-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate and the need for surgery in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate and the need for surgery in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether a second procedure improves haemostatic efficacy or patient outcomes or both after epinephrine injection in adults with high-risk bleeding ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS
For our update in 2014, we searched the following versions of these databases, limited from June 2009 to May 2014: Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to May Week 2 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily Update May 22, 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations May 22, 2014 (Appendix 1); Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews-the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) April 2014 (Appendix 2); and EMBASE 1980 to Week 20 2014 (Appendix 3).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing epinephrine alone versus epinephrine plus a second method. Populations consisted of patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers, that is, patients with haemorrhage from peptic ulcer disease (gastric or duodenal) with major stigmata of bleeding as defined by Forrest classification Ia (spurting haemorrhage), Ib (oozing haemorrhage), IIa (non-bleeding visible vessel) and IIb (adherent clot) (Forrest Ia-Ib-IIa-IIb).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model; risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented for dichotomous data.
MAIN RESULTS
Nineteen studies of 2033 initially randomly assigned participants were included, of which 11 used a second injected agent, five used a mechanical method (haemoclips) and three employed thermal methods.The risk of further bleeding after initial haemostasis was lower in the combination therapy groups than in the epinephrine alone group, regardless of which second procedure was applied (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81). Adding any second procedure significantly reduced the overall bleeding rate (persistent and recurrent bleeding) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). Mortality rates were not significantly different when either method was applied.Rebleeding in the 10 studies that scheduled a reendoscopy showed no difference between epinephrine and combined therapy; without second-look endoscopy, a statistically significant difference was observed between epinephrine and epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, with fewer participants rebleeding in the combined therapy group (nine studies) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.48).For ulcers of the Forrest Ia or Ib type (oozing or spurting), the addition of a second therapy significantly reduced the rebleeding rate (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.88); this difference was not seen for type IIa (visible vessel) or type IIb (adherent clot) ulcers. Few procedure-related adverse effects were reported, and this finding was not statistically significantly different between groups. Few adverse events occurred, and no statistically significant difference was noted between groups.The addition of a second injected method reduced recurrent and persistent rebleeding rates and surgery rates in the combination therapy group, but these findings were not statistically significantly different. Significantly fewer participants died in the combined therapy group (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.00).Epinephrine and a second mechanical method decreased recurrent and persistent bleeding (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.54) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect mortality rates.Epinephrine plus thermal methods decreased the rebleeding rate (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.78) and the surgery rate (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect the mortality rate.Our risk of bias estimates show that risk of bias was low, as, although the type of study did not allow a double-blind trial, rebleeding, surgery and mortality were not dependent on subjective observation. Although some studies had limitations in their design or implementation, most were clear about important quality criteria, including randomisation and allocation concealment, sequence generation and blinding.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Additional endoscopic treatment after epinephrine injection reduces further bleeding and the need for surgery in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcer. The main adverse events include risk of perforation and gastric wall necrosis, the rates of which were low in our included studies and favoured neither epinephrine therapy nor combination therapy. The main conclusion is that combined therapy seems to work better than epinephrine alone. However, we cannot conclude that a particular form of treatment is equal or superior to another.
Topics: Adult; Combined Modality Therapy; Epinephrine; Hemostasis, Endoscopic; Humans; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 25308912
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005584.pub3 -
Medicine Mar 2017Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a common and frequently occurring disease. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD), and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a common and frequently occurring disease. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD), and duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) are important treatment options for patients with chronic pancreatitis. The Beger and Frey procedures are 2 main duodenum-preserving techniques in duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) strategies. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical efficacy of DPPHR versus PD, the Beger procedure versus PD, the Frey procedure versus PD, and the Beger procedure versus the Frey procedure in the treatment of pancreatitis. The optimal surgical option for chronic pancreatitis is still under debate. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of different surgical strategies for chronic pancreatitis.
METHODS
Five databases (PubMed, Medline, SinoMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched with the limitations of human subjects and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) text. Data were extracted by 2 of the coauthors independently and analyzed using the RevMan statistical software, version 5.3. Weighted mean differences (WMDs), risk ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
Seven studies involving a total of 385 patients who underwent the surgical treatments were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from low to moderate and included PD (n = 134) and DPPHR (n = 251 [Beger procedure = 100; Frey procedure = 109; Beger or Frey procedure = 42]). There were no significant differences between DPPHR and PD in post-operation mortality (RR = 2.89, 95% CI = 0.31-26.87, P = 0.36), pain relief (RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.94-1.25, P = 0.26), exocrine insufficiency (follow-up time > 60 months: RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.72-1.15, P = 0.41), and endocrine insufficiency (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.52-1.08, P = 0.12). Concerning the follow-up time < 60 months, the DPPHR group had better results of exocrine insufficiency (RR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.08-0.62, P = 0.04). However, operation time (P < 0.0001), blood transfusion (P = 0.02), hospital stay (P = 0.0002), postoperation morbidity (P = 0.0007), weight gain (P < 0.00001), quality of life (P = 0.01), and occupational rehabilitation (P = 0.007) were significantly better for patients who underwent the DPPHR procedure compared with the PD procedure. The comparison results of the Frey procedure and PD showed that both procedures had an equal effect in the pain relief, postoperation mortality, exocrine and endocrine function, and quality of life (QoL) (P > 0.05), whereas patients who underwent the Frey procedure had significantly reduced operative times (P < 0.05) and less blood transfusions (P < 0.05). Comparing the Beger procedure to the PD procedure, there were no significant differences in hospital stay, blood transfusion, postoperation morbidity or mortality, pain relief, weight gain, exocrine insufficiency, and occupational rehabilitation (P > 0.05). Two studies comparing the Beger and Frey procedures showed no differences in postoperative morbidity, pain relief, exocrine insufficiency, and quality of life (P > 0.05). In terms of operative time, blood transfusion, hospital stay, postoperation morbidity, weight gain, quality of life, and occupational rehabilitation, the results also favored duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) strategies.
CONCLUSION
All procedures are equally effective for the management of pain, postoperation morbidity, exocrine insufficiency, and endocrine insufficiency for chronic pancreatitis. Improved short- and long-term outcomes, including operative time, blood transfusion, hospital stay, quality of life, weight gain, and occupational rehabilitation make DPPHR a more favorable surgical strategy for patients with chronic pancreatitis. Further, relevant trails are eager to prove these findings.
Topics: Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Humans; Pancreatitis, Chronic
PubMed: 28248878
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006220 -
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology Sep 2022To help prevent delayed adverse events after endoscopic surgery, endoscopists often place clips at the site. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Prophylactic Clipping to Prevent Delayed Bleeding and Perforation After Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
To help prevent delayed adverse events after endoscopic surgery, endoscopists often place clips at the site. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of prophylactic clipping in the prevention of delayed bleeding and perforation after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).
METHODS
Multiple databases were searched from the inception dates to April 2021. And we included all relevant studies. Pooled odds ratio comparing the prophylactic clipped group versus nonprophylactic clipped group were calculated using the random effects model.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with a total size of 8693 participants. There was statistically significant difference in prophylactic clipping versus no prophylactic clipping for delayed bleeding and perforation found in all studies (odds ratio: 0.35, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-0.49, P <0.01; odds ratio: 0.42, 95% confidence interval: 0.21-0.83, P <0.05; respectively). Besides, statistically significant difference was also found in subgroup analyses based on patients with lesions larger than 20 mm. Prophylactic clipping was more protective for duodenal delayed adverse events than colorectum. The use of clip closure was more protective to ESD-related delayed adverse events than EMR.
CONCLUSIONS
Prophylactic clipping after ESD and EMR was beneficial in preventing delayed bleeding and perforation.
Topics: Endoscopic Mucosal Resection; Endoscopy; Humans; Odds Ratio; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35648969
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001721 -
The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care... Jan 2023The mainstay of surgical management of perforated peptic ulcer is omental patch repair. Advances in minimally invasive techniques have shown feasibility of laparoscopic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The mainstay of surgical management of perforated peptic ulcer is omental patch repair. Advances in minimally invasive techniques have shown feasibility of laparoscopic omental patch repair (LOPR). Laparoscopic omental patch repair is limited by learning curve (LC), but there is a lack of reporting of LC in LOPR. This study aims to compare outcomes following LOPR versus open omental patch repair (OOPR) with reporting of LC.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception till January 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing LOPR and OOPR in perforated peptic ulcer. Exclusion criteria were primary repair without use of omental patch repair. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, postoperative leak, and LC analysis.
RESULTS
There were a total of 29 studies including 5,311 patients (LOPR, n = 1,687; OOPR, n = 3,624), with 4 RCTs with 238 patients (LOPR, n = 118; OOPR, n = 120). Majority of ulcers were located in the duodenum (57.0%) followed by stomach (30.7%). Mean ulcer size ranged from 5 to 16.2 mm in LOPR and 4.7 to 15.8 mm in OOPR. Laparoscopic omental patch repair was associated with lower 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.92; p = 0.02), overall morbidity (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18-0.53; p < 0.0001), surgical site infection (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18-0.42; p < 0.00001), and length of stay (mean difference, -2.84 days; 95% CI, -3.63 to -2.06; p < 0.00001). Postoperative leakage (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.43-2.61; p = 0.90) was comparable between LOPR and OOPR. Only three studies analyzed the proportion of consultants to trainees; LOPR was performed mainly by consultants (range, 82.4-91.4%), while OOPR was mainly performed by trainees (range, 52.8-96.8%). One study showed that consultants who performed open conversion had shorter operating time compared with chief residents (85 vs. 186.6 minutes, p < 0.003).
CONCLUSION
Laparoscopic omental patch repair has lower mortality, overall morbidity, length of stay, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative pain compared with OOPR. More prospective studies should be conducted to evaluate LC in LOPR.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; Level IV.
Topics: Humans; Treatment Outcome; Pain, Postoperative; Peptic Ulcer Perforation; Laparoscopy; Duodenum; Postoperative Complications; Length of Stay
PubMed: 36252181
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003799 -
Nutrients Aug 2019We aimed to estimate the seroprevalence and the prevalence of coeliac disease (CD) in women with reproductive problems. A systematic review of English published articles... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We aimed to estimate the seroprevalence and the prevalence of coeliac disease (CD) in women with reproductive problems. A systematic review of English published articles until June 2019 was performed in PubMed and Scopus using the terms: (infertility and (coeliac disease OR gluten) OR (miscarriage and (coeliac disease OR gluten) OR (abortion and (coeliac disease OR gluten). All articles showing numerical data of anti-transglutaminase type 2 or anti-endomisium antibodies, or intestinal biopsy information were included. The study group comprised women with overall infertility, unexplained infertility, or recurrent spontaneous abortions. Two authors independently performed data extraction using a predefined data sheet. The initial search yielded 310 articles, and 23 were selected for data extraction. After meta-analysis, the pooled seroprevalence was very similar for overall and unexplained infertility, with a pooled proportion of around 1.3%-1.6%. This implies three times higher odds of having CD in infertility when compared to controls. The pooled prevalence could not be accurately calculated due to the small sample sizes. Further studies with increased sample sizes are necessary before giving specific recommendations for CD screening in women with reproductive problems, but current data seem to support a higher risk of CD in these women.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Autoantibodies; Biopsy; Celiac Disease; Duodenum; Ethnicity; Female; GTP-Binding Proteins; Humans; Immunoglobulin A; Infertility, Female; Pregnancy; Protein Glutamine gamma Glutamyltransferase 2; Transglutaminases
PubMed: 31434238
DOI: 10.3390/nu11081950 -
Obesity Surgery Nov 2018A systematic review was conducted on adverse events (AEs) associated with the use of the duodenal-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL). PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were...
A systematic review was conducted on adverse events (AEs) associated with the use of the duodenal-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL). PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were searched up to January 2018. The quality of reporting AEs was determined by the McHarm questionnaire and the risk of bias by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Thirty-eight studies were included. The comparability of the studies was low and the McHarm questionnaire showed incompleteness for most parameters in all studies. A total of 891 AEs were reported in 1056 patients. Thirty-three AEs (3.7%) were classified as severe, including hepatic abscess and esophageal perforation. The anchor of the DJBL caused or likely caused 85% of the SAEs. To improve the safety margin of the DJBL, adjustments to the anchoring system are needed.
Topics: Bariatric Surgery; Duodenum; Humans; Jejunum; Obesity, Morbid; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30121857
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-018-3441-3 -
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Sep 2019In cases of difficult biliary cannulation, transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS) can be an alternative approach of biliary access. However, its success and safety profile... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
In cases of difficult biliary cannulation, transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS) can be an alternative approach of biliary access. However, its success and safety profile have not been studied in detail. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to study the overall cannulation success and adverse events of TPS. These outcomes were also compared to other advanced cannulation methods. A systematic literature search was conducted to find all relevant articles containing data on TPS. Successful biliary cannulation and complications rates [post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), bleeding, and perforation rates] were compared in the pooled analyses of prospective comparative studies. The overall outcomes were calculated involving all studies on TPS. TPS was superior compared to needle-knife precut papillotomy (NKPP) and the double-guidewire method (DGW) regarding cannulation success (odds ratio [OR] 2.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-3.93; and OR 2.72; 95% CI 1.30-5.69, respectively). The rate of PEP did not differ between TPS and NKPP or DGW; however, TPS (only retrospective studies were available for comparison) proved to be worse than needle-knife fistulotomy in this regard (OR 4.62; 95% CI 1.36-15.72). Bleeding and perforation rates were similar among these advanced techniques. There were no data about long-term consequences of TPS. The biliary cannulation rate of TPS is higher than that of the other advanced cannulation techniques, while the safety profile is similar to those. However, no long-term follow-up studies are available on the later consequences of TPS; therefore, such studies are strongly needed for its full evaluation.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Biliary Tract; Catheterization; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Clinical Competence; Humans; Pancreatic Ducts; Pancreatitis; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Sphincterotomy, Endoscopic; Time Factors
PubMed: 31055720
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-019-05640-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Pancreatic and periampullary adenocarcinomas account for some of the most aggressive malignancies, and the leading causes of cancer-related mortalities. Partial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic and periampullary adenocarcinomas account for some of the most aggressive malignancies, and the leading causes of cancer-related mortalities. Partial pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with negative resection margins is the only potentially curative therapy. The high prevalence of lymph node metastases has led to the hypothesis that wider excision with the removal of more lymphatic tissue could result in an improvement of survival, and higher rates of negative resection margins.
OBJECTIVES
To compare overall survival following standard (SLA) versus extended lymph lymphadenectomy (ELA) for pancreatic head and periampullary adenocarcinoma. We also compared secondary outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, and tumour involvement of the resection margins between the two procedures.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase from 1973 to September 2020; we applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing PD with SLA versus PD with ELA, including participants with pancreatic head and periampullary adenocarcinoma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened references and extracted data from study reports. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for most binary outcomes except for postoperative mortality, for which we estimated a Peto odds ratio (Peto OR), and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. We used a fixed-effect model in the absence of substantial heterogeneity (I² < 25%), and a random-effects model in cases of substantial heterogeneity (I² > 25%). Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias, and we used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for important outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven studies with 843 participants (421 ELA and 422 SLA). All seven studies included Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival. There was little or no difference in survival between groups (log hazard ratio (log HR) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.06 to 3.31; P = 0.94; seven studies, 843 participants; very low-quality evidence). There was little or no difference in postoperative mortality between the groups (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.20, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.80; seven studies, 843 participants; low-quality evidence). Operating time was probably longer for ELA (mean difference (MD) 50.13 minutes, 95% CI 19.19 to 81.06 minutes; five studies, 670 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was substantial heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 88%; P < 0.00001). There may have been more blood loss during ELA (MD 137.43 mL, 95% CI 11.55 to 263.30 mL; two studies, 463 participants; very low-quality evidence). There was substantial heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 81%, P = 0.02). There may have been more lymph nodes retrieved during ELA (MD 11.09 nodes, 95% CI 7.16 to 15.02; five studies, 670 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was substantial heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 81%, P < 0.00001). There was little or no difference in the incidence of positive resection margins between groups (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.13; six studies, 783 participants; very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence of an impact on survival with extended versus standard lymph node resection. However, the operating time may have been longer and blood loss greater in the extended resection group. In conclusion, current evidence neither supports nor refutes the effect of extended lymph lymphadenectomy in people with adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Confidence Intervals; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Lymph Node Excision; Margins of Excision; Operative Time; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33471373
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011490.pub2 -
Journal of Ethnopharmacology Nov 2021Different orchids are important in traditional medicine, and species belonging to the genus Bletilla are important. Bletilla species have been used for thousands of...
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE
Different orchids are important in traditional medicine, and species belonging to the genus Bletilla are important. Bletilla species have been used for thousands of years in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) for the treatment of several health disorders, such as gastrointestinal disorders, peptic ulcer, lung disorders, and traumatic bleeding etc. AIM OF THIS REVIEW: This review aims to provide a systematic overview and objective analysis of Bletilla species and to find the probable relationship between their traditional use, chemical constituents, and pharmacological activities, while assessing their therapeutic potential in treatment of different human diseases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Relevant literatures on Bletilla species have been collected using the keywords "Bletilla", "phytochemistry", and "pharmacology" in scientific databases, such as "PubMed", "Scifinder", "The Plant List", "Elsevier", "China Knowledge Resource Integrated databases (CNKI)", "Google Scholar", "Baidu Scholar", and other literature sources, etc. RESULTS: This review indicates the isolation and identification of over 261 compounds from this genus, till December 2020. These chemical isolates belong to the stilbenes (bibenzyls and phenanthrenes), flavonoids, triterpenoids, steroids, simple phenolics, and glucosyloxybenzyl 2-isobutylmalates classes of compounds. These compounds have been reported to be characteristically distributed in Bletilla striata (Thunb.) Rchb. f. (BS), Bletilla ochracea Schltr. (BO), and Bletilla formosana (Hayata) Schltr. (BF). The crude extracts and pure compounds derived from the three Bletilla species have reportedly exhibited a wide spectrum of in vitro and in vivo pharmacological effects, such as hemostatic, anti-inflammatory, anti-tumor, and anti-microbial activities. As a Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), Bletilla species or preparations containing Bletilla species have been used for the treatment of epistaxis, gastrointestinal bleeding, cough and hemoptysis, gastric and duodenal ulcer, and traumatic injuries. Thus, Bletilla species have proven potential both in traditional uses and scientific studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Pharmacological studies have validated the use of Bletilla species in the traditional medicine, especially hemorrhagic diseases. Polysaccharides and stilbenes are the major bioactive chemical constituents of Bletilla genus according to the literatures. However, the mechanism of action of these molecules is yet to be studied. In addition, a detailed comparative analysis of the phytochemistry and biological activities of the three Bletilla species (BS, BO and BF) is highly recommended for understanding their ethnopharmacological uses and applications in clinics. Clinical toxicity tests on BS have been found to be negative, but it can't be used with Aconitum carmichaeli in traditional uses. Furthermore, not many reports are present in the literature regarding the conservation of Bletilla species.
Topics: Animals; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Ethnopharmacology; Humans; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Orchidaceae; Phytochemicals; Polysaccharides; Stilbenes
PubMed: 34144194
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2021.114263 -
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aug 2019Endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (EST) is commonly performed during therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but is an independent risk factor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (EST) is commonly performed during therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but is an independent risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis, bleeding and duodenal perforation. These are partly ascribed to the electrosurgical current mode used for EST, and currently the optimal current model for EST remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to compare the rate of complications undergoing EST using the Endocut versus the blended current.
METHODS
A systematic search of databases was performed for relevant published and prospective studies including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to compare Endocut with blended current modes for EST. Data were collected from inception until 1 July 2018, using post-ERCP pancreatitis, bleeding and perforation as primary outcomes.
RESULTS
Three RCTs including a total of 594 patients met the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis results showed the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis, primarily mild to moderate pancreatitis, was no different between Endocut versus blended current modes [risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-1.52, P = 0.29]. However, the risk of endoscopically bleeding events, primarily mild bleeding, was lower in studies using Endocut versus blended current (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.95, P = 0.03). Notably, none of the patients experienced perforation in these three trials.
CONCLUSIONS
The rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis was not significantly different when using the Endocut versus blended current during EST. Nevertheless, compared with the blended current, Endocut reduced the incidence of endoscopically evident bleeding; however, the available data were insufficient to assess the perforation risk.
Topics: Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Duodenal Diseases; Electrosurgery; Humans; Intestinal Perforation; Pancreatitis; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Sphincterotomy, Endoscopic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30778871
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-019-05513-w