| 1. |
- Kanai, M, et al.
(author)
-
- 2023
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 2. |
- Niemi, MEK, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Blaak, E E, et al.
(author)
-
Impact of postprandial glycaemia on health and prevention of disease.
- 2012
-
In: Obesity Reviews. - 1467-7881. ; 13:10, s. 923-984
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Postprandial glucose, together with related hyperinsulinemia and lipidaemia, has been implicated in the development of chronic metabolic diseases like obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this review, available evidence is discussed on postprandial glucose in relation to body weight control, the development of oxidative stress, T2DM, and CVD and in maintaining optimal exercise and cognitive performance. There is mechanistic evidence linking postprandial glycaemia or glycaemic variability to the development of these conditions or in the impairment in cognitive and exercise perfomance. Nevertheless, postprandial glycaemia is interrelated with many other (risk) factors as well as to fasting glucose. In many studies, meal-related glycaemic response is not sufficiently characterized, or the methodology with respect to the description of food or meal composition, or the duration of the measurement of postprandial glycaemia is limited. It is evident that more randomized controlled dietary intervention trials using effective low vs. high glucose response diets are necessary in order to draw more definite conclusions on the role of postprandial glycaemia in relation to health and disease. Also of importance is the evaluation of the potential role of the time course of postprandial glycaemia.
|
|
| 8. |
- Breugom, A. J., et al.
(author)
-
Oncologic treatment strategies and relative survival of patients with stage I-III rectal cancer - A EURECCA international comparison between the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, England, Ireland, Spain, and Lithuania
- 2018
-
In: European Journal of Surgical Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 0748-7983 .- 1532-2157. ; 44:9, s. 1338-1343
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction: The aim of this EURECCA international comparison is to compare oncologic treatment strategies and relative survival of patients with stage I-III rectal cancer between European countries.Material and methods: Population-based national cohort data from the Netherlands (NL), Belgium (BE), Denmark (DK), Sweden (SE), England (ENG), Ireland (IE), Spain (ES), and single-centre data from Lithuania (LT) were obtained. All operated patients with (y)pTNM stage I-III rectal cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2009 were included. Oncologic treatment strategies and relative survival were calculated and compared between neighbouring countries.Results: We included 57,120 patients. Treatment strategies differed between NL and BE (p < 0.001), DK and SE (p < 0.001), and ENG and IE (p < 0.001). More preoperative radiotherapy as single treatment before surgery was administered in NL compared with BE (59.7% vs. 13.1%), in SE compared with DK (55.1% vs. 10.4%), and in ENG compared with IE (15.2% vs. 9.6%). Less postoperative chemotherapy was given in NL (9.6% vs. 39.1%), in SE (7.9% vs. 14.1%), and in IE (12.6% vs. 18.5%) compared with their neighbouring country. In ES, 55.1% of patients received preoperative chemoradiation and 62.3% post-operative chemotherapy. There were no significant differences in relative survival between neighbouring countries.Conclusion: Large differences in oncologic treatment strategies for patients with (y)pTNM I-III rectal cancer were observed across European countries. No clear relation between oncologic treatment strategies and relative survival was observed. Further research into selection criteria for specific treatments could eventually lead to individualised and optimal treatment for patients with non-metastasised rectal cancer.
|
|
| 9. |
- Breugom, A. J., et al.
(author)
-
Adjuvant chemotherapy and relative survival of patients with stage II colon cancer - A EURECCA international comparison between the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, England, Ireland, Belgium, and Lithuania
- 2016
-
In: European Journal of Cancer. - : Elsevier BV. - 0959-8049 .- 1879-0852. ; 63, s. 110-117
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: The aim of the present EURECCA international comparison is to compare adjuvant chemotherapy and relative survival of patients with stage II colon cancer between European countries.Methods: Population-based national cohort data (2004-2009) from the Netherlands (NL), Denmark (DK), Sweden (SE), England (ENG), Ireland (IE), and Belgium (BE) were obtained, as well as single-centre data from Lithuania. All surgically treated patients with stage II colon cancer were included. The proportion of patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy was calculated and compared between countries. Besides, relative survival was calculated and compared between countries.Results: Overall, 59,154 patients were included. The proportion of patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy ranged from 7.1% to 29.0% (p < 0.001). Compared with NL, a better adjusted relative survival was observed in SE (stage II: relative excess risks (RER) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.64; p < 0.001), and BE (stage II: RER 0.84, 95% CI 0.76-0.92; p < 0.001), and in IE for patients with stage IIA disease (RER 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98; p = 0.03).Conclusion: The proportion of patients with stage II colon cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy varied largely between seven European countries. No clear linear pattern between adjuvant chemotherapy and adjusted relative survival was observed. Compared with NL, SE and BE showed an improved adjusted relative survival for stage II disease, and IE for patients with stage IIA disease only. Further research into selection criteria for adjuvant chemotherapy could eventually lead to individually tailored, optimal treatment of patients with stage II colon cancer.
|
|
| 10. |
- Jung, Christian, et al.
(author)
-
A comparison of very old patients admitted to intensive care unit after acute versus elective surgery or intervention
- 2019
-
In: Journal of critical care. - : W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC. - 0883-9441 .- 1557-8615. ; 52, s. 141-148
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: We aimed to evaluate differences in outcome between patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) after elective versus acute surgery in a multinational cohort of very old patients (80 years; VIP). Predictors of mortality, with special emphasis on frailty, were assessed.Methods: In total, 5063 VIPs were induded in this analysis, 922 were admitted after elective surgery or intervention, 4141 acutely, with 402 after acute surgery. Differences were calculated using Mann-Whitney-U test and Wilcoxon test. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to assess associations with mortality.Results: Compared patients admitted after acute surgery, patients admitted after elective surgery suffered less often from frailty as defined as CFS (28% vs 46%; p < 0.001), evidenced lower SOFA scores (4 +/- 5 vs 7 +/- 7; p < 0.001). Presence of frailty (CFS >4) was associated with significantly increased mortality both in elective surgery patients (7% vs 12%; p = 0.01), in acute surgery (7% vs 12%; p = 0.02).Conclusions: VIPs admitted to ICU after elective surgery evidenced favorable outcome over patients after acute surgery even after correction for relevant confounders. Frailty might be used to guide clinicians in risk stratification in both patients admitted after elective and acute surgery.
|
|
