Gardner’s syndrome: A case report and review of the literature

To evaluate Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II scoring systems in a single intensive care unit (ICU), independent from the ICUs of the developmental sample; and to compare the performance of APACHE II and SAPS II by means of statistical analyses in such a clinical setting. Prospective, cohort study. A single ICU in a Greek university hospital. In a time interval of 5 yrs, data for 681 patients admitted to our ICU were collected. The original exclusion criteria of both systems were employed. Patients <17 yrs of age were dropped from the study to keep compatibility with both systems. Eventually, a total of 661 patients were included in the analysis. Demographics, clinical parameters essential for the calculation of APACHE II and SAPS II scores, and risk of hospital death were recorded. Patient vital status was followed up to hospital discharge. Both systems showed poor calibration and underestimated mortality but had good discriminative power, with SAPS II performing better than APACHE II. The evaluation of uniformity of fit in various subgroups for both systems confirmed the pattern of underprediction of mortality from both models and the better performance of APACHE II over our data sample. APACHE II and SAPS II failed to predict mortality in a population sample other than the one used for their development. APACHE II performed better than SAPS II. Validation in such a population is essential. Because there is a great variation in clinical and other patient characteristics among ICUs, it is doubtful that one system can be validated in all types of populations to be used for comparisons among different ICUs.

It is well established that the preoperative nutritional status of gastric cancer (GC) patients significantly affects the prognosis of the operated patients, their overall survival, as well as the disease-specific survival. Existing data support that preoperative assessment of nutritional status and early correction of nutritional deficiencies exert a favorable effect on early postoperative outcomes. A variety of relevant indices are used to assess the nutritional status of GC patients who are candidates for surgery. The guidelines of almost all international organizations recommend the use of oral enteral nutrition (EN). Oncologically acceptable types of gastrectomy and methods of patient rehabilitation should take into account the expected postoperative nutritional status. The majority of data support that perioperative EN reduces complications and hospital stay, but not mortality. Oral EN in the postoperative period, albeit in small amounts, helps to reduce the weight loss that is a consequence of gastrectomy. Iron deficiency with or without anemia and low serum levels of vitamin B12 are common metabolic sequelae after gastrectomy and should be restored. EN also significantly helps patients undergoing neoadjuvant or adjuvant antineoplastic therapy. The occurrence of the so-called “postgastrectomy syndromes” requires dietary modifications and drug support. This review attempts to highlight the benefits of EN in GC patients undergoing gastrectomy and to emphasize the type of necessary nutritional management, based on current literature data.