Total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation: an overview

Pain control is one of the most challenging aspects in the management of chronic pancreatitis. Total pancreatectomy can successfully relieve the intractable abdominal pain in these patients but will inevitably result in insulin-dependent diabetes. Islet autotransplantation aims to preserve, as far as possible, the insulin secretory function of the islet cell mass thereby reducing (or even removing) the requirement for exogenous insulin administration after a total pancreactomy. Despite the relatively small number of centres able to perform these procedures, there are important technical variations in the details of their approaches. The aim of this review is to provide details of the current surgical practice for total pancreatectomy combined with islet autotransplantation, and outline the potential advantages and disadvantages of the variations adopted in each centre.     

Comparison of survival by allocation to medical therapy, surgery, or heart transplantation for ischemic advanced heart failure.

BACKGROUND: To ascertain survival of ischemic advanced heart failure patients by treatment allocation, we examined the outcome of transplant assessment patients allocated to medical therapy, high-risk conventional surgery, or transplantation. METHODS: Patients were identified from the Papworth transplant database and excluded if primary etiology was not ischemic. Grouping was undertaken according to treatment allocation at initial assessment, and analysis was performed by intention to treat. Survival was computed from the time of assessment and Cox regression used to stratify patients according risk with the Heart Failure Survival Score. RESULTS: From May 1993 to September 2001, a total of 755 patients were admitted for transplant assessment, with 348 (46.1%) identified as having heart failure of ischemic origin. Variables required for calculation of the Heart Failure Survival Score was available in 273 patients (78.4%), and 20 patients (7.3%) were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 253 patients, 89 (35.2%) were allocated to medical therapy, 32 (12.6%) to surgery, and 132 (52.2%) to transplantation. The relative risk (95% confidence limit) of death compared with medical therapy was 0.62 (0.28, 1.40) for surgery and 0.38 (0.24, 0.61) for transplantation in medium- to high-risk patients. For low-risk patients, the relative risks for death compared with medical therapy were 1.87 (0.63, 5.60) for surgery and 1.97 (0.79, 4.96) for transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Transplantation improved survival of medium- and high-risk patients compared with medical therapy. In the low-risk group, this was not evident. However, repeated assessment of risk is required because the hazard for death rises steadily after the third year in these patients.     

Statistical MUNE: A comparison of two methods of setting recording windows in healthy subjects and ALS patients

OBJECTIVE: To address the issue as to how best to perform statistical MUNE, we applied two different approaches and compared results in healthy subjects and ALS patients. METHODS: Twelve normal subjects (women 8, mean age 52years) and 11 ALS patients (women 4, mean age 54years) underwent two consecutive MUNE studies, which differed in terms of setting and modifying the recording window. These are referred to as the 'expansion' and 'narrowing' methods, respectively. Size-weighted average (Av) SMUP and MUNE values were obtained using the two methods, and compared in control and patient groups. RESULTS: Expansion method-derived Av SMUP sizes and MUNE values differed only slightly from those obtained using the narrowing method in healthy subjects, whereas the narrowing method resulted in significantly larger Av SMUP sizes and smaller MUNE values than the expansion method in ALS patients (Wilcoxon signed ranks test, p=0.003). The sizes of tested areas (mean+/-SD) were significantly larger for the narrowing method than the expansion method in both subject groups with much greater difference in ALS patients; 9.6+/-3.1% vs. 7.9+/-1.7% in healthy subjects and 16.1+/-5.1% vs. 11.2+/-3.0% in ALS patients (Student t-test, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows, unlike that found in normal subjects, that the results of statistical MUNE in ALS patients are heavily dependent on the approach used to set and modify recording windows. SIGNIFICANCE: The expansion method using a 10%-sized window is likely to suffer from systemic errors due to the ceiling effect and the sampling of artifactually small motor units in ALS patients. The authors recommend that the narrowing method be considered as an alternative that avoids these problems.     

Akinetic Mutism and Cognitive-Affective Syndrome Caused by Unilateral PICA Infarction

A 42-year-old man with left posterior inferior cerebellar artery (PICA) infarction presented with akinetic mutism and cognitive impairment. Initially he suffered from akinetic mutism and MRI-documented infarction in the distribution of the left PICA. Twelve days later he developed cognitive impairment. Neuropsychological tests were performed, with the results corrected for age and education being compared with published Korean norms. Impaired performances were evident on executive function testing, with difficulties in planning, abstract reasoning, set-shifting, and perseveration. Akinetic mutism and cognitive-affective syndrome may be a manifestation of unilateral PICA infarction.     

A randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of risperidone and haloperidol in Korean dementia patients with behavioral disturbances.

OBJECTIVE: Behavioral disturbances in dementia are extremely prominent and distressful, and often result in serious physical, social, and economic consequences. The authors compared the efficacy and tolerability of risperidone and haloperidol in the treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) in institutionalized elderly Korean patients with Alzheimer disease, vascular dementia, or mixed dementia. METHODS: This was an 18-week double-blind, crossover study involving 120 patients who were randomly assigned to receive flexible doses (0.5-1.5 mg/day) of risperidone or haloperidol. BPSD were assessed using the Korean version of the Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (BEHAVE-AD-K), the Korean version of the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI-K), and the Clinical Global Impression of Change scale (CGI-C). Safety and tolerability assessments included the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale and the incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: Both risperidone and haloperidol were efficacious in alleviating BPSD. However, when receiving risperidone, patients showed significantly greater improvement than when receiving haloperidol in the total and subscale scores of the BEHAVE-AD-K, the total and subscale scores of the CMAI-K, and the scores on the CGI-C scale. Also, risperidone had an additional benefit on aggressiveness and anxieties/phobias. The risk of antipsychotic-induced parkinsonism throughout this study was significantly lower with risperidone than with haloperidol. CONCLUSION: Risperidone had a favorable efficacy and tolerability profile compared with haloperidol in the treatment of BPSD in this patient population.