Therapy with the probiotic bacteria B. Subtilis and E. faecalis are an effective and safe means for preventing VAP and the acquisition of PPMO colonization in the stomach.
IntroductionAcute post-traumatic brain swelling (BS) is one of the pathological forms that need emergent treatment following traumatic brain injury. There is controversy about the effects of craniotomy on acute post-traumatic BS. The aim of the present clinical study was to assess the efficacy of unilateral decompressive craniectomy (DC) or unilateral routine temporoparietal craniectomy on patients with unilateral acute post-traumatic BS.MethodsSeventy-four patients of unilateral acute post-traumatic BS with midline shifting more than 5 mm were divided randomly into two groups: unilateral DC group (n = 37) and unilateral routine temporoparietal craniectomy group (control group, n = 37). The vital signs, the intracranial pressure (ICP), the Glasgow outcome scale (GOS), the mortality rate and the complications were prospectively analysed.ResultsThe mean ICP values of patients in the unilateral DC group at hour 24, hour 48, hour 72 and hour 96 after injury were much lower than those of the control group (15.19 +/- 2.18 mmHg, 16.53 +/- 1.53 mmHg, 15.98 +/- 2.24 mmHg and 13.518 +/- 2.33 mmHg versus 19.95 +/- 2.24 mmHg, 18.32 +/- 1.77 mmHg, 21.05 +/- 2.23 mmHg and 17.68 +/- 1.40 mmHg, respectively). The mortality rates at 1 month after treatment were 27% in the unilateral DC group and 57% in the control group (p = 0.010). Good neurological outcome (GOS Score of 4 to 5) rates 1 year after injury for the groups were 56.8% and 32.4%, respectively (p = 0.035). The incidences of delayed intracranial hematoma and subdural effusion were 21.6% and 10.8% versus 5.4% and 0, respectively (p = 0.041 and 0.040).ConclusionsOur data suggest that unilateral DC has superiority in lowering ICP, reducing the mortality rate and improving neurological outcomes over unilateral routine temporoparietal craniectomy. However, it increases the incidence of delayed intracranial hematomas and subdural effusion, some of which need secondary surgical intervention. These results provide information important for further large and multicenter clinical trials on the effects of DC in patients with acute post-traumatic BS.Trial registrationISRCTN14110527
Objective: To evaluate the effect and safety of acupuncture for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) through comparisons with those of polyethylene glycol (PEG) 4000 and pinaverium bromide. Patients and Methods: This multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted at 7 hospitals in China and enrolled participants who met the Rome III diagnostic criteria for IBS between May 3, 2015, and June 29, 2018. Participants were first stratified into constipation-predominant or diarrheapredominant IBS group. Participants in each group were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive acupuncture (18 sessions) or PEG 4000 (20 g/d, for IBS-C)/pinaverium bromide (150 mg/d, for IBS-D) over a 6-week period, followed by a 12-week follow-up. The primary outcome was change in total IBS-Symptom Severity Score from baseline to week 6. Results: Of 531 patients with IBS who were randomized, 519 (344 in the acupuncture group and 175 in the PEG 4000/ pinaverium bromide group) were included in the full analysis set. From baseline to 6 weeks, the total IBS-Symptom Severity Score decreased by 123.51 (95% CI, 116.61 to 130.42) in the acupuncture group and 94.73 (95% CI, 85.03 to 104.43) in the PEG 4000/pinaverium bromide group. The between-group difference was 28.78 (95% CI, 16.84 to 40.72; P<.001). No participant experienced severe adverse effects. Conclusion: Acupuncture may be more effective than PEG 4000 or pinaverium bromide for the treatment of IBS, with effects lasting up to 12 weeks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.