-
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 -
Medicine Jan 2021The evidence for the incidence and severity of liver injury in Chinese patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still controversial. The purpose of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The evidence for the incidence and severity of liver injury in Chinese patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to summarize the incidence of liver injury and the differences between liver injury markers among different patients with COVID-19 in China.
METHODS
Computer searches of PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and medRxiv were used to obtain reports on the incidence and markers of liver injury in Chinese patients with COVID-19, from January 1, 2020 to April 10, 2020. (No. CRD42020181350).
RESULTS
A total of 57 reports from China were included, including 9889 confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection. The results of the meta-analysis showed that among the patients with early COVID-19 infection in China, the incidence of liver injury events was 24.7% (95% CI, 23.4%-26.4%). Liver injury in severe patients was more common than that in non-severe patients, with a risk ratio of 2.07 (95% CI, 1.77-2.43). Quantitative analysis showed that the severe the coronavirus infection, the higher the level of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspertate aminotransferase (AST), total bilirubin (TB), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT), and the lower the level of albumin (ALB).
CONCLUSION
There is a certain risk of liver injury in Chinese patients with COVID-19, and the risk and degree of liver injury are related to the severity of COVID-19.
Topics: COVID-19; China; Humans; Incidence; Liver Diseases; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 33530232
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024369 -
Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine Dec 2020Cardiovascular events are among the most common causes of late death in the transplant recipient (Tx) population. Moreover, major cardiac surgical procedures are more... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Cardiovascular events are among the most common causes of late death in the transplant recipient (Tx) population. Moreover, major cardiac surgical procedures are more challenging and risky due to immunosuppression and the potential impact on the transplanted organ's functional capacity. We aimed to assess open cardiac surgery safety in abdominal solid organ transplant recipients, comparing the postoperative outcomes with those of nontransplant (N-Tx) patients. Electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS were searched. The endpoints were: overall rate of infectious complications (wound infection, septicemia, pneumonia), cardiovascular and renal events (stroke, cardiac tamponade, acute kidney failure), 30-days, 5-years, and 10-years mortality post-cardiac surgery interventions in patients with and without prior solid organ transplantation. This meta-analysis included five studies. Higher rates of wound infection (Tx vs. N-Tx: OR: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.54 to 2.67, I2 = 0%), septicemia (OR: 3.91, 95% CI: 1.40 to 10.92, I2 = 0%), cardiac tamponade (OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.28 to 2.62, I2 = 0%) and kidney failure (OR: 1.70, 95 %CI: 1.44 to 2.02, I2 = 89%) in transplant recipients were reported. No significant differences in pneumonia occurrence (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.27, I2 = 0%) stroke (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.48, I2 = 78%) and 30-day mortality (OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 0.97 to 3.80, I2 = 0%) were observed. Surprisingly, 5-years (OR: 3.74, 95% CI: 2.54 to 5.49, I2 = 0%) and 10-years mortality rates were significantly lower in the N-Tx group (OR: 3.32, 95% CI: 2.35 to 4.69, I2 = 0%). Our study reveals that open cardiac surgery in transplant recipients is associated with worse postoperative outcomes and higher long-term mortality rates.
Topics: Aged; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Female; Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Liver Transplantation; Male; Middle Aged; Pancreas Transplantation; Postoperative Complications; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33388004
DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.192 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Oct 2020Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, mostly causing respiratory symptoms, is also known to affect the gastrointestinal tract. Several...
BACKGROUND
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, mostly causing respiratory symptoms, is also known to affect the gastrointestinal tract. Several case reports hypothesize that SARS-CoV-2 could be an etiological factor in acute pancreatitis (AP).
AIM
To assess all the available evidence in the literature relating to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and AP.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the available literature on the topic. The systematic search was conducted on 15 May 2020 on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science and Scopus with a search key using the terms "amylase," "lipase," "pancr*," "COVID-19" and synonyms. Due to the low quality and poor comparability of the studies, a meta-analysis was not performed.
RESULTS
Six case reports and two retrospective cohorts were included, containing data on eleven COVID-19 patients with AP. Five patients had AP according to the Atlanta classification. Other publications did not provide sufficient information on the diagnostic criteria. Most cases were considered SARS-CoV-2-induced, while several established etiological factors were not investigated. We were able to identify other possible causes in most of them.
CONCLUSION
We strongly highlight the need for adherence to the guidelines during a diagnostic and etiological workup, which could alter therapy.
Topics: Acute Disease; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Clinical Laboratory Techniques; Coronavirus Infections; Guideline Adherence; Humans; Pancreatitis; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Practice Guidelines as Topic; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 33177799
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i40.6270 -
Transplantation Proceedings Nov 2020As the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has emerged as a viral pandemic, data on the clinical characteristics and...
BACKGROUND
As the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has emerged as a viral pandemic, data on the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing solid organ transplant are emerging. The objective of this systematic review was to assess currently published literature relating to the management, clinical course, and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in liver, kidney, and heart solid organ transplant recipients.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to assess currently published literature relating to the management, clinical course, and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in liver, kidney, and heart solid organ transplant recipients. Articles published through June 2020 were searched in the MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and PubMed databases. We identified 49 eligible studies comprising a total of 403 solid organ transplant recipients.
RESULTS
Older age, male sex, and preexisting comorbidities, including hypertension and/or diabetes, were the most common prevailing characteristics among the solid organ transplant recipients. Clinical presentation ranged from mild to severe disease, including multiorgan failure and death. We found an overall mortality rate of 21%.
CONCLUSION
Our analysis suggests no increase in overall mortality or worse outcome in solid organ transplant recipients receiving immunosuppressive therapy compared with mortality in the general surgical population with SARS-CoV-2. Our findings suggest that transplant surgery and its immunosuppressive effects should not be a deterrent to proper surgical care for patients in the SARS-CoV-2 era.
Topics: Aged; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Comorbidity; Coronavirus Infections; Female; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; Male; Organ Transplantation; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 33127076
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.09.006 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Sep 2020Pancreatic duct stones can lead to significant abdominal pain for patients. Per oral pancreatoscopy (POP)-guided intracorporal lithotripsy is being increasingly used for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic duct stones can lead to significant abdominal pain for patients. Per oral pancreatoscopy (POP)-guided intracorporal lithotripsy is being increasingly used for the management of main pancreatic duct calculi (PDC) in chronic pancreatitis. POP uses two techniques: Electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) and laser lithotripsy (LL). Data on the safety and efficacy are limited for this procedure. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with a primary aim to calculate the pooled technical and clinical success rates of POP. The secondary aim was to assess pooled rates of technical success, clinical success for the two individual techniques, and adverse event rates.
AIM
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of POP, EHL and LL for management of PDC in chronic pancreatitis.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Google Scholar and Web of Science databases (from 1999 to October 2019) to identify studies with patient age greater than 17 and any gender that reported on outcomes of POP, EHL and LL. The primary outcome assessed involved the pooled technical success and clinical success rate of POP. The secondary outcome included the pooled technical success and clinical success rate for EHL and LL. We also assessed the pooled rate of adverse events for POP, EHL and LL including a subgroup analysis for the rate of adverse event subtypes for POP: Hemorrhage, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP), perforation, abdominal pain, fever and infections. Technical success was defined as the rate of clearing pancreatic duct stones and clinical success as the improvement in pain. Random-effects model was used for analysis. Heterogeneity between study-specific estimates was calculated using the Cochran statistical test and statistics. Publication bias was ascertained, qualitatively by visual inspection of funnel plot and quantitatively by the Egger test.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies including 383 patients met the inclusion criteria. The technical success rate of POP was 76.4% (95%CI: 65.9-84.5; = 64%) and clinical success rate was 76.8% (95%CI: 65.2-85.4; = 66%). The technical success rate of EHL was 70.3% (95%CI: 57.8-80.3; = 36%) and clinical success rate of EHL was 66.5% (95%CI: 55.2-76.2; = 19%). The technical success rate of LL was 89.3% (95%CI: 70.5-96.7; = 70%) and clinical success rate of LL was 88.2% (95%CI: 66.4-96.6; = 77%). The incidence of pooled adverse events for POP was 14.9% (95%CI: 9.2-23.2; = 49%), for EHL was 11.2% (95%CI: 5.9-20.3; = 15%) and for LL was 13.1% (95%CI: 6.3-25.4; = 31%). Subgroup analysis of adverse events showed rates of PEP at 7% (95%CI: 3.5-13.6; = 38%), fever at 3.7% (95%CI: 2-6.9; = 0), abdominal pain at 4.7% (95%CI: 2.7-7.8; = 0), perforation at 4.3% (95%CI: 2.1-8.4; = 0), hemorrhage at 3.4% (95%CI: 1.7-6.6; = 0) and no mortality. There was evidence of publication bias based on funnel plot analysis and Egger's test.
CONCLUSION
Our study highlights the high technical and clinical success rates for POP, EHL and LL. POP-guided lithotripsy could be a viable option for management of chronic pancreatitis with PDC.
Topics: Calculi; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Humans; Lithotripsy; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatic Ducts; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32982119
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i34.5207 -
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 -
Asian Journal of Surgery Nov 2020A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to estimate the incidence of possible complications following EUS-guided pancreas biopsy. Pancreatic cancer has a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to estimate the incidence of possible complications following EUS-guided pancreas biopsy. Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis with a high fatality rate. Early diagnosis is important to improve the prognosis of pancreatic cancer. We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for studies published from inception to Augest, 2018. Meta-analysis were conducted with random-effect models and heterogeneity was calculated with the Q, I and τ statistics. We enrolled 78 studies from 71 articles in the meta-analysis, comprising 11,652 patients. Pooled data showed that the whole complication incidences were low 0.210 × 10(95%CI -0.648 × 10, 1.068 × 10). And they were in bleeding 0.002 × 10 (95%CI -0.092 × 10, 0.097 × 10), pancreatitis 0.002 (95%CI -0.082 × 10, 0.086 × 10), abdominal pain 0 (95%CI -0.037 × 10, 0.038 × 10), fever 0 (95%CI -0.032 × 10, 0. 032 × 10), infection 0 (95%CI -0.030 × 10, 0.031 × 10), duodenal perforation 0 (95%CI -0.033 × 10, 0.034 × 10), pancreatic fistula 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10, 0.029 × 10), abscess 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10, 0.029 × 10) and sepsis 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10, 0.030 × 10). Subgroup analysis based on the tumor size, site, needle type and tumor style also showed robust results. The pooled data showed EUS-guided pancreas biopsy could be a safe approach for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. More large-scale studies will be necessary to confirm the findings across different population.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Cohort Studies; Duodenum; Early Detection of Cancer; Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration; Hemorrhage; Incidence; Intestinal Perforation; Pancreas; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreatitis; Safety
PubMed: 31974051
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2019.12.011 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Oct 2019Laparoscopy has been widely used in general surgical procedures, but total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) is still a complex and challenging surgery that is... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopy has been widely used in general surgical procedures, but total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) is still a complex and challenging surgery that is only performed in a small number of patients at a few large academic medical centers. Although the safety and feasibility of TLPD have been established, few studies have compared it with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) with regard to perioperative and oncological outcomes. Therefore, we carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate whether TLPD is superior to OPD.
AIM
To compare the treatment outcomes of TLPD and OPD in order to assess the safety and feasibility of TLPD.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of studies comparing TLPD with OPD that were published in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases through December 31, 2018. The studies comparing TLPD and OPD with at least one of the outcomes we were interested in and with more than 10 cases in each group were included in this analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the nonrandomized controlled trials and the Jadad scale was used to assess the randomized controlled trials. Intraoperative data, postoperative complications, and oncologic outcomes were evaluated. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software version 5.3. Random or fixed-effects meta-analyses were undertaken to measure the pooled estimates.
RESULTS
A total of 4790 articles were initially identified for our study. After screening, 4762 articles were excluded and 28 studies representing 39771 patients (3543 undergoing TLPD and 36228 undergoing OPD) were eventually included. Patients who underwent TLPD had less intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -260.08 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI): (-336.02, -184.14) mL, < 0.00001], a lower blood transfusion rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.36-0.72, = 0.0001], a lower perioperative overall morbidity (OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.73-0.92, = 0.0008), a lower wound infection rate (OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.34-0.67, < 0.0001), a lower pneumonia rate (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.60-0.85, = 0.0002), a shorter duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay [WMD = -0.28 d, 95%CI (-2.88, -1.29) d, < 0.00001] and a shorter length of hospital stay [WMD = -3.05 d, 95%CI (-3.93, -2.17), < 0.00001], a lower rate of discharge to a new facility (OR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.39-0.78, = 0.0008), and a lower 30-d readmission rate (OR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.68-0.95, = 0.10) than those who underwent OPD. In addition, the TLPD group had a higher R0 rate (OR = 1.28, 95%CI: 1.13-1.44, = 0.0001) and more lymph nodes harvested (WMD = 1.32, 95%CI: 0.57-2.06, = 0.0005) than the OPD group. However, the patients who underwent TLPD experienced a significantly longer operative time (WMD = 77.92 min, 95%CI: 40.89-114.95, < 0.0001) and had a smaller tumor size than those who underwent OPD [WMD = -0.32 cm, 95%CI: (-0.58, -0.07) cm, = 0.01]. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, bile leak, gastroenteric anastomosis fistula, intra-abdominal abscess, bowel obstruction, fluid collection, reoperation, ICU admission, or 30-d and 90-d mortality rates. For malignant tumors, the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year overall survival rates were not significantly different between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis indicates that TLPD is safe and feasible, and may be a desirable alternative to OPD, although a longer operative time is needed and only smaller tumors can be treated.
Topics: Blood Transfusion; Clinical Trials as Topic; Disease-Free Survival; Feasibility Studies; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Laparoscopy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Operative Time; Pancreas; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Tumor Burden
PubMed: 31602170
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i37.5711 -
Medicine Sep 2019The use of octreotide prophylaxis following pancreatic surgery is controversial. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of octreotide for the prevention of postoperative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The use of octreotide prophylaxis following pancreatic surgery is controversial. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of octreotide for the prevention of postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery through this systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Literature databases (including the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases) were searched systematically for relevant articles. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion in our research. We extracted the basic information regarding the patients, intervention procedures, and all complications after pancreatic surgery and then performed the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs involving 2006 patients were identified. There were no differences between the octreotide group and the placebo group with regard to pancreatic fistulas (PFs) (relative risk [RR] = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62-0.99, P = .05), clinically significant PFs (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.68-1.50, P = .95), mortality (RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.78-1.88, P = .40), biliary leakage (RR 0.84, 95% CI = 0.39-1.82, P = .66), delayed gastric emptying (RR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.54-1.27, P = .39), abdominal infection (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.66-1.52, P = 1.00), bleeding (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.78-1.72, P = .46), pulmonary complications (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.45-1.18, P = .20), overall complications (RR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.64-1.01, P = .06), and reoperation rates (RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.77-1.81, P = .45). In the high-risk group, octreotide was no more effective at reducing PF formation than placebo (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.67-1.00, P = .05). In addition, octreotide had no influence on the incidence of PF (RR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.14-1.05, P = .06) after distal pancreatic resection and local pancreatic resection.
CONCLUSION
The present best evidence suggests that prophylactic use of octreotide has no effect on reducing complications after pancreatic resection.
Topics: Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Octreotide; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 31567967
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017196