-
World Journal of Gastroenterology Apr 2023Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a disease spectrum ranging from mild to severe disease. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, numerous reports of AP have...
BACKGROUND
Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a disease spectrum ranging from mild to severe disease. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, numerous reports of AP have been published, with most authors concluding a causal relationship between COVID-19 and AP. Retrospective case reports or small case series are unable to accurately determine the cause-effect relationship between COVID-19 and AP.
AIM
To establish whether COVID-19 is a cause of AP using the modified Naranjo scoring system.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted on PubMed, World of Science and Embase for articles reporting COVID-19 and AP from inception to August 2021. Exclusion criteria were cases of AP which were not reported to be due to COVID-19 infection, age < 18 years old, review articles and retrospective cohort studies. The original 10-item Naranjo scoring system (total score 13) was devised to approximate the likelihood of a clinical presentation to be secondary to an adverse drug reaction. We modified the original scoring system into a 8-item modified Naranjo scoring system (total score 9) to determine the cause-effect relationship between COVID-19 and AP. A cumulative score was decided for each case presented in the included articles. Interpretation of the modified Naranjo scoring system is as follows: ≤ 3: Doubtful, 4-6: Possible, ≥ 7: Probable cause.
RESULTS
The initial search resulted in 909 articles, with 740 articles after removal of duplicates. A total of 67 articles were included in the final analysis, with 76 patients which had AP reported to be due to COVID-19. The mean age was 47.8 (range 18-94) years. Majority of patients (73.3%) had ≤ 7 d between onset of COVID-19 infection and diagnosis of AP. There were only 45 (59.2%) patients who had adequate investigations to rule out common aetiologies (gallstones, choledocholithiasis, alcohol, hypertriglyceridemia, hypercalcemia and trauma) of AP. Immunoglobulin G4 testing was conducted in 9 (13.5%) patients to rule out autoimmune AP. Only 5 (6.6%) patients underwent endoscopic ultrasound and/or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatogram to rule out occult microlithiasis, pancreatic malignancy and pancreas divisum. None of the patients had other recently diagnosed viral infections apart from COVID-19 infection, or underwent genetic testing to rule out hereditary AP. There were 32 (42.1%), 39 (51.3%) and 5 (6.6%) patients with doubtful, possible, and probable cause-effect relationship respectively between COVID-19 and AP.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence is weak to establish a strong link between COVID-19 and AP. Investigations should be performed to rule out other causes of AP before establishing COVID-19 as an aetiology.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Young Adult; Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; COVID-19; Pancreatitis; Retrospective Studies; Acute Disease; Gallstones
PubMed: 37155526
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i13.2050 -
Scientific Reports Feb 2021Prophylactic drainage after major liver resection remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the value of prophylactic drainage after major... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Prophylactic drainage after major liver resection remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the value of prophylactic drainage after major liver resection. PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched. Postoperative bile leak, bleeding, interventional drainage, wound infection, total complications, and length of hospital stay were the outcomes of interest. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as odds ratios (OR) and for continuous outcomes, weighted mean differences (MDs) were computed by the inverse variance method. Summary effect measures are presented together with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grades of Research, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which was mostly moderate for evaluated outcomes. Three randomized controlled trials and five non-randomized trials including 5,050 patients were included. Bile leakage rate was higher in the drain group (OR: 2.32; 95% CI 1.18-4.55; p = 0.01) and interventional drains were inserted more frequently in this group (OR: 1.53; 95% CI 1.11-2.10; p = 0.009). Total complications were higher (OR: 1.71; 95% CI 1.45-2.03; p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay was longer (MD: 1.01 days; 95% CI 0.47-1.56 days; p < 0.001) in the drain group. The use of prophylactic drainage showed no beneficial effects after major liver resection; however, the definitions and classifications used to report on postoperative complications and surgical complexity are heterogeneous among the published studies. Further well-designed RCTs with large sample sizes are required to conclusively determine the effects of drainage after major liver resection.
Topics: Abdomen; Drainage; Hepatectomy; Humans; Length of Stay; Liver; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Time Factors
PubMed: 33542274
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-82333-x -
Endoscopy International Open Sep 2023Recently studies have compared early (<4 weeks) vs. late or standard (>4 weeks) endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrotic collections (PNC) and have reported... (Review)
Review
Recently studies have compared early (<4 weeks) vs. late or standard (>4 weeks) endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrotic collections (PNC) and have reported favorable results for early treatment. In this meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of early vs. late endoscopic treatment of PNC. We reviewed several databases from inception to September 30, 2021 to identify studies that compared early with late endoscopic treatment of PNC. Our outcomes of interest were adverse events (AEs), resolution of PNC, performance of direct endoscopic necrosectomy, need for further interventions, and mean number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for categorical variables and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous variables. Data were analyzed by random effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I statistic. We included four studies with 427 patients. We found no significant difference in rates of AEs, RR (95% CI) 1.70 (range, 0.56-5.20), resolution of necrotic or fluid collections, RR (95% CI) 0.89 (range, 0.71-1.11), need for further interventions, RR (95% CI) 1.47 (range, 0.70-3.08), direct necrosectomy, RR (95% CI) 1.39 (range, 0.22-8.80), mortality, RR (95% CI) 2.37 (range, 0.26-21.72) and mean number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions, MD (95% CI) 1.58 (range,-0.20-3.36) between groups. Early endoscopic treatment of PNC can be considered for indications such as infected necrosis or sterile necrosis with symptoms or complications; however, future large multicenter studies are required to further evaluate its safety.
PubMed: 37671081
DOI: 10.1055/a-2100-9076 -
Transplantation Proceedings Nov 2020As the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has emerged as a viral pandemic, data on the clinical characteristics and...
BACKGROUND
As the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has emerged as a viral pandemic, data on the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing solid organ transplant are emerging. The objective of this systematic review was to assess currently published literature relating to the management, clinical course, and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in liver, kidney, and heart solid organ transplant recipients.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to assess currently published literature relating to the management, clinical course, and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in liver, kidney, and heart solid organ transplant recipients. Articles published through June 2020 were searched in the MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and PubMed databases. We identified 49 eligible studies comprising a total of 403 solid organ transplant recipients.
RESULTS
Older age, male sex, and preexisting comorbidities, including hypertension and/or diabetes, were the most common prevailing characteristics among the solid organ transplant recipients. Clinical presentation ranged from mild to severe disease, including multiorgan failure and death. We found an overall mortality rate of 21%.
CONCLUSION
Our analysis suggests no increase in overall mortality or worse outcome in solid organ transplant recipients receiving immunosuppressive therapy compared with mortality in the general surgical population with SARS-CoV-2. Our findings suggest that transplant surgery and its immunosuppressive effects should not be a deterrent to proper surgical care for patients in the SARS-CoV-2 era.
Topics: Aged; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Comorbidity; Coronavirus Infections; Female; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; Male; Organ Transplantation; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 33127076
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.09.006 -
Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine Dec 2020Cardiovascular events are among the most common causes of late death in the transplant recipient (Tx) population. Moreover, major cardiac surgical procedures are more... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Cardiovascular events are among the most common causes of late death in the transplant recipient (Tx) population. Moreover, major cardiac surgical procedures are more challenging and risky due to immunosuppression and the potential impact on the transplanted organ's functional capacity. We aimed to assess open cardiac surgery safety in abdominal solid organ transplant recipients, comparing the postoperative outcomes with those of nontransplant (N-Tx) patients. Electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS were searched. The endpoints were: overall rate of infectious complications (wound infection, septicemia, pneumonia), cardiovascular and renal events (stroke, cardiac tamponade, acute kidney failure), 30-days, 5-years, and 10-years mortality post-cardiac surgery interventions in patients with and without prior solid organ transplantation. This meta-analysis included five studies. Higher rates of wound infection (Tx vs. N-Tx: OR: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.54 to 2.67, I2 = 0%), septicemia (OR: 3.91, 95% CI: 1.40 to 10.92, I2 = 0%), cardiac tamponade (OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.28 to 2.62, I2 = 0%) and kidney failure (OR: 1.70, 95 %CI: 1.44 to 2.02, I2 = 89%) in transplant recipients were reported. No significant differences in pneumonia occurrence (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.27, I2 = 0%) stroke (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.48, I2 = 78%) and 30-day mortality (OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 0.97 to 3.80, I2 = 0%) were observed. Surprisingly, 5-years (OR: 3.74, 95% CI: 2.54 to 5.49, I2 = 0%) and 10-years mortality rates were significantly lower in the N-Tx group (OR: 3.32, 95% CI: 2.35 to 4.69, I2 = 0%). Our study reveals that open cardiac surgery in transplant recipients is associated with worse postoperative outcomes and higher long-term mortality rates.
Topics: Aged; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Female; Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Liver Transplantation; Male; Middle Aged; Pancreas Transplantation; Postoperative Complications; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33388004
DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.192 -
Annals of Medicine 2023Acute pancreatitis is a common condition of the digestive system, but sometimes it develops into severe cases. In about 10-20% of patients, necrosis of the pancreas or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/AIMS
Acute pancreatitis is a common condition of the digestive system, but sometimes it develops into severe cases. In about 10-20% of patients, necrosis of the pancreas or its periphery occurs. Although most have aseptic necrosis, 30% of cases will develop infectious necrotizing pancreatitis. Infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) requires a critical treatment approach. Minimally invasive surgical approach (MIS) and endoscopy are the management methods. This meta-analysis compares the outcomes of MIS and endoscopic treatments.
METHODS
We searched a medical database until December 2022 to compare the results of endoscopic and MIS procedures for INP. We selected eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported treatment complications for the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Five RCTs comparing a total of 284 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 139 patients underwent MIS, while 145 underwent endoscopic procedures. The results showed significant differences ( < 0.05) in the risk ratios (RRs) for major complications (RR: 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-0.97), new onset of organ failure (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.82), surgical site infection (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07-0.92), fistula or perforation (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.64), and pancreatic fistula (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.05-0.45). The hospital stay was significantly shorter for the endoscopic group compared to the MIS group, with a mean difference of 6.74 days (95% CI: -12.94 to -0.54). There were no significant differences ( > 0.05) in the RR for death, bleeding, incisional hernia, percutaneous drainage, pancreatic endocrine deficiency, pancreatic exocrine deficiency, or the need for enzyme use.
CONCLUSIONS
Endoscopic management of INP performs better compared to surgical treatment due to its lower complication rate and higher patient life quality.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Endoscopy; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Pancreas; Necrosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37930932
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2023.2276816 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Oct 2019Laparoscopy has been widely used in general surgical procedures, but total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) is still a complex and challenging surgery that is... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopy has been widely used in general surgical procedures, but total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) is still a complex and challenging surgery that is only performed in a small number of patients at a few large academic medical centers. Although the safety and feasibility of TLPD have been established, few studies have compared it with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) with regard to perioperative and oncological outcomes. Therefore, we carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate whether TLPD is superior to OPD.
AIM
To compare the treatment outcomes of TLPD and OPD in order to assess the safety and feasibility of TLPD.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of studies comparing TLPD with OPD that were published in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases through December 31, 2018. The studies comparing TLPD and OPD with at least one of the outcomes we were interested in and with more than 10 cases in each group were included in this analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the nonrandomized controlled trials and the Jadad scale was used to assess the randomized controlled trials. Intraoperative data, postoperative complications, and oncologic outcomes were evaluated. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software version 5.3. Random or fixed-effects meta-analyses were undertaken to measure the pooled estimates.
RESULTS
A total of 4790 articles were initially identified for our study. After screening, 4762 articles were excluded and 28 studies representing 39771 patients (3543 undergoing TLPD and 36228 undergoing OPD) were eventually included. Patients who underwent TLPD had less intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -260.08 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI): (-336.02, -184.14) mL, < 0.00001], a lower blood transfusion rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.36-0.72, = 0.0001], a lower perioperative overall morbidity (OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.73-0.92, = 0.0008), a lower wound infection rate (OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.34-0.67, < 0.0001), a lower pneumonia rate (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.60-0.85, = 0.0002), a shorter duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay [WMD = -0.28 d, 95%CI (-2.88, -1.29) d, < 0.00001] and a shorter length of hospital stay [WMD = -3.05 d, 95%CI (-3.93, -2.17), < 0.00001], a lower rate of discharge to a new facility (OR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.39-0.78, = 0.0008), and a lower 30-d readmission rate (OR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.68-0.95, = 0.10) than those who underwent OPD. In addition, the TLPD group had a higher R0 rate (OR = 1.28, 95%CI: 1.13-1.44, = 0.0001) and more lymph nodes harvested (WMD = 1.32, 95%CI: 0.57-2.06, = 0.0005) than the OPD group. However, the patients who underwent TLPD experienced a significantly longer operative time (WMD = 77.92 min, 95%CI: 40.89-114.95, < 0.0001) and had a smaller tumor size than those who underwent OPD [WMD = -0.32 cm, 95%CI: (-0.58, -0.07) cm, = 0.01]. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, bile leak, gastroenteric anastomosis fistula, intra-abdominal abscess, bowel obstruction, fluid collection, reoperation, ICU admission, or 30-d and 90-d mortality rates. For malignant tumors, the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year overall survival rates were not significantly different between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis indicates that TLPD is safe and feasible, and may be a desirable alternative to OPD, although a longer operative time is needed and only smaller tumors can be treated.
Topics: Blood Transfusion; Clinical Trials as Topic; Disease-Free Survival; Feasibility Studies; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Laparoscopy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Operative Time; Pancreas; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Tumor Burden
PubMed: 31602170
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i37.5711 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Jul 2022We aimed to identify studies systematically that describe the incidence and outcome of COVID-19-related pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Incidence and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) in intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 31 cohort studies.
BACKGROUND
We aimed to identify studies systematically that describe the incidence and outcome of COVID-19-related pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA).
METHODS
We searched ScienceDirect, PubMed, CNKI, and MEDLINE (OVID) from December 31, 2019 to November 20, 2021 for all eligible studies. Random-model was used to reported the incidence, all-cause case fatality rate (CFR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021242179).
RESULTS
In all, thirty-one cohort studies were included in this study. A total of 3,441 patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) were investigated and 442 cases of CAPA were reported (30 studies). The pooled incidence rate of CAPA was 0.14 (95% CI: 0.11-0.17, I2=0.0%). Twenty-eight studies reported 287 deceased patients and 269 surviving patients. The pooled CFR of CAPA was 0.52 (95% CI: 0.47-0.56, I2=3.9%). Interestingly, patients with COVID19 would develop CAPA at 7.28 days after mechanical ventilation (range, 5.48-9.08 days). No significant publication bias was detected in this meta-analysis.
DISCUSSION
Patients with COVID-19 admitted to an ICU might develop CAPA and have high all-cause CFR. We recommend conducting prospective screening for CAPA among patients with severe COVID-19, especially for those who receive mechanical ventilation over 7 days.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Incidence; Intensive Care Units; Prospective Studies; Pulmonary Aspergillosis
PubMed: 35272474
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-2043 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Dec 2022Surgical site infections (SSI) cause significant morbidity. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) may promote wound healing and decrease SSI. The objective... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infections (SSI) cause significant morbidity. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) may promote wound healing and decrease SSI. The objective is to evaluate the effect of prophylactic NPWT on SSI in patients undergoing pancreatectomy.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched from inception until April 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic NPWT to standard dressings in patients undergoing pancreatectomy were included. The primary outcome was the risk of SSI. Secondary outcomes included the risk of superficial and deep SSI and organ space infection (OSI). Random effects models were used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Four single-centre RCTs including 309 patients were identified. Three studies were industry-sponsored, and two were at high risk of bias. There was no significant difference in the risk of SSI in patients receiving NPWT vs. control (14% vs. 21%, RR = 0.72, 95%CI = 0.32-1.60, p = 0.42, I = 53%). Likewise, there was no significant difference in the risk of superficial and deep SSI or OSI. No significant difference was found on subgroup analysis of patients at high risk of wound infection or on sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic NPWT does not significantly decrease the risk of SSI among patients undergoing pancreatectomy. Insufficient evidence exists to justify the routine use of NPWT.
Topics: Humans; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Surgical Wound Infection; Bandages; Wound Healing; Pancreatectomy
PubMed: 36244906
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2022.08.010 -
Cureus Apr 2024Type 1 diabetes mellitus is an autoimmune condition characterized by insulin deficiency resulting from loss of function of beta cells in the pancreas, leading to... (Review)
Review
Type 1 diabetes mellitus is an autoimmune condition characterized by insulin deficiency resulting from loss of function of beta cells in the pancreas, leading to hyperglycemia and associated long-term systemic complications and even death. Immunotherapy demonstrates beta cell function-preserving potential; however, its impact on C-peptide levels, a definitive biomarker of beta cell function, and endogenous insulin secretion remain unclear. A systematic review of various immunotherapeutic interventions is hence needed for a comprehensive assessment of their effectiveness as well as identifying research gaps and influencing future research and clinical decisions. An extensive literature search was done in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases using precise keywords and filters to identify relevant studies. Three independent reviewers assessed eligibility according to predetermined eligibility criteria, and data was extracted. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 2.0) was used to evaluate the quality and validity of the included studies. A senior reviewer resolved discrepancies and differences of opinion between independent reviewers. A total of 11 studies were included, with 1464 study participants. Both Phase II and III trials were included. Within the included studies, four studies assessed the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody otelixizumab as an intervention. Another anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody, teplizumab, was assessed as an intervention in four studies, whereas two studies assessed the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab and one study assessed abatacept as its interventional drug. Otelixizumab demonstrated benefits at higher doses but was associated with adverse effects like Ebstein-Barr virus reactivation and cytomegalovirus infection, while at lower doses it failed to show a significant difference in C-peptide levels or glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Teplizumab, on the other hand, showed promise in reducing C-peptide loss and exogenous insulin requirements and was associated with adverse events such as rash, lymphopenia, urinary tract infection, and cytokine release syndrome. However, these reactions were only associated with therapy initiation, and they subsided on their own. Rituximab improved C-peptide responses, and abatacept therapy demonstrated reduced loss of C-peptide, improved C-peptide levels, and lowered HbA1c. Teplizumab, rituximab, otelixizumab, and abatacept show potential for preserving beta cell function by reducing C-peptide loss in patients with type I diabetes mellitus. However, careful monitoring of adverse reactions, particularly viral infections and cytokine release syndrome, is necessary for the safe implementation of these therapies.
PubMed: 38800168
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.58981