-
Current Opinion in Critical Care Feb 2022We conducted a systematic literature review to summarize the available evidence regarding the incidence, risk factors, and clinical characteristics of...
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
We conducted a systematic literature review to summarize the available evidence regarding the incidence, risk factors, and clinical characteristics of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection (C-ARDS).
RECENT FINDINGS
Sixteen studies (6484 patients) were identified. Bacterial coinfection was uncommon at baseline (<15%) but a high proportion of patients developed positive bacterial cultures thereafter leading to a VAP diagnosis (range 21-64%, weighted average 50%). Diagnostic criteria varied between studies but most signs of VAP have substantial overlap with the signs of C-ARDS making it difficult to differentiate between bacterial colonization versus superinfection. Most episodes of VAP were associated with Gram-negative bacteria. Occasional cases were also attributed to herpes virus reactivations and pulmonary aspergillosis. Potential factors driving high VAP incidence rates include immunoparalysis, prolonged ventilation, exposure to immunosuppressants, understaffing, lapses in prevention processes, and overdiagnosis.
SUMMARY
Covid-19 patients who require mechanical ventilation for ARDS have a high risk (>50%) of developing VAP, most commonly because of Gram-negative bacteria. Further work is needed to elucidate the disease-specific risk factors for VAP, strategies for prevention, and how best to differentiate between bacterial colonization versus superinfection.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Overdiagnosis; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34932525
DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000908 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Atopic eczema (AE), also known as atopic dermatitis, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes significant burden. Phototherapy is sometimes used to treat AE... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atopic eczema (AE), also known as atopic dermatitis, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes significant burden. Phototherapy is sometimes used to treat AE when topical treatments, such as corticosteroids, are insufficient or poorly tolerated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of phototherapy for treating AE.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to January 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials in adults or children with any subtype or severity of clinically diagnosed AE. Eligible comparisons were any type of phototherapy versus other forms of phototherapy or any other treatment, including placebo or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology. For key findings, we used RoB 2.0 to assess bias, and GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. Primary outcomes were physician-assessed signs and patient-reported symptoms. Secondary outcomes were Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), safety (measured as withdrawals due to adverse events), and long-term control.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 trials with 1219 randomised participants, aged 5 to 83 years (mean: 28 years), with an equal number of males and females. Participants were recruited mainly from secondary care dermatology clinics, and study duration was, on average, 13 weeks (range: 10 days to one year). We assessed risk of bias for all key outcomes as having some concerns or high risk, due to missing data, inappropriate analysis, or insufficient information to assess selective reporting. Assessed interventions included: narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB; 13 trials), ultraviolet A1 (UVA1; 6 trials), broadband ultraviolet B (BB-UVB; 5 trials), ultraviolet AB (UVAB; 2 trials), psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA; 2 trials), ultraviolet A (UVA; 1 trial), unspecified ultraviolet B (UVB; 1 trial), full spectrum light (1 trial), Saalmann selective ultraviolet phototherapy (SUP) cabin (1 trial), saltwater bath plus UVB (balneophototherapy; 1 trial), and excimer laser (1 trial). Comparators included placebo, no treatment, another phototherapy, topical treatment, or alternative doses of the same treatment. Results for key comparisons are summarised (for scales, lower scores are better): NB-UVB versus placebo/no treatment There may be a larger reduction in physician-assessed signs with NB-UVB compared to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (mean difference (MD) -9.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.62 to -15.18; 1 trial, 41 participants; scale: 0 to 90). Two trials reported little difference between NB-UVB and no treatment (37 participants, four to six weeks of treatment); another reported improved signs with NB-UVB versus no treatment (11 participants, nine weeks of treatment). NB-UVB may increase the number of people reporting reduced itch after 12 weeks of treatment compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.72, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.69; 1 trial, 40 participants). Another trial reported very little difference in itch severity with NB-UVB (25 participants, four weeks of treatment). The number of participants with moderate to greater global improvement may be higher with NB-UVB than placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.17; 1 trial, 41 participants). NB-UVB may not affect rates of withdrawal due to adverse events. No withdrawals were reported in one trial of NB-UVB versus placebo (18 participants, nine weeks of treatment). In two trials of NB-UVB versus no treatment, each reported one withdrawal per group (71 participants, 8 to 12 weeks of treatment). We judged that all reported outcomes were supported with low-certainty evidence, due to risk of bias and imprecision. No trials reported HRQoL. NB-UVB versus UVA1 We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to UVA1 to be very low certainty for all outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (MD -2.00, 95% CI -8.41 to 4.41; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 108), or patient-reported itch after six weeks (MD 0.3, 95% CI -1.07 to 1.67; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 10). Two split-body trials (20 participants, 40 sides) also measured these outcomes, using different scales at seven to eight weeks; they reported lower scores with NB-UVB. One trial reported HRQoL at six weeks (MD 2.9, 95% CI -9.57 to 15.37; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 30 to 150). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events over 12 weeks (13 participants). No trials reported IGA. NB-UVB versus PUVA We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to PUVA (8-methoxypsoralen in bath plus UVA) to be very low certainty for all reported outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (64.1% reduction with NB-UVB versus 65.7% reduction with PUVA; 1 trial, 10 participants, 20 sides). There was no evidence of a difference in marked improvement or complete remission after six weeks (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.89; 1 trial, 9/10 participants with both treatments). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events in 10 participants over six weeks. The trials did not report patient-reported symptoms or HRQoL. UVA1 versus PUVA There was very low-certainty evidence, due to serious risk of bias and imprecision, that PUVA (oral 5-methoxypsoralen plus UVA) reduced physician-assessed signs more than UVA1 after three weeks (MD 11.3, 95% CI -0.21 to 22.81; 1 trial, 40 participants; scale: 0 to 103). The trial did not report patient-reported symptoms, IGA, HRQoL, or withdrawals due to adverse events. There were no eligible trials for the key comparisons of UVA1 or PUVA compared with no treatment. Adverse events Reported adverse events included low rates of phototoxic reaction, severe irritation, UV burn, bacterial superinfection, disease exacerbation, and eczema herpeticum.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to placebo or no treatment, NB-UVB may improve physician-rated signs, patient-reported symptoms, and IGA after 12 weeks, without a difference in withdrawal due to adverse events. Evidence for UVA1 compared to NB-UVB or PUVA, and NB-UVB compared to PUVA was very low certainty. More information is needed on the safety and effectiveness of all aspects of phototherapy for treating AE.
Topics: Adult; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Eczema; Female; Humans; Male; Phototherapy; Quality of Life; Ultraviolet Therapy
PubMed: 34709669
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013870.pub2 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2021Corticosteroids are a common option used in sepsis treatment. However, the efficacy and potential risk of corticosteroids in septic patients have not been well assessed.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Corticosteroids are a common option used in sepsis treatment. However, the efficacy and potential risk of corticosteroids in septic patients have not been well assessed. This review was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched from inception to March 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of corticosteroids on patients with sepsis were included. The quality of outcomes in the included articles was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. The data were pooled by using risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD). The random-effects model was used to evaluate the pooled MD or RR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Fifty RCTs that included 12,304 patients with sepsis were identified. Corticosteroids were not associated with the mortality in 28-day (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87-1.02; evidence rank, moderate) and long-term mortality (>60 days) (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.05) in patients with sepsis (evidence rank, low). However, corticosteroids may exert a significant effect on the mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97), in-hospital (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99; evidence rank, moderate) in patients with sepsis or septic shock (evidence rank, low). Furthermore, corticosteroids probably achieved a tiny reduction in the length of hospital stay and ICU. Corticosteroids were associated with a higher risk of hypernatremia and hyperglycemia; furthermore, they appear to have no significant effect on superinfection and gastroduodenal bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids had no significant effect on the 28-day and long-term mortality; however, they decreased the ICU and hospital mortality. The findings suggest that the clinical corticosteroids may be an effective therapy for patients with sepsis during the short time.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://inplasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/INPLASY-Protocol-1074-4.pdf.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Sepsis
PubMed: 34484209
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.709155 -
Mycoses Oct 2021Chronic pulmonary aspergillosis (CPA) is an emerging fungal infectious disease of public health importance. We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting the... (Review)
Review
Chronic pulmonary aspergillosis (CPA) is an emerging fungal infectious disease of public health importance. We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting the outcomes of patients with CPA managed surgically in Africa. A search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar and African Journals Online was conducted to identify studies indexed from inception to June 2021 that examined surgical management of CPA in Africa. All articles that presented primary data, including case reports and case series, were included. We excluded review articles. A total of 891 cases (557 males (62.5%), mean age 39.3 years) extracted from 27 eligible studies published between 1976 and 2020 from 11 African countries were included. Morocco (524, 59%) and Senegal (99, 11%) contributed the majority of cases. Active or previous pulmonary tuberculosis was reported in 677 (76.0%) cases. Haemoptysis was reported in 682 (76.5%) cases. Lobectomy (either unilateral or bilateral, n = 493, 55.3%), pneumonectomy (n = 154, 17.3%) and segmentectomy (n = 117, 13.1%) were the most frequently performed surgical procedures. Thirty (4.9%) cases from South Africa received bronchial artery embolisation. Empyema (n = 59, 27.4%), significant haemorrhage (n = 38, 173.7%), incomplete lung expansion (n = 26, 12.1%) and prolonged air leak (n = 24, 11.2%) were the most frequent complications. Overall, 45 (5.1%) patients died. The causes of death included respiratory failure (n = 14), bacterial superinfection/sepsis (n = 10), severe haemorrhage (n = 5), cardiopulmonary arrest (n = 3) and complications of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 3). The cause of death was either unknown or unspecified in 9 cases. We conclude that surgical treatment had very low mortality rates and maybe considered as first-line management option in centres with experience and expertise in Africa.
Topics: Africa; Hemoptysis; Humans; Pneumonectomy; Pulmonary Aspergillosis; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34363630
DOI: 10.1111/myc.13359 -
International Journal of Infectious... Sep 2021To date, there is no effective treatment for the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We aimed to systematically review the literature on the association between the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To date, there is no effective treatment for the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We aimed to systematically review the literature on the association between the combination of tocilizumab (TCZ) and systemic corticosteroid therapy (SCT) on outcomes of COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, and preprints, for studies in which health outcomes were compared between adults with severe COVID-19 who received TCZ and SCT and those who received standard of care without TCZ. Record screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed in duplicate. Random effect models were used when pooling crude numbers and adjusted effect estimates of study outcomes.
RESULTS
Our search identified seventeen studies. The pooled crude mortality rate was lower in the combination arm (relative risk, RR=0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.42 - 0.91; I=60%). The adjusted mortality rates were also lower in the combination arm (RR=0.58, 95% CI=0.42 - 0.81; I=71%). The rate of superinfections did not differ between the two interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this study show that combination of TCZ and SCT compared to SOC has lower mortality rates. There is an urgent need for well-designed randomized trials to assess the safety and efficacy of this combination in subjects with severe COVID-19.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34273515
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.07.021 -
Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology Mar 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab (TCZ) in treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab (TCZ) in treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
The electronic search was made using PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Google scholar to identify the retrospective observational reports. The studies published from 01 January 2020 to 30th October 2020. Participants were hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Interventions included tocilizumab versus placebo/standard of care. The comparison will be between TCZ versus standard of care (SOC)/placebo. Inconsistency between the studies was evaluated with I2 and quality of the evidences were evaluated by Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
RESULTS
Based on the inclusion criteria there were 24 retrospective studies involving 5686 subjects were included. The outcomes of the meta-analysis have revealed that the TCZ has reduced mortality (M-H, RE-OR -0.11(-0.18--0.04) 95% CI, p=0.001, I2 =88%) and increased the incidences of super-infections (M-H, RE-OR 1.49(1.13-1.96) 95% CI, p=0.004, I2=47%). However, there is no significant difference in ICU admissions rate (M-H, RE-OR -0.06(-0.23-0.12), I2=93%), need for mechanical ventilation (M-H, RE-OR of 0.00(-0.06-0.07), I=74%), LOS (IV -2.86(-0.91-3.38), I2=100%), LOS-ICU (IV: -3.93(-12.35-4.48), I2=100%), and incidences of pulmonary thrombosis (MH, RE-OR 1.01 (0.45-2.26), I2=0%) compared to SOC/control.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on cumulative low-to-moderate certainty evidence shows that TCZ could reduce the risk of mortality in hospitalised patients. However, there is no statistically significant difference observed between the TCZ and SOC/control groups in other parameters.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Humans; Retrospective Studies; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34251307
DOI: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/4dg0or -
Medicine May 2021Corticosteroid treatment is an effective and common therapeutic strategy for various inflammatory lung pathologies and may be an effective treatment for coronavirus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Corticosteroid treatment is an effective and common therapeutic strategy for various inflammatory lung pathologies and may be an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature was to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with corticosteroid treatment of COVID-19.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through March 10, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of corticosteroid therapies for COVID-19 treatment. Outcomes of interest were mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, serious adverse events (SAEs), and superinfection.
RESULTS
A total of 7737 patients from 8 RCTs were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, of which 2795 (36.1%) patients received corticosteroids plus standard of care (SOC) while 4942 (63.9%) patients received placebo and/or SOC alone. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in patients that received corticosteroids as compared to SOC (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76; 0.95], P = .003). Corticosteroid treatment reduced the odds of a need for mechanical ventilation as compared to SOC (OR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.59; 0.97], P = .030). There was no significant difference between the corticosteroid and SOC groups with regards to SAEs and superinfections.
CONCLUSION
Corticosteroid treatment can reduce the odds for mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; COVID-19; Humans; Odds Ratio; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34011029
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025719 -
QJM : Monthly Journal of the... Nov 2021Interleukin-6 inhibitors showed promising results in observational trials of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Interleukin-6 inhibitors showed promising results in observational trials of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
AIM
To evaluate whether interleukin-6 inhibitor tocilizumab (TCZ) reduces mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TCZ vs. placebo/control, for treatment of adults with COVID-19. Primary outcome was 28-30 days all-cause mortality. Search was conducted up to 1 April 2021. Two independent reviewers screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled. We performed subgroup analysis for patients with critical illness and sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs were included, assessing 6481 patients with mostly severe non-critical COVID-19 infection. TCZ was associated with a reduction in all-cause 28-30-day mortality compared to placebo/control (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.96). Among the subgroup of critically ill patients no reduced mortality was demonstrated (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.74-1.19). No mortality benefit with TCZ was demonstrated in trials that used steroids for >80% of patients. TCZ was associated with significantly reduced risk for mechanical ventilation (MV); for combined endpoint of death or MV and for intensive care unit (ICU) admission. No significant difference in adverse events was demonstrated. Risk of serious superinfection was significantly lower with TCZ (RR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.93).
CONCLUSION
The treatment with TCZ reduces 28-30 days all-cause mortality, ICU admission, superinfections, MV and the combined endpoint of death or MV. Among critically ill patients, and when steroids were used for most patients, no mortality benefit was demonstrated. Additional research should further define sub-groups that would benefit most and preferred timing of administration of TCZ in severe COVID-19.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Humans; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34010403
DOI: 10.1093/qjmed/hcab142 -
PloS One 2021The recovery of other pathogens in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported, either at the time of a SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis (co-infection) or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The recovery of other pathogens in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported, either at the time of a SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis (co-infection) or subsequently (superinfection). However, data on the prevalence, microbiology, and outcomes of co-infection and superinfection are limited. The purpose of this study was to examine the occurrence of co-infections and superinfections and their outcomes among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We searched literature databases for studies published from October 1, 2019, through February 8, 2021. We included studies that reported clinical features and outcomes of co-infection or superinfection of SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. We followed PRISMA guidelines, and we registered the protocol with PROSPERO as: CRD42020189763.
RESULTS
Of 6639 articles screened, 118 were included in the random effects meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of co-infection was 19% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14%-25%, I2 = 98%) and that of superinfection was 24% (95% CI: 19%-30%). Pooled prevalence of pathogen type stratified by co- or superinfection were: viral co-infections, 10% (95% CI: 6%-14%); viral superinfections, 4% (95% CI: 0%-10%); bacterial co-infections, 8% (95% CI: 5%-11%); bacterial superinfections, 20% (95% CI: 13%-28%); fungal co-infections, 4% (95% CI: 2%-7%); and fungal superinfections, 8% (95% CI: 4%-13%). Patients with a co-infection or superinfection had higher odds of dying than those who only had SARS-CoV-2 infection (odds ratio = 3.31, 95% CI: 1.82-5.99). Compared to those with co-infections, patients with superinfections had a higher prevalence of mechanical ventilation (45% [95% CI: 33%-58%] vs. 10% [95% CI: 5%-16%]), but patients with co-infections had a greater average length of hospital stay than those with superinfections (mean = 29.0 days, standard deviation [SD] = 6.7 vs. mean = 16 days, SD = 6.2, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
Our study showed that as many as 19% of patients with COVID-19 have co-infections and 24% have superinfections. The presence of either co-infection or superinfection was associated with poor outcomes, including increased mortality. Our findings support the need for diagnostic testing to identify and treat co-occurring respiratory infections among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Topics: Bacterial Infections; COVID-19; Coinfection; Hospitalization; Humans; Mycoses; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2; Superinfection; Treatment Outcome; Virus Diseases
PubMed: 33956882
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251170 -
Infected hepatic echinococcosis. Clinical, therapeutic, and prognostic aspects. A systematic review.Annals of Hepatology 2021Infected hepatic echinococcosis (IHE), defined as a cystic infection, and the development of a liver abscess may be a complication in the natural history of hepatic...
Infected hepatic echinococcosis (IHE), defined as a cystic infection, and the development of a liver abscess may be a complication in the natural history of hepatic echinococcosis. The aim of this study was to review the evidence available related to clinical, therapeutic, and prognostic aspects of IHE. We conducted a systematic review. Trip Database, BIREME-BVS, SciELO, LILACS, IBECS, PAHO-WHO; WoS, EMBASE, SCOPUS and PubMed were consulted. Studies related to IHE in humans, without language restriction, published between 1966 and 2020 were considered. Variables studied were publication year, geographical origin of the samples, number of patients, therapeutic and prognosis aspects, and methodological quality (MQ) for each article. Descriptive statistics was applied. Subsequently, weighted averages (WA) of the MQ of each article were calculated for each variable of interest. 960 related articles were identified; 47 fulfilled selection criteria, including 486 patients with a median age of 48 years, 51.6% being male. The largest proportion of articles were from Spain, India, and Greece (36.1%). Mean cyst diameter was 14.1 cm, and main location was right liver lobe (74.0%). WA for morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, and follow-up were 28.5%, 7.4%, 8.5 days and 14.8 months, respectively. The most common causative microorganisms of superinfection isolated were Enterobacteriaceae. An association with cholangitis was reported in 13.4% of cases. Mean MQ of the 47 articles included was 7.6 points. We can conclude that the information related to IHE is scarce and scattered throughout articles of small casuistry and poor quality, and consequently does not provide strong evidence.
Topics: Echinococcosis, Hepatic; Humans; Prognosis
PubMed: 32835861
DOI: 10.1016/j.aohep.2020.07.009