No abstract

Background-Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS) can detect a high percentage of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours especially in the upper gastrointestinal tract. The ability of these procedures to localise primary tumour lesions and metastases of gastrinomas and insulinomas was evaluated in comparison with transabdominal ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) . Patients and Methods-In a prospective trial, patients with gastrinomas (n=10) and insulinomas (n=10) diagnosed by clinical signs and laboratory tests were assessed by EUS, SRS, US, CT and MRI. Results-In 10 patients with gastrinoma and 10 patients with insulinoma, a total of 14 separate primary tumour lesions were histologically confirmed for each of the tumour entities. The mean diameter was 2-1 cm for gastrinomas and 1l5 cm for insulinomas. All insulinomas and nine gastrinoma lesions were located in the pancreas. Three gastrinomas were found in the duodenal wall, one in a periduodenal lymph node, and one in the liver. For gastrinomas, sensitivities were 79% with EUS, 86% with SRS and 29% with CT, US, and MRI. For insulinomas, sensitivities were 93% with EUS, 14% with SRS, 21% with CT and 7% with US and

Background and Purpose-Patients with stroke are at substantial risk of thromboembolic complications and therefore require antithrombotic prophylaxis. To show the noninferiority of the low-molecular-weight heparin certoparin to unfractionated heparin (UFH) for the prevention of thromboembolic complications, we performed a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled multicenter trial in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Methods-Overall, 545 patients were randomized within 24 hours of stroke onset to treatment with certoparin (3000 U anti-Xa OD; nϭ272) or UFH (5000 U TID; nϭ273) for 12 to 16 days. Patients with paresis of a leg and an National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 4 to 30 points were included. The primary end point was a composite outcome of proximal deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or death related to venous thromboembolism during treatment.Computed tomography was performed at trial entry, after 7 days, and when clinical deterioration occurred. Results-The per-protocol analysis revealed 17 (7.0%) primary events in the certoparin group compared with 24 (9.7%) in the UFH group, thereby demonstrating noninferiority (Pϭ0.0011), confirmed by intention-to-treat analysis (6.6% versus 8.8%; Pϭ0.008). Major bleeding occurred during treatment in 3 patients allocated to certoparin (1.1%) and 5 patients allocated to UFH (1.8%). Conclusions-Certoparin (3000 U anti-Xa OD) is at least as effective and safe as UFH (TID) for the prevention of thromboembolic complications in patients with acute ischemic stroke. (Stroke. 2006;37:139-144.)

The efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin (UFH) and warfarin for prophylaxis of thrombo-embolism in orthopaedic surgery were compared using meta-analysis techniques. Twenty-two studies were included, 2 of which compared LMWH to warfarin. The mean probabilities to develop deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism and major and minor bleeding using UFH were: 0.21 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.18-0.24); 0.01 (95% CI: 0.01-0.02); 0.05 (95% CI: 0.03-0.07), and 0.19 (95 % CI: 0.17-0.22), respectively. The relative risk (RR) of DVT for LMWH vs. UFH was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.60-0.91), p < 0.05 and for LMWH vs. warfarin 0.78 (95% CI: 0.69-0.87), p < 0.05. The RR of minor bleeding for LMWH vs. UFH was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64-0.92), p < 0.05. The RR of minor bleeding for LMWH vs. warfarin was 3.28 (95% CI: 2.21-4.70), p < 0.05. Conclusion: in orthopaedic surgery, LMWH is significantly superior to both UFH and warfarin in the prevention of DVT and results in significantly less minor bleeding complications when compared to UFH, but significantly more minor bleeding when compared to warfarin.

SummaryIn a prospective, double-blind, randomized multicenter trial the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparin and unfractionated heparin were compared for the prevention of postoperative deep vein thrombosis in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Six hundred and seventy-three patients were randomly allocated to the two prophylaxis groups; 20 of these, however, did not undergo surgery and did not receive any prophylaxis. Of the remaining 653 patients 323 received one subcutaneous injection of 3,000 anti-Xa units of low molecular weight heparin and 330 received subcutaneously 5,000 U heparin three times a day. Treatment was initiated 2 h preoperatively and continued for 7 to 10 days. The occurrence of DVT was determined by the 125I-labelled fibrinogen uptake test and phlebography. Venous thrombosis was diagnosed in 24 of 323 patients (7.4%) treated with low molecular weight heparin and in 26 of 330 patients (7.9%) treated with low-dose heparin. DVT of proximal veins was detected in four patients of the low molecular weight heparin group and in three patients of the low-dose heparin group. During the observation period three pulmonary emboli - one fatal and two non-fatal - occurred in patients receiving prophylaxis with low-dose heparin. No pulmonary embolism was found in patients treated with low molecular weight heparin. Both prophylactic schemes were well tolerated. Intra-and postoperative blood loss, incidence of wound hematoma, frequency and volume of intra- and postoperative blood transfusion were similar in both groups with a slight advantage for the low molecular weight heparin group. The results of this trial show that the investigated low molecular weight heparin is at least as effective and safe as low-dose heparin in preventing deep vein thrombosis in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery.