Search

Introduction Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) has recently become a routine part of atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment. The goal of our study was to determine whether the implementation of RFA of AF under general anesthesia (GA), compared to analgosedation (AS), will affect important characteristics of the ablation procedure, comfort of the patient and whether there is any clinical impact on the complication rate and the overall success of the procedure. Methods 50 patients with AF were randomized in a ratio of 1 : 1 into two groups for RFA in AS and in GA. Procedural characteristics, arrhythmia-free survival for the time of 12 months and subjective evaluation of pain tolerability of the procedure were monitored. Results Overall procedural times were comparable in GA and AS groups (111.2 ± 16.3 min vs 104.8 ± 25 min, p = NS). Time needed for preparation of patients was significantly longer in the GA group, while time needed for electrical disconnection of all pulmonary veins (PVs) was significantly shortened. Electrical isolation of the ipsilateral PVs after the last RF application was achieved in 94 % of lesions in GA and in 78 % of lesions in AS, respectively (p = 0.02). Shorter time of RF energy application to achieve electrical isolation of PVs was needed in the group of GA than in the group of AS (1 386 ± 387 s vs 1 745 ± 463 s, p = 0.005). Subjective discomfort evaluation of the procedure was more favorable in patients in the GA group. 88 % of patients in the GA group vs 68 % patients in AS (p = 0.1) had stable sinus rhythm off antiarrhythmic treatment during the 12 month period following the index procedure. While in the GA group all 3 patients with AF recurrence were willing to undergo another procedure in the GA, in the AS group only one patient out of 8 patients with AF recurrences underwent reablation. Conclusion RFA of AF performed under GA provided improved tolerance and positive perception of the procedure, higher final treatment success and improved quality of life.Key words: general anesthesia - paroxysmal atrial fibrillation - pulmonary vein isolation - radiofrequency catheter ablation.

BACKGROUND Somatostatin analogs (SSAs) are antisecretory agents that have been used to control hormonal syndromes associated with neuroendocrine tumors for more than 20 years. Recent phase III randomized, placebo controlled trials demonstrated their antiproliferative effects. The PROMID study showed that octreotide LAR (long-acting repeatable) treatment had anti-tumor effects. CLARINET, an international multicenter controlled study, provides new evidence that lanreotide has antiproliferative effects. Depot lanreotide significantly prolonged progression-free survival among patients with metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). Because GEP-NETs are biologically diverse in terms of primary tumor site and functional status, preventing progression can be difficult. AIM This review summarizes data supporting the role of SSAs, in particular lanreotide, as antiproliferative agents for the treatment of patients with GEP-NETs. CONCLUSION The CLARINET study is the most powerful (in sence of data, results, clinical aplication) randomized study of the antiproliferative effects of SSA in GEP-NET patients. The median lanreotide-associated progression-free survival in the CLARINET core study or in open-label extension study was 32.8 vs. 18 months for placebo. Thus, early treatment with lanreotide is expected to prolong progression-free survival. Lanreotide is now recommended for the treatment of patients with well-differentiated metastatic grade 1 and grade 2 GEP-NETs (i.e., those with a Ki-67 proliferative index < 10%) located in the pancreas, small intestine, or in cases where the location of the primary tumor is unknown, regardless of the degree of liver involvement. KEY WORDS somatostatin - neuroendocrine tumors - angiogenesis - apoptosis - antiproliferative effectThis work was supported by MEYS-NPS I-LO1413.The author declares she has no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE recommendation for biomedical papers.Submitted: 2. 12. 2015Accepted: 20. 3. 2016.

BACKGROUND Malnutrition in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients decreases survival, quality of life (QOL) and oncological outcomes. The aim of the prospective three-year study was to compare QOL, clinical symptoms and variables (complications, survival and mortality rates in HNC patients). PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 726 patients aged 55 to 72 years with treatable HNC were included from January 2004 to December 2009; these patients were randomized to either group with PEG and enteral nutrition and nonPEG group with nutritional counselling according to nutritional care. We used EORTC questionnaires QOL C-30 and Head and neck module (HN-35) for measuring of QOL. The following variables due to expectable influence on QOL (demographic data, oncological data, nutritional screening, Clinical symptom score, Karnofsky performance status score, Charlson comorbidity index) were included. Monitoring was done five times in three years. RESULTS In the first six months, we found decrease of weight and body mass index (BMI). After this critical time point and finish of oncological treatment, a marked difference in the development of patients treated with PEG. Negative factors influencing patients survival, QOL, clinical status were males aged > 63 years, hypopharyngeal cancer (stage III- IV), smoking, weight loss > 10%, BMI < 21 and disallowance of PEG. CONCLUSIONS QOL is an essential factor for cancer patients. Our study showed that nutritional intervention with early enteral nutrition may improve QOL and survival in HNC patients. The PEG group better tolerated oncological treatment, had lower incidence of complications, shorter time to re-entry of permanent increase in weight, lower rate of rehospitalization and its shorter length. We found QOL questionnaires to be very important for better understanding and communication and a key instrument for improving solution of patients difficulties during their therapy in multidisciplinary approach.