Giant pleomorphic lipoma in patient with multiple osteochondromatosis.

Pleomorphic lipomas are infrequent soft tissue tumours with pseudosarcomatous behaviour. Their polymorphism provides them certain characteristics that may resemble malignancy, which may mislead the initial diagnosis. The presented case report is a 45-year-old man with a giant growing tumour on the left cervicoscapular region initially categorised as a liposarcoma by magnetic resonance with a final confirmed diagnosis of pleomorphic lipoma after the surgical resection and the examination of the pathologist. The patient presented important functional restriction of the upper left extremity, which decreased after surgical resection, improving the quality of life.

Pharmacological intestinal obstruction because of calcium polystyrene sulfonate administration.

Cation exchange resins are commonly used as treatment for hyperkalaemia in patients with chronic renal disease. There is a relation between cation exchange resins and the development of gastrointestinal adverse effects. A case of an intestinal obstruction at the terminal ileum is presented that underwent an ileocolic resection because of a critical stenosis of the intestine. The pathologist revealed abundant inflammatory cells together with deposits of calcium polystyrene crystals responsible of the intestinal obstruction. A rare cause of intestinal obstruction to bear in mind in chronically medicated patients with cation exchange resins.

Comparing alternating pressure mattresses and high-specification foam mattresses to prevent pressure ulcers in high-risk patients: the PRESSURE 2 RCT.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (PUs) are a burden to patients, carers and health-care providers. Specialist mattresses minimise the intensity and duration of pressure on vulnerable skin sites in at-risk patients. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Time to developing a new PU of category ≥ 2 in patients using an alternating pressure mattress (APM) compared with a high-specification foam mattress (HSFM). DESIGN: A multicentre, Phase III, open, prospective, planned as an adaptive double-triangular group sequential, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with an a priori sample size of 2954 participants. Randomisation used minimisation (incorporating a random element). SETTING: The trial was set in 42 secondary and community inpatient facilities in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adult inpatients with evidence of acute illness and at a high risk of PU development. INTERVENTIONS AND FOLLOW-UP: APM or HSFM - the treatment phase lasted a maximum of 60 days; the final 30 days were post-treatment follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to event. RESULTS: From August 2013 to November 2016, 2029 participants were randomised to receive either APM (n = 1016) or HSFM (n = 1013). Primary end point - 30-day final follow-up: of the 2029 participants in the intention-to-treat population, 160 (7.9%) developed a new PU of category ≥ 2. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between groups for time to new PU of category ≥ 2 [Fine and Gray model HR 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.04; exact p-value of 0.0890 and 2% absolute difference]. Treatment phase sensitivity analysis: 132 (6.5%) participants developed a new PU of category ≥ 2 between randomisation and end of treatment phase. There was a statistically significant difference in the treatment phase time-to-event sensitivity analysis (Fine and Gray model HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.93; p = 0.0176 and 2.6% absolute difference). Secondary end points - 30-day final follow-up: new PUs of category ≥ 1 developed in 350 (17.2%) participants, with no evidence of a difference between mattress groups in time to PU development, (Fine and Gray model HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; p-value = 0.0733 and absolute difference 3.1%). New PUs of category ≥ 3 developed in 32 (1.6%) participants with insufficient evidence of a difference between mattress groups in time to PU development (Fine and Gray model HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.62; p = 0.5530 and absolute difference 0.4%). Of the 145 pre-existing PUs of category 2, 89 (61.4%) healed - there was insufficient evidence of a difference in time to healing (Fine and Gray model HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.68; p = 0.6122 and absolute difference 2.9%). Health economics - the within-trial and long-term analysis showed APM to be cost-effective compared with HSFM; however, the difference in costs models are small and the quality-adjusted life-year gains are very small. There were no safety concerns. Blinded photography substudy - the reliability of central blinded review compared with clinical assessment for PUs of category ≥ 2 was 'very good' (kappa statistic 0.82, prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa 0.82). Quality-of-life substudy - the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life - Prevention (PU-QoL-P) instrument meets the established criteria for reliability, construct validity and responsiveness. LIMITATIONS: A lower than anticipated event rate. CONCLUSIONS: In acutely ill inpatients who are bedfast/chairfast and/or have a category 1 PU and/or localised skin pain, APMs confer a small treatment phase benefit that is diminished over time. Overall, the APM patient compliance, very low PU incidence rate observed and small differences between mattresses indicate the need for improved indicators for targeting of APMs and individualised decision-making. Decisions should take into account skin status, patient preferences (movement ability and rehabilitation needs) and the presence of factors that may be potentially modifiable through APM allocation, including being completely immobile, having nutritional deficits, lacking capacity and/or having altered skin/category 1 PU. FUTURE WORK: Explore the relationship between mental capacity, levels of independent movement, repositioning and PU development. Explore 'what works for whom and in what circumstances'. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01151335. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Pressure ulcers (PUs) are patches of damaged skin, mainly caused by sitting/lying in one position. PUs are graded based on how serious they are, ranging from red patches (category 1) through small skin breaks/blisters (category 2) to serious wounds (category 4). Special mattresses are used to help prevent PUs. This study compared alternating pressure mattresses (APMs) with high-specification foam mattresses (HSFMs), to see which is better at preventing PUs. The study included adults admitted to hospital for acute illness who were at a high risk of developing PUs. Patients were randomly allocated to HSFM or APM. Nurses checked patients' skin and recorded changes. A total of 132 patients developed at least one new PU of category ≥ 2 before the end of treatment (60 days maximum). Of these, 53 patients were allocated to the APM arm and 79 to the HSFM arm, a difference of 2.6%. This is a small but significant difference. Nurses looked at patients' skin again 30 days after the patient had stopped using a trial mattress. At this point, 160 patients had at least one new PU (of category ≥ 2). Of these, 70 patients were allocated to the APM arm and 90 to the HSFM arm, a very small difference of 2.0%. Some patients asked to change mattresses; this happened more in the APM group. This study focused on high-risk patients; however, only a small number of people developed PUs, suggesting that prevention is possible with either mattress. Results also suggest that certain groups of patients may benefit more from APMs, for example people who cannot give consent or who have skin redness. When planning prevention and choosing mattresses, professionals and patients need to consider a number of factors, such as comfort, existing PUs and people's ability to self-care. Further research is recommended to understand what sort of prevention works, for whom and in what circumstances.

Methods for Handling Unobserved Covariates in a Bayesian Update of a Cost-effectiveness Model.

Health economic decision models often involve a wide-ranging and complicated synthesis of evidence from a number of sources, making design and implementation of such models resource-heavy. When new data become available and reassessment of treatment recommendations is warranted, it may be more efficient to perform a Bayesian update of an existing model than to construct a new model. If the existing model depends on many, possibly correlated, covariates, then an update may produce biased estimates of model parameters if some of these covariates are completely absent from the new data. Motivated by the need to update a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing diagnostic strategies for coronary heart disease, this study develops methods to overcome this obstacle by either introducing additional data or using results from previous studies. We outline a framework to handle unobserved covariates, and use our motivating example to illustrate both the flexibility of the proposed methods and some potential difficulties in applying them.

Amaze: a double-blind, multicentre randomised controlled trial to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding an ablation device-based maze procedure as an adjunct to routine cardiac surgery for patients with pre-existing atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) can be treated using a maze procedure during planned cardiac surgery, but the effect on clinical patient outcomes, and the cost-effectiveness compared with surgery alone, are uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not the maze procedure is safe, improves clinical and patient outcomes and is cost-effective for the NHS in patients with AF. DESIGN: Multicentre, Phase III, pragmatic, double-blind, parallel-arm randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis using random permuted blocks, stratified for surgeon and planned procedure. SETTING: Eleven acute NHS specialist cardiac surgical centres. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years, scheduled for elective or in-house urgent cardiac surgery, with a documented history (> 3 months) of AF. INTERVENTIONS: Routine cardiac surgery with or without an adjunct maze procedure administered by an AF ablation device. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were return to sinus rhythm (SR) at 12 months and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 2 years after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included return to SR at 2 years, overall and stroke-free survival, drug use, quality of life (QoL), cost-effectiveness and safety. RESULTS: Between 25 February 2009 and 6 March 2014, 352 patients were randomised to the control (n = 176) or experimental (n = 176) arms. The odds ratio (OR) for return to SR at 12 months was 2.06 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.54; p = 0.0091]. The mean difference (95% CI) in QALYs at 2 years between the two trial arms (maze/control) was -0.025 (95% CI 0.129 to 0.078; p = 0.6319). The OR for SR at 2 years was 3.24 (95% CI 1.76 to 5.96). The number of patients requiring anticoagulant drug use was significantly lower in the maze arm from 6 months after the procedure. There were no significant differences between the two arms in operative or overall survival, stroke-free survival, need for cardioversion or permanent pacemaker implants, New York Heart Association Functional Classification (for heart failure), EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version score and Short Form questionnaire-36 items score at any time point. Sixty per cent of patients in each trial arm had a serious adverse event (p = 1.000); most events were mild, but 71 patients (42.5%) in the maze arm and 84 patients (45.5%) in the control arm had moderately severe events; 31 patients (18.6%) in the maze arm and 38 patients (20.5%) in the control arm had severe events. The mean additional cost of the maze procedure was £3533 (95% CI £1321 to £5746); the mean difference in QALYs was -0.022 (95% CI -0.1231 to 0.0791). The maze procedure was not cost-effective at £30,000 per QALY over 2 years in any analysis. In a small substudy, the active left atrial ejection fraction was smaller than that of the control patients (mean difference of -8.03, 95% CI -12.43 to -3.62), but within the predefined clinically equivalent range. LIMITATIONS: Low recruitment, early release of trial summaries and intermittent resource-use collection may have introduced bias and imprecise estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Ablation can be practised safely in routine NHS cardiac surgical settings and increases return to SR rates, but not survival or QoL up to 2 years after surgery. Lower anticoagulant drug use and recovery of left atrial function support anticoagulant drug withdrawal provided that good atrial function is confirmed. FURTHER WORK: Continued follow-up and long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis. Comparison of ablation methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82731440. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Mini-Stern Trial: A randomized trial comparing mini-sternotomy to full median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) can be performed either through full median sternotomy (FS) or upper mini-sternotomy (MS). The Mini-Stern trial aimed to establish whether MS leads to quicker postoperative recovery and shorter hospital stay after first-time isolated AVR. METHODS: This pragmatic, open-label, parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared MS with FS for first-time isolated AVR in 2 United Kingdom National Health Service hospitals. Primary endpoints were duration of postoperative hospital stay and the time to fitness for discharge from hospital after AVR, analyzed in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: In this RCT, 222 patients were recruited and randomized (n = 118 in the MS group; n = 104 in the FS group). Compared with the FS group, the MS group had a longer hospital length of stay (mean, 9.5 days vs 8.6 days) and took longer to achieve fitness for discharge home (mean, 8.5 days vs 7.5 days). Adjusting for valve type, sex, and surgeon, hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox models did not show a statistically significant effect of MS (relative to FS) on either hospital stay (HR, 0.874; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.668-1.143; P = .3246) or time to fitness for discharge (HR, 0.907; 95% CI, 0.688-1.197; P value = .4914). During a mean follow-up of 760 days (745 days for the MS group and 777 days for the FS group), 12 patients (10%) in the MS group and 7 patients (7%) in the FS group died (HR, 1.871; 95% CI, 0.723-4.844; P = .1966). Average extra cost for MS was £1714 during the first 12 months after AVR. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with FS for AVR, MS did not result in shorter hospital stay, faster recovery, or improved survival and was not cost-effective. The MS approach is not superior to FS for performing AVR.

The INVEST project: investigating the use of evidence synthesis in the design and analysis of clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: When designing and analysing clinical trials, using previous relevant information, perhaps in the form of evidence syntheses, can reduce research waste. We conducted the INVEST (INVestigating the use of Evidence Synthesis in the design and analysis of clinical Trials) survey to summarise the current use of evidence synthesis in trial design and analysis, to capture opinions of trialists and methodologists on such use, and to understand any barriers. METHODS: Our sampling frame was all delegates attending the International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference in November 2015. Respondents were asked to indicate (1) their views on the use of evidence synthesis in trial design and analysis, (2) their own use during the past 10 years and (3) the three greatest barriers to use in practice. RESULTS: Of approximately 638 attendees of the conference, 106 (17%) completed the survey, half of whom were statisticians. Support was generally high for using a description of previous evidence, a systematic review or a meta-analysis in trial design. Generally, respondents did not seem to be using evidence syntheses as often as they felt they should. For example, only 50% (42/84 relevant respondents) had used a meta-analysis to inform whether a trial is needed compared with 74% (62/84) indicating that this is desirable. Only 6% (5/81 relevant respondents) had used a value of information analysis to inform sample size calculations versus 22% (18/81) indicating support for this. Surprisingly large numbers of participants indicated support for, and previous use of, evidence syntheses in trial analysis. For example, 79% (79/100) of respondents indicated that external information about the treatment effect should be used to inform aspects of the analysis. The greatest perceived barrier to using evidence synthesis methods in trial design or analysis was time constraints, followed by a belief that the new trial was the first in the area. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence syntheses can be resource-intensive, but their use in informing the design, conduct and analysis of clinical trials is widely considered desirable. We advocate additional research, training and investment in resources dedicated to ways in which evidence syntheses can be undertaken more efficiently, offering the potential for cost savings in the long term.