| 1. |
- Dam-Larsen, Sanne, et al.
(författare)
-
Best practice in placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension tube for continuous infusion of levodopa carbidopa intestinal gel in the treatment of selected patients with Parkinsons disease in the Nordic region
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology. - : TAYLOR and FRANCIS LTD. - 0036-5521 .- 1502-7708. ; 50:12, s. 1500-1507
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective. Continuous infusion of levodopa carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG) is associated with a significant improvement in the symptoms and quality of life of selected patients with advanced Parkinsons disease. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension (PEG/J) was first described in 1998 and has become the most common and standard technique for fixing the tubing in place for LCIG infusion. Material and methods. A workshop was held in Stockholm, Sweden, to discuss the PEG/J placement for the delivery of LCIG in Parkinsons disease patients with the primary goal of providing guidance on best practice for the Nordic countries. Results. Suggested procedures for preparation of patients for PEG/J placement, aftercare, troubleshooting and redo-procedures for use in the Nordic region are described and discussed. Conclusions. LCIG treatment administered through PEG/J-tubes gives a significant increase in quality of life for selected patients with advanced Parkinsons disease. Although minor complications are common, serious complications are infrequent, and the tube insertion procedures have a good safety record. Further development of delivery systems and evaluation of approaches designed to reduce the demand for redo endoscopy are required.
|
|
| 2. |
- Forsberg, Anna, et al.
(författare)
-
Once-only colonoscopy or two rounds of faecal immunochemical testing 2 years apart for colorectal cancer screening (SCREESCO): preliminary report of a randomised controlled trial
- 2022
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology. - : ELSEVIER INC. - 2468-1253. ; 7:6, s. 513-521
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Screening for colorectal cancer is done with lower gastrointestinal endoscopy or stool-based tests. There is little evidence from randomised trials to show primary colonoscopy reduces mortality in colorectal cancer We aimed to investigate the effect of screening with once-only colonoscopy or two rounds of faecal immunochemical test screening on colorectal cancer mortality and incidence. Methods We did a randomised controlled trial in Sweden (SCREESCO). Residents in 18 of 21 regions who were age 60 years in the year of randomisation were identified from a population register maintained by the Swedish Tax Agency. A statistician with no further involvement in the trial used a randomised block method to assign individuals to once-only colonoscopy, two rounds of faecal immunochemical testing (OC-Sensor; 2 years apart), or a control group (no intervention; standard diagnostic pathways), in a ratio of 1:6 for colonoscopy versus control and 1:2 for faecal immunochemical testing versus control. Masking was not possible due to the nature of the trial. The primary endpoints of the trial are colorectal cancer mortality and colorectal cancer incidence. Here, we report preliminary participation rates, baseline findings, and adverse events from March, 2014, to December, 2020, in the two intervention groups after completion of recruitment and screening, up to the completion of the second faecal immunochemical testing round. Analyses were done in the intention-to-screen population, defined as all individuals who were randomly assigned to the respective study group. This study is registered with Clinical Trials.gov, NCT02078804. Findings Between March 1, 2014, and Dec 31, 2020, 278 280 people were induded in the study; 31 140 were assigned to the colonoscopy group, 60 300 to the faecal immunochemical test group, and 186 840 to the control group. 10 679 (35.1%) of 30 400 people who received an invitation for colonoscopy participated. 33 383 (55.5%) of 60 137 people who received a postal faecal immunochemical test participated. In the intention-to-screen analysis, colorectal cancer was detected in 49 (0.16%) of 31140 people in the colonoscopy group versus 121 (0. 20%) of 60 300 in the faecal immunochemical test group (relative risk [RR] 0.78, 95% CI 0.56-1.09). Advanced adenomas were detected in 637 (2.05%) people in the colonoscopy group and 968 (1.61%) in the faecal immunochemical test group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15-1.41). Colonoscopy detected more right-sided advanced adenomas than faecal immunochemical testing. There were two perforations and 15 major bleeds in 16 555 colonoscopies. No intervention-related deaths occurred. Interpretation The diagnostic yield and the low number of adverse events indicate that the design from this trial, both for once-only colonoscopy and faecal immunochemical test screening, could be transferred to a population-based screening service if a benefit in disease-specific mortality is subsequently shown. Copyright (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 3. |
- Forsberg, A., et al.
(författare)
-
Once-only colonoscopy or two rounds of faecal immunochemical testing 2 years apart for colorectal cancer screening (SCREESCO): preliminary report of a randomised controlled trial
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology. - : Elsevier BV. - 2468-1253. ; 7:6, s. 513-521
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Screening for colorectal cancer is done with lower gastrointestinal endoscopy or stool-based tests. There is little evidence from randomised trials to show primary colonoscopy reduces mortality in colorectal cancer We aimed to investigate the effect of screening with once-only colonoscopy or two rounds of faecal immunochemical test screening on colorectal cancer mortality and incidence. Methods We did a randomised controlled trial in Sweden (SCREESCO). Residents in 18 of 21 regions who were age 60 years in the year of randomisation were identified from a population register maintained by the Swedish Tax Agency. A statistician with no further involvement in the trial used a randomised block method to assign individuals to once-only colonoscopy, two rounds of faecal immunochemical testing (OC-Sensor; 2 years apart), or a control group (no intervention; standard diagnostic pathways), in a ratio of 1:6 for colonoscopy versus control and 1:2 for faecal immunochemical testing versus control. Masking was not possible due to the nature of the trial. The primary endpoints of the trial are colorectal cancer mortality and colorectal cancer incidence. Here, we report preliminary participation rates, baseline findings, and adverse events from March, 2014, to December, 2020, in the two intervention groups after completion of recruitment and screening, up to the completion of the second faecal immunochemical testing round. Analyses were done in the intention-to-screen population, defined as all individuals who were randomly assigned to the respective study group. This study is registered with Clinical Trials.gov, NCT02078804. Findings Between March 1, 2014, and Dec 31, 2020, 278 280 people were induded in the study; 31 140 were assigned to the colonoscopy group, 60 300 to the faecal immunochemical test group, and 186 840 to the control group. 10 679 (35.1%) of 30 400 people who received an invitation for colonoscopy participated. 33 383 (55.5%) of 60 137 people who received a postal faecal immunochemical test participated. In the intention-to-screen analysis, colorectal cancer was detected in 49 (0.16%) of 31140 people in the colonoscopy group versus 121 (0. 20%) of 60 300 in the faecal immunochemical test group (relative risk [RR] 0.78, 95% CI 0.56-1.09). Advanced adenomas were detected in 637 (2.05%) people in the colonoscopy group and 968 (1.61%) in the faecal immunochemical test group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15-1.41). Colonoscopy detected more right-sided advanced adenomas than faecal immunochemical testing. There were two perforations and 15 major bleeds in 16 555 colonoscopies. No intervention-related deaths occurred. Interpretation The diagnostic yield and the low number of adverse events indicate that the design from this trial, both for once-only colonoscopy and faecal immunochemical test screening, could be transferred to a population-based screening service if a benefit in disease-specific mortality is subsequently shown. Copyright (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 4. |
- Varkey, Jonas, 1980, et al.
(författare)
-
Initial Experience of Video Capsule Endoscopy After Intestinal Transplantation.
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Transplantation direct. - 2373-8731. ; 2:12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Intestinal transplantation is a procedure which inflicts immunological and infectious complications that affect the transplanted graft, posing both diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) offers easy access to the entire small intestine and presents itself as an interesting option. However, at present, no studies evaluating the usefulness of video capsule endoscopies in this setting have been published. Our aim was to evaluate the usefulness of VCE in detecting complications that arise after intestinal transplantation.We included 7 adult patients with either isolated intestine (n = 1) or multivisceral grafts (n = 6). These patients underwent 12 VCE between 2004 and 2015 at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital. The median age was 42 (21-67) years (4 women/3 men). VCE was used in clinical situations where the conventional diagnostic methods failed to provide answers to the clinical question.Indications for the procedure were: suspicion of rejection (n = 4 examinations), gastrointestinal dysmotility (n = 4 examinations), high stomal output (n = 2 examinations), suspicion of lymphoproliferative disease in the transplanted graft (n = 1 examination), and clinical surveillance (n = 1 examination). The median time after transplantation for performing an examination was 740 (26-3059) days. VCE was useful in 83% of the examinations and the results influenced the planned management. The overall agreement between VCE findings and biopsies was moderate (κ = 0.54, P = 0.05) but increased when comparing the presence of inflammation/rejection (κ = 0.79, P < 0.001).VCE is a promising diagnostic method after intestinal transplantation. However, larger studies are needed to evaluate its potential risks and gains.
|
|
