplemental injection are required to provide stronger evidence.
METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial, done in 209 sites in 29 countries, we randomly assigned patients 2:1 with untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer using a block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice-response system with integrated web-response to pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks plus chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel; paclitaxel; or gemcitabine plus carboplatin) or placebo plus chemotherapy. Randomisation was stratified by type of on-study chemotherapy (taxane or gemcitabine-carboplatin), PD-L1 expression at baseline (combined positive score [CPS] ≥1 or <1), and previous treatment with the same class of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting (yes or no). Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, centrally confirmed triple-negative breast cancer; at least one measurable lesion; provision of a newly obtained tumour sample for determination of triple-negative breast cancer status and PD-L1 status by immunohistochemistry at a central laboratory; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 0 or 1; and adequate organ function. The sponsor, investigators, other study site staff (except for the unmasked pharmacist), and patients were masked to pembrolizumab versus saline placebo administration. In addition, the sponsor, the investigators, other study site staff, and patients were masked to patient-level tumour PD-L1 biomarker results. Dual primary efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival assessed in the PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more, CPS of 1 or more, and intention-to-treat populations. The definitive assessment of progression-free survival was done at this interim analysis; follow-up to assess overall survival is continuing. For progression-free survival, a hierarchical testing strategy was used, such that testing was done first in patients with CPS of 10 or more (prespecified statistical criterion was α=0·00411 at this interim analysis), then in patients with CPS of 1 or more (α=0·00111 at this interim analysis, with partial alpha from progression-free survival in patients with CPS of 10 or more passed over), and finally in the intention-to-treat population (α=0·00111 at this interim analysis). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02819518, and is ongoing.
FINDINGS: Between Jan 9, 2017, and June 12, 2018, of 1372 patients screened, 847 were randomly assigned to treatment, with 566 patients in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 281 patients in the placebo-chemotherapy group. At the second interim analysis (data cutoff, Dec 11, 2019), median follow-up was 25·9 months (IQR 22·8-29·9) in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 26·3 months (22·7-29·7) in the placebo-chemotherapy group. Among patients with CPS of 10 or more, median progression-free survival was 9·7 months with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy and 5·6 months with placebo-chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0·65, 95% CI 0·49-0·86; one-sided p=0·0012 [primary objective met]). Median progression-free survival was 7·6 and 5·6 months (HR, 0·74, 0·61-0·90; one-sided p=0·0014 [not significant]) among patients with CPS of 1 or more and 7·5 and 5·6 months (HR, 0·82, 0·69-0·97 [not tested]) among the intention-to-treat population. The pembrolizumab treatment effect increased with PD-L1 enrichment. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse event rates were 68% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 67% in the placebo-chemotherapy group, including death in <1% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 0% in the placebo-chemotherapy group.
INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab-chemotherapy showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus placebo-chemotherapy among patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer with CPS of 10 or more. These findings suggest a role for the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.
FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.
Methods: Two hundred and ninety-two surgical patients requiring intubation were recruited into this prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled study. Group A patients had their ETTc initially inflated, checked by a cuff pressure gauge, recorded and then set to 25 cmH2O. Group B patients had their ETTc inflated using the pilot balloon palpation method. Patients were then followed up for post-operative sore throat, hoarseness and cough.
Results: The overall incidence of post-operative sore throat was 39.0% versus 75.3% (P < 0.001), hoarseness 6.2% versus 15.1% (P < 0.05) and cough 7.5% versus 21.9% (P < 0.05) in Group A and B, respectively. Group A patients experienced a significant reduction in the incidence and severity of sore throat up to 24 h post-operatively (P < 0.001), hoarseness at the first hour (P = 0.004) and cough at first and 12 h post-operatively (P = 0.002).
Conclusion: Adjusting the ETTc pressure to 25 cmH2O reduces post-operative sore throat, hoarseness and cough compared to pilot balloon palpation method.
METHODS: Women at their first hospitalization for hyperemesis gravidarum were enrolled on admission to the ward and randomly assigned to receive either 5% dextrose-0.9% saline or 0.9% saline by intravenous infusion at a rate 125 mL/h over 24 hours in a double-blind trial. All participants also received thiamine and an antiemetic intravenously. Oral intake was allowed as tolerated. Primary outcomes were resolution of ketonuria and well-being (by 10-point visual numerical rating scale) at 24 hours. Nausea visual numerical rating scale scores were obtained every 8 hours for 24 hours.
RESULTS: Persistent ketonuria rates after the 24-hour study period were 10 of 101 (9.9%) compared with 11 of 101 (10.9%) (P>.99; relative risk 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.4-2.2) and median (interquartile range) well-being scores at 24 hours were 9 (8-10) compared with 9 (8-9.5) (P=.73) in the 5% dextrose-0.9% saline and 0.9% saline arms, respectively. Repeated measures analysis of variance of the nausea visual numerical rating scale score as assessed every 8 hours during the 24-hour study period showed a significant difference in favor of the 5% dextrose-0.9% saline arm (P=.046) with the superiority apparent at 8 and 16 hours, but the advantage had dissipated by 24 hours. Secondary outcomes of vomiting, resolution of hyponatremia, hypochloremia and hypokalemia, length of hospitalization, duration of intravenous antiemetic, and rehydration were not different.
CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous rehydration with 5% dextrose-0.9% saline or 0.9% saline solution in women hospitalized for hyperemesis gravidarum produced similar outcomes.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Register, www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn, ISRCTN65014409.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.