non-PCA Group Research Articles

Serum proPSA as a marker for reducing repeated prostate biopsy numbers

Abstract Introduction Prostate specific antigen (PSA) has a lower sensitivity and specifity range of 4–10 ng/mL. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of pPSA in reducing number of prostate biopsies. Methods This study enrolled 80 patients aged 50 years or older whom had serum total PSA levels between 4 ng/dL and 10 ng/dL. Age, prostate volume, tPSA, fPSA, pPSA, PSA%, pPSA%, t/pPSA, f/pPSA, p/fPSA, p/tPSA, f/p/tPSA, p/f/tPSA, PSAD, fPSA/PSAD, pPSA/PSAD, (Prostate Health Index) PHI, (t/f/pPSA)/tPSA, and PHI2 (New Prostate Health Index) biopsy results were compared between subjects BPH and PCa. Results Out of 80 subjects, 23 (29%) had PCa and 57 (71%) had BPH. Prostate volume was 51.65 mL in PCa and 64.85 mL in non-PCa group (p>0.05). The rate of PCa increased as prostate volume was reduced and age increased. fPSA, PSA%, p/f/tPSA, fPSA/PSAD values were significant in favor of respectively; BPH, BPH, PCa and BPH (p<0.05). Discussion Using prostate health index (PHI) was beneficial for predicting PCa. In addition, using pPSA in formulas such as (PHI2) pPSA/(fPSA*√tPSA), p/f/tPSA, (t/f/pPSA)/tPSA may also be useful. This study suggests that the use of pPSA may have a role in reducing the number of prostate biopsies in differentiating PCa and BPH.

Prostate-specific Antigen Density Variation Rate as a Potential Guideline Parameter for Second Prostate Cancer Detection Biopsy.

Background:The diagnostic value of current prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests is challenged by the poor detection rate of prostate cancer (PCa) in repeat prostate biopsy. In this study, we proposed a novel PSA-related parameter named PSA density variation rate (PSADVR) and designed a clinical trial to evaluate its potential diagnostic value for detecting PCa on a second prostate biopsy.Methods:Data from 184 males who underwent second ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy 6 months after the first biopsy were included in the study. The subjects were divided into PCa and non-PCa groups according to the second biopsy pathological results. Prostate volume, PSA density (PSAD), free-total PSA ratio, and PSADVR were calculated according to corresponding formulas at the second biopsy. These parameters were compared using t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test between PCa and non-PCa groups, and receiver operating characteristic analysis were used to evaluate their predictability on PCa detection.Results:PCa was detected in 24 patients on the second biopsy. Mean values of PSA, PSAD, and PSADVR were greater in the PCa group than in the non-PCa group (8.39 μg/L vs. 7.16 μg/L, 0.20 vs. 0.16, 14.15% vs. −1.36%, respectively). PSADVR had the largest area under the curve, with 0.667 sensitivity and 0.824 specificity when the cutoff was 10%. The PCa detection rate was significantly greater in subjects with PSADVR >10% than PSADVR ≤10% (28.6% vs. 6.5%, P < 0.001). In addition, PSADVR was the only parameter in this study that showed a significant correlation with mid-to-high-risk PCa (r = 0.63, P = 0.03).Conclusions:Our results demonstrated that PSADVR improved the PCa detection rate on second biopsies, especially for mid-to-high-risk cancers requiring prompt treatment.

Can intravenous patient-controlled analgesia be omitted in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer?

PurposeOpioid-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) is a popular method of postoperative analgesia, but many patients suffer from PCA-related complications. We hypothesized that PCA was not essential in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery by minimal invasive approach.MethodsBetween February 2013 and August 2013, 297 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer were included in this retrospective comparative study. The PCA group received conventional opioid-based PCA postoperatively, and the non-PCA group received intravenous anti-inflammatory drugs (Tramadol) as necessary. Patients reported their postoperative pain using a subjective visual analogue scale (VAS). The PCA-related adverse effects and frequency of rescue analgesia were evaluated, and the recovery rates were measured.ResultsPatients in the PCA group experienced less postoperative pain on days 4 and 5 after surgery than those in the non-PCA group (mean [SD] VAS: day 4, 6.2 [0.3] vs. 7.0 [0.3], P = 0.010; and day 5, 5.1 [0.2] vs. 5.5 [0.2], P = 0.030, respectively). Fewer patients in the non-PCA group required additional parenteral analgesia (41 of 93 patients vs. 53 of 75 patients, respectively), and none in the non-PCA group required rescue PCA postoperatively. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was significantly higher in the non-PCA group than in the PCA group (P < 0.001). The mean (range) length of hospital stay was shorter in the non-PCA group (7.9 [6-10] days vs. 8.7 [7-16] days, respectively, P = 0.03).ConclusionOur Results suggest that IV-PCA may not be necessary in selected patients those who underwent minimal invasive surgery for colorectal cancer.

Prostate-specific Antigen Velocity (PSAV) and PSAV per Initial Volume (PSAVD) for Early Detection of Prostate Cancer in Chinese Men

To investigate the utility of prostate-specific antigen velocity (PSAV) and PSAV per initial volume (PSAVD) for early detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in Chinese men. Between January 2009 and June 2012, a total of 193 men (aged 49-84 years, median 67 years) with at least 2 transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) procedures and concurrent serum PSA measurements underwent prostate biopsy because of suspicion of PCa. The total group were classified into PCa and non-PCa groups, and the variables of the two groups were compared. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to investigate which variables were predictove. The diagnostic values of PSAV, PSAVD and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) were compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 44 (22.8%) of the 193 men. There were significant differences between the groups in last and initial prostate volumes determined by TRUS, initial age, last serum PSA levels, PSAV, PSAD and PSAVD. After adjusting for confounding factors, the odds ratios of PCa across the quartile of PSAVD were 1, 4.06, 10.6, and 18.9 (P for trend <0.001).The area under the ROC curves (AUCs) of PSAD (0.779) and PSAVD (0.776) were similar and both significantly greater than that of PSA (AUC 0.667). PSAVD was a significantly better indicator of PCa than PSAV (AUC 0.736). There was no statistical significant difference between the AUC of PSAV and that of last serum PSA level. The sensitivity and specificity of PSAVD at a cutoff of 0.023ng in participants with last serum PSA levels of 4.0 ng/mL-10.0 ng was 73.7% and 70.7%, respectively. The results of this study demonstrated PSAVD may be a useful tool in PCa detection, especially in those undergoing previous TRUS examination.

Efficacy of Patient‐controlled Analgesia for Patients With Acute Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Trial

The objective was to assess the efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in the emergency department (ED) and to compare two PCA dosing regimens. A randomized controlled trial with three treatment arms was performed in an urban ED. A convenience sample of ED patients ages 18 to 65 years with abdominal pain of 7 days or less duration requiring intravenous (IV) opioid analgesia was enrolled between April 2009 and June 2010. All patients received an initial dose of 0.1 mg/kg IV morphine followed by physician-managed analgesia as needed. Patients in the PCA arms also received IV morphine with on-demand doses of 1 or 1.5 mg, with a 6-minute lockout between doses. Pain intensity was rated by patients on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Satisfaction with pain treatment, desire for the same treatment in the future, and need for additional analgesia were assessed at study end. Adverse events (O(2) sat < 92%, respiratory rate [RR] < 10/min, systolic blood pressure [sBP] < 90 mm Hg, and naloxone use) were counted. One-way analysis of variance was used to test the difference among groups in short-term pain relief, as assessed by mean change in NRS pain intensity from baseline to 30 minutes and pain over the entire 2-hour study period measured by area under the curve (AUC) of NRS pain ratings. A post hoc hierarchical linear model was used to test the observed difference in NRS between the groups between 30 and 120 minutes. A total of 211 patients were enrolled. A sharp, nearly identical decline in mean NRS scores occurred from baseline to 30 minutes in the three groups (p = 0.82). Between 30 and 120 minutes, there was little further decline in the non-PCA NRS scores, while both PCA groups continued to decline (p = 0.004). The net treatment effect over the entire 2 hours was smallest in the non-PCA group and largest in the group receiving 1.5 mg of morphine (p = 0.06). The mean decline in pain from baseline to 120 minutes postbaseline in both PCA groups was 1.4 NRS units (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.3 to 2.4) greater than the decline in patients treated without PCA. More patients in the PCA arms reported satisfaction, wanting the same pain management in the future, and not wanting further analgesics at 120 minutes than patients who did not receive PCA. There were no clinically or statistically significant differences in any outcomes between the two PCA groups. One PCA patient had a transient oxygen saturation of 88% after the initial bolus only, and one non-PCA patient had a brief drop in sBP to 87 mm Hg. This study provides support for efficacy of PCA when applied to the ED setting. Future studies designed to assess implementation of this modality in the context of conditions of actual ED staffing and competing patient demands are warranted.

Clinical trial: alvimopan for the management of post‐operative ileus after abdominal surgery: results of an international randomized, double‐blind, multicentre, placebo‐controlled clinical study

Post-operative ileus (POI) affects most patients undergoing abdominal surgery. To evaluate the effect of alvimopan, a peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonist, on POI by negating the impact of opioids on gastrointestinal (GI) motility without affecting analgesia in patients outside North America. Adult subjects undergoing open abdominal surgery (n = 911) randomly received oral alvimopan 6 or 12 mg, or placebo, 2 h before, and twice daily following surgery. Opioids were administered as intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) or bolus injection. Time to recovery of GI function was assessed principally using composite endpoints in subjects undergoing bowel resection (n = 738). A nonsignificant reduction in mean time to tolerate solid food and either first flatus or bowel movement (primary endpoint) was observed for both alvimopan 6 and 12 mg; 8.5 h (95% CI: 0.9, 16.0) and 4.8 h (95% CI: -3.2, 12.8), respectively. However, an exploratory post hoc analysis showed that alvimopan was more effective in the PCA (n = 317) group than in the non-PCA (n = 318) group. Alvimopan was well tolerated and did not reverse analgesia. Although the significant clinical effect of alvimopan on reducing POI observed in previous trials was not reproduced, this trial suggests potential benefit in bowel resection patients who received PCA.

The Impact of Patient-Controlled Analgesia on Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has revolutionised the management of symptomatic gallstones and is increasingly performed as a day-case procedure. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of opioid patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) on elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In a prospective, non-randomised, observational study, 76 consecutive patients who underwent elective in-patient laparoscopic cholecystectomy were reviewed. Six patients with complicated gall stone disease and four patients who converted from laparoscopic to an open operation were excluded. Of the 66 remaining in the study group, 25 patients received morphine-PCA and, of these, 9 were fit for discharge. In contrast, 41 patients did not receive PCA and, of these, 27 were fit for discharge (P < 0.05). Median Aldrete score in the PCA group was 16 and in the non-PCA group 18 (P < 0.05). Postoperative nausea and vomiting were more common in patients receiving a morphine-based PCA and with in those with higher anti-emetic requirement (10/25 in PCA and 7/41 non-PCA groups; P < 0.05). Routine postoperative opioid PCA prolongs the recovery and in-patient stay following elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Its role in postoperative pain management in routine laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be questioned.

The Effect of Fentanyl and Ketorolac in Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting and the Effect of Prophylactic Ondansetron

Background: This study was performed to assess the effect of fentanyl and ketorolac in intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) on postoperative nausea and vomiting and the antiemetic effect of prophylactic ondansetron after a total abdominal hysterectomy. Methods: Of 115 women having general anesthesia for a total abdominal hysterectomy, a non-PCA group (n = 52) didn't receive IV-PCA and a PCA group (n = 39) and ondansetron group (n = 24) received IV fentanyl 1-1.5μg/kg and IM ketorolac 30 mg as a loading dose and IV-PCA with a mixture of 60 ml with fentanyl 25-30μg/kg and ketorolac 4-5 mg/kg. In addition, the ondansetron group received IV ondansetron 4 mg before an IV-PCA was started. We assessed nausea, vomiting and the need for rescue antiemetics during the first 24 hours postoperation. Results: During the first 24 hours postoperation, there were no significant differences in the incidence of nausea, vomiting and the need for rescue antiemetics among the groups. Conclusions: Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with fentanyl and ketorolac didn't increase postoperative nausea, vomiting and the need for rescue antiemetics during the first 24 hours postoperation. Also, prophylactic ondansetron didn't significantly reduce the chance of postoperative nausea, vomiting and rescue antiementics. (Korean J Anesthesiol 2001; 40: 359∼363) ꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏ