No abstract

We found a higher GIB rate compared with prior studies. Bleeding events were associated with multiple procedures and interventions. We recommend an algorithmic approach to LVAD patients who bleed. Our experience suggests that PE is warranted at initial presentation in order to achieve hemostasis, prevent recurrent GIB, and decrease subsequent readmission rates.

Objectives and study aim  Colonoscopy prevents colorectal cancer by removing adenomatous polyps, but missed adenomas lead to interval cancers. Different devices have been used to increase adenoma detection rates (ADR). Two such devices of interest are the transparent cap (Olympus) and Endocuff (ARC Medical). Our study aimed to compare differences in ADR between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC), cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC). Patients and methods  A sample size of 126 subjects was calculated to determine an effect size of 30 %. Patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy between March 2016 and January 2017 were randomized to SC, CAC or EAC groups. Three experienced endoscopists performed all colonoscopies. Patient demographics, procedure indication, Boston Bowel Prep Score (BBPS), withdrawal time, polyp size, location, histopathology, were analyzed. Results  There was no difference in ADR (52 %, 40 % and 54 %) in the SC, CAC and EAC groups respectively ( P  = 0.4). Similar findings were also observed for proximal ADR (45 %, 35 %, and 50 %, P  = 0.4) and SSA detection rate (16 %, 14 %, and 23 %, P  = 0.5). EAC detected higher mean ADR per colonoscopy compared to CAC (1.70 vs 0.76, P  = 0.01). However, there was no significant difference in mean ADR per positive colonoscopy (2.08, 1.63, and 2.59, P  = 0.21). Conclusion  In a randomized controlled trial comparing AC to CAC and SC, neither device conferred additional benefits in ADR among high detectors. When comparing each device, EAC may be better than CAC at detecting more total adenomas.

The superior dosimetric outcome observed with HT appeared to translate into moderately improved clinical outcomes with respect to salivary sparing. Prospective trials are needed to validate this gain in the therapeutic ratio.

Currently, the most common method of delivering intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is through step-and-shoot, segmental multi-leaf collimator (SMLC)-based techniques. Although rotational delivery methods such as helical tomotherapy (HT) have been proposed as offering advantages in the treatment of head and neck cancer, a lack of clinical data exists on its potential utility. This study compared dosimetric, clinical, and quality-of-life endpoints among 149 patients treated by HT and SMLC-IMRT for head and neck cancer. Dosimetric analysis revealed that the use of HT resulted in significant improvements with respect to mean dose (23.5 versus 27.9 Gy, p = 0.03) and V30 (30.1 versus 43.9 Gy, p = 0.01) to the contralateral (spared) parotid gland. However, the incidence of grade 3+ xerostomia in the late setting was 10% and 8% among patients treated by HT and SMLC-IMRT, respectively (p = 0.46). There were no significant differences in any of the quality of life endpoints among patients treated by HT and SMLC-IMRT (p > 0.05, for all). Acknowledging the biases inherent in this retrospective analysis, we found that the dosimetric advantages observed with HT compared to SMLC-IMRT failed to translate into significant improvements in clinical outcome. Prospective studies are needed to further evaluate how HT may affect the therapeutic ratio.