The purpose of this study is to clarify the appropriateness of axillofemoral bypass for high-risk patients with aortoiliac occlusive disease. From February 1986 through November 1997, 50 axillofemoral bypasses were performed at our institution. The mean age of patients was 70.3± 9.6 years (range 28 to 86 years) and 90% of them had severe associated disease. Twenty-nine grafts had axillounifemoral configuration and 21 grafts had axillobifemoral configuration. The primary and secondary patency rate, during this 11-year period (mean follow-up 47.0±30.1months), were 66.4 % and 78.3% at 5 years, with no change thereafter. The mortality rate within 30days was 2%. During the follow-up period 22 died mainly due to heart disease, cerebrovascular disease or malignant tumor, and the survival rate at 5 years was 56.3%. Fontaine classification evaluation revealed that ischemic symptoms improved in 78% of 28 survivors. According to QOL study 75% of survivors were satisfied with daily life, and their performance status improved after operation. These findings indicate that axillofemoral bypass may be an appropriate procedure for high risk patients with aortoiliac occlusive disease.

PURPOSE: The International Organization for Standardization-5fluorouracil (FU) 10 trial found that bolus 5-FU and l-leucovorin was not inferior to S-1 in the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). Continuous 5-FU and the rapid injection of 5-FU have different anti-cancer effects. Thus, bolus 5-FU and l-leucovorin treatment might be useful for oral FU-resistant GC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of all patients with S-1 or capecitabine-resistant, unresectable, or recurrent GC treated with bolus 5-FU and l-leucovorin between January 2010 and December 2015 at Hokkaido University Hospital. The bolus 5-FU and l-leucovorin regimen consisted of intravenous l-leucovorin (250 mg/m²/2 h) and bolus 5-FU (600 mg/m²) administered once weekly followed by a 2-week rest period; each cycle was repeated every 8 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 14 patients were identified. The disease control rate was 35.7%. The median progression-free survival was 1.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3~2.0 months), and the median overall survival was 6.3 months (95% CI, 4.7~7.9 months). No patient died from treatment-related causes. The most common severe adverse event associated with bolus 5-FU and l-leucovorin was neutropenia, which occurred in 21.4% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Bolus 5-FU and l-leucovorin treatment might be useful for oral FU-resistant GC. We are planning a multi-center prospective phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bolus 5-FU and l-leucovorin treatment for pre-treated unresectable or recurrent GC to confirm the results of this limited, retrospective study.
Disease-Free Survival ; Drug Therapy* ; Fluorouracil* ; Humans ; Leucovorin ; Medical Records ; Neutropenia ; Prospective Studies ; Retrospective Studies ; Stomach Neoplasms*

Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of sedation with propofol as an alternative to benzodiazepine drugs in outpatient endoscopy. Methods: In this prospective study, examinees who underwent outpatient endoscopy under propofol sedation and submitted a nextday questionnaire with providing informed consent were evaluated. Periprocedural acute responses, late adverse events within 24 hours, and examinee satisfaction were evaluated. Results: Among the 4,122 patients who received propofol in the 17,978 outpatient-based endoscopic examinations performed between November 2016 and March 2018, 2,305 eligible examinees (esophagogastroduodenoscopy for 1,340, endoscopic ultrasonography for 945, and total colonoscopy for 20) were enrolled, and their responses to a questionnaire were analyzed. The mean propofol dose was 69.6±24.4 mg (range, 20–200 mg). Diazepam, midazolam, and/or pentazocine in combination with propofol was administered to 146 examinees. Mild oxygen desaturation was observed in 59 examinees (2.6%); and mild bradycardia, in 2 (0.09%). Other severe reactions or late events did not occur. After eliminating 181 invalid responses, 97.7% (2,065/2,124) of the patients desired propofol sedation in future examinations. Conclusions Propofol sedation was found to be safe—without severe adverse events or accidents—for outpatient endoscopy on the basis of the patients’ next-day self-evaluation. Given the high satisfaction level, propofol sedation might be an ideal tool for painless endoscopic screening.

Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of sedation with propofol as an alternative to benzodiazepine drugs in outpatient endoscopy. Methods: In this prospective study, examinees who underwent outpatient endoscopy under propofol sedation and submitted a nextday questionnaire with providing informed consent were evaluated. Periprocedural acute responses, late adverse events within 24 hours, and examinee satisfaction were evaluated. Results: Among the 4,122 patients who received propofol in the 17,978 outpatient-based endoscopic examinations performed between November 2016 and March 2018, 2,305 eligible examinees (esophagogastroduodenoscopy for 1,340, endoscopic ultrasonography for 945, and total colonoscopy for 20) were enrolled, and their responses to a questionnaire were analyzed. The mean propofol dose was 69.6±24.4 mg (range, 20–200 mg). Diazepam, midazolam, and/or pentazocine in combination with propofol was administered to 146 examinees. Mild oxygen desaturation was observed in 59 examinees (2.6%); and mild bradycardia, in 2 (0.09%). Other severe reactions or late events did not occur. After eliminating 181 invalid responses, 97.7% (2,065/2,124) of the patients desired propofol sedation in future examinations. Conclusions Propofol sedation was found to be safe—without severe adverse events or accidents—for outpatient endoscopy on the basis of the patients’ next-day self-evaluation. Given the high satisfaction level, propofol sedation might be an ideal tool for painless endoscopic screening.