ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The current curative approaches for ischemia/reperfusion injury on liver transplantation are still under debate for their safety and efficacy in patients with end-stage liver disease. We present the SIMVA statin donor treatment before Liver Transplants study. METHODS: SIMVA statin donor treatment before Liver Transplants is a monocentric, double-blind, randomized, prospective tial aiming to compare the safety and efficacy of preoperative brain-dead donors' treatment with the intragastric administration of 80 mg of simvastatin on liver transplant recipient outcomes in a real-life setting. Primary aim was incidence of patient and graft survival at 90 and 180 d posttransplant; secondary end-points were severe complications. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 58 adult patients (18-65 y old). The minimum follow-up was 6 mo. No patient or graft was lost at 90 or 180 d in the experimental group (n = 28), whereas patient/graft survival were 93.1% ( P = 0.016) and 89.66% ( P = 0.080) at 90 d and 86.21% ( P = 0.041) and 86.2% ( P = 0.041) at 180 d in the control group (n = 29). The percentage of patients with severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥IIIb) was higher in the control group, 55.2% versus 25.0% in the experimental group ( P = 0.0307). The only significant difference in liver tests was a significantly higher gamma-glutamyl transferase and alkaline phosphatase at 15 d ( P = 0.017), ( P = 0.015) in the simvastatin group. CONCLUSIONS: Donor simvastatin treatment is safe, and may significantly improve early graft and patient survival after liver transplantation, although further research is mandatory.
Subject(s)
Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors , Liver Transplantation , Adult , Humans , Liver Transplantation/adverse effects , Simvastatin/adverse effects , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Prospective Studies , Tissue Donors , Graft Survival , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the incidence of incontinence pad use among patients admitted to medical wards, the reasons why nurses decide to use an incontinence pad, the extent to which the use of pads is avoidable, and the outcome of inappropriate pad use after discharge from the hospital. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted; patients admitted to medical wards were observed during hospitalization and a 7-day follow-up period after discharge. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The study was conducted in 2 acute-care units in Northern Italy. All new patients admitted to the units were recruited. RESULTS: At the time of admission to the hospital, in addition to the 120 patients who already used incontinence pads, there was a 34% incidence of new cases (98/286). The most frequent reason why nurses decided to use this aid was incontinence caused by space-time disorientation, followed by limited mobility, incontinence, patient request, nursing shortage, and involuntary urine leakage not perceived by patient. Seventy patients out of 208 used incontinence pads unnecessarily for a total of 544 days. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions about the use of the incontinence pads are not always consistent with research-based or literature-based suggestions. Nurses should develop clinical guidelines or protocols for the appropriate use of incontinence pads.
