Entity

Time filter

Source Type


Atkin W.,Imperial College London | Dadswell E.,Imperial College London | Wooldrage K.,Imperial College London | Kralj-Hans I.,Imperial College London | And 11 more authors.
The Lancet | Year: 2013

Background: Colonoscopy is the gold-standard test for investigation of symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer; computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is an alternative, less invasive test. However, additional investigation after CTC is needed to confirm suspected colonic lesions, and this is an important factor in establishing the feasibility of CTC as an alternative to colonoscopy. We aimed to compare rates of additional colonic investigation after CTC or colonoscopy for detection of colorectal cancer or large (≥10 mm) polyps in symptomatic patients in clinical practice. Methods: This pragmatic multicentre randomised trial recruited patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer from 21 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 55 years or older and regarded by their referring clinician as suitable for colonoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to colonoscopy or CTC by computer-generated random numbers, in blocks of six, stratified by trial centre and sex. We analysed the primary outcome - the rate of additional colonic investigation - by intention to treat. The trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 95152621. Findings: 1610 patients were randomly assigned to receive either colonoscopy (n=1072) or CTC (n=538). 30 patients withdrew consent, leaving for analysis 1047 assigned to colonoscopy and 533 assigned to CTC. 160 (30·0%) patients in the CTC group had additional colonic investigation compared with 86 (8·2%) in the colonoscopy group (relative risk 3·65, 95% CI 2·87-4·65; p<0·0001). Almost half the referrals after CTC were for small (<10 mm) polyps or clinical uncertainty, with low predictive value for large polyps or cancer. Detection rates of colorectal cancer or large polyps in the trial cohort were 11% for both procedures. CTC missed 1 of 29 colorectal cancers and colonoscopy missed none (of 55). Serious adverse events were rare. Interpretation: Guidelines are needed to reduce the referral rate after CTC. For most patients, however, CTC provides a similarly sensitive, less invasive alternative to colonoscopy. Funding NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme, Cancer Research UK, EPSRC Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare, and NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care. Source


Halligan S.,University College London | Wooldrage K.,Imperial College London | Dadswell E.,Imperial College London | Kralj-Hans I.,Imperial College London | And 11 more authors.
The Lancet | Year: 2013

Background: Barium enema (BE) is widely available for diagnosis of colorectal cancer despite concerns about its accuracy and acceptability. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) might be a more sensitive and acceptable alternative. We aimed to compare CTC and BE for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients in clinical practice. Methods: This pragmatic multicentre randomised trial recruited patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer from 21 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 55 years or older and regarded by their referring clinician as suitable for radiological investigation of the colon. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to BE or CTC by computergenerated random numbers, in blocks of six, stratified by trial centre and sex. We analysed the primary outcome - diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large (≥10 mm) polyps - by intention to treat. The trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 95152621. Findings: 3838 patients were randomly assigned to receive either BE (n=2553) or CTC (n=1285). 34 patients withdrew consent, leaving for analysis 2527 assigned to BE and 1277 assigned to CTC. The detection rate of colorectal cancer or large polyps was significantly higher in patients assigned to CTC than in those assigned to BE (93 [7·3%] of 1277 vs 141 [5·6%] of 2527, relative risk 1·31, 95% CI 1·01-1·68; p=0·0390). CTC missed three of 45 colorectal cancers and BE missed 12 of 85. The rate of additional colonic investigation was higher after CTC than after BE (283 [23·5%] of 1206 CTC patients had additional investigation vs 422 [18·3%] of 2300 BE patients; p=0·0003), due mainly to a higher polyp detection rate. Serious adverse events were rare. Interpretation: CTC is a more sensitive test than BE. Our results suggest that CTC should be the preferred radiological test for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer. Funding: NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme, Cancer Research UK, EPSRC Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare, and NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care. Source


Gupta S.,Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Pain Physician | Year: 2011

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a common source of low back pain. The most appropriate method of confirming SIJ pain is to inject local anesthesia into the joint to find out if the pain decreases. Unfortunately, although the SIJ is a large joint, it can be difficult to enter due to the complex nature of the joint and variations in anatomy. In my experience a double needle technique for sacroiliac joint injection can increase the chances of accurate injection into the SIJ in difficult cases. After obtaining appropriate fluoroscopic images, the tip of the needle is advanced into the SIJ. Once the tip of the needle is correctly placed, its position is checked under continuous fluoroscopy while moving the C-arm in the right and left oblique directions (dynamic fluoroscopy). On dynamic fluoroscopy the tip of the needle should remain within the joint line and not appear to be on the bone. If the tip of the needle appears to be on the bone a new joint line will need to be identified (the most translucent area through the joint) by dynamic fluoroscopy and another needle advanced into the newly identified joint line. Dynamic fluoroscopy is repeated again to confirm that the tip of the second needle remains within the joint line. Once both needles are in place contrast dye is injected through the needle that is most likely to be in the SIJ. If the contrast dye spread is not satisfactory then it is injected through the other needle. I have used this technique in 10 patients and found it very helpful in accurately performing SIJ injection which can at times be challenging. Source


Fitzpatrick K.E.,University of Oxford | Tuffnell D.,Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust | Kurinczuk J.J.,University of Oxford | Knight M.,University of Oxford
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology | Year: 2016

Objective To describe the incidence, risk factors, management and outcomes of amniotic-fluid embolism (AFE) over time. Design A population-based cohort and nested case-control study using the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS). Setting All UK hospitals with obstetrician-led maternity units. Population All women diagnosed with AFE in the UK between February 2005 and January 2014 (n = 120) and 3839 control women. Methods Prospective case and control identification through UKOSS monthly mailing. Main outcome measures Amniotic-fluid embolism, maternal death or permanent neurological injury. Results The total and fatal incidence of AFE, estimated as 1.7 and 0.3 per 100 000, respectively, showed no significant temporal trend over the study period and there was no notable temporal change in risk factors for AFE. Twenty-three women died (case fatality 19%) and seven (7%) of the surviving women had permanent neurological injury. Women who died or had permanent neurological injury were more likely to present with cardiac arrest (83% versus 33%, P < 0.001), be from ethnic-minority groups (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.85, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.02-8.00), have had a hysterectomy (unadjusted OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.02-6.06), had a shorter time interval between the AFE event and when the hysterectomy was performed (median interval 77 minutes versus 248 minutes, P = 0.0315), and were less likely to receive cryoprecipitate (unadjusted OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11-0.80). Conclusion There is no evidence of a temporal change in the incidence of or risk factors for AFE. Further investigation is needed to establish whether earlier treatments can reverse the cascade of deterioration leading to severe outcomes. © 2015 The Authors. BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Source


Ball H.L.,Durham University | Moya E.,Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust | Fairley L.,Bradford Institute for Health Research | Westman J.,Maternity Unit | And 2 more authors.
Pediatrics | Year: 2012

OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence and associations of bed- and sofa-sharing in a biethnic UK birth cohort. METHODS: We surveyed 3082 participants in the Born in Bradford birth cohort study by using a telephone interview when infants were aged 2 to 4 months.We asked families about sleep surface sharing behaviors, and other sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI)-related behaviors. RESULTS: There were 15.5% of families that had ever bed-shared, 7.2% of families regularly bed-shared, and 9.4% of families had ever sofa-shared with their infants; 1.4% reported both. Regular bed-sharers were more commonly Pakistani (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.96-4.66), had further or higher educational qualifications (aOR = 1.62, 95% CI 1.03-2.57), or breastfed for at least 8 weeks (aOR = 3.06, 95% CI 2.00-4.66). The association between breastfeeding and bedsharing was greater among white British than Pakistani families. Sofasharing occurred in association with smoking (aOR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.14-2.80) and breastfeeding for more than 8 weeks (aOR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.19-2.58), and was less likely in Pakistani families (aOR = 0.21, 95% CI 0.14-0.31), or single-parent families (aOR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: The data confirm that bed-sharing and sofa-sharing are distinct practices, which should not be combined in studies of unexpected infant deaths as a single exposure. The determinants of sleep-surface sharing differ between the UK Pakistani and UK majority communities, and from those of US minority communities. Caution is needed in generalizing SUDI/SIDS risk factors across populations with differing risk factor profiles, and care should be taken in adopting SUDI/SIDS reduction guidelines from other contexts. Copyright © 2012 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Source

Discover hidden collaborations