Mucin2 is Required for Probiotic Agents-Mediated Blocking Effects on Meningitic E. coli-Induced Pathogenicities.

Mucin2 (MUC2), an important regulatory factor in the immune system, plays an important role in the host defense system against bacterial translocation. Probiotics known to regulate MUC2 gene expression have been widely studied, but the interactions among probiotic, pathogens, and mucin gene are still not fully understood. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of MUC2 in blocking effects of probiotics on meningitic E. coli-induced pathogenicities. In this study, live combined probiotic tablets containing living Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus bulgaricus, and Streptococcus thermophilus were used. MUC2 expression was knocked down in Caco-2 cells by RNA interference. 5-Aza-2'-deoxycytidine (5-Aza-CdR), which enhances mucin-promoted probiotic effects through inducing production of Sadenosyl- L-methionine (SAMe), was used to up-regulate MUC2 expression in Caco-2 cells. The adhesion to and invasion of meningitic E. coli were detected by competition assays. Our studies showed that probiotic agents could block E. coli-caused intestinal colonization, bacteremia, and meningitis in a neonatal sepsis and meningitis rat model. MUC2 gene expression in the neonatal rats given probiotic agents was obviously higher than that of the infected and uninfected control groups without probiotic treatment. The prohibitive effects of probiotic agents on MUC2-knockdown Caco-2 cells infected with E44 were significantly reduced compared with nontransfected Caco-2 cells. Moreover, the results also showed that 5- Aza-CdR, a drug enhancing the production of SAMe that is a protective agent of probiotics, was able to significantly suppress adhesion and invasion of E44 to Caco-2 cells by upregulation of MUC2 expression. Taken together, our data suggest that probiotic agents can efficiently block meningitic E. coli-induced pathogenicities in a manner dependent on MUC2.

Comparison of the short-term postoperative results of prone positioning and lateral decubitus positioning during thoracoscopic esophagectomy.

INTRODUCTION: The conventional approach during thoracoscopic esophagectomy was performed in the left lateral decubitus position (LLDP). Recently, thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position (PP) has attracted the attention of surgeons. AIM: To report institutional experience with thoracoscopic esophagectomy in PP and compare it with the conventional LLDP approach. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed 59 consecutive patients who had presented with esophageal cancer undergoing three-stage thoracoscopic/laparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) from May 2011 to Dec 2013. The TLE was sequentially performed on enrolled patients in LLDP from May 2011 to Oct 2012 and in PP from Nov 2012 to Dec 2013. Immediate postoperative outcomes were collected and compared to determine differences between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients had their operations in LLDP and 21 in PP. No differences in blood loss, respiratory condition during surgery, or postoperative pain scores were observed between the 2 groups. The PP had a shorter thoracic stage duration (3.4 vs. 3.9 h; p = 0.03) and shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (1.0 vs. 1.5 days; p = 0.03) but yielded a similar number of lymph nodes. Incidence of complications was similar between the 2 groups, except significantly lower incidence of pneumonia in PP (0% vs. 21.1%; p = 0.04) and higher incidence of hoarseness in PP (52.4% vs. 23.7%; p = 0.03). The symptoms resolved within 3 months in all patients except in the 2 patients with vocal cord palsy. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible and safe to perform thoracoscopic esophagectomy by adopting the prone position. Thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position is potentially associated with fewer major complications and shorter ICU stay.

Feasibility of combined paravertebral block and subcostal transversus abdominis plane block in postoperative pain control after minimally invasive esophagectomy.

OBJECTIVES: Subcostal transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block and paravertebral block (PVB) offer postoperative analgesia for laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery, respectively. We investigated the early postoperative analgesic effects of PVB in combination with subcostal TAP block in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer. METHODS: Seventeen patients undergoing MIE without nerve block for postoperative analgesia and 16 patients undergoing MIE with PVB and subcostal TAP block for postoperative analgesia were enrolled for the study. The surgeon performed PVB with bupivacaine at T4, T6, and T8 levels under video-assisted thoracoscopy at the end of the thoracoscopic stage. The anesthesiologist responsible for the anesthesia performed ultrasound-guided bilateral subcostal TAP with bupivacaine at the end of the surgery. Postoperative morphine consumption, pain severity, vital capacity, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and complication rate were compared between groups. RESULTS: The group receiving nerve blocks consumed less morphine on postoperative Day 0 (p = 0.016), experienced lower levels of pain at postoperative 0 hour (p = 0.005) and 2 hours (p = 0.049), and had a shorter ICU stay (p = 0.02). No between-group differences in postoperative vital capacity and respiratory complications were observed. CONCLUSION: PVB in combination with subcostal TAP block could reduce morphine consumption and pain severity in the early postoperative period but did not offer other clinical benefits in MIE.

The effect on improvement of recovery and pain scores of paravertebral block immediately before breast surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Paravertebral block (PVB) has the potential to reduce postoperative pain after breast surgery. The aim of the study was to investigate whether PVB performed immediately before surgery could affect the postoperative morbidities in terms of pain and emesis, and improve the quality of recovery (QoR) in patients after surgery for breast cancer. METHODS: Postoperative data were collected prospectively from two groups of patients undergoing unilateral breast surgery during the study period of 1 month. Forty consecutive patients received either solely general anesthesia (GA group, n=25) or GA plus ultrasound-guided PVB (GA+PVB group, n=15) for the surgery. Pain scores and areal distribution of pain were compared between the two groups 1 hour and 6 hours postoperatively and on the midmorning of postoperative Day 1 (POD1). The QoR scores were compared between the two groups 6 hours postoperatively and on the midmorning of POD1. Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and doses of analgesics and narcotics given were also compared. RESULTS: Pain scores at rest were significantly lower in the GA+PVB group at all designated time points [1 hour (p<0.0001), 6 hours (p<0.0001), and on midmorning of POD1 (p=0.041)]. Pain scores with movements was also significantly lower at all time points in the GA+PVB group (1 hour, p<0.0001; 6 hours, p<0.0001; midmorning of POD1, p=0.0012). Areal distribution of pain at rest and with movement was wider in the GA group 1 hour and 6 hours postoperately but was identical to that of GA+ PVB group on the mid-morning of POD1 [1 hour postoperatively at rest (p<0.0001), with movement (p<0.0001); 6 hours postoperatively at rest (p=0.0018), with movement (p=0.0048)]. The QoR scores were significantly higher in the GA+PVB group at 6 hours (p<0.0001) and on midmorning of POD1 (p=0.0079). The incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting were significantly lower in the GA+PVB group (p=0.0004). Doses of postoperative analgesics and narcotics were significantly less in the GA+PVB group (p<0.0001 and p=0.001, respectively). Time to first request for analgesics was significantly longer in the GA+PVB group (p=0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: PVB given before surgery in combination with GA could provide better postoperative analgesia and better QoR than did GA alone in patients undergoing surgery for unilateral breast cancer.

A simple, innovative way to reduce rhinitis symptoms after sedation during endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Supplmental oxygen is routinely given via nasal cannula (NC) to patients undergoing moderate sedation for endoscopy. Some patients complain of profuse rhinorrhea and/or sneezing after the procedure, which results in additional medical costs and patient dissatisfaction. OBJECTIVES: To determine the causal relationship between the route of oxygen delivery and troublesome nasal symptoms, and to seek possible solutions. METHODS: Patients (n=836) were randomly assigned to one of the three following groups: the NC group (n=294), the trimmed NC (TNC) group (n=268) and the nasal mask (NM) group (n=274). All received alfentanil 12.5 µg/kg and midazolam 0.06 mg/kg, and adjunct propofol for sedation. Supplemental oxygen at a flow rate of 4 L/min was used in the NC and TNC groups, and 6 L/min in the NM group. The incidence of nasal symptoms and hypoxia were assessed. RESULTS: The incidence of rhinitis symptoms was significantly higher in the NC group (7.1%) than in the TNC (0.4%) and NM (0%) groups (P<0.001). The incidence of hypoxia was lower in the NC group (3.1%) (P=0.040). All hypoxia events were transient (ie, less than 30 s in duration). On spirometry, the mean value of the lowest saturation of peripheral oxygen was found to be significantly lower in the NM group (96.8%) than in the NC group (97.7%) (P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Trimming the NC or using NMs reduced the incidence of rhinitis symptoms; however, the incidence of hypoxia was higher. Further investigation regarding the efficiency of oxygen supplementation is warranted in the design of novel oxygen delivery devices.

Multidisciplinary management of cancer pain: a longitudinal retrospective study on a cohort of end-stage cancer patients.

The epidemiology of cancer pain and the outcomes associated with pain treatments were investigated through a retrospective survey of 772 patients with advanced cancer. The cumulative prevalence of pain was 87%, including all types of cancer. Mean duration of pain was 6.9+/-8.1 months. The prevalence of pain was 28%, 46%, 67%, 75%, and 79% at 6 months, 3 months, 1 month, 1 week, and 1 day before the time of death, respectively. The so-called "strong" opioids had been used in 85% of the 669 patients with pain. Seventy-nine percent of patients with pain received nonsurgical antineoplastic treatment for pain control. No more than 11% of patients ultimately experienced substantial pain in the last 6 months of life (defined as pain score 5-10 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale). We conclude that the application of a multidisciplinary approach to pain management offers effective pain control for most patients with advanced cancer.