Risk Factors Associated with Adverse Events Leading to Methotrexate Withdrawal in Elderly Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in elderly population represents a challenge for physicians in terms of therapeutic management. Methotrexate (MTX) is the first-line treatment among conventional synthetic-disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (cs-DMARDs); however, it is often associated with adverse events (AEs). Therefore, the objective of this study was to identify the incidence and risk factors of MTX discontinuation due to AEs in elderly patients with RA in a long-term retrospective cohort study. Methods: Clinical sheets from elderly RA patients taking MTX from an outpatient rheumatology consult in a university centre were reviewed. To assess MTX persistence, we used Kaplan-Meir curves and Cox regression models to identify the risk of withdrawing MTX due to adverse events. Results: In total, 198 elderly RA patients who reported using MTX were included. Of them, the rates of definitive suspension of MTX due to AEs were 23.0% at 5 years, 35.6% at 10 years and 51.7% at 15 years. The main organs and system involved were gastrointestinal (15.7%) and mucocutaneous (3.0%). Factors associated with withdrawing MTX due to AEs were MTX dose ≥ 15 mg/wk (adjusted HR: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.22-4.96, p = 0.012); instead, the folic acid supplementation was protective for withdrawal (adjusted HR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.16-0.49, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Higher doses of MTX increase the risk of withdrawals in elderly RA, while folic acid supplementation reduces the risk. Therefore, physicians working in therapeutic management for elderly patients using MTX must focus on using lower MTX doses together with the concomitant prescription of folic acid.

Intravenous Vitamin C as an Add-on Therapy for the Treatment of Sepsis in an Intensive Care Unit: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Background and Objectives: According to the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3), sepsis is defined as "life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection". The increased presence of free radicals causes an increase in oxidative stress. Vitamin C is an essential water-soluble vitamin with antioxidant activity and immunoregulatory effects that plays a potential role in the treatment of bacterial infections. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of adding vitamin C to the conventional treatment of sepsis to decrease its mortality rate. Materials and Methods: In a prospective cohort study, we included patients with a diagnosis of sepsis and a SOFA score ≥ 9 who were evaluated in an Intensive Care Unit at a secondary-care hospital. According to the intensive care specialist, they were treated using two different strategies: Group 1-patients with sepsis treated with conventional treatment without vitamin C; Group 2-patients with sepsis with the addition of vitamin C to conventional treatment. Results: We included 34 patients with sepsis. The incidence of mortality was 38%, and 47% of patients used vitamin C as an adjuvant to the basic treatment of sepsis. In the basal analyses, patients treated with use of vitamin C compared to patients treated without vitamin C required less use of glucocorticoids (75% vs. 100%, p = 0.039). At follow-up, patients treated without vitamin C had higher mortality than patients treated with vitamin C as an adjuvant for the treatment of sepsis (55.6% vs. 18.8%, p = 0.03). We observed that the use of vitamin C was a protective factor for mortality in patients with sepsis (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.31-0.96, p = 0.03). Conclusions: The use of vitamin C as an adjuvant to treatment decreases the risk of mortality by 46% in patients with sepsis and SOFA ≥ 9 compared to patients treated without vitamin C as an adjuvant to sepsis.

Nefrolitectomía percutánea de calibre reducido (NLP-CR). Algoritmo de decisión terapéutica / Small-calibre percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SC-PCNL). Therapeutic decision algorithm

Introducción: La progresiva reducción del calibre del tracto en cirugía percutánea renal, hasta alcanzar la miniaturización, ha expandido su utilización a litiasis de menor tamaño que hasta ahora se trataban mediante litotricia extracorpórea por ondas de choque (LEOCH) y cirugía retrógrada intrarrenal (CRIR). Objetivo: Realizar una puesta al día de las diferentes técnicas de nefrolitectomía de calibre reducido (NLP-CR) analizando su eficacia, seguridad e indicaciones, así como su grado de implantación en la actualidad. Material y métodos: Realizamos una revisión en PubMed de la literatura en castellano e inglés sobre las diferentes técnicas de NLP-CR. Resultados. La NLP-CR ha disminuido la morbilidad asociada a la NLP estándar, particularmente el sangrado, y ha posibilitado la nefrolitectomía tubeless con mayor seguridad. Existen diferentes técnicas con confusa terminología (miniperc, microperc, mini-microperc, ultraminiperc) que se diferencian en el calibre que emplean y en determinados aspectos técnicos que hacen que sus indicaciones deban ser precisadas. Actualmente, la NLPCR compite con técnicas menos invasoras que la NLP estándar, como la LEOCH y la CRIR en el tratamiento de las litiasis de pequeño tamaño, pero todavía su papel no está suficientemente esclarecido y es aún motivo de debate. Conclusiones. Las indicaciones de la NLP se están expandiendo a tamaños litiásicos más pequeños debido a la miniaturización de la técnica, compitiendo en este campo con LEOCH y CRIR. Precisamos mayores estudios para establecer sus indicaciones precisas en el tratamiento de la litiasis renal

Introduction: The progressive reduction in the calibre of the tract in percutaneous kidney surgery to the point of miniaturisation has expanded its use to smaller stones that until now have been treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Objective: To provide an update on the various techniques of small-calibre nephrolithotomy (SC-PCNL) analyse their efficacy, safety and indications and determine their degree of implantation at this time. Material and methods: We performed a review in PubMed of Spanish and English medical literature on the various techniques of SC-PCNL. Results: The use of SC-PCNL has reduced the morbidity associated with standard PCNL, particularly bleeding, and has enabled tubeless nephrolithotomy with greater safety. There are various techniques with blurred terminology (Miniperc, Microperc, Mini-microperc, Ultraminiperc), which differ in terms of gauge employed and in certain technical aspects that require their indications be specified. Currently, SC-PCNL competes with techniques that are less invasive than standard PCNL such as ESWL and the RIRS in treating small stones, but the role of SC-PCNL is still not sufficiently understood and continues to be the subject of debate. Conclusions: The indications for PCNL are expanding to small stone sizes due to the miniaturisation of the technique. PCNL competes in this field with ESWL and RIRS. Larder studies are needed to establish the specific indications for PCNL in treating nephrolithiasis

Small-calibre percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SC-PCNL). Therapeutic decision algorithm. / Nefrolitectomía percutánea de calibre reducido (NLP-CR). Algoritmo de decisión terapéutica.

INTRODUCTION: The progressive reduction in the calibre of the tract in percutaneous kidney surgery to the point of miniaturisation has expanded its use to smaller stones that until now have been treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). OBJECTIVE: To provide an update on the various techniques of small-calibre nephrolithotomy (SC-PCNL) analyse their efficacy, safety and indications and determine their degree of implantation at this time. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a review in PubMed of Spanish and English medical literature on the various techniques of SC-PCNL. RESULTS: The use of SC-PCNL has reduced the morbidity associated with standard PCNL, particularly bleeding, and has enabled tubeless nephrolithotomy with greater safety. There are various techniques with blurred terminology (Miniperc, Microperc, Mini-microperc, Ultraminiperc), which differ in terms of gauge employed and in certain technical aspects that require their indications be specified. Currently, SC-PCNL competes with techniques that are less invasive than standard PCNL such as ESWL and the RIRS in treating small stones, but the role of SC-PCNL is still not sufficiently understood and continues to be the subject of debate. CONCLUSIONS: The indications for PCNL are expanding to small stone sizes due to the miniaturisation of the technique. PCNL competes in this field with ESWL and RIRS. Larder studies are needed to establish the specific indications for PCNL in treating nephrolithiasis.

Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results.

PURPOSE: The efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous stone removal for the treatment of symptomatic lower pole renal calculi was determined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective randomized, multicenter clinical trial was performed comparing shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous stone removal for symptomatic lower pole only renal calculi 30 mm. or less. RESULTS: Of 128 patients enrolled in the study 60 with a mean stone size of 14.43 mm. were randomized to percutaneous stone removal (58 treated, 2 awaiting treatment) and 68 with a mean stone size of 14.03 mm. were randomized to shock wave lithotripsy (64 treated, 4 awaiting treatment). Followup at 3 months was available for 88% of treated patients. The 3-month postoperative stone-free rates overall were 95% for percutaneous removal versus 37% lithotripsy (p <0.001). Shock wave lithotripsy results varied inversely with stone burden while percutaneous stone-free rates were independent of stone burden. Stone clearance from the lower pole following shock wave lithotripsy was particularly problematic for calculi greater than 10 mm. in diameter with only 7 of 33 (21%) patients becoming stone-free. Re-treatment was necessary in 10 (16%) lithotripsy and 5 (9%) percutaneous cases. There were 9 treatment failures in the lithotripsy group and none in the percutaneous group. Ancillary treatment was necessary in 13% of lithotripsy and 2% percutaneous cases. Morbidity was low overall and did not differ significantly between the groups (percutaneous stone removal 22%, shock wave lithotripsy 11%, p =0.087). In the shock wave lithotripsy group there was no difference in lower pole anatomical measurements between kidneys in which complete stone clearance did or did not occur. CONCLUSIONS: Stone clearance from the lower pole following shock wave lithotripsy is poor, especially for stones greater than 10 mm. in diameter. Calculi greater than 10 mm. in diameter are better managed initially with percutaneous removal due to its high degree of efficacy and acceptably low morbidity.

Completeness and efficiency of prostate tissue removal: loop resection compared with a new operative technique of transurethral electrovaporization.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the completeness and efficiency of the removal of prostatic adenomatous tissue between transurethral resection (TURP) and a new operative technique of electrovaporization (TUEVAP) using a modified roller electrode. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective double-blind study, patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms and objective evidence of obstruction, were randomized to undergo either TURP (using a standard cutting-wire loop) or TUEVAP (performed with a new operative technique and the spiked-bar electrode). The prostate volume measured using transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS-PV) was used to assess the completeness of tissue clearance after treatment. Results were compared using group median values. For the TURP group, the TRUS-PV estimate of tissue removed was divided by the dry resected weight to derive a correction factor for any discrepancy between the values. This factor was applied to the TRUS-PV reduction in the TUEVAP group (where there was no tissue to be weighed) to estimate the actual tissue removal in this group. The efficiency of tissue removal for each treatment modality was derived by dividing the amount of tissue removed by the operative duration. RESULTS: There was no difference in the reduction in TRUS-PV at 3 months (23.9 cm3 vs 21.45 cm3, P<0.9), or in the operative duration (45 min vs 52.5 min, P<0.2), between TURP and TUEVAP, respectively. The TRUS-PV of tissue removed exceeded the actual dry resected weight after TURP (15 g) by a factor of 1.59. After applying this factor to the TRUS-PV reduction for the TUEVAP group, the calculated dry weight of tissue removed for this group was 13.49 g (P<0.55); the difference in tissue removal rate by TRUS criteria was 0.48 cm3/min vs 0.37 cm3/min (P<0.15). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest an equivalent completeness of removal of adenomatous prostate tissue between TURP and TUEVAP. The efficiency of tissue removal for TUEVAP was slightly less than that of regular loop resection, but this difference was not statistically significant. These results are specific to the combination of electrode, electrosurgical unit and operative technique used in this study, and may differ if any of these variables are altered.

A pilot study of energy utilization patterns during different transurethral electrosurgical treatments of the prostate.

OBJECTIVES: During a prospective randomized study of prostatic and periprostatic heating during transurethral electrosurgical treatment, energy utilization was studied with respect to electrode configuration and prostate size. METHODS: Patients were stratified for gland volume (transrectal ultrasound [TRUS] 50 cc or less and more than 50 cc) and randomized to treatment either with loop resection (transurethral resection of the prostate [TURP]) or electrovaporization (transurethral electrovaporization [TUEVAP]. VaporTrode-Grooved Bar, CIRCON ACMI). Power was provided by a radiofrequency unit (Force FX, Valleylab) initially set at 150 W. A passive feed-through system was connected to the patient circuit to record current and voltage at 10 Hz during each activation of the cut mode in real time. RESULTS: Patients (6 per group) were well matched for prostate volume (P < 0.57) and operating time (P < 0.33). Power settings were also similar (120 to 190 W). Both total energy utilization (P < 0.025) and energy used per minute of treatment (P < 0.004) were greater for TUEVAP than for TURP. The higher energy deposition per unit time for TUEVAP was not associated with undesirable periprostatic heating. For TURP, more energy was used per unit time for each gram resected in small prostates than in larger glands. Comparing energy consumption per minute per cubic centimeter of prostate, we found a 2:1 ratio between TUEVAP and TURP in large prostates, which increased to 3.4:1 (P < 0.049) in small glands. CONCLUSIONS: For the same panel power settings, more energy is deposited at the tissue interface during TUEVAP than during TURP. This extra energy provides better surface hemostasis without undesirable deep heating and can be explained by the larger contact surface and contact time (slower speed of excursion) of the VaporTrode than a regular loop. The novel observation that more energy is required for small prostates during both treatments suggests that these glands have different electrical properties and higher tissue impedance than larger glands.

Prostate heating patterns comparing electrosurgical transurethral resection and vaporization: a prospective randomized study.

PURPOSE: A prospective study was performed to determine if transurethral electrosurgical vaporization of the prostate is associated with unseen heat damage to vital periprostatic structures compared to conventional loop resection. In addition, energy consumption and its relationship to observed tissue temperature at the prostate periphery were evaluated for each treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with moderate to severe symptoms of benign prostatic bladder outflow obstruction and objective evidence of diminished flow or acute urinary retention were randomized to undergo either transurethral loop resection or electrosurgical vaporization after stratification for gland volume. Instrumentation was standardized for both groups except for the monopolar electrode used. The radiofrequency power source in the study was a new computer controlled generator with a constant power delivery feature. Regional tissue heating patterns were evaluated with optical fiber probes in real time. Four stationary sites were chosen for temperature measurements, namely the lateral lobe of the prostate, neurovascular bundle beside the prostatic apex at the level of the external sphincter, and anterior rectal wall at the level of the prostatic base and apex. A pull back technique was used to search for hot points in the long axis of the probe (3-dimensional temperature mapping) in 2 patients from each group. Incident generator panel power settings for the electrosurgical vaporization treatments were equivalent to those commonly used for loop resection (150 watts) and were adjusted up or down as needed. RESULTS: Prostate electrosurgical vaporization was possible at generator panel settings that were nearly equivalent to those for transurethral resection of the prostate (130 to 190 watts). No significant rectal or sphincteric heating was detected with either procedure. Conductive cooling of the neurovascular bundles was observed in 2 patients in each group toward the end of the operation. More energy was used per minute of treatment during electrosurgical vaporization than with regular loop resection (p < 0.004) but this was not associated with unwanted tissue heating. CONCLUSIONS: Neither conventional loop resection nor electrosurgical vaporization of the prostate appeared to be unsafe treatments with respect to unseen deep heating effects to vital periprostatic structures when performed at equivalent low incident power. The extra energy used during electrosurgical vaporization provided the benefit of improved coagulative hemostasis concurrently with shallow tissue vaporization using pure cutting current alone, without compromising treatment safety.