-
Journal of Neurology Jul 2022Convulsive status epilepticus is the most severe form of epilepsy and requires urgent treatment. We synthesised the current evidence on first-line treatments for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Convulsive status epilepticus is the most severe form of epilepsy and requires urgent treatment. We synthesised the current evidence on first-line treatments for controlling seizures in adults with convulsive status epilepticus before, or at, arrival at hospital.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing antiepileptic drugs offered to adults as first-line treatments. Major electronic databases were searched.
RESULTS
Four RCTs (1234 adults) were included. None were conducted in the UK and none assessed the use of buccal or intranasal midazolam. Both intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam administered by paramedics were more effective than placebo and, notably, intramuscular midazolam was non-inferior to intravenous lorazepam. Overall, median time to seizure cessation from drug administration varied from 2 to 15 min. Rates of respiratory depression among participants receiving active treatments ranged from 6.4 to 10.6%. Mortality ranged from 2 to 7.6% in active treatment groups and 6.2 to 15.5% in control groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Intravenous and intramuscular benzodiazepines are safe and effective in this clinical context. Further research is needed to establish the most clinically and cost-effective first-line treatment and preferable mode of administration. Head-to-head trials comparing buccal versus intranasal midazolam versus rectal diazepam would provide useful information to inform the management of the first stage of convulsive status epilepticus in adults, especially when intravenous or intramuscular access is not feasible. Approaches to improve adherence to clinical guidelines on the use of currently available benzodiazepines for the first-line treatment of convulsive status epilepticus should also be considered.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Diazepam; Humans; Lorazepam; Midazolam; Seizures; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 35094154
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-022-10979-2 -
Medicine Dec 2021Conventionally fractionated radiotherapy is a common treatment for men with localized prostate cancer. A growing consensus suggests that stereotactic body radiation...
BACKGROUND
Conventionally fractionated radiotherapy is a common treatment for men with localized prostate cancer. A growing consensus suggests that stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is similarly effective but less costly and more convenient for patients. The SpaceOAR hydrogel rectal spacer placed between the prostate and rectum reduces radiation-induced rectal injury in patients receiving conventionally fractionated radiotherapy, but spacer efficacy with SBRT is unclear. The purpose of this research was to assess the clinical utility of the hydrogel rectal spacer in men receiving SBRT for prostate cancer.
METHODS
We performed systematic searches of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies in men who received the SpaceOAR hydrogel spacer prior to SBRT (≥5.0 Gy fractions) for treatment of localized prostate center. Rectal irradiation results were compared to controls without spacer implant; all other outcomes were reported descriptively owing to lack of comparative data incuding perirectal separation distance, rectal irradiation on a dosimetric curve, gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, and freedom from biochemical failure. GI toxicity was reported as the risk of a grade 2 or 3+ bowel complication in early (≤3 months) and late (>3 months) follow-up.
RESULTS
In 11 studies with 780 patients, SBRT protocols ranged from 7 to 10 Gy per fraction with total dose ranging from 19 to 45 Gy. Perirectal distance achieved with the rectal spacer ranged from 9.6 to 14.5 mm (median 10.8 mm). Compared to controls receiving no spacer, SpaceOAR placement reduced the radiation delivered to the rectum by 29% to 56% across a dosimetric profile curve. In early follow-up, grade 2 GI complications were reported in 7.0% of patients and no early grade 3+ GI complications were reported. In late follow-up, the corresponding rates were 2.3% for grade 2 and 0.3% for grade 3 GI toxicity. Over 16 months median follow-up, freedom from biochemical failure ranged from 96.4% to 100% (pooled mean 97.4%).
CONCLUSIONS
SpaceOAR hydrogel spacer placed between the prostate and rectum prior to SBRT is a promising preventative strategy that increases the distance between the prostate and rectum, reduces rectal radiation exposure, and may lower the risk of clinically important GI complications.
Topics: Humans; Hydrogels; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Radiation Injuries; Radiosurgery; Radiotherapy Dosage
PubMed: 34889268
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000028111 -
Epilepsy & Behavior : E&B Dec 2021Acute seizure activity might cause complications including bodily harm, progression to status epilepticus, and poor quality of life in children. The introduction of a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute seizure activity might cause complications including bodily harm, progression to status epilepticus, and poor quality of life in children. The introduction of a venous line may be difficult in children with seizures which would delay the initiation of treatment. Rectal drug administration can be socially awkward for patients and providers. Intranasal (IN) midazolam offers a valuable substitute that is easier and faster to administer.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of intranasal midazolam in children with acute seizure when compared to conventional IV or rectal benzodiazepine (BDZ).
METHODS
PubMed, google scholar, websites clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO-international clinical trials registry platform, were searched. Randomized controlled/prospective randomized trials comparing IN midazolam against IV/rectal BDZ in the treatment of acute seizures in pediatric patients were included in the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Data of 10 studies were quantitatively analyzed. Intranasal midazolam (n = 169) when compared to IV/rectal BDZ (n = 161) has a shorter interval between hospital arrival and seizure cessation {(mean difference = -3.51; 95% CI [-6.84, -0.18]) P = 0.04}. Regarding time to seizure cessation after midazolam (n = 326) or BDZ (n = 322) administration, there is no significant difference between the two groups {(mean difference = -0.03; 95% CI [-1.30, 1.25]), P = 0.97} and both are equally effective for controlling acute seizures (odds ratio = 1.06; 95% CI [0.43, 2.63]; n = 737).
CONCLUSION
In children with acute seizures, IN midazolam is equally effective in aborting seizure and decreases the total time from hospital arrival and cessation of seizures, eventually leading to faster cessation of seizure as compared to IV/rectal BDZ.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Anticonvulsants; Benzodiazepines; Child; Diazepam; Humans; Midazolam; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 34740090
DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2021.108390 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Sep 2021The main objective of this systematic review is to investigate the expression level of the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in rectal cancer treated with either preoperative... (Review)
Review
The main objective of this systematic review is to investigate the expression level of the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in rectal cancer treated with either preoperative radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy. In addition, we have summarized the effects of preoperative treatment of rectal cancer with regards to the expression levels of COX-2. A systematic literature review was performed in The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases on 1 January 2021 with the usage of the following search string-(cyclooxygenase-2) OR (COX-2) AND (rectal cancer) AND (preoperative radiochemotherapy) OR (preoperative radiotherapy). Among the 176 included in the analysis, only 13 studies were included for data extraction with a total number of 2095 patients. The results of the analysis are based on the articles concerning the expression of COX-2 in rectal cancer among patients treated with preoperative radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy. A COX-2 expression is an early event involved in rectal cancer development. In cases of negative COX-2 expression, radiotherapy and radiochemotherapy might contribute to the reduction of a local recurrence. Therefore, COX-2 may be considered as a biologic factor while selecting patients for more effective, less time-consuming and less expensive preoperative treatment. However, the utility of the administration of COX-2 inhibitors to patients with COX-2 overexpression, in an attempt to improve the patients' response rate to the neoadjuvant treatment, needs an assessment in further clinical trials.
PubMed: 34640461
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10194443 -
Diseases of the Colon and Rectum Jan 2022Combined treatment modality of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy is emerging as an alternative option for colorectal peritoneal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Combined treatment modality of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy is emerging as an alternative option for colorectal peritoneal metastases, but there is ambiguity regarding patient selection, treatment protocols, and efficacy.
OBJECTIVE
To elaborate on the patient characteristics, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy protocol and health outcomes in colorectal peritoneal metastases patients undergoing a combination of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and cytoreductive surgery and provide guidance for future studies.
DATA SOURCES
A Medline search for English language studies published between 2004 and 2019.
STUDY SELECTION
Medical subject headings and key terms, including: hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, colorectal peritoneal metastases, colorectal cancer and combinations thereof as per guidelines.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Overall survival, disease-free survival, and morbidity and mortality rates.
RESULTS
Of the 26 included studies, 42% were published between 2016 and 2019. More than half of the studies were retrospective in nature and conducted in tertiary specialized centers outside of the United States. The median age range was 44 to 62 years. Mitomycin C-based therapy was seen in 50% of studies. Mean weighted median disease-free survival for 11 studies was 15 months (9 to 36 months). Median OS ranged from 12 to 63 months, with an average of 33.6 months among 20 studies. Overall morbidity varied from 11% to 56%, with a weighted mean of 29% in 18 studies. Mortality ranged from 0 to 34%, with a weighted mean of 4% in 15 studies.
LIMITATIONS
Despite careful study selection, variability in methodology of the included studies can limit review findings.
CONCLUSION
Due to study heterogeneity, and a recent large, randomized trial showing no overall benefit, use of cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in colorectal peritoneal metastases patients is highly controversial. Further standardized controlled studies can help uniformly define and build consensus among the medical community on patient eligibility and the optimal hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy techniques.
PROSPERO
Registered on March 3, 2020, CRD42020146942.
Topics: Adult; Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Colorectal Neoplasms; Combined Modality Therapy; Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy; Male; Middle Aged; Mitomycin; Morbidity; Mortality; Neoplasm Metastasis; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Peritoneum; Retrospective Studies; United States
PubMed: 34636780
DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002315 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review published in 2017. Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review published in 2017. Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders. The use of an appropriate sedative agent is important to ensure the successful completion of the neurodiagnostic procedures, particularly in children, who are usually unable to remain still throughout the procedure.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 14 May 2020, with no language restrictions: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 12 May 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently evaluated studies identified by the search for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 studies with a total of 2922 children. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 16 studies were at high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in small studies. Fewer children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). More children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure after one dose compared to intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), but there was no clear difference after two doses (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Children with oral chloral hydrate had more sedation failure compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.96; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) and music therapy (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Sedation failure rates were similar between groups for comparisons with oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, oral midazolam and oral clonidine. Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to adequate sedation compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD -3.86, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.6; 1 study), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD -7.5, 95% CI -7.85 to -7.15; 1 study), oral promethazine (MD -12.11, 95% CI -18.48 to -5.74; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for three aforementioned outcomes), rectal midazolam (MD -95.70, 95% CI -114.51 to -76.89; 1 study), and oral clonidine (MD -37.48, 95% CI -55.97 to -18.99; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for two aforementioned outcomes). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 2.80, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.83; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate appeared significantly less likely to complete neurodiagnostic procedure with child awakening when compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of the following adverse events: desaturation versus rectal sodium thiopental (RR 5.00, 95% 0.24 to 102.30; 1 study), unsteadiness versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.21, 95% CI 0.58 to 178.52; 1 study), vomiting versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.59, 95% CI 0.61 to 185.45; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for aforementioned three outcomes), and crying during administration of sedation versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.80; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a lower risk of the following: diarrhoea compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.72; 1 study), lower mean diastolic blood pressure compared with sodium thiopental (MD 7.40, 95% CI 5.11 to 9.69; 1 study), drowsiness compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64; 1 study), vertigo compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for aforementioned four outcomes), and bradycardia compared with intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate, although there was an increased risk of combined adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The certainty of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine. Sedation failure was similar between groups for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. Oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate when compared with intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, and music therapy. Chloral hydrate appeared to be associated with higher rates of adverse events than intranasal dexmedetomidine. However, the evidence for the outcomes for oral chloral hydrate versus intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, intranasal dexmedetomidine, and music therapy was mostly of low certainty, therefore the findings should be interpreted with caution. Further research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for an additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially for major adverse effects such as oxygen desaturation.
Topics: Child; Chloral Hydrate; Diagnostic Techniques, Neurological; Humans; Hydroxyzine; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Pentobarbital
PubMed: 34397100
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011786.pub3 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Aug 2021Patients with locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LARC/LRRC) experience higher rates of local recurrence (LR) and poorer overall survival than patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
Patients with locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LARC/LRRC) experience higher rates of local recurrence (LR) and poorer overall survival than patients with primary rectal cancer restricted to the mesorectum despite improved neoadjuvant treatment regimens and radical surgical procedures. Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) has been suggested as an adjunctive tool in the surgical management of these challenging cases. However, clear evidence regarding the oncological benefit of IORT is sparse. The aim of this review was to update this evidence in the era of standardized neoadjuvant radiotherapy administration.
METHOD
A systematic review of patients who received IORT as part of multimodal treatment for advanced rectal cancer from 2000 to 2020 and an analysis of IORT and surgery/external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) groups was performed. The primary endpoint was the rate of LR between the two groups.
RESULTS
Seven papers met the predefined criteria. LR was reduced by the addition of IORT when compared with the surgery/EBRT alone group (14.7% vs. 21.4%; OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27-1.14; p = 0.11). There was no increase in reported genitourinary morbidity, wound issues, pelvic collections or anastomotic leak in those patients who received IORT. Notably, there was no survival difference between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
The addition of IORT to current treatment strategies in the management of patients with LARC/LRRC is associated with a lower rate of locoregional recurrence without increased morbidity. However, this marks a highly selective group of patients, with heterogeneity regarding indications, prior neoadjuvant treatments and/or IORT dosing.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Rectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 33905599
DOI: 10.1111/codi.15698 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Nov 2021Total neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer refers to the administration of chemoradiotherapy plus chemotherapy before surgery. Recent studies have shown improved... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Total neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer refers to the administration of chemoradiotherapy plus chemotherapy before surgery. Recent studies have shown improved pathological complete response and disease-free survival with this approach. However, survival benefits remain unproven. Our objective is to present a metaanalysis of oncological outcomes of total neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A comprehensive search was performed on PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholars. Studies comparing total neoadjuvant therapy with standard neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were included. Data extracted from the individual studies were pooled and a metaanalysis performed. The outcomes of interest are the rate of complete pathological response, nodal response, resection margin, anal preservation, anastomotic leak, local recurrence, distant recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival.
RESULTS
There were 15 comparative studies with 2437 patients in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group and 2284 in the total neoadjuvant therapy group. The pooled complete pathological response was 22.3% in the total neoadjuvant therapy group, compared with 14.2% in the standard neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group (p < 0.001). Even though there was no difference in local recurrence rate, there was a significantly lower rate of distant recurrence (OR 0.81, p = 0.02), and better 3-year disease-free survival (70.6% vs. 65.3%, respectively, p < 0.001) and overall survival (84.9% vs. 82.3%, respectively, p = 0.006), favoring the total neoadjuvant therapy group. Due to significant heterogeneity in the study protocols, there remains uncertainty on the ideal chemotherapy/radiotherapy sequence.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides supporting evidence on the favorable immediate and intermediate oncological outcomes with the use of total neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer.
Topics: Chemoradiotherapy; Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasm Staging; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33891203
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-09837-8 -
International Journal of Environmental... Mar 2021Firefighters are exposed to carcinogens that may increase their risk of developing many types of occupational cancer. Many systematic reviews (SRs) have been produced... (Review)
Review
Firefighters are exposed to carcinogens that may increase their risk of developing many types of occupational cancer. Many systematic reviews (SRs) have been produced with sometimes conflicting conclusions. In this overview of reviews, we aim to assess the conclusion consistency across the available systematic reviews on the cancer risk in firefighters. Literature searches were conducted in several indexed databases and grey literature to retrieve systematic reviews aiming to evaluate cancer incidence or cancer mortality in firefighters. Results from included SRs were analyzed according to the tumour site. Out of 1054 records identified by the search in the databases, a total of 11 SRs were ultimately included. The original studies (n = 104) analyzed in the SRs were published between 1959 and 2018. The results consistently reported a significant increase in the incidence of rectal, prostate, bladder and testicular cancers as well as mesothelioma and malignant melanoma in firefighters compared to the general population. The SRs also indicate that death rates from rectal cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are higher among firefighters. Consistent SR results suggest that several types of cancer may be more frequent in firefighters than in the general population.
Topics: Carcinogens; Firefighters; Humans; Incidence; Male; Neoplasms; Occupational Diseases; Occupational Exposure
PubMed: 33802629
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18052519 -
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology Mar 2022Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (ERCP). No randomized controlled trial (RCT) has compared the efficacy of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommended interventions for PEP prevention. We assessed the effectiveness of these interventions using network meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify RCTs investigating guideline-recommended interventions and their combinations [rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): indomethacin or diclofenac, pancreatic stent (PS), aggressive hydration (AH), sublingual nitrate) for PEP prevention. We performed direct and Bayesian network meta-analysis, and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve to rank interventions. Subgroup network meta-analysis for high-risk populations was also performed. We identified a total of 38 RCTs with 10 different interventions. Each intervention was protective against PEP on direct and network meta-analysis compared with controls. Except AH+diclofenac and NSAIDs+ sublingual nitrate, AH+indomethacin was associated with a significant reduction in risk of PEP compared with PS [odds ratio (OR), 0.09; credible interval (CrI), 0.003-0.71], indomethcin+PS (OR, 0.09; CrI, 0.003-0.85), diclofenac (OR, 0.09; CrI, 0.003-0.65), AH (OR, 0.09; CrI, 0.003-0.65), sublingual nitrate (OR, 0.07; CrI, 0.002-0.63), and indomethacin (OR, 0.06; CrI, 0.002-0.43). AH with either rectal NSAIDs or sublingual nitrate had similar efficacy. AH+indomethacin was the best intervention for preventing PEP with 95.3% probability of being ranked first. For high-risk patients, although the efficacy of PS and indomethacin were comparable, PS had an 80.8% probability of being ranked first. AH+indomethacin seems the best intervention for preventing PEP. For high-risk patients, PS seems the most effective strategy. The potential of combination of interventions need to be explored further.
Topics: Administration, Rectal; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Humans; Indomethacin; Network Meta-Analysis; Pancreatitis
PubMed: 33769395
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001523