Complication-related removal of totally implantable venous access port systems: Does the interval between placement and first use and the neutropenia-inducing potential of chemotherapy regimens influence their incidence? A four-year prospective study of 4045 patients.

BACKGROUND: Totally implantable venous access port systems are widely used in oncology, with frequent complications that sometimes necessitate device removal. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of the time interval between port placement and initiation of chemotherapy and the neutropenia-inducing potential of the chemotherapy administered upon complication-related port removal. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2013, 4045 consecutive patients were included in this observational, single-center prospective study. The chemotherapy regimens were classified as having a low (<10%), intermediate (10-20%), or high (>20%) risk for inducing neutropenia. RESULTS: The overall removal rate due to complications was 7.2%. Among them, port-related infection (2.5%) and port expulsion (1%) were the most frequent. The interval between port insertion and its first use was shown to be a predictive factor for complication-related removal rates. A cut-off of 6 days was statistically significant (p = 0.008), as the removal rate for complications was 9.4% when this interval was 0-5 days and 5.7% when it was ≥6 days. Another factor associated with port complication rate was the neutropenia-inducing potential of the chemotherapy regimens used, with removal for complications involved in 5.5% of low-risk regimens versus 9.4% for the intermediate- and high-risk regimens (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: An interval of 6 days between placement and first use of the port reduces the removal rate from complications. The intermediate- and high-risk for neutropenia chemotherapy regimens are related to higher port removal rates from complications than low-risk regimens.

Functional dyspepsia versus other functional gastrointestinal disorders: a practical approach in Belgian general practices.

This paper identifies the symptom profile associated with the four main diagnoses of functional digestive disorders (dyspepsia, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), gastritis, and constipation) made by general practitioners in Belgium. Results are also presented from a multicentre study in which the effects of cisapride, administered as an oral tablet or suspension, were evaluated in patients with these functional digestive disorders. Analysis of symptom patterns revealed that early satiety and postprandial abdominal bloating were the most prominent symptoms, followed by eructation (belching), heartburn, regurgitation, postprandial epigastric burning or discomfort, and nausea. These symptoms occurred in all diagnostic groups. However, different symptom patterns were associated with each of the disorders; for example, heartburn and regurgitation were the core symptoms in patients diagnosed as having GORD, early satiety and abdominal bloating were characteristic of patients diagnosed with dyspepsia, and fasting or postprandial pain were characteristic of patients given the diagnosis of gastritis. Therefore, it appears that these diagnoses used by general practitioners in Belgium closely correspond to reflux-like, dysmotility-like and ulcer-like dyspepsia, as defined by an international working party. Cisapride improved the core symptoms in about 80% of patients with GORD or dyspepsia, relieved all epigastric symptoms in about 80% of patients with gastritis, and significantly decreased the use of laxatives and increased stool frequency in constipated patients. Cisapride was well tolerated and thus appears to be a useful option in the treatment of functional digestive disorders in a general practice setting.

Long-term (2-year) isradipine data in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension.

At the end of a short-term (3-month) study of antihypertensive treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension, 141 of the 200 study patients continued into a 2-year follow-up of isradipine as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensive agents. Although all 141 patients completed the first year, only 102 completed the study. Twenty-four patients dropped out: 2 with flushing; 1 each with arrhythmia, edema, angina, and headache; 12 who were noncompliant; 2 with disease unrelated to the study drug; and 4 for reasons unknown. Before the follow-up, 70% of the 141 patients were taking isradipine; after 2 years, 63% were still taking isradipine as monotherapy. During the follow-up study, the blood pressure remained stable (142.9/86.8 mm Hg after 3 months, and 142.9/86.2 mm Hg after 2 years), whereas the normalization rate was only slightly changed (73 vs. 75.2%). The incidence of reported adverse events decreased with time. At the end of the short-term study, 44.7% of patients had reported one or more adverse events; after 2 years of treatment, only 14.4% reported adverse events. Two patients had ECG signs of left ventricular hypertrophy: one showed no relevant changes while the other presented clear signs of regression. No clinically relevant laboratory abnormalities were noted during the study. In conclusion, isradipine is effective, well tolerated and safe in the long-term treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension.

Isradipine in essential hypertension: the Belgian General Practitioners' Study.

Over 200 hypertensive patients were recruited by 37 general practitioners into a single-blind 12-week study to assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of isradipine as an antihypertensive, alone and in combination with guanfacine. A total of 212 patients were given isradipine at doses of 1.25 and 2.5 mg twice daily. Twelve hours after the last dose, diastolic blood pressure was reduced to no more than 90 mm Hg in 52.6 percent of patients treated with isradipine alone. After eight weeks of treatment, 30 percent of patients were also given guanfacine 1 mg daily. By Week 12, 67.6 percent of the patients had attained normotension. Compared with placebo, side-effect frequency was higher for flushing and edema with isradipine, and dry mouth was more frequent with added guanfacine. Electrocardiographic examinations and routine laboratory determinations showed no clinically relevant changes. These data indicate that isradipine as monotherapy and in combination with guanfacine is an effective antihypertensive agent. Most patients will continue to participate in a two-year follow-up involving bimonthly clinical visits and half-yearly electrocardiographic examinations and laboratory determinations.