Evaluating the efficacy of vitalstim electrical stimulation combined with swallowing function training for treating

OBJECTIVES: This study explored the clinical efficacy of VitalStim electrical stimulation combined with swallowing function training for patients with dysphagia following an acute stroke. METHODS: Seventy-two patients with dysphagia following an acute stroke were admitted to our hospital and were further divided into two groups using prospective research methods. There were 36 cases in each group according to the random number table method. The control group received conventional medical treatment and swallowing function training while the experimental group received conventional medical treatment and VitalStim electrical stimulation combined with swallowing function training. RESULTS: The overall response rate of the experimental group (94.44%) was higher than that of the control group (77.78%), and the difference was statistically significant (p<0.05). Compared with before treatment, the upward and forward movement speeds of the hyoid bone, anterior movement speed, the grading score of the Kubota drinking water test, Caiteng's grading score, serum superoxide dismutase, 5-hydroxytryptamine, and norepinephrine levels, Fugl-Meyer Assessment score, and multiple quality of life scores of the two groups showed improvement after treatment. While the standard swallowing assessment score, serum malondialdehyde level, and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score decreased, the aforementioned indices showed a significant improvement in the experimental group (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that VitalStim electrical stimulation combined with swallowing function is effective for treating dysphagia following an acute stroke. It can effectively improve swallowing, neurological, and limb motor functions, reduce complications, promote physical recovery, and improve overall quality of life of patients.

A randomized controlled Phase II trial of vinorelbine plus capecitabine versus docetaxel plus capecitabine in anthracycline-pretreated women with metastatic breast cancer

Background: Previous studies have shown that vinorelbine/capecitabine (NX) and docetaxel/capecitabine (TX) chemotherapy has a certain effect in advanced breast cancer. However, there are few clinical studies directly comparing TX and NX regimen chemotherapy, especially in patients with advanced breast cancer previously treated with anthracycline and taxane. The purpose of this Phase II study was to compare survival and side effects between patients with anthracycline- and taxane-resistant advanced breast cancer treated with NX and those treated with TX chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: From February 2012 to March 2014, a total number of 97 patients were randomly assigned to NX (n = 55) or TX (n = 42). Baseline characteristics were relatively well-balanced in the two treatment arms. The clinical trial registration number (clincaltrials.gov) is NCT01635465. Results: After a median follow-up of 46.0 months, there was no significant difference between the NX and TX arms in objective response rate (17.9% vs. 21.1%; P = 0.686) and progression-free survival (6 months vs. 7 months; P = 0.560). The overall survival period of the TX arm was longer than that of the NX arm (32 months vs. 27 months) but without statistical significance. Both regimens were well-tolerated. The main toxicities were neutropenia, leukopenia, and anemia. In the TX arm, hand-foot syndrome occurred more frequently than in the NX arm (P < 0.01), but frequencies of other minor adverse effects were similar between the two arms. Conclusion: NX and TX regimens are both alternative treatments for patients with anthracycline- and taxane-resistant advanced breast cancer, but the safety profile was more favorable and manageable with the NX regimen. Trial Registrations: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01635465. Registered 09 July 2012