Spielen. Aber szenisch-kreativ!

Zeitschrift für Psychodrama und Soziometrie - In diesem Beitrag in der Zeitschrift für Psychodrama und Soziometrie wird gezeigt, dass sich grundlegende Bestimmungen des Spiels, die...     

The efficacy and safety of cyclosporine reduction in de novo renal allograft patients receiving sirolimus and corticosteroids: results from an open‐label comparative study

This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of a sirolimus, corticosteroid, and cyclosporine reduction regimen in an open‐label, 12‐month trial of 420 de novo renal allograft recipients at 49 European transplant centers. One month post‐transplantation, 357 patients were randomized to receive standard‐dose cyclosporine (sCsA, n = 179) or reduced‐dose cyclosporine (rCsA, n = 178). All patients also received sirolimus and corticosteroids. The primary end points were the rate of biopsy‐confirmed acute rejection (BCAR) and renal function, as measured by serum creatinine. Baseline demographic and donor characteristics were similar between groups. BCAR rates at 12 months were not significantly different: 11.2% for rCsA patients and 16.2% for sCsA patients. Mean serum creatinine (±SEM) was significantly lower (1.75 ± 0.10 vs. 1.97 ± 0.07 mg/dl, P < 0.001), and creatinine clearance (±SEM; Nankivell method) was significantly higher (57.8 ± 1.78 vs. 49.5 ± 2.46 ml/min, P < 0.001) in patients receiving rCsA versus sCsA at 1 year, respectively. Patient and graft survival exceeded 98% in both groups. No significant differences in infection or malignancy were noted between groups. The rCsA with sirolimus and corticosteroid regimen resulted in excellent 12‐month patient and graft survival, a low incidence of BCAR, and improved renal function in renal allograft recipients. Sirolimus administered with rCsA and corticosteroids provided adequate immunosuppression while reducing the potential for the nephrotoxic effects of cyclosporine. These findings may help to improve long‐term renal allograft outcomes.     

Managing Traps and Pitfalls During Initial Steps of an ECMO Retrieval Program Using a Miniaturized Portable System: What Have We Learned From the First Two Years?

The aim of this study was to provide early and mid‐term results of the newly established extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) retrieval service in a tertiary cardiothoracic center using the miniaturized portable Cardiohelp System (Maquet, Rastatt, Germany). A particular attention was paid to organizational and logistic specifics as well as challenges and pitfalls associated with initial phase of the program. From January 2015 until January 2017 a heterogenic group of 28 consecutive patients underwent ECMO implantation in distant hospitals for acute cardiac, pulmonary or combined failure as a bridge‐to‐decision and were subsequently transported to our institution. Each cannulation was performed bedside on intensive care units (ICU) using the Seldinger's technique. Early outcomes and mid‐term overall survival with up to two‐year follow‐up along with the impact of ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on outcome were presented. Also, changes in hemodynamics and tissue perfusion factors 24 h after ECMO implantation were evaluated. ECMO implantations were performed in 15 distant departments with the median distance of 23(10;40) (maximum 60) km. A total of 15 patients (54%) were cannulated under CPR with the median duration of 30(20;110) (maximum 180) min. After 24 h of support there were significant improvements in SvO₂ (P = 0.021), mean arterial pressure (P = 0.027), FiO₂ (P = 0.001), lactate (P = 0.001), and pH (P < 0.001). The mean ECMO support duration was 96 ± 100 (maximum 384) hours, whereas 11 patients (40%) were weaned off support and discharged from hospital. Overall cumulative survival in patients without the need for CPR was 61.5% at one week and 38.5% at 1 month, 6 month, and 1 year, whereas patients requiring CPR survived in 40% at one week, and 33.3% at 1 month, 6 month, and 1 year (Log‐Rank (Mantel‐Cox) P = 0.374, Breslow (Generalized Wilcoxon) P = 0.162). Our initial experience shows that launching new ECMO retrieval programs in centers with sufficient ICU capacities and local ECMO experience can be feasible and associated with acceptable “real world” results despite the initial learning curve. Rapid logistical organization and team flexibility are the key points to ensure comparable survival of patients requiring prolonged CPR.     

Isolated revision meniscal repair – failure rates,clinical outcome,and patient satisfaction

Background

Failure of isolated primary meniscal repair must be expected in approximately 10–25% of cases. Patients requiring revision surgery may benefit from revision meniscal repair, however, the results of this procedure remain underreported. The purpose of this study was therefore to evaluate the outcome and failure rates of isolated revision meniscal repair in patients with re-tears or failed healing after previous meniscal repair in stable knee joints.

Methods

A chart review was performed to identify all patients undergoing revision meniscal repair between 08/2010 and 02/2016. Only patients without concomitant procedures, without ligamentous insufficiency, and a minimum follow-up of 24?months were included. The records of all patients were reviewed to collect patient demographics, injury patterns of the meniscus, and details about primary and revision surgery. Follow-up evaluation included failure rates, clinical outcome scores (Lysholm Score, KOOS Score), sporting activity (Tegner scale), and patient satisfaction.

Results

A total of 12 patients with a mean age of 22?±?5?years were included. The mean time between primary repair and revision repair was 27?±?21?months. Reasons for failed primary repairs were traumatic re-tears in 10 patients (83%) and failed healing in two patients (17%). The mean follow-up period after revision meniscal repair was 43 (± 23.4) months. Failure of revision meniscal repair occurred in 3 patients (25%). In two of these patients, successful re-revision repair was performed. At final follow-up, the mean Lysholm Score was 95.2 (± 4.2) with a range of 90–100, representing a good to excellent result in all patients. The final assessment of the KOOS subscores also showed good to excellent results. The mean Tegner scale was 6.8?±?1.8, indicating a relatively high level of sports participation. Ten patients (83%) were either satisfied or very satisfied with the outcome.

Conclusion

In patients with re-tears or failed healing after previous isolated meniscal repair, revision meniscal repair results in good to excellent knee function, high level of sports participation, and high patient satisfaction. The failure rate is slightly higher compared to isolated primary meniscal repair, but still acceptable. Therefore, revision meniscal repair is worthwhile in selected cases in order to save as much meniscal tissue as possible.

     

Long‐term outcome of belatacept therapy in de novo kidney transplant recipients – a case‐match analysis

While belatacept has shown favorable short‐ and midterm results in kidney transplant recipients, only projections exist regarding its potential impact on long‐term outcome. Therefore, we performed a retrospective case‐match analysis of the 14 belatacept patients originally enrolled in the phase II multicenter trial at our center. Fifty six cyclosporine (CyA)‐treated patients were matched according to age at transplantation, first/retransplant, and donor type. Ten years after kidney transplantation, kidney function remained superior in belatacept‐treated patients compared with the CyA control group. Moreover, none of the belatacept‐treated patients had donor‐specific antibodies ≥10 years post‐transplantation compared with 38.5% of tested CyA‐treated subject (0/10 vs. 5/13; P = 0.045). Notably, however, patient and graft survival was virtually identical in both groups (71.4% vs. 71.3%; P = 0.976). In the present single‐center study population, patients treated with belatacept demonstrated a patient and graft survival at 10 years post‐transplant which was comparable to that of similarly selected CNI‐treated patients. Larger studies with sufficient statistical power are necessary to definitively determine long‐term graft survival with belatacept.     

Effects of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin on non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoproteins, and lipid ratios in patients with hypercholesterolemia: additional results from the STELLAR trial

BACKGROUND: Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), apolipoprotein (apo) B, and lipid and apolipoprotein ratios that include both atherogenic and antiatherogenic lipid components have been found to be strong predictors of coronary heart disease risk. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to examine prospectively the effects of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin across dose ranges on non-HDL-C, apo B, apo A-I, and total cholesterol (TC):HDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C):HDL-C, non-HDL-C:HDL-C, and apo B:apo A-I ratios in patients with hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C > or =160 mg/dL and <250 mg/dL and triglycerides <400 mg/dL) in the Statin Therapies for Elevated Lipid Levels compared Across doses to Rosuvastatin (STELLAR) trial. METHODS: In this randomized, Multicenter, parallel-group, open-label trial (4522IL/0065), patients > or =18 years of age received rosuvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; atorvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; or pravastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg for 6 weeks. Pairwise comparisons were prospectively planned and performed between rosuvastatin 10, 20, and 40 mg and milligram-equivalent or higher doses of comparators. RESULTS: A total of 2268 patients were randomized to the rosuvastatin 10- to 40-mg, atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin groups. Fifty-one percent of patients were women, the mean (SD) age was 57 (12) years, and 19% had a documented history of atherosclerotic disease. Over 6 weeks, rosuvastatin significantly reduced non-HDL-C, apo B, and all lipid and apolipoprotein ratios assessed, compared with milligram-equivalent doses of atorvastatin and milligram-equivalent or higher doses of simvastatin and pravastatin (all, P < 0.002). Rosuvastatin reduced non-HDL-C by 42.0% to 50.9% compared with 34.4% to 48.1% with atorvastatin, 26.0% to 41.8% with simvastatin, and 18.6% to 27.4% with pravastatin. Rosuvastatin reduced apo B by 36.7% to 45.3% compared with 29.4% to 42.9% with atorvastatin, 22.2% to 34.7% with simvastatin, and 14.7% to 23.0% with pravastatin. The highest increase in apo A-I (8.8%) was observed in the rosuvastatin 20-mg group, and this increase was significantly greater than in the atorvastatin 40-mg and 80-mg groups (both, P < 0.002). CONCLUSION: Rosuvastatin 10 to 40 mg was more efficacious in improving the lipid profile of patients with hypercholesterolemia than milligram-equivalent doses of atorvastatin and milligram-equivalent or higher doses of simvastatin and pravastatin.