-
The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care... Aug 2018Surgery is the treatment of choice for perforated peptic ulcer disease. The aim of the present review was to compare the perioperative outcomes of acute laparoscopic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Surgery is the treatment of choice for perforated peptic ulcer disease. The aim of the present review was to compare the perioperative outcomes of acute laparoscopic versus open repair for peptic ulcer disease.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science.
RESULTS
The search included eight RCTs: 615 patients comparing laparoscopic (307 patients) versus open peptic perforated ulcer repair (308 patients). Only few studies reported the Boey score, the Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation score, and the Mannheim Peritonitis Index. In the RCTs, there is a significant heterogeneity about the gastric or duodenal location of peptic ulcer and perforation size. All trials were with high risk of bias. This meta-analysis reported a significant advantage of laparoscopic repair only for postoperative pain in first 24 hours (-2.08; 95% confidence interval, -2.79 to -1.37) and for postoperative wound infection (risk ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.66). An equivalence of the other clinical outcomes (postoperative mortality rate, overall reoperation rate, overall leaks of the suture repair, intra-abdominal abscess rate, operative time of postoperative hospital stay, nasogastric aspiration time, and time to return to oral diet) was reported.
CONCLUSION
In this meta-analysis, there were no significant differences in most of the clinical outcomes between the two groups; there was less early postoperative pain and fewer wound infections after laparoscopic repair. The reported equivalence of clinical outcomes is an important finding. These results parallel the results of several other comparisons of open versus laparoscopic general surgery operations-equally efficacious with lower rates of wound infection and improvement in some measures of enhanced speed or comfort in recovery. Notably, the trials included have been published throughout a considerable time span during which several changes have occurred in most health care systems, not least a widespread use of laparoscopy and increase in the laparoscopic skills.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.
Topics: Emergency Treatment; Humans; Laparotomy; Operative Time; Peptic Ulcer Perforation; Perioperative Period; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29659470
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001925 -
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Sep 2001No consensus exists as to whether cotherapy is effective in the short-term prevention of severe NSAID-related gastroduodenal damage. The aim of this study was to provide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
No consensus exists as to whether cotherapy is effective in the short-term prevention of severe NSAID-related gastroduodenal damage. The aim of this study was to provide a quantitative systematic review of the efficacy of gastroprotective drugs, such as misoprostol, H2-blockers, and proton pump inhibitors (PPI) in preventing the severe acute NSAID-related gastroduodenal damage. Placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials on the use of misoprostol, H2-blockers, and PPIs as preventative agents published between January 1986 and May 1999 were identified through Medline and reference lists from clinical reviews. Studies on patients or healthy subjects were considered to be eligible for data pooling if they were performed in acute NSAID users (not longer than 30 days) and with at least one endoscopic evaluation during therapy that reported results specifically for gastric and duodenal damage. Risk difference (RD), heterogeneity chi2 test, publication bias assessment and number needed to treat (NnT) were calculated for each meta-analysis by a customized program. Twenty-one trials met the inclusion criteria evaluating a total of 636 healthy subjects and 1904 patients with arthritis randomized to active drug or placebo. The baseline risk of NSAID-related gastric (68% vs 16.6%, P < 0.001) and duodenal (22% vs 8.5%, P < 0.001) damage was higher in healthy subjects compared to patients with arthritis. Meta-analysis demonstrated a significant heterogeneity between trials performed in the two populations (P < 0.0001). In healthy subjects the active drug treatment induced a significant prevention of severe gastric (misoprostol RD = 69%, 95% CI = 60.3-77.7, H2-blocker RD = 38.3%, 95% CI = 17.8-58.9 and PPI RD = 43%, 95% CI = 28.2-57.7) and duodenal damage (misoprostol RD = 22.3%, 95% CI = 13.6-31, H2-blocker RD = 13.2%, 95% CI = 5.2-21.3 and PPI RD = 17.7%, 95% CI = 3.5-31.8). NnT values were, respectively, 1, 3, and 2 for gastric and 4, 8, and 6 for duodenal damage. In patients with arthritis lower RD and higher NnT values were found compared to healthy subjects. In conclusions, cotreatment with gastroprotective drugs for short-term prevention of severe gastroduodenal NSAID-related damage was more effective in healthy subjects than in patients with arthritis; misoprostol and PPIs were more effective than H2-blockers in the prevention of both gastric and duodenal severe damage; more studies need to evaluate the role of short-term prevention in patients with arthritis who require acute NSAID treatment.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Arthritis; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Duodenum; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Misoprostol; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Stomach
PubMed: 11575445
DOI: 10.1023/a:1010687115298 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Mar 2019Over the last 3 decades, laparoscopic procedures have emerged as the standard treatment for many elective and emergency surgical conditions. Despite the increased use of...
PURPOSE
Over the last 3 decades, laparoscopic procedures have emerged as the standard treatment for many elective and emergency surgical conditions. Despite the increased use of laparoscopic surgery, the role of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer remains controversial among general surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer.
METHODS
A systemic literature review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Database of all randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared laparoscopic (LR) with open repair (OR) for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). Data was extracted using a standardised form and subsequently analysed.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis using data from 7 RCT showed that LR for PPU has decreased overall post-operative morbidity (LR = 8.9% vs. OR = 17.0%) (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.79, p < 0.01), wound infections, (LR = 2.2% vs. OR = 6.3%) (OR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.5, p < 0.01) and shorter duration of hospital stay (6.6 days vs. 8.2 days, p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in length of operation, leakage rate, incidence of intra-abdominal abscess, post-operative sepsis, respiratory complications, re-operation rate or mortality. There was no publication bias and the quality of the studies ranged from poor to good.
CONCLUSION
These results demonstrate that laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer has a reduced morbidity and total hospital stay compared with open approach. There are no significant differences in mortality, post-operative sepsis, abscess and re-operation rates. LR should be the preferred treatment option for patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease.
Topics: Duodenal Ulcer; Emergencies; Humans; Laparoscopy; Peptic Ulcer Perforation; Stomach Ulcer; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30465190
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-018-4047-8 -
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology Jan 2000Despite remarkable progress in the treatment of chronic peptic ulcer disease, acute gastroduodenal ulcer hemorrhage remains a therapeutic challenge. Numerous trials of... (Review)
Review
Despite remarkable progress in the treatment of chronic peptic ulcer disease, acute gastroduodenal ulcer hemorrhage remains a therapeutic challenge. Numerous trials of H-2 receptor antagonists have not consistently shown a significant benefit in such patients. Proton-pump inhibitors, which more profoundly suppress gastric acid, are being increasingly evaluated. We have performed a qualitative systematic review to analyze the results of these trials to determine if a reasonable consensus can be reached. We searched for all published, randomized, controlled studies that evaluated proton-pump inhibitors in patients with acute peptic ulcer hemorrhage. The primary outcomes evaluated were: (A) persistent or recurrent bleeding; (B) need for surgery; and (C) mortality. Sixteen trials were evaluated, enrolling 3154 patients. Four of the sixteen studies showed a statistically significant decrease in overall rebleeding rate, and two described specific benefit in patients with Type IIa and IIb endoscopic stigmata. Four studies also showed a significantly decreased surgery rate, but none demonstrated a significant mortality reduction. Proton-pump inhibitors may improve outcome in acute peptic ulcer bleeding, but the available clinical data remain inconsistent. Further study is necessary to define the optimal dosage, route of administration, duration of therapy, and subsets of patients most likely to benefit.
Topics: 2-Pyridinylmethylsulfinylbenzimidazoles; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Benzimidazoles; Duodenal Ulcer; Humans; Lansoprazole; Omeprazole; Pantoprazole; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Stomach Ulcer; Sulfoxides; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 10636205
DOI: 10.1097/00004836-200001000-00004 -
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 -
Presse Medicale (Paris, France : 1983) Nov 2003The aim is to compile a systematic review of literature data on the efficacy of GI protective agents in the prevention of upper GI lesions in a subject receiving... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim is to compile a systematic review of literature data on the efficacy of GI protective agents in the prevention of upper GI lesions in a subject receiving long-term therapy with an NSAID.
METHOD
We have selected solely experimental studies which have received a very high score in terms of methodology, whether in internal validity or clinical significance. Thus, 35 randomized, controlled studies have been reviewed.
RESULTS
Only one large long-term study examined the prevention of serious GI risks and misoprostol (800 micrograms/day) showed that it was capable of reducing the incidence of ulcer complications (perforations and bleeding) by 40% compared to placebo. No such data are available for PPI and H2-receptor antagonists (H2-RA). In summary Controlled endoscopic study results for patients with joint diseases receiving NSAID therapy for a period greater than 3 weeks demonstrated that misoprostol, PPI and H2-RA at double-dose are effective in reducing the risk both of gastric and duodenal ulcer. The standard doses of H2-RA are not effective in reducing the risk of gastric ulcer. There are very few studies comparing two gastro-intestinal protective agents and they seem to indicate that misoprostol and proton pump inhibitors are comparable in reducing the risk of gastric ulcer and are better than standard doses of H2-RA and that omeprazol is better than misoprostol at reducing the risk of duodenal ulcer. Tolerability of PPI and H2-RA are appreciably better than misoprostol which induces intestinal disorders.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Duodenal Ulcer; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Omeprazole; Protective Agents; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Stomach Ulcer
PubMed: 14763352
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
Expert Review of Gastroenterology &... Jan 2021Gastroduodenal tuberculosis is an uncommon form of abdominal tuberculosis.
INTRODUCTION
Gastroduodenal tuberculosis is an uncommon form of abdominal tuberculosis.
AREAS COVERED
We report our experience with five cases of gastroduodenal tuberculosis and present results of a systematic review on gastroduodenal tuberculosis regarding clinical presentation, endoscopic, imaging findings, and the diagnostic and therapeutic approach.
EXPERT OPINION
The presentation of gastroduodenal tuberculosis is diverse and may include nonspecific abdominal pain or dyspepsia like symptoms apart from gastric outlet obstruction. Endoscopy may show presence of growth, ulcer, narrowing, or fistula on endoscopy. Endoscopic biopsy, well-biopsy, or mucosal resection of an elevated lesion are helpful. On microscopy, granuloma with or without acid fast bacilli positivity can be found. For treatment, standard antitubercular therapy should be given for 6 months. In patients with tight stricture, endoscopic balloon dilatation can be helpful. Surgery is reserved for patient with diagnostic dilemma, refractory stricture, or complications like perforation or fistula. Future research should focus on improving diagnosis with use of modern microbiological techniques like PCR and Xpert MTB/RIF.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Duodenal Diseases; Humans; Male; Stomach Diseases; Tuberculosis, Gastrointestinal
PubMed: 32878489
DOI: 10.1080/17474124.2020.1816823 -
Strahlentherapie Und Onkologie : Organ... Feb 2019Non-surgical treatment including stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) have been used practically as alternative modalities for unresectable or recurrent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Non-surgical treatment including stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) have been used practically as alternative modalities for unresectable or recurrent cholangiocarcinoma (CC). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of SBRT for such patients.
METHODS
Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library databases were searched systematically until October 2017. Primary endpoint was 1‑year local control (LC) rate; 1‑year overall survival (OS), response rates, and grade ≥3 toxicities were assessed as secondary endpoints.
RESULTS
Eleven studies (226 patients) were included. The prescribed median SBRT dose was 45 (range 30-55) Gy in 3-5 fractions. The pooled 1‑year LC rate was 81.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.4-89.9%) in the studies using an equivalent dose in 2 Gy per fraction (EQD2) ≥71.3 Gy and 74.7% (95% CI 57.1-86.7%) in the studies using an EQD2 <71.3 Gy. The median OS was 13.6 (range 10-35.5) months. The pooled 1‑year OS rate was 53.8% (95% CI 44.9-62.5%) and the pooled 1‑year LC rate was 78.6% (95% CI 69.0-85.8%). Most common toxicity was duodenal ulcer and gastric ulcer in available studies, with the acute incidence of grade ≥3 of less than 10% and the late incidence of 10-20%.
CONCLUSIONS
SBRT was a feasible treatment option with respect to achieving a high LC for unresectable or recurrent CC. Gastrointestinal toxicity is acceptable, but remains an obstacle related to dose escalation.
Topics: Bile Duct Neoplasms; Cholangiocarcinoma; Feasibility Studies; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Radiosurgery; Radiotherapy Dosage; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30206644
DOI: 10.1007/s00066-018-1367-2 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Dec 1999To assess whether frequency of placebo administration is associated with duodenal ulcer healing. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
To assess whether frequency of placebo administration is associated with duodenal ulcer healing.
METHODS
A systematic literature review of randomized clinical trials was undertaken. 79 of 80 trials that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled 4 week placebo healing rate of all duodenal ulcer trials that employed a four times a day regimen was compared with the rate obtained from trials with a twice a day regimen.
RESULTS
The pooled 4 week healing rate of the 51 trials with a four times a day regimen was 44. 2% (805 of 1821 patients) compared with 36.2% (545 of 1504 patients) in the 28 trials with a twice a day regimen (difference, 8.0% [equal effects model]; 95% confidence interval, 4.6% to 11.3%). Depending on the statistical analysis, the rate difference ranged from 6.0% (multivariable random effects model) to 8.0% (equal effects model). A number of sensitivity analyses showed comparable differences between the two regimens. Most of these sensitivity analyses were not significant, probably because a number of trials were excluded resulting in a loss of power.
CONCLUSIONS
We found a relation between frequency of placebo administration and healing of duodenal ulcer. We realize that the comparison was based on nonrandomized data. However, we speculate that the difference between regimens was induced by the difference in frequency of placebo administration. A better knowledge of various placebo effects is required in order to make clinically relevant assessments of treatment effects derived from placebo-controlled trials.
Topics: Duodenal Ulcer; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Models, Statistical; Placebo Effect; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 10594490
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.1999.00094.x