Water exchange-assisted vs. carbon dioxide-insufflated single-balloon enteroscopy: randomized controlled trial

Endoscopy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaopeng Liu ◽  
Tao Dong ◽  
Yupeng Shi ◽  
Hui Luo ◽  
Xianmin Xue ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Dioxide ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Water Exchange ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Balloon Enteroscopy ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Single Balloon ◽  
Single Balloon Enteroscopy

<b>Background and study aims</b> Single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) is a valuable but difficult modality for the diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel diseases. The water exchange (WE) method has the advantage of facilitating intubation during colonoscopy. Here, we evaluated the effects of WE on procedure-related variables related to SBE. <b>Patients and methods</b> This randomized controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary-care referral center in China. Patients with attempt at total enteroscopy (ATE) were randomly allocated to undergo WE-assisted (WE group) or carbon dioxide-insufflated enteroscopy (CO<sub>2</sub> group). All patients were planned to undergo both antegrade and retrograde procedures. The primary outcome was the total enteroscopy rate (TER). Secondary outcomes included maximal insertion depth, positive findings, procedural time and adverse events. <b>Results</b> In total, 110 patients were enrolled, with 55 in each group. Baseline characteristics between the two groups were comparable. TER was achieved in 58.2% (32/55) of the WE group and 36.4% (20/55) of the control group (p=0.022). The estimated intubation depth was 521.2±101.4 cm in the WE group and 481.6±95.2 cm in the CO<sub>2</sub> group (p=0.037). The insertion time was prolonged in the WE group compared with CO<sub>2</sub> group (178.9±45.1 min vs. 154.2±27.6 min, p<0.001). Endoscopic findings and adverse events were comparable between the two groups. <b>Conclusions</b> The WE method improved TER and increased intubation depth during SBE. The use of WE did not increase complications of enteroscopy. Clinical trial registation: https://clinicaltrials.gov/， NCT01942863.

CO2 insufflation during single-balloon enteroscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Endoscopy ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (01) ◽  
pp. 53-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipp Lenz ◽  
Tobias Meister ◽  
Mauro Manno ◽  
Marco Pennazio ◽  
Rita Conigliaro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Balloon Enteroscopy ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Co2 Insufflation ◽  
Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Single Balloon ◽  
Single Balloon Enteroscopy

The Effect of Lavender Oil on Perioperative Pain, Anxiety, Depression, and Sleep after Microvascular Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective, Single-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronnie L. Shammas ◽  
Caitlin E. Marks ◽  
Gloria Broadwater ◽  
Elliot Le ◽  
Adam D. Glener ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Depression Scale ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Lavender Oil ◽  
Entire Cohort ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Anxiety Depression

Abstract Background Psychosocial distress, depression, or anxiety can occur in up to 50% of women after a breast cancer diagnosis and mastectomy. The purpose of this study was to assess the potential benefit of lavender oil as a perioperative adjunct to improve anxiety, depression, pain, and sleep in women undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction. Methods This was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial of 49 patients undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction. Patients were randomized to receive lavender oil or placebo (coconut oil) throughout their hospitalization. The effect of lavender oil on perioperative stress, anxiety, depression, sleep, and pain was measured using the hospital anxiety and depression scale, Richards–Campbell Sleep Questionnaire, and the visual analogue scale. Results Twenty-seven patients were assigned to the lavender group and 22 patients were assigned to the control group. No significant differences were seen in the perioperative setting between the groups with regard to anxiety (p = 0.82), depression (p = 0.21), sleep (p = 0.86), or pain (p = 0.30) scores. No adverse events (i.e., allergic reaction) were captured, and no significant differences in surgery-related complications were observed. When evaluating the entire cohort, postoperative anxiety scores were significantly lower than preoperative scores (p < 0.001), while depression scores were significantly higher postoperatively as compared with preoperatively (p = 0.005). Conclusion In the setting of microvascular breast reconstruction, lavender oil and aromatherapy had no significant adverse events or complications; however, there were no measurable advantages pertaining to metrics of depression, anxiety, sleep, or pain as compared with the control group.

Pulsed Ultrasounds Reduce Pain and Disability, Increasing Rib Fracture Healing, in a Randomized Controlled Trial

Pain Medicine ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. 1980-1988
Author(s):  
Norberto Santana-Rodríguez ◽  
Bernardino Clavo ◽  
Pedro Llontop ◽  
María D Fiuza ◽  
Joaquín Calatayud-Gastardi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Pain Medication ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Work Activity ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Medication Intake ◽  
Bone Callus

AbstractIntroductionRib fractures are an important health issue worldwide, with significant, pain, morbidity, and disability for which only symptomatic treatment exists.ObjectivesBased on our previous experimental model, the objective of the current study was to assess for the first time whether pulsed ultrasound (PUS) application could have beneficial effects on humans.MethodsProspective, double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial of 51 patients. Four were excluded, and 47 were randomized into the control group (N = 23) or PUS group (N = 24). The control group received a PUS procedure without emission, and the PUS group received 1 Mhz, 0.5 W/cm2 for 1 min/cm2. Pain level, bone callus healing rate, physical and work activity, pain medication intake, and adverse events were blindly evaluated at baseline and one, three, and six months.ResultsThere were no significant differences at baseline between groups. PUS treatment significantly decreased pain by month 1 (P = 0.004), month 3 (P = 0.005), and month 6 (P = 0.025), significantly accelerated callus healing by month 1 (P = 0.013) and month 3 (P < 0.001), accelerated return to physical activity by month 3 (P = 0.036) and work activity (P = 0.001) by month 1, and considerably reduced pain medication intake by month 1 (P = 0.057) and month 3 (P = 0.017). No related adverse events were found in the PUS group.ConclusionsThis study is the first evidence that PUS treatment is capable of improving rib fracture outcome, significantly accelerating bone callus healing, and decreasing pain, time off due to both physical activity and convalescence period, and pain medication intake. It is a safe, efficient, and low-cost therapy that may become a new treatment for patients with stable rib fractures.

scholarly journals Comparison of a new versus standard removable offloading device in patients with neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers: a French national, multicentre, open-label randomized, controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e000954
Author(s):  
Louis Potier ◽  
Maud François ◽  
Dured Dardari ◽  
Marilyne Feron ◽  
Narimene Belhatem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
End Points ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Ankle Joints

IntroductionThe offloading is crucial to heal neuropathic diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). Removable offloading are the most used devices. Orthèse diabète is a new customized removable knee-high offloading device immobilizing foot and ankle joints, with some specific and innovative features that may improve offloading. We aimed to evaluate the efficiency of this device in DFU healing.Research, design and methodsThe evaluation of Offloading using a new removable ORTHOsis in DIABetic foot study is a French multicenter (13 centers) randomized controlled trial with blinded end points evaluation. Adults with neuropathic DFU were randomly assigned to either Orthèse Diabète (experimental device), or any type of conventional (usually used in France) removable offloading devices (control group). The primary outcome was the 3-month proportion of patients with fully healed DFU.ResultsAmong 112 randomized patients (men 78%, age 62±10 years), the primary outcome occurred in 19 (33%) participants using conventional device vs 19 (35%) Orthèse Diabète users (p=0.79). Study groups were also comparable in terms of prespecified secondary end points including occurrence of new DFU (25% vs 27% in conventional and experimental groups), ipsilateral lower-limb amputation (4% vs 10%) or infectious complications (14% vs 13%) (p>0.05 for all). Adverse events were comparable between groups, including 4 deaths unrelated to study allocation (1 sudden death, 2 ventricular arrhythmias and 1 pancreatic cancer). Adverse events believed to be related to the device were higher in the Orthèse Diabète group than in the control group (15% vs 4%). Orthèse Diabète was less frequently worn than conventional devices (46% vs 66%, p=0.04).ConclusionsOrthèse Diabète, a new removable offloading orthosis immobilizing foot and ankle joints did not show superiority compared with conventional removable devices in neuropathic DFU healing and cannot be recommended to heal DFU.Trial registration numberNCT01956162.

Mo1005 Impact of Carbon Dioxide Insufflation and Water Exchange on Post-Colonoscopy Outcomes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 83 (5) ◽  
pp. AB423
Author(s):  
Sergio Cadoni ◽  
Premysl Falt ◽  
Paolo Gallittu ◽  
Mauro Liggi ◽  
Vit Smajstrla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Dioxide ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Water Exchange ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Carbon Dioxide Insufflation ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Evaluating the use of the EORTC patient-reported outcome measures for improving inter-rater reliability of CTCAE ratings in a mixed population of cancer patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa M. Wintner ◽  
◽  
Johannes M. Giesinger ◽  
Monika Sztankay ◽  
Andrew Bottomley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Rater Reliability ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background In oncology, detection and tracking of adverse events are of top priority and rely mostly on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Besides, clinical trials use as well patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to assess those adverse events, which are only accessible through patient self-reporting, such as fatigue, pain, and sleep disorders. Especially those issues that are not visible from the outside are often misinterpreted and underestimated by mere provider ratings. This trial aims at evaluating the impact of providing PRO data to providers on the accuracy of adverse event assessment in terms of inter-rater reliability of CTCAE ratings. Methods The trial uses a cross-sectional, unblinded, randomized controlled trial design with two trial arms and a single assessment time point. Eligible patients (aged 18 and above, any cancer diagnosis, currently under treatment, inpatient or day clinic setting, present symptom burden, no psychiatric or mental problems, written informed consent) complete an electronic version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and 16 additional questions taken from the EORTC Item Library. PRO data is immediately processed and made available to CTCAE rating providers for conducting their ratings during the medical encounter. Patients are randomly assigned 1:1 to the intervention group (providers see PRO results on the same screen as the CTCAE rating) and the control group (no access to PRO data during the CTCAE rating). A superiority analysis will compare the inter-rater reliability (using intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficients) between the control and the intervention groups for each adverse event evaluated. Discussion The presented trial will demonstrate potential benefits of using PRO measures to improve the reliability of CTCAE ratings in cancer trials and the identification of adverse events. The new insights gained may lead to a new strategy for evaluating adverse events in clinical trials by combining patient and provider ratings. This might also have implications for daily clinical practice and cancer registries. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04066868. Registered on August 26, 2019. Competence Center for Clinical Trials of the Medical University of Innsbruck 20190513-2007. Registered on May 14, 2019. (version 6.0, March 18, 2019)

Water exchange versus carbon dioxide insufflation in unsedated colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Endoscopy ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (03) ◽  
pp. 192-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjetil Garborg ◽  
Michal Kaminski ◽  
Wolfgang Lindenburger ◽  
Håvard Wiig ◽  
Audun Hasund ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Dioxide ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Water Exchange ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Carbon Dioxide Insufflation ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document