RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Evidence from cohort studies indicates that a healthy lifestyle can improve cancer survival but evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCT) is lacking. Thus, this study tested the feasibility of conducting a lifestyle intervention in patients after colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment. METHODS: An intervention was developed based on World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) recommendations, the Health Action Process Approach, Motivational Interviewing and tested a feasibility, mixed-methods RCT. Participants were allocated to a three-month telephone-based intervention versus standard care control group. The follow up period was six months. Data on feasibility and secondary outcomes were collected and analysed using Stata (V15, StataCorp LLC) and NVivo 12 (QSR International Pty Ltd., Doncaster, VIC). RESULTS: Recruitment was challenging (31 ineligible, 37 declined; recruitment rate = 48.6%.). In total, 34/35 participants completed the intervention, and 31 (89%) completed follow up; all 31 completers participated in six telephone calls during intervention and six months follow up. Study retention was 97% (34/35) and 89% (31/35) at three and six months, respectively. Data completion rates were high (>90%). Intervention was acceptable to participants, met their needs and kept them accountable towards their goals. Participants in the intervention group showed significant improvement in WCRF/AICR, Diet Quality Index-International score and a 10% reduction in ultra-processed food consumption. CONCLUSIONS: The HEAL ABC intervention was feasible for 87% of intervention participants, supporting them in healthy lifestyle changes. However, alternative recruitment strategies are needed for a fully powered RCT to determine the effectiveness of the intervention.
RESUMEN
Introduction: Nutrition is an essential part of gastroenterology specialist training. There is limited evidence of trainee experience in this area. The shorter training programme introduced in 2022 may lead to reduced exposure to this subspecialty. We aimed to explore and describe current nutrition training experiences, confidence and satisfaction to inform future improvements. Methods: Gastroenterology trainees were invited to participate in an online survey from 20 May 2022 to 18 July 2022. The questionnaire consisted of 27 questions with a range of free-text and Likert scale responses. Results: 86 responses were received. 39.5% had undertaken an advanced training programme or core placement in nutrition. 52.9% of these felt 'fairly confident' or 'very confident' in managing intestinal failure vs 5.8% of those who had not completed a nutrition placement. Obesity and eating disorders management received the lowest ratings. Nutrition training was described as 'fairly important' or 'very important' by 98.8% and 47.0% included nutrition as part of their preferred future practice. 53.1% of ST6/7 trainees were 'fairly confident' or 'very confident' their training offered adequate experience in nutrition. Participants reported barriers including a lack of education and training opportunities, and limited early rotations offering nutrition training. Conclusion: Gastroenterology trainees believe nutrition training to be important. Nutrition placements increase trainee confidence, knowledge and experiences overall, but there is variability in this. Improved structuring of placements, increased educational opportunities and exposure to this subspecialty at an earlier stage are required to ensure competency in nutrition is reliably achieved during gastroenterology training.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Arterio-enteric fistula (AEF) is a rare but potentially devastating complication of solid organ pancreatic transplantation. Traditional management has been to remove the pancreas-duodenum allograft and control the vascular defect. Interventional radiological (IR) techniques present a new method of managing AEF related haemorrhage without re-operation and the potential to preserve graft function. This paper examines the available literature to assess efficacy and safety of this novel approach. METHODS: Aggregate results tables were constructed from 28 cases identified in the English language literature where IR was used in the management of AEF following pancreas transplantation. Outcomes recorded were death, re-bleeding, surgical intervention required and post intervention graft function. These were analysed with respect to technical factors and graft function at time of presentation. RESULTS: 28 cases of AEF managed by IR methods were identified. Mortality was high at 17.9%. 78.6% of all AEFs were present in failed pancreas allografts. Median time from transplant to bleeding event was 29 months. There was a trend of bleeding event occurring within 12 months of allograft failure or rejection. Of the AEFs present in functioning grafts, graft salvage rate was 33% from available data. Coil embolization or use of haemostatic compressed sponge as primary intervention was associated with a higher rate of re-bleeding and death versus arterial stenting. Arterial stenting resulted in a higher rate of distal ischaemia requiring surgical re-vascularisation. All deaths occurred in patients who did not have a transplant pancreatectomy as part of their definitive treatment. CONCLUSION: IR can be an effective way to manage bleeding in the context of AEF associated with pancreas transplantation. If patient condition allows, it should be the first-choice intervention to manage AEF associated bleeding. Use of arterial stenting is more effective in controlling and preventing further bleeding. In a non-functioning graft, transplant pancreatectomy should be strongly considered, possibly in conjunction with or following arterial stenting.