Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4) (remove)
Keywords
- adverse events (4) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (4)
Background: Surgical complications are associated with a significant burden to patients and hospitals and are increasingly discussed in recent literature. This cohort study reviewed surgery-related complications in a Level I trauma center. The effect of a complication avoidance care bundle on the rate of surgical complications was analyzed. Methods: All complications (surgical and nonsurgical) that occur in our trauma department are prospectively captured using a standardized documentation form and are discussed and analyzed in a weekly trauma Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) conference. Surgical complication rates are calculated using the annual surgical procedure numbers. Based on discussions in the M&M conference, a complication avoidance care bundle consisting of five measures was established: (1) Improving team situational awareness; (2) reducing operating room traffic by staff members and limiting door-opening events; (3) preoperative screening for infectious foci; (4) adapted preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in anatomic regions with a high risk of infectious complications; and (5) use of iodine-impregnated adhesive drape. Results: The number of surgical procedures steadily increased over the study years, from 3587 in 2015 to 3962 in 2019 (an increase of 10.5%). Within this 5-year study period, the overall rate of surgical complications was 0.8%. Surgical site infections were the most frequently found complications (n = 40, 24.8% of all surgical complications), followed by screw malposition (n = 20, 12.4%), postoperative dislocations of arthroplasties (n = 18, 11.2%), and suboptimal fracture reduction (n = 18, 11.2%). Following implementation of the complication avoidance care bundle, the overall rate of surgical complications significantly decreased, from 1.14% in the year 2016 to 0.56% in the study year 2019, which represents a reduction of 51% within a 3-year time period. Conclusions: A multimodal strategy targeted at reducing the surgical complication rate can be successfully established based on a transparent discussion of adverse surgical outcomes. The combination of the different preventive measures was associated with reducing the overall complication rate by half within a 3-year time period.
Objective: This study was undertaken to evaluate the long-term efficacy, retention, and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam (BRV) in clinical practice. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruited all patients who initiated BRV between February and November 2016, with observation until February 2021. Results: Long-term data for 262 patients (mean age = 40 years, range = 5–81 years, 129 men) were analyzed, including 227 (87%) diagnosed with focal epilepsy, 19 (7%) with genetic generalized epilepsy, and 16 (6%) with other or unclassified epilepsy syndromes. Only 26 (10%) patients had never received levetiracetam (LEV), whereas 133 (50.8%) were switched from LEV. The length of BRV exposure ranged from 1 day to 5 years, with a median retention time of 1.6 years, resulting in a total BRV exposure time of 6829 months (569 years). The retention rate was 61.1% at 12 months, with a reported efficacy of 33.1% (79/239; 50% responder rate, 23 patients lost-to-follow-up), including 10.9% reported as seizure-free. The retention rate for the entire study period was 50.8%, and at last follow-up, 133 patients were receiving BRV at a mean dose of 222 ± 104 mg (median = 200, range = 25–400), including 52 (39.1%) who exceeded the recommended upper dose of 200 mg. Fewer concomitant antiseizure medications and switching from LEV to BRV correlated with better short-term responses, but no investigated parameters correlated with positive long-term outcomes. BRV was discontinued in 63 (24%) patients due to insufficient efficacy, in 29 (11%) for psychobehavioral adverse events, in 25 (10%) for other adverse events, and in 24 (9%) for other reasons. Significance: BRV showed a clinically useful 50% responder rate of 33% at 12 months and overall retention of >50%, despite 90% of included patients having previous LEV exposure. BRV was well tolerated; however, psychobehavioral adverse events occurred in one out of 10 patients. Although we identified short-term response and retention predictors, we could not identify significant predictors for long-term outcomes. Key Points Long-term postmarketing data for brivaracetam in 262 patients showed an overall retention rate of 50.8%; At 12 months, the 50% responder rate for brivaracetam was 33.1%, with 10.9% reporting seizure freedom; Previous treatment with levetiracetam (90%) did not impact brivaracetam retention or efficacy; Levetiracetam treatment failure should not preclude brivaracetam introduction; No long-term efficacy predictors could be identified.
Objective: This study was undertaken to evaluate the long-term efficacy, retention, and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam (BRV) in clinical practice. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruited all patients who initiated BRV between February and November 2016, with observation until February 2021. Results: Long-term data for 262 patients (mean age = 40 years, range = 5–81 years, 129 men) were analyzed, including 227 (87%) diagnosed with focal epilepsy, 19 (7%) with genetic generalized epilepsy, and 16 (6%) with other or unclassified epilepsy syndromes. Only 26 (10%) patients had never received levetiracetam (LEV), whereas 133 (50.8%) were switched from LEV. The length of BRV exposure ranged from 1 day to 5 years, with a median retention time of 1.6 years, resulting in a total BRV exposure time of 6829 months (569 years). The retention rate was 61.1% at 12 months, with a reported efficacy of 33.1% (79/239; 50% responder rate, 23 patients lost-to-follow-up), including 10.9% reported as seizure-free. The retention rate for the entire study period was 50.8%, and at last follow-up, 133 patients were receiving BRV at a mean dose of 222 ± 104 mg (median = 200, range = 25–400), including 52 (39.1%) who exceeded the recommended upper dose of 200 mg. Fewer concomitant antiseizure medications and switching from LEV to BRV correlated with better short-term responses, but no investigated parameters correlated with positive long-term outcomes. BRV was discontinued in 63 (24%) patients due to insufficient efficacy, in 29 (11%) for psychobehavioral adverse events, in 25 (10%) for other adverse events, and in 24 (9%) for other reasons. Significance: BRV showed a clinically useful 50% responder rate of 33% at 12 months and overall retention of >50%, despite 90% of included patients having previous LEV exposure. BRV was well tolerated; however, psychobehavioral adverse events occurred in one out of 10 patients. Although we identified short-term response and retention predictors, we could not identify significant predictors for long-term outcomes. Key Points Long-term postmarketing data for brivaracetam in 262 patients showed an overall retention rate of 50.8%; At 12 months, the 50% responder rate for brivaracetam was 33.1%, with 10.9% reporting seizure freedom; Previous treatment with levetiracetam (90%) did not impact brivaracetam retention or efficacy; Levetiracetam treatment failure should not preclude brivaracetam introduction; No long-term efficacy predictors could be identified.
Adverse events during supervised exercise interventions in pediatric oncology - a nationwide survey
(2021)
Objectives: Exercise interventions during and after treatment for pediatric cancer are associated with beneficial physical, psychological, and social effects. However, valid data about adverse events (AEs) of such interventions have rarely been evaluated. This retrospective study evaluates AEs that occurred during supervised oncological exercise programs for pediatric cancer patients and survivors. Methods: This Germany-wide study used a self-administered online survey focusing on general program characteristics and AEs retrospectively for 2019. The questionnaire included (a) basic data on the offered exercise program, (b) AEs with consequences (Grade 2–5) that occurred in 2019 during an exercise intervention, (c) number of Grade 1 AEs, (d) safety procedures as part of the exercise programs, and (e) possibility to give feedback and describe experience with AEs in free text. Results: Out of 26 eligible exercise programs, response rate of program leaders was 92.3% (n = 24). Representatives working for Universities (n = 6), rehabilitation clinics (n = 3), acute cancer clinics (n = 12), and activity camps (n = 3) participated. In total, 35,110 exercise interventions with varying duration were recorded for 2019. Six AEs with consequences (Grade 2–3) occurred during exercise interventions after cancer treatment resulting in an incidence of 17 per 100,000 exercise interventions (0.017%). No life-threatening consequences or death were reported and no serious AE occurred during acute cancer treatment. Grade 1 AE occurred with a frequency of 983, corresponding to an incidence of 2,800 per 100,000 interventions (2.8%). Most frequent Grade 1 AE were muscle soreness, circulatory problems, and abdominal pain. The most frequent preventive safety procedures at the institutions were regular breaks, consultations with the medical treatment team, and material selection with low injury potential. Conclusions: Supervised exercise interventions for pediatric cancer patients and survivors seem to be safe and AEs with consequences comparatively rare when compared to general childhood population data. Occurrence of grade 1 AEs was common, however, causality was probably not evident between AEs and the exercise intervention. Future research should standardize assessment of AEs in clinical practice and research, and prospectively register and evaluate AEs that occur in the context of exercise interventions in pediatric cancer patients and survivors.