Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(6): e2215217, 2022 06 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35657627

RESUMO

Importance: Delayed graft function (DGF) is a risk factor for acute rejection and graft failure after kidney transplant. Previous studies have suggested that dexmedetomidine may be renoprotective, but whether the use of dexmedetomidine would improve kidney allograft function is unknown. Objective: To investigate the effects of perioperative dexmedetomidine on DGF following a donation-after-cardiac-death (DCD) kidney transplant. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted at The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University in Suzhou, China. Adults (18 years or older) who were scheduled for DCD kidney transplant were enrolled between September 1, 2019, and January 28, 2021, and then randomized to receive either dexmedetomidine or normal saline (placebo). One-year postoperative outcomes were recorded. All analyses were based on the modified intention-to-treat population. Interventions: Patients who were randomized to the dexmedetomidine group received a 24-hour perioperative dexmedetomidine intravenous infusion (0.4 µg/kg/h intraoperatively and 0.1 µg/kg/h postoperatively). Patients who were randomized to the normal saline group received an intravenous infusion of the placebo with the same dose regimen as the dexmedetomidine. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of DGF, defined as the need for dialysis in the first posttransplant week. The prespecified secondary outcomes were in-hospital repeated dialysis in the first posttransplant week, in-hospital acute rejection, and serum creatinine, serum cystatin C, estimated glomerular filtration rate, need for dialysis, and patient survival on posttransplant day 30. Results: Of the 114 patients enrolled, 111 completed the study (mean [SD] age, 43.4 [10.8] years; 64 male patients [57.7%]), of whom 56 were randomized to the dexmedetomidine group and 55 to the normal saline group. Dexmedetomidine infusion compared with normal saline reduced the incidence of DGF (17.9% vs 34.5%; odds ratio [OR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.98; P = .04) and repeated dialysis (12.5% vs 30.9%; OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.88; P = .02, which was not statistically significant after multiple testing corrections), without significant effect on other secondary outcomes. Dexmedetomidine vs normal saline infusion led to a higher median (IQR) creatinine clearance rate on postoperative days 1 (9.9 [4.9-21.2] mL/min vs 7.9 [2.0-10.4] mL/min) and 2 (29.6 [9.7-67.4] mL/min vs 14.6 [3.8-45.1] mL/min) as well as increased median (IQR) urine output on postoperative days 2 (106.5 [66.3-175.6] mL/h vs 82.9 [27.1-141.9] mL/h) and 7 (126.1 [98.0-151.3] mL/h vs 107.0 [82.5-137.5] mL/h) and at hospital discharge discharge (110.4 [92.8-121.9] mL/h vs 97.1 [77.5-113.8] mL/h). Three patients (5.5%) from the normal saline group developed allograft failure by the post hoc 1-year follow-up visit. Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that 24-hour perioperative dexmedetomidine decreased the incidence of DGF after DCD kidney transplant. The findings support the use of dexmedetomidine in kidney transplants. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR1900025493.


Assuntos
Dexmedetomidina , Transplante de Rim , Adulto , Morte , Função Retardada do Enxerto/epidemiologia , Função Retardada do Enxerto/etiologia , Função Retardada do Enxerto/prevenção & controle , Dexmedetomidina/farmacologia , Dexmedetomidina/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Transplante de Rim/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Diálise Renal/efeitos adversos , Solução Salina
2.
Asian J Androl ; 20(4): 366-371, 2018.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29493549

RESUMO

We evaluated the prognosis of the new grade groups and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage groups in men with prostate cancer (PCa) who were treated conservatively. A total of 13 798 eligible men were chosen from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database. The new grade and AJCC stage groups were investigated on prostate biopsy specimens. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariable hazards models were applied to estimate the association of new grade and stage groups with overall survival (OS) and PCa-specific survival (CSS). Mean follow-up was 42.65 months (95% confidence interval: 42.47-42.84) in the entire cohort. The 3-year OS and CSS rates stepped down for grade groups 1-5 and AJCC stage groups I-IVB, respectively. After adjusting for clinical and pathological characteristics, all grade groups and AJCC stage groups were associated with higher all-cause and PCa-specific mortality compared to the reference group (all P ≤ 0.003). In conclusion, we evaluated the oncological outcome of the new grade and AJCC stage groups on biopsy specimens of conservatively treated PCa. These two novel clinically relevant classifications can assist physicians to determine different therapeutic strategies for PCa patients.


Assuntos
Adenocarcinoma/diagnóstico , Adenocarcinoma/terapia , Tratamento Conservador , Estadiamento de Neoplasias/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias da Próstata/terapia , Adenocarcinoma/mortalidade , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Biópsia , Estudos de Coortes , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Seguimentos , Humanos , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Gradação de Tumores , Prognóstico , Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/mortalidade
3.
World J Urol ; 31(5): 1303-7, 2013 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22903789

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) without nephrostomy drainage tubes. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 32 eligible patients with kidney stones at our hospital. Patients were randomly assigned to a conventional mPCNL group (ureteric Double-J stents and nephrostomy drainage tubes) or a tubeless mPCNL group (ureteric catheter but no drainage tubes). A single experienced surgeon performed all operations. RESULTS: At baseline, the two groups had similar age, maximum stone diameter, and gender distribution. There were no significant differences in operation time, presence of postoperative fever, stone clearance, and level of postoperative serum hemoglobin. However, the tubeless mPCNL group had significantly shorter hospital stays (3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.032) and significantly less back pain (5 patients vs. 14 patients, p = 0.003) than the conventional mPCNL group. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found between conventional and tubeless mPCNL in safety issues and stone clearance rate. However, patients treated with tubeless mPCNL had shorter hospitalization stays and were less likely to experience back pain.


Assuntos
Cálculos Renais/cirurgia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Minimamente Invasivos/instrumentação , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Minimamente Invasivos/métodos , Nefrostomia Percutânea/instrumentação , Nefrostomia Percutânea/métodos , Adulto , Idoso , Dor nas Costas/epidemiologia , Drenagem/instrumentação , Feminino , Humanos , Incidência , Tempo de Internação , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Minimamente Invasivos/efeitos adversos , Nefrostomia Percutânea/efeitos adversos , Estudos Prospectivos , Stents , Resultado do Tratamento , Cateteres Urinários
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA