-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been suggested as an effective and safe dialysis modality in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). However, whether PD is superior to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been suggested as an effective and safe dialysis modality in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). However, whether PD is superior to extracorporeal therapy (e.g. haemodialysis) in terms of improving survival, recovery of kidney function, metabolic and clinical outcomes is still inconclusive.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review was to evaluate the benefits and harms of PD for patients with AKI compared with extracorporeal therapy or different PD modalities.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies to 29 May 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the China Biological Medicine Database.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included patients with AKI who were randomised to receive PD, extracorporeal therapy, or different PD modalities regardless of their age, sex, primary disease and clinical course.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Screening, selection, data extraction and quality assessments for each retrieved article were carried out by two authors using standardised forms. Authors contacted when published data were incomplete. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity among studies was explored using the Cochran Q statistic and the I test. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, recovery of kidney function, weekly delivered Kt/V, correction of acidosis, fluid removal, duration of dialysis, and infectious complications. Confidence in the evidence was assessing using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Six studies (484 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Five studies compared high volume PD with daily haemodialysis, extended daily haemodialysis, or continuous renal replacement therapy. One study focused on the intensity of PD. The overall risk of bias was low to unclear. Compared to extracorporeal therapy, PD probably made little or no difference to all-cause mortality (4 studies, 383 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.55; I = 69%; moderate certainty evidence), or kidney function recovery (3 studies, 333 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; I = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). PD probably slightly reduces the amount of fluid removal compared to extracorporeal therapy (3 studies, 313 participants: MD -0.59 L/d, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.01; I = 89%; low certainty evidence), and probably made little or no difference to infectious complications (2 studies, 263 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.78; I = 0%; low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether PD compared to extracorporeal therapy has any effects on weekly delivered Kt/V (2 studies, 263 participants: MD -2.47, 95% CI -5.17 to 0.22; I = 99%; very low certainty evidence), correction of acidosis (2 studies, 89 participants: RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 13.60; I = 96%; very low certainty evidence), or duration of dialysis (2 studies, 170 participants: MD -1.01 hours, 95% CI -91.49 to 89.47; I = 98%; very low certainty evidence). Heterogeneity was high and this may be due to the different extracorporeal therapies used.One study (61 participants) reported little or no difference to all-cause mortality, kidney function recovery, or infection between low and high and intensity PD. Weekly delivered Kt/V and fluid removal was lower with low compared to high intensity PD.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on moderate (mortality, recovery of kidney function), low (infectious complications), or very low certainty evidence (correction of acidosis) there is probably little or no difference between PD and extracorporeal therapy for treating AKI. Fluid removal (low certainty) and weekly delivered Kt/V (very low certainty) may be higher with extracorporeal therapy.
Topics: Acidosis; Acute Kidney Injury; Cause of Death; Humans; Peritoneal Dialysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function; Renal Dialysis
PubMed: 29199769
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011457.pub2 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Nov 2022An increasing number of patients treated with peritoneal dialysis eventually undergo kidney transplantation. Owing to opposing reports, we aimed to find evidence about... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
An increasing number of patients treated with peritoneal dialysis eventually undergo kidney transplantation. Owing to opposing reports, we aimed to find evidence about the best time for peritoneal dialysis catheter removal in transplant patients.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of non-randomized studies of intervention comparing patients with peritoneal dialysis catheters left in place or removed during kidney transplantation in regard to the need for dialysis and occurrence of catheter-related complications. We searched (last update on 8 December 2021) PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for eligible studies. ROBINS-I tool and funnel plot asymmetry analysis were used to assess the quality of included articles.
RESULTS
Eight observational studies were evaluated. Five of them, which involved 338 patients, were included in a meta-analysis. All were at moderate to serious risk of bias. The odds of needing dialysis are more than twice as high for patients with peritoneal dialysis catheters left in situ (pooled odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 4.73; I = 0%). No statistically significant difference was noted when adult and pediatric subgroups were compared (Q = 0.13, P = .720). More individuals with catheters left in place required dialysis (pooled prevalence, 20.9%; 95% CI, 13.6 to 30.7%; I = 59% vs. 12.4%; 95% CI, 5.6 to 25.2%; I = 0%) and experienced catheter-related infections.
CONCLUSION
Available evidence is scarce. Unless new data from a randomized controlled trial are available, the dilemma of peritoneal dialysis catheter removal cannot be solved.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO Protocol ID: CRD42020207707.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Kidney Transplantation; Catheters, Indwelling; Peritoneal Dialysis; Time Factors; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35945300
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-022-02637-y -
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) Mar 2024mHealth has been utilized in the care of patients with chronic kidney disease, allowing the collection of patient health-related data, offering disease-related... (Review)
Review
mHealth has been utilized in the care of patients with chronic kidney disease, allowing the collection of patient health-related data, offering disease-related information, enabling the tracking and recording of biochemical parameters, and enabling communication with healthcare providers in real time through applications. mHealth may improve the health outcomes in patients with peritoneal dialysis. This systematic review aimed to summarize evidence regarding the functionality and usability of mHealth apps in patients with peritoneal dialysis. We conducted a comprehensive literature review, searching in five databases, including CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science, to retrieve titles and abstracts related to peritoneal dialysis and mHealth applications for PRISMA recommendations from January 2013 to December 2023. Overall, 11 studies met all the inclusion criteria. The functionality of mHealth apps included inform, instruct, record, display, guide, remind/alert, and communicate. Most of the apps have multifunctionality. The usability was categorized into three aspects: efficiency (self-efficacy and usability), satisfaction, and effectiveness (underwent kidney transplantation and switched to hemodialysis, rehospitalization, peritonitis rate, infection rates at exit sites, mortality, fluid overload, inadequate solute clearance, biochemical values, quality of life, consumer quality index, and technology readiness). Generally, outcomes in the intervention group had better effects compared to those in the control group. Multifunctional mHealth apps show a good potential in improving the efficiency, satisfaction, and effectiveness for patients compared to traditional care. Future research should include more studies and participants to explore and verify the long-term effectiveness of mHealth apps.
PubMed: 38470704
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12050593 -
Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and... 2021Home-based peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an alternative to facility-based hemodialysis and has lower costs and greater freedom for patients with kidney failure. For a...
BACKGROUND
Home-based peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an alternative to facility-based hemodialysis and has lower costs and greater freedom for patients with kidney failure. For a patient to undergo PD, a safe and reliable method of accessing the peritoneum is needed. However, different catheter insertion techniques may affect patient health outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the risk of infectious and mechanical complications between surgical (open and laparoscopic) PD catheter insertion and percutaneous catheter insertion.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
We searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and SCOPUS from inception until June 2018. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers based on a preformed template.
PATIENTS
Adult (aged 18+) patients with kidney failure who underwent a PD catheter insertion procedure.
MEASUREMENTS
We analyzed leak, malfunction, and bleed as early complications (occurring within 1 month of catheter insertion). Infectious complications (exit-site infections, tunnel infections, and peritonitis) were presented as both early complications and with the longest duration of follow-up.
METHODS
Random effects meta-analyses with the generic inverse variance method to estimate pooled rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals. We quantified heterogeneity by using the I2 statistic for inconsistency and assessed heterogeneity using the χ test. Sensitivity analysis was performed by removing studies at high risk of bias as measured with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies (22 observational, 2 RCTs) with 3108 patients and 3777 catheter insertions were selected. Data from 2 studies were unable to be extracted and were qualitatively assessed. In the remaining 22 studies, percutaneous insertion was associated with a lower risk of both exit-site infections (risk ratio [RR] = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24-0.53, I = 0%) and peritonitis (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36-0.77, I = 3%) within 1 month of the procedure. There was no difference in mechanical complication rates between the 2 techniques.
LIMITATIONS
Lack of consistency in the time periods for the various outcomes reported, risk of bias concerns with respect to population comparability, and the inability to analyze individual component causes of primary nonfunction (catheter obstruction, catheter migration, and leak).
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis suggests differences in early infectious complications in favor of percutaneous insertion and no significant differences in mechanical complications compared with surgical insertion. These findings have implications on the direction of PD programs in terms of maximizing operating room resources.
PubMed: 34795905
DOI: 10.1177/20543581211052731 -
European Review For Medical and... Mar 2019The present study was aimed at illustrating short- or long-term patient outcome among individuals with urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) compared with those with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The present study was aimed at illustrating short- or long-term patient outcome among individuals with urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) compared with those with conventional PD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases. Cohort studies were investigated comparing the effects of urgent start of PD (<14 days after catheter insertion) to those of conventional start of PD (≥14 days after catheter insertion). Risks of bias across studies were evaluated using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. We calculated the pooled risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous data and continuous data, respectively.
RESULTS
Six studies involving 1,242 patients were identified. Compared with conventional PD, urgent-start PD was not associated with a high mortality (RR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.69; I2=0%, p=0.99) and a higher prevalence of overall mechanical complications (RR: 1.79, 95% CI: 0.85 to 3.78; p=0.12; I2=64%, p=0.02). However, urgent-start PD was associated with a higher prevalence of leakage (RR: 6.72, 95% CI: 2.11 to 21.32; I2=0%, p=0.60). In terms of infectious complications, data analysis of the fixed-effects model showed no difference between the two groups. (RR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.90 to 2.05, p=0.14), regardless of peritonitis (RR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.90 to 2.05, p=0.14; I2=0%, p=0.70) or other infections (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.49 to 2.69, p=0.99; I2=0%, p=0.75).
CONCLUSIONS
Urgent-start PD was not associated with a higher risk of mortality and dialysis-related complications. However, compared with conventional PD, an urgent start of PD may increase the risk of a leak.
Topics: Catheterization; Female; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Male; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritonitis; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30915761
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_201903_17261 -
Genetics and Molecular Research : GMR Jul 2015We used a meta-analysis approach to investigate the association between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and risk of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in cirrhotic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We used a meta-analysis approach to investigate the association between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and risk of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in cirrhotic patients. We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify eligible studies. We included studies that compared cirrhotic patients who did or did not use PPIs. The primary outcome was SBP, and the secondary outcome was overall bacterial infection. Results were pooled using random-effect models. This process led to identification of 12 journal articles and 5 conference abstracts. The pooled data showed that PPI use in patients with cirrhosis and ascites was significantly associated with an increased risk of SBP [odds ratio (OR) = 2.17; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.46-3.23; P < 0.05; I2 = 85.6%] and overall risk of bacterial infection (OR = 1.98; 95%CI = 1.36-2.87; P < 0.05; I2 = 0). Subgroup analysis revealed that journal articles and studies reporting adjusted effect estimates demonstrated that PPI users had a significantly increased risk of SBP (OR = 2.13; 95%CI = 1.61-2.82; P < 0.05; I2 = 29.4%; and OR = 1.98; 95%CI = 1.42-2.77; P < 0.05; I2 = 67%, respectively). In conclusion, PPI use increased the risk of SBP and overall bacterial infection in patients with cirrhosis and ascites. PPIs should be administered after careful assessment of the indications in cirrhotic patients. Future well-designed prospective studies are warranted to clarify the dose relationships and to compare infection risks associated with different classes of PPIs.
Topics: Aged; Bacterial Infections; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Liver Cirrhosis; Middle Aged; Peritonitis; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Risk Factors
PubMed: 26214428
DOI: 10.4238/2015.July.3.25 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Scalpels or electrosurgery can be used to make abdominal incisions. The potential benefits of electrosurgery may include reduced blood loss, dry and rapid separation of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Scalpels or electrosurgery can be used to make abdominal incisions. The potential benefits of electrosurgery may include reduced blood loss, dry and rapid separation of tissue, and reduced risk of cutting injury to surgeons. Postsurgery risks possibly associated with electrosurgery may include poor wound healing and complications such as surgical site infection.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of electrosurgery compared with scalpel for major abdominal incisions.
SEARCH METHODS
The first version of this review included studies published up to February 2012. In October 2016, for this first update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, and the registry for ongoing trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov). We did not apply date or language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies considered in this analysis were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared electrosurgery to scalpel for creating abdominal incisions during major open abdominal surgery. Incisions could be any orientation (vertical, oblique, or transverse) and surgical setting (elective or emergency). Electrosurgical incisions were made through major layers of the abdominal wall, including subcutaneous tissue and the musculoaponeurosis (a sheet of connective tissue that attaches muscles), regardless of the technique used to incise the skin and peritoneum. Scalpel incisions were made through major layers of abdominal wall including skin, subcutaneous tissue, and musculoaponeurosis, regardless of the technique used to incise the abdominal peritoneum. Primary outcomes analysed were wound infection, time to wound healing, and wound dehiscence. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain, wound incision time, wound-related blood loss, and adhesion or scar formation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. When necessary, we contacted trial authors for missing data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MD) and 95% CI for continuous data.
MAIN RESULTS
The updated search found seven additional RCTs making a total of 16 included studies (2769 participants). All studies compared electrosurgery to scalpel and were considered in one comparison. Eleven studies, analysing 2178 participants, reported on wound infection. There was no clear difference in wound infections between electrosurgery and scalpel (7.7% for electrosurgery versus 7.4% for scalpel; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.54; low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and serious imprecision). None of the included studies reported time to wound healing.It is uncertain whether electrosurgery decreases wound dehiscence compared to scalpel (2.7% for electrosurgery versus 2.4% for scalpel; RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.50; 1064 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and very serious imprecision).There was no clinically important difference in incision time between electrosurgery and scalpel (MD -45.74 seconds, 95% CI -88.41 to -3.07; 325 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded for serious imprecision). There was no clear difference in incision time per wound area between electrosurgery and scalpel (MD -0.58 seconds/cm, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.09; 282 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence downgraded for very serious imprecision).There was no clinically important difference in mean blood loss between electrosurgery and scalpel (MD -20.10 mL, 95% CI -28.16 to -12.05; 241 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded for serious imprecision). Two studies reported on mean wound-related blood loss per wound area; however, we were unable to pool the studies due to considerable heterogeneity. It was uncertain whether electrosurgery decreased wound-related blood loss per wound area. We could not reach a conclusion on the effects of the two interventions on pain and appearance of scars for various reasons such as small number of studies, insufficient data, the presence of conflicting data, and different measurement methods.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The certainty of evidence was moderate to very low due to risk of bias and imprecise results. Low-certainty evidence shows no clear difference in wound infection between the scalpel and electrosurgery. There is a need for more research to determine the relative effectiveness of scalpel compared with electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions.
Topics: Abdominal Wall; Blood Loss, Surgical; Cicatrix; Electrosurgery; Humans; Operative Time; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Instruments; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection; Tissue Adhesions; Wound Healing
PubMed: 28931203
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005987.pub3 -
BMC Gastroenterology Feb 2023Gastrointestinal strictures impact clinical presentation in abdominal tuberculosis and are associated with significant morbidity. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Gastrointestinal strictures impact clinical presentation in abdominal tuberculosis and are associated with significant morbidity.
AIM
To conduct a systematic review of the prevalence of stricturing disease in abdominal and gastrointestinal tuberculosis and response to antitubercular therapy (ATT).
METHODS
We searched Pubmed and Embase on 13th January 2022, for papers reporting on the frequency and outcomes of stricturing gastrointestinal tuberculosis. The data were extracted, and pooled prevalence of stricturing disease was estimated in abdominal tuberculosis and gastrointestinal (intestinal) tuberculosis. The pooled clinical response and stricture resolution (endoscopic or radiologic) rates were also estimated. Publication bias was assessed using the Funnel plot and Egger test. The risk of bias assessment was done using a modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
Thirty-three studies reporting about 1969 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of intestinal strictures in abdominal tuberculosis and gastrointestinal TB was 0.12 (95%CI 0.07-0.20, I = 89%) and 0.27 (95% CI 0.21-0.33, I = 85%), respectively. The pooled clinical response of stricturing gastrointestinal tuberculosis to antitubercular therapy was 0.77 (95%CI 0.65-0.86, I = 74%). The pooled stricture response rate (endoscopic or radiological) was 0.66 (95%CI 0.40-0.85, I = 91%). The pooled rate of need for surgical intervention was 0.21 (95%CI 0.13-0.32, I = 70%), while endoscopic dilatation was 0.14 (95%CI 0.09-0.21, I = 0%).
CONCLUSION
Stricturing gastrointestinal tuberculosis occurs in around a quarter of patients with gastrointestinal tuberculosis, and around two-thirds of patients have a clinical response with antitubercular therapy. A subset of patients may need endoscopic or surgical intervention. The estimates for the pooled prevalence of stricturing disease and response to ATT had significant heterogeneity.
Topics: Humans; Constriction, Pathologic; Tuberculosis, Gastrointestinal; Antitubercular Agents; Intestinal Obstruction; Abdomen
PubMed: 36814249
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-02682-x -
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2023Background and Aim: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a common infection in liver cirrhosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide detailed... (Review)
Review
Background and Aim: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a common infection in liver cirrhosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide detailed information on the prevalence of SBP among hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver cirrhosis globally. Methods: A systematic search for articles describing the prevalence of SBP in HBV and HCV-related cirrhosis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Our search returned ten (10) eligible articles involving 1713 viral cirrhosis cases representing eight (8) countries. A meta-analysis was performed on our eligible studies using the random effect model. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022321790). Results: The pooled prevalence of SBP in HBV-associated cirrhosis had the highest estimate [8.0% (95% CI, 2.7−21.0%; I2 = 96.13%; p < 0.001)], followed by SBP in HCV-associated liver cirrhosis [4.0% (95% CI, 1.3%−11.5%; I2 = 88.99%; p < 0.001)]. China (61.8%, CI: 57.1−66.3%), the USA (50.0%, CI: 34.6−65.4%), and Holland (31.1%, CI: 21.6−42.5%) had the highest estimate for SBP in HBV associated liver cirrhosis, SBP in HCV associated liver cirrhosis and SBP in HBV + HCV associated liver cirrhosis respectively. There was a significant difference in the prevalence of SBP in viral hepatitis-associated liver cirrhosis with the year of sampling and method of SBP detection at P < 0.001. There was an increase in SBP incidence at the beginning of 2016 across the liver cirrhosis in this study. Conclusion: The findings of this review revealed a rise in the incidence of SBP in viral hepatitis over the last decade. The latter indicates a possible future rise in the global prevalence of SBP among HBV and HCV-related liver cirrhosis.
PubMed: 36673643
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11020275 -
The Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology... Jan 2022Many studies and meta-analyses have investigated the associations among proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), portosystemic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Many studies and meta-analyses have investigated the associations among proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), portosystemic encephalopathy (PSE), and other infections. However, these studies had limitations, including the omission of several relevant studies and drawing conclusions, based on the abstracts without consulting the full-text of the articles. To evaluate the association between PPIs and complications arising from cirrhosis and risks of PPI use in patients with cirrhosis.
METHODS
Data were extracted from the EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the selected studies.
RESULTS
A total of 29 studies (13 case-control and 16 cohort studies) involving 20,484 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The total relative risk (RR) for the 23 studies which investigated SBP was 1.31, and the 95% CI was 1.10-1.55 (I2 = 73.0%). The total RR for the 7 studies which examined PSE was 1.25 (95% CI 0.85-1.84, I2 = 96.1%). For the 7 studies which analyzed overall infection, the total RR was 1.37 (95% CI 1.07-1.76, I2 = 79.3%). The RR for the 2 cohort studies that assessed mortality was 1.39 (95% CI 0.85-2.27, I2 = 0.0%).
CONCLUSION
PPI use in cirrhosis patients increased the SBP and overall infection risk. PPIs should be considered with appropriate indications when the benefits exceed the risks in cirrhosis patients with ascites.
Topics: Ascites; Fibrosis; Hepatic Encephalopathy; Humans; Liver Cirrhosis; Peritonitis; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 35040787
DOI: 10.5152/tjg.2022.20689