Effects of G-CSF and antibiotic prophylaxis in a 2 x 2 factorial design on outcome in septic rats.

OBJECTIVE: In a recently completed randomised clinical trial in patients with colorectal cancer resections the combination of the granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) + cefuroxime/ metronidazole (cef/met) was superior to ofloxacin/metronidazole (ofl/met). These combinations were used to confirm the clinical data and to validate the concept of clinic modelling randomised trials (CMRTs) in a rat model of intra-abdominal sepsis. SUBJECTS: 80 male Wistar rats were randomised in a 2 x 2 factorial study design. TREATMENT: All animals (n = 20/group) received anaesthesia, antihistamines, antibiotic prophylaxis, peritoneal contamination and infection. Groups were: 1) G-CSF + cef/met; 2) placebo + cef/ met; 3) G-CSF+ofl/met; 4) placebo + ofl/met. G-CSF (20 g/kg) prophylaxis was applied three times. METHODS: Survival at 120 h was analysed with the Kaplan Meier method. RESULTS: Survival rate was best in the G-CSF + cef/met group with 75% and was significantly improved compared to the cef/met placebo group, in which only 42% survived (P < 0.05). Survival rate between both G-CSF groups was similar being 75% in the cef/met and 72% in the ofl/met group. P = 0.10). Ozone increased TNF-alpha and MIP-2 after infection: 127 +/- 23 pg/ml and 94 +/- 19 pg/ml (control group: 398 pg/ml and 369 pg/ml; P < 0.002 and P < 0.01). IL-6 levels were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this CMRT confirmed the result of our clinical G-CSF trial in that G-CSF prophylaxis was most efficacious in combination with cef/met to improve the outcome.

Checking for interviewer bias in outcome assessment: a method for strengthening the design of prospective, randomised trials in surgery.

BACKGROUND: Blind, randomised trials are conceived as the gold standard in clinical research, but this ideal, in its strict sense, can rarely be achieved in surgical settings. One way to strengthen the study design is to check for observer bias in the assessment and evaluation of surgical outcome. METHOD: In a randomised, prospective trial comparing nasogastric versus gastrostomy tubes the primary endpoint was the subjective inconvenience induced by the tube system and was assessed in the context of a standardised face-to-face interview. These interviews were tape-recorded on a pocket memo. Two independent raters listened to these interviews and judged--on the basis of how the interviewer formulated the questions--which treatment arm they thought the patients were assigned to and how confident they were in their judgement. RESULTS: The overall proportion of correct judgements was 50.5% for rater 1 and 53.2% for rater 2. In other words, both judgement performances were not greater than chance. Nevertheless, the raters' confidence in their judgements increased significantly ( P<0.05) in the course of the rating procedure, whereas the actual proportion of correct judgements did not. There was no overlap between the two raters [kappa = 0.022, not significant (NS)] and between actual group assignment and both raters' judgements (kappa = 0.012, NS and kappa = 0.110, NS). CONCLUSION: The two independent raters were not able to detect systematic variations in the interviewing style that were contingent on treatment arm assignment. This gives further credence to the results of the randomised trial showing greater patient-reported discomfort and inconvenience with the nasogastric tube than with the gastrostomy tube. The present report describes a feasible method to monitor subtle biases that may occur in trial settings. This helps to strengthen the design of randomised clinical trials in surgery.

Nasogastric tube versus gastrostomy tube for gastric decompression in abdominal surgery: a prospective, randomized trial comparing patients' tube-related inconvenience.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative decompression of the stomach is still a common procedure and can be achieved using either nasogastric tubes (NTs) or gastrostomy tubes (GTs). While both procedures appear to be equally effective, some authors believe that NTs are less convenient for patients than GTs. However, to date, no reliable prospective data are available on this issue. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized trial comparing NTs versus GTs with a total of 110 patients undergoing elective colon surgery. The primary outcome measure was the patient's tube-related inconvenience and pain, assessed in a standardized interview on day 2 after surgery and quantified by means of a visual-analog scale (VAS). A questionnaire including the EORTC QLQ-C30 and additional items regarding retrospective tube-related judgements was administered on the day of discharge and 4 weeks after discharge. Secondary endpoints were the therapy-related morbidity and general complications. RESULTS: When patients were asked which of their drainage tubes (all patients had three or four drainage tubes, such as decompression drains, urinary drains, central venous line) was most inconvenient, 43% (CI 33-53%) in the NT group reported that the NT was most inconvenient, while only 4% (CI 1-10%) of the GT patients judged the GT most inconvenient ( P<0.001, Chi(2) test). This effect was also found in VAS ratings of inconvenience and discomfort ( P<0.01). Also postoperatively (p.o.), NT patients evidenced less preference for their tube system (day 2 p.o.: 71%, CI 61-80%; 4 weeks p.o.: 66%, CI 56-75%) than did GT patients (day 2 p.o.: 94%, CI 88-98%; 4 weeks p.o.: 91% CI 84-96%); again, these differences were statistically significant ( P<0.02; Chi(2) test). No differences between groups emerged regarding global quality of life or conventional clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: This prospective randomized trial supports the clinical observation that NT causes more subjective inconvenience than GT. In cases when a prolonged postoperative ileus is expected, decisions for a prophylactic decompressing tube system have to weigh up the possibilities of different averse clinical as well as subjective outcomes. It is then preferable to include patients' preferences in the individual decision making process (shared-decision making).

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in the prevention of postoperative infectious complications and sub-optimal recovery from operation in patients with colorectal cancer and increased preoperative risk (ASA 3 and 4). Protocol of a controlled clinical trial developed by consensus of an international study group. Part three: individual patient, complication algorithm and quality manage.

GENERAL DESIGN: Presentation of a new type of a study protocol for evaluation of the effectiveness of an immune modifier (rhG-CSF, filgrastim): prevention of postoperative infectious complications and of sub-optimal recovery from operation in patients with colorectal cancer and increased preoperative risk (ASA 3 and 4). A randomised, placebo controlled, double-blinded, single-centre study is performed at an University Hospital (n = 40 patients for each group). This part presents the course of the individual patient and a complication algorithm for the management of anastomotic leakage and quality management. OBJECTIVE: In part three of the protocol, the three major sections include: The course of the individual patient using a comprehensive graphic display, including the perioperative period, hospital stay and post discharge outcome. A center based clinical practice guideline for the management of the most important postoperative complication--anastomotic leakage--including evidence based support for each step of the algorithm. Data management, ethics and organisational structure. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies with immune modifiers will also fail if not better structured (reduction of variance) to achieve uniform patient management in a complex clinical scenario. This new type of a single-centre trial aims to reduce the gap between animal experiments and clinical trials or--if it fails--at least demonstrates new ways for explaining the failures.

[Outcome of minimally invasive surgery. Qualitative analysis and evaluation of the clinical relevance of study variables by the patient and physician]. / Outcome nach minimal-invasiver Chirurgie. Qualitative Analyse und Bewertung der klinischen Relevanz von Studienendpunkten durch Patient und Arzt.

INTRODUCTION: Mechanistic study endpoints, evaluated exclusively by the physician, are mostly used in clinical studies evaluating new treatment modalities (e.g. laparoscopic cholecystectomy). Those endpoints often lack clinical relevance. The patient's opinion concerning the importance of a study endpoint is particularly important in the evaluation of minimally invasive procedures, which place special emphasis on patient comfort. METHODS: In a first step it was evaluated by meta-analysis, which clinical endpoints have been used for comparison of laparoscopic and conventional cholecystectomy. Furthermore, using a qualitative analysis it was investigated how important the individual study endpoints are for patients and physicians. Ten patients and five surgeons were questioned in a structured interview. RESULTS: Of all outcome variables used world-wide, approximately one third were hermeneutic study endpoints, depending on the quality of the study, but often the method of evaluation was insufficient. Only three of 215 endpoints (< 2%) were quality of life scores, an integrated concept of outcome was missing completely. The qualitative analysis confirms the claimed difference between isolated and integrated evaluation of treatment goals. The importance of postoperative death is underestimated by patients and physicians; postoperative pain is overestimated. Patients ranked the outcome variable "restoration of full physical fitness" as the most important study endpoint after avoidance of complications and death. It is underestimated in isolated evaluation and has not been used in the world literature at all. CONCLUSION: The analysis of clinical relevance of study endpoints should be the first and not the last step of studies to evaluate surgical technology. It cannot be based purely on intuition; it must make use of scientifically accepted techniques (e.g. qualitative analysis).

Pleiotropic effects of thyroid stimulating hormone in a differentiated thyroid cancer cell line. Studies on proliferation, thyroglobulin secretion, adhesion, migration and invasion.

Thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) causes differentiation and epidermal growth factor (EGF) causes dedifferentiation of thyroid cells in vitro. In undifferentiated thyroid cancer cell lines, TSH stimulates tumor cell migration and invasion, a dedifferentiated function, presumably due to an escape of tumor cells from the control of differentiating growth factors. In a highly differentiated thyroid carcinoma cell line of Hürthle cell origin (XTC), we tested the hypothesis that TSH would stimulate thyroglobulin secretion (a differentiated function) more than EGF, and EGF would stimulate invasion (a de-differentiated function) more than TSH. Proliferation, adhesion, cell migration and invasion were measured by the MTT assay, human thyroglobulin by RIA and protease activity by substrate-gel zymography. TSH induced differentiated morphologic changes in XTC cells and stimulated secretion of human thyroglobulin in a dose dependent manner, whereas EGF did not. The effects of TSH on growth, adhesion, migration and invasion were dose dependent and biphasic, with an increase at low and a decrease at high concentrations of TSH. These effects were always more pronounced than those observed with EGE Gelatinolytic activity, consistent with metalloproteinase activity was revealed by zymography, but the pattern of secretion was not altered by neither TSH nor EGF. These results suggest, that TSH has pleiotropic effects on differentiated thyroid cancer cells in vitro that involve differentiated morphology and function but also affect features commonly associated with the malignant in vitro phenotype.