Protocolo largo con análogos de GnRH versus protocolo corto con antagonistas: ¿existen diferencias en cuanto a los resultados de los ciclos de FIV-ICSI? / Protocol with GnRH analogues vs antagonists of GnRH: exist differences in the results of the IVF-ICSI cycles?

Objetivo: Valorar si existen diferencias en los resultados de los ciclos de FIV-ICSI en función del protocolo de estimulación empleado. Método: Estudio retrospectivo descriptivo de pacientes infértiles que fueron sometidas a ciclos de FIV-ICSI en el Hospital Universitario La Paz, entre los meses de enero y septiembre de 2010, comparando un protocolo largo de estimulación con análogos de GnRH vs un protocolo corto con antagonistas de GnRH. Las variables analizadas fueron: tasa de gestación, necesidad de cancelación del ciclo, dosis total de gonadotropinas requerida durante la estimulación, niveles de estradiol sérico el día de la administración de la hCG, número de folículos puncionados, complejos obtenidos, número de ovocitos maduros y de embriones conseguidos. Resultados: No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas en los resultados de los ciclos en función del protocolo de estimulación empleado, en ninguna de las variables analizadas. Conclusiones: Este estudio no encontró diferencias en los resultados de los ciclos de FIV-ICSI con relación al uso de análogos o antagonistas de GnRH. Es necesarios más estudios con mayores tamaños muestrales para definir qué tipo de pacientes serían subsidiarias de recibir cada tratamiento para conseguir resultados óptimos.

Aims: To assess if there exist any differences in the results of the IVF-ICSI cycles depending on the stimulation protocol employed. Methods: Retrospective descriptive study of infertile patients who underwent IVF-ICSI cycles at La Paz University Hospital, between January and September 2010, comparing sitmulation protocol with GnRH agonists vs antagonists of GnRH. The variables analyzed were pregnancy rate, cancellation rate, total dose of gonadotropin required for stimulation, serum estradiol levels on the day of hCG administration, number of follicles punctured, complexes obtained, number of mature oocytes and of embryos obtained. Results: No statistically significant differences where found in the results of cycles depending on the protocol of stimulation used in any of the variables analyzed. Conclusions: This study didn't find any difference in the outcome of IVF-ICSI cycles in relation to the use of GnRH agonists or antagonists. We need more studies with larger sample sizes to determine which is the best treatment to each patient in order to achieve optimal results.

Proctoclysis for hydration of terminally ill cancer patients.

In a prospective, open study, 78 patients with terminal cancer received proctoclysis (rectal hydration) in four different centers. In all cases, a #22 French nasogastric catheter was inserted approximately 40 cm into the rectum and an infusion of normal saline (2 cases) or tap water (76 cases) was administered at a rate of 250 +/- 63 cc/hr. Hydration was maintained for 15 +/- 8 days. The main reason for discontinuation of hydration was death (60 cases). The mean visual analogue score for discomfort after infusion (0 = no discomfort, 100 = worst possible discomfort) was 19 +/- 14. The costs of proctoclysis was estimated at Can$0.08 compared with Can$4.56 per day for hypodermoclysis, and Can$2.78 per day for intravenous hydration. Our results suggest that proctoclysis is a safe, effective, and low-cost technique for the delivery of hydration in terminally ill cancer patients.

Opioid availability in Latin America: the Santo Domingo report progress since the Declaration of Florianopolis.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has indicated that opioid analgesics are insufficiently available, particularly in developing countries, due to a variety of reasons, including legislative, educational, and policy issues. In its effort to promote the rational use of medical opioids and the adequate treatment of patients with cancer, WHO has sponsored a meeting of Latin American representatives every 2 years, which includes health professionals and government regulators. During March 24-27, 1996, a group of 86 representatives of cancer pain relief and palliative care programs from nine Latin American countries met in Santo Domingo under the auspices of the WHO Palliative Care Program for Latin America. For the first time since the First Latin American Meeting, government regulators were present to help address the issue of opioid availability from their perspective. During the meeting, issues pertaining to cancer pain, opioid availability, and palliative care were discussed. This report summarizes some of the events and presents a summary of the conclusions of an earlier meeting in 1994, as described in the Declaration of Florianopolis, and presents its follow-up, The Santo Domingo Report, generated following the 1996 meeting.

Opioid availability in Latin America: the declaration of Florianopolis.

Between March 27 and 29, 1994, a group of representatives of 32 palliative care programs from eight Latin American countries met under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) Palliative Care Program for Latin America in Florianopolis, Brazil. The participants included physicians, nurses, psychologists, volunteers, drug regulators, hospital administrators, and representatives from the pharmaceutical industry. A comprehensive report by David Joranson (University of Wisconsin-Madison) was followed by a general discussion moderated by Jan Stjernsward, Chief of the Cancer Unit, World Health Organization, and by Eduardo Bruera, Coordinator of the WHO Cancer Pain and Palliative Care Program for Latin America. A number of issues related to opioid availability were identified and discussed. This declaration summarizes the main conclusions of the meeting. The attendants would like to encourage the widest possible distribution of this document.