-
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 -
Transplant Infectious Disease : An... Dec 2022We aimed to analyze the humoral and cellular response to standard and booster (additional doses) COVID-19 vaccination in solid organ transplantation (SOT) and the risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We aimed to analyze the humoral and cellular response to standard and booster (additional doses) COVID-19 vaccination in solid organ transplantation (SOT) and the risk factors involved for an impaired response.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published up until January 11, 2022, that reported immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccine among SOT. The study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42022300547.
RESULTS
Of the 1527 studies, 112 studies, which involved 15391 SOT and 2844 healthy controls, were included. SOT showed a low humoral response (effect size [ES]: 0.44 [0.40-0.48]) in overall and in control studies (log-Odds-ratio [OR]: -4.46 [-8.10 to -2.35]). The humoral response was highest in liver (ES: 0.67 [0.61-0.74]) followed by heart (ES: 0.45 [0.32-0.59]), kidney (ES: 0.40 [0.36-0.45]), kidney-pancreas (ES: 0.33 [0.13-0.53]), and lung (0.27 [0.17-0.37]). The meta-analysis for standard and booster dose (ES: 0.43 [0.39-0.47] vs. 0.51 [0.43-0.54]) showed a marginal increase of 18% efficacy. SOT with prior infection had higher response (ES: 0.94 [0.92-0.96] vs. ES: 0.40 [0.39-0.41]; p-value < .01). The seroresponse with mRNA-12723 mRNA was highest 0.52 (0.40-0.64). Mycophenolic acid (OR: 1.42 [1.21-1.63]) and Belatacept (OR: 1.89 [1.3-2.49]) had highest risk for nonresponse. SOT had a parallelly decreased cellular response (ES: 0.42 [0.32-0.52]) in overall and control studies (OR: -3.12 [-0.4.12 to -2.13]).
INTERPRETATION
Overall, SOT develops a suboptimal response compared to the general population. Immunosuppression including mycophenolic acid, belatacept, and tacrolimus is associated with decreased response. Booster doses increase the immune response, but further upgradation in vaccination strategy for SOT is required.
Topics: Humans; Abatacept; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Mycophenolic Acid; Organ Transplantation; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 35924679
DOI: 10.1111/tid.13926 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.
SEARCH METHODS
For the last version of this review, we searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 8), and MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) to 28 August 2016). For this updated review, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2016 to 15 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled studies that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We identified six studies (1384 participants). Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
Drain use versus no drain useWe included four studies with 1110 participants, who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. There was little or no difference in mortality at 30 days between groups (1.5% with drains versus 2.3% with no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Drain use probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days (0.8% versus 4.2%; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We were uncertain whether drain use reduced intra-abdominal infection (7.9% versus 8.2%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-quality evidence), or additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (10.9% versus 12.1%; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; three studies, 660 participants; very low-quality evidence). Drain use may lead to similar amount of wound infection (9.8% versus 9.9%; RR 0.98 , 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence), and additional open procedures for postoperative complications (9.4% versus 7.1%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence) when compared with no drain use. There was little or no difference in morbidity (61.7% versus 59.7%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence), or length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies, 711 participants; moderate-quality evidence) between groups. There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Health-related quality of life was measured with the pancreas-specific quality-of-life questionnaire (FACT-PA; a scale of 0 to 144 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Drain use may lead to similar quality of life scores, measured at 30 days after pancreatic surgery, when compared with no drain use (105 points versus 104 points; one study, 399 participants; low-quality evidence). Hospital costs and pain were not reported in any of the studies.Type of drainWe included one trial involving 160 participants, who were randomized to the active drain group (N = 82) and the passive drain group (N = 78) after pancreatic surgery. An active drain may lead to similar mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain; low-quality evidence), and morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15; low-quality evidence) when compared with a passive drain. We were uncertain whether an active drain decreased intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05; very low-quality evidence), or the number of additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29; very low-quality evidence). Active drain may reduce length of hospital stay slightly (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; one study; low-quality evidence; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay). Additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. There was no mortality in either group. Early drain removal may slightly reduce morbidity (38.6% with early drain removal versus 61.4% with late drain removal; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93; low-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; low-quality evidence; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (MD -EUR 2069.00, 95% CI -3872.26 to -265.74; low-quality evidence; 17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs). We were uncertain whether early drain removal reduced additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% versus 1.8%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01; one study; very low-quality evidence). Intra-abdominal infection, wound infection, additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It was unclear whether routine abdominal drainage had any effect on the reduction of mortality at 30 days, or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that routine abdominal drainage probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days. Low-quality evidence suggested that use of an active drain compared to the use of a passive drain may slightly reduce the length of hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.
Topics: Abdomen; Device Removal; Drainage; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 29928755
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub4 -
United European Gastroenterology Journal May 2020Although pancreatic tuberculosis (TB) is traditionally considered to be a rare clinical entity, in recent times, an increase in the number of reports of pancreatic TB...
INTRODUCTION
Although pancreatic tuberculosis (TB) is traditionally considered to be a rare clinical entity, in recent times, an increase in the number of reports of pancreatic TB has been noted. We conducted a systematic review in order to summarise currently available data on pancreatic TB.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search of Medline, Scopus and ISI Web of Science databases was conducted in order to identify papers reporting cases of pancreatic TB. The eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review required that the studies reported patient(s) affected by pancreatic TB and that individual data on age, sex, clinical presentation and outcome were available.
RESULTS
In total, 116 studies reporting data on 166 patients were included in the analysis. The majority of patients were males (62.1%) diagnosed at a mean age of 41.61 ± 13.95 years. Most cases were diagnosed in Asia (50.0%), followed by North America (22.9%), Europe (20.5%), Africa (4.2%) and South America (2.4%). Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection was diagnosed in 25.3% of those affected. Pancreatic TB most frequently presented itself in the form of a pancreatic mass (79.5%) localised mainly in the head (59.0%) and less frequently in the body (18.2%) and tail (13.4%). Extrapancreatic TB involvement most frequently affected the peripancreatic lymph nodes (47.3%). More than half of patients (55.2%) were subjected to laparotomy, while 21.08% underwent endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration biopsy. The presence of TB was identified most frequently through histological analysis (59.6%), followed by culture (28.9%), staining (27.7%) and, in a smaller number, by polymerase chain reaction (9.6%) and cytology (6.6%). Almost all patients received anti-tubercular pharmacological therapy (98.2%), while 24.1% underwent surgery. Despite treatment, 8.7% of patients died.
CONCLUSION
Increased awareness of pancreatic TB is needed, not only in endemic areas but especially in relation to HIV infection and other clinical conditions associated with immunoincompetence.
Topics: Antitubercular Agents; Endemic Diseases; Global Burden of Disease; HIV Infections; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatitis; Tuberculosis, Endocrine; Tuberculosis, Lymph Node
PubMed: 32213022
DOI: 10.1177/2050640620902353 -
Bone Marrow Transplantation Apr 2023Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) is a leading cause of cancer death in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). Relapsed or refractory (R/R) PTLD... (Review)
Review
Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) is a leading cause of cancer death in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). Relapsed or refractory (R/R) PTLD portends a high risk of death and effective management is not well established. CD19-targeted CAR-T cell therapy has been utilized, but the risks and benefits are unknown. We report the first case of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) PTLD treated with lisocabtagene maraleucel and present a systematic literature review of SOTRs with PTLD treated with CD19 CAR-T therapy. Our patient achieved a complete response (CR) with limited toxicity but experienced a CD19 relapse 8 months after infusion despite CAR-T persistence. Literature review revealed 14 DLBCL and 2 Burkitt lymphoma PTLD cases treated with CD19 CAR-T cells. Kidney (n = 12), liver (n = 2), heart (n = 2), and pancreas after kidney (n = 1) transplant recipients were analyzed. The objective response rate (ORR) was 82.4% (14/17), with 58.5% (10/17) CRs and a 6.5-month median duration of response. Among kidney transplant recipients, the ORR was 91.7% (11/12). Allograft rejection occurred in 23.5% (4/17). No graft failure occurred. Our analysis suggests that CD19 CAR-T therapy offers short-term effectiveness and manageable toxicity in SOTRs with R/R PTLD. Further investigation through larger datasets and prospective study is needed.
Topics: Humans; Antigens, CD19; Epstein-Barr Virus Infections; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse; Lymphoproliferative Disorders; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Organ Transplantation; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 36575360
DOI: 10.1038/s41409-022-01907-z -
Transplantation May 2015Depression and anxiety are common mental health problems in transplant populations. There is mixed evidence concerning whether they increase morbidity and mortality... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Depression and anxiety are common mental health problems in transplant populations. There is mixed evidence concerning whether they increase morbidity and mortality risks after transplantation. If such associations exist, additional risk reduction strategies may be needed.
METHODS
Four bibliographic databases were searched from 1981 through September 2014 for studies prospectively examining whether depression or anxiety (determined with diagnostic evaluations or standardized symptom scales) affected risk for posttransplant mortality, graft loss, acute graft rejection, chronic rejection, cancer, infection, and rehospitalization.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies (10 heart, total n = 1738; 6 liver, n = 1063; 5 kidney, n = 49515; 4 lung, n = 584; 1 pancreas, n = 80; 1 mixed recipient sample, n = 205) were identified. In each, depression and/or anxiety were typically measured before or early after transplantation. Follow-up for outcomes was a median of 5.8 years (range, 0.50-18.0). Depression increased the relative risk (RR) of mortality by 65% (RR, 1.65; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.34-2.05; 20 studies). Meta-regression indicated that risk was stronger in studies that did (vs did not) control for potential confounders (P = .032). Risk was unaffected by type of transplant or other study characteristics. Depression increased death-censored graft loss risk (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.21-2.26, 3 studies). Depression was not associated with other morbidities (each morbidity was assessed in 1-4 studies). Anxiety did not significantly increase mortality risk (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.85-2.27, 6 studies) or morbidity risks (assessed in single studies).
CONCLUSIONS
Depression increases risk for posttransplant mortality. Few studies considered morbidities; the depression-graft loss association suggests that linkages with morbidities deserve greater attention. Depression screening and treatment may be warranted, although whether these activities would reduce posttransplant mortality requires study.
Topics: Anxiety; Communicable Diseases; Depression; Female; Graft Rejection; Humans; Male; Neoplasms; Odds Ratio; Organ Transplantation; Patient Readmission; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26492128
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000000901 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aug 2023Reducing clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) incidence after pancreatic resections has been a topic of great academic interest. Optimizing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Reducing clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) incidence after pancreatic resections has been a topic of great academic interest. Optimizing post-operative drain management is a potential strategy in reducing this major complication.
METHODS
Studies involving pancreatic resections, including both pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatic resections (DP), with intra-operative drain placement were screened. Early drain removal was defined as removal before or on the 3rd post-operative day (POD) while late drain removal was defined as after the 3rd POD. The primary outcome was CR-POPF, International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) Grade B and above. Secondary outcomes were all complications, severe complications, post-operative haemorrhage, intra-abdominal infections, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation, length of stay, readmission, and mortality.
RESULTS
Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. The studies had a total of 8574 patients, comprising 1946 in the early removal group and 6628 in the late removal group. Early drain removal was associated with a significantly lower risk of CR-POPF (OR: 0.24, p < 0.01). Significant reduction in risk of post-operative haemorrhage (OR: 0.55, p < 0.01), intra-abdominal infection (OR: 0.35, p < 0.01), re-admission (OR: 0.63, p < 0.01), re-operation (OR: 0.70, p = 0.03), presence of any complications (OR: 0.46, p < 0.01), and reduced length of stay (SMD: -0.75, p < 0.01) in the early removal group was also observed.
CONCLUSION
Early drain removal is associated with significant reductions in incidence of CR-POPF and other post-operative complications. Further prospective randomised trials in this area are recommended to validate these findings.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Device Removal; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Intraabdominal Infections
PubMed: 37587225
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03053-6 -
Annals of Gastroenterology 2022Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) are invasive interventions used for enteral access. We performed a systematic...
BACKGROUND
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) are invasive interventions used for enteral access. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with assessment of certainty of evidence to compare the risk of adverse outcomes and technical failure between PEG and PRG.
METHODS
We queried PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane from inception through January 2022 to identify studies comparing outcomes of PEG and PRG. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included the risk of colon perforation, peritonitis, bleeding, technical failure, peristomal infections, and tube-related complications. We performed GRADE assessment to assess the certainty of evidence and leave-one-out analysis for sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS
In the final analysis, 33 studies, including 26 high-quality studies, provided data on 275,117 patients undergoing PEG and 192,691 patients undergoing PRG. Data from high quality studies demonstrated that, compared to PRG, PEG had significantly lower odds of selected outcomes, including 30-day all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.95; P=0.02), colon perforation (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.49-0.75; P<0.001), and peritonitis (OR 0.71, 95%CI 0.63-0.81; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between PEG and PRG in terms of technical failure, bleeding, peristomal infections or mechanical complications. The certainty of the evidence was rated moderate for colon perforation and low for all other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
PEG is associated with a significantly lower risk of 30-day all-cause mortality, colon perforation, and peritonitis compared to PRG, while having a comparable technical failure rate. PEG should be considered as the first-line technique for enteral access.
PubMed: 36406969
DOI: 10.20524/aog.2022.0752 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.
SEARCH METHODS
For the initial version of this review, we searched the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 April 2015), Embase (1980 to 9 April 2015), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 9 April 2015), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 9 April 2015). For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2015 to 28 August 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled trials that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We identified five trials (of 985 participants) which met our inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we employed the random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
Drain use versus no drain useWe included three trials involving 711 participants who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 358) and the no drainage group (N = 353) after pancreatic surgery. There was inadequate evidence to establish the effect of drains on mortality at 30 days (2.2% with drains versus 3.4% no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; three studies; low-quality evidence), mortality at 90 days (2.9% versus 11.6%; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.10; one study; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal infection (7.3% versus 8.5%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.20; three studies; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (12.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; three studies; low-quality evidence), morbidity (64.8% versus 62.0%; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.16; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (11.5% versus 9.1%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.52; three studies). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.6%). Type of drainWe included one trial involving 160 participants who were randomized to the active drain group (N = 82) and the passive drain group (N = 78) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain), intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05), morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29). The active drain group was associated with shorter length of hospital stay (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay) than in the passive drain group. The quality of evidence was low, or very low. Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (0% for both groups) or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% with early drain removal versus 1.8% with late drain removal; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01). The early drain removal group was associated with lower rates of postoperative complications (38.5% versus 61.4%; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs) than in the late drain removal group. The quality of evidence for each of the outcomes was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is unclear whether routine abdominal drainage has any effect on the reduction of mortality and postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. In case of drain insertion, low-quality evidence suggests that active drainage may reduce hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.
Topics: Abdomen; Device Removal; Drainage; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27764898
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub3 -
Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome Mar 2024The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on pregnant women, especially those with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), has yet to be fully... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on pregnant women, especially those with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), has yet to be fully understood. This review aims to examine the interaction between GDM and COVID-19 and to elucidate the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the comorbidity of these two conditions.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search using the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science with appropriate keywords and MeSH terms. Our analysis included studies published up to January 26, 2023.
RESULTS
Despite distinct clinical manifestations, GDM and COVID-19 share common pathophysiological characteristics, which involve complex interactions across multiple organs and systems. On the one hand, infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may target the pancreas and placenta, resulting in β-cell dysfunction and insulin resistance in pregnant women. On the other hand, the hormonal and inflammatory changes that occur during pregnancy could also increase the risk of severe COVID-19 in mothers with GDM. Personalized management and close monitoring are crucial for treating pregnant women with both GDM and COVID-19.
CONCLUSIONS
A comprehensive understanding of the interactive mechanisms of GDM and COVID-19 would facilitate the initiation of more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies. There is an urgent need to develop novel biomarkers and functional indicators for early identification and intervention of these conditions.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Pregnancy; Diabetes, Gestational; Female; SARS-CoV-2; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Pandemics; Coronavirus Infections; Pneumonia, Viral; Betacoronavirus
PubMed: 38569447
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsx.2024.102991