-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2019Pneumothorax occurs more frequently in the neonatal period than at any other time of life and is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. It can be treated...
BACKGROUND
Pneumothorax occurs more frequently in the neonatal period than at any other time of life and is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. It can be treated with either aspiration with a syringe (using a needle or an angiocatheter) or a chest tube inserted in the anterior pleural space and then connected to a Heimlich valve or an underwater seal with continuous suction.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of needle aspiration (either with immediate removal of the needle or with the needle left in situ) to intercostal tube drainage in the management of neonatal pneumothorax (PTX).
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 4 June 2018), Embase (1980 to 4 June 2018), and CINAHL (1982 to 4 June 2018). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials and cluster trials comparing needle aspiration (either with the needle or angiocatheter left in situ or removed immediately after aspiration) to intercostal tube drainage in newborn infants with pneumothorax.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For each of the included trials, two authors independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, kind of needle and chest tube, choice of intercostal space, pressure and device for drainage) and assessed the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomisation, blinding, completeness of follow-up). The primary outcomes considered in this review are mortality during the neonatal period and during hospitalisation.We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Two randomised controlled trials (142 infants) met the inclusion criteria of this review. We found no differences in the rates of mortality when the needle was removed immediately after aspiration (risk ratio (RR) 3.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 17.58; participants = 70; studies = 1) or left in situ (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 8.45; participants = 72; studies = 1) or complications related to the procedure. With immediate removal of the needle following aspiration, 30% of the newborns did not require the placement of an intercostal tube drainage. None of the 36 newborns treated with needle aspiration with the angiocatheter left in situ required the placement of an intercostal tube drainage. Overall, the quality of the evidence supporting this finding is very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to establish the efficacy and safety of needle aspiration and intercostal tube drainage in the management of neonatal pneumothorax. The two included trials showed no differences in mortality; however the information size is low. Needle aspiration reduces the need for intercostal tube drainage placement. Limited or no evidence is available on other clinically relevant outcomes.
Topics: Chest Tubes; Device Removal; Hemorrhage; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Needles; Pneumothorax; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk; Suction; Thoracentesis; Thoracostomy
PubMed: 30707441
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011724.pub3 -
Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular... Nov 2018Pericardial effusion (PE) can develop in several pathological scenarios, and is often initially evaluated by means of echocardiography. Computed tomography (CT) has been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pericardial effusion (PE) can develop in several pathological scenarios, and is often initially evaluated by means of echocardiography. Computed tomography (CT) has been used as an aid in the management of patients presenting with PE, in selected cases. The role of CT-guided pericardiocentesis in contemporary practice, however, remains not fully ascertained. We aimed at presenting a systematic review concerning the state-of-the-art of this technique.
METHODS
A systematic review of published data on the use of CT for guiding pericardiocentesis was carried out (search performed on PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge and Scopus databases).
RESULTS
From title and abstract analysis, 14 articles were included that met the prespecified criteria. After full-text analysis, six articles were excluded. The eight articles under analysis included a total of 635 procedures performed in 571 patients. CT guidance was mostly used in a postoperative setting (364 procedures). Most procedures were done mainly for therapeutic purposes (528 procedures). Success rates ranged from 94% to 100%. Complications ranged from 0% to 7.8%.
CONCLUSION
CT-guided pericardiocentesis is a useful technique in the approach to PE, in several clinical scenarios. Its use can be especially relevant in the postoperative period, as well as in individuals with suboptimal image quality (as assessed by echocardiography, for the moment the first choice in the approach to most cases of PE).
Topics: Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pericardial Effusion; Pericardiocentesis; Postoperative Complications; Predictive Value of Tests; Radiography, Interventional; Risk Factors; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30111248
DOI: 10.1177/1753944718792413 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... May 2018Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are musculoskeletal conditions that can inhibit the normal function of temporomandibular joints (TMJs) and affect the patient's...
BACKGROUND
Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are musculoskeletal conditions that can inhibit the normal function of temporomandibular joints (TMJs) and affect the patient's quality of life, negatively. Arthrocentesis (AC) is a minimally invasive surgical procedure used for treating TMDs. The aim of present paper is to evaluate the advantages of administrating corticosteroid (CS) during AC by reviewing high quality released articles.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Searching on Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, ProQuest, and Scopus databases were performed with focusing on proper key words. Related titles and abstracts, up to December 2017, were screened and selected based on inclusion criteria. The full text of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was extensively read and subjected to quality assessments.
RESULTS
After initial search, a total of 2067 articles were included into the study. Finally, 7 studies were reliable enough in methodology and randomization to be included into the study. All of the observed studies showed improvements in jaw functions and pain relief with no statistical differences in both AC and control groups. One study reported painless maximum incisal opening in CS group than the control group.
CONCLUSION
Based on available RCTs, the AC of TMJ with CS seems to result in similar findings to other therapeutic drugs, with no significant differences.
Topics: Arthrocentesis; Combined Modality Therapy; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
PubMed: 29680840
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.21925 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017During pregnancy, fetal cells suitable for genetic testing can be obtained from amniotic fluid by amniocentesis (AC), placental tissue by chorionic villus sampling... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
During pregnancy, fetal cells suitable for genetic testing can be obtained from amniotic fluid by amniocentesis (AC), placental tissue by chorionic villus sampling (CVS), or fetal blood. A major disadvantage of second trimester amniocentesis is that the results are available relatively late in pregnancy (after 16 weeks' gestation). Earlier alternatives are chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and early amniocentesis, which can be performed in the first trimester of pregnancy.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to compare the safety and accuracy of all types of AC (i.e. early and late) and CVS (e.g. transabdominal, transcervical) for prenatal diagnosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (3 March 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 3 March 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised trials comparing AC and CVS by either transabdominal or transcervical route.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 16 randomised studies, with a total of 33,555 women, 14 of which were deemed to be at low risk of bias. The number of women included in the trials ranged from 223 to 4606.Studies were categorized into six comparisons: 1. second trimester AC versus control; 2. early versus second trimester AC; 3. CVS versus second trimester AC; 4. CVS methods; 5. Early AC versus CVS; and 6. AC with or without ultrasound.One study compared second trimester AC with no AC (control) in a low risk population (women = 4606). Background pregnancy loss was around 2%. Second trimester AC compared to no testing increased total pregnancy loss by another 1%. The confidence intervals (CI) around this excess risk were relatively large (3.2% versus 2.3 %, average risk ratio (RR) 1.41, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.00; moderate-quality evidence). In the same study, spontaneous miscarriages were also higher (2.1% versus 1.3%; average RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.52; high-quality evidence). The number of congenital anomalies was similar in both groups (2.0% versus 2.2%, average RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.39; moderate-quality evidence).One study (women = 4334) found that early amniocentesis was not a safe early alternative compared to second trimester amniocentesis because of increased total pregnancy losses (7.6% versus 5.9%; average RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61; high-quality evidence), spontaneous miscarriages (3.6% versus 2.5%, average RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.98; moderate-quality evidence), and a higher incidence of congential anomalies, including talipes (4.7% versus 2.7%; average RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.38; high-quality evidence).When pregnancy loss after CVS was compared with second trimester AC, there was a clinically significant heterogeneity in the size and direction of the effect depending on the technique used (transabdominal or transcervical), therefore, the results were not pooled. Only one study compared transabdominal CVS with second trimester AC (women = 2234). They found no clear difference between the two procedures in the total pregnancy loss (6.3% versus 7%; average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.23, low-quality evidence), spontaneous miscarriages (3.0% versus 3.9%; average RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.21; low-quality evidence), and perinatal deaths (0.7% versus 0.6%; average RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.51; low-quality evidence). Transcervical CVS may carry a higher risk of pregnancy loss (14.5% versus 11.5%; average RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.81), but the results were quite heterogeneous.Five studies compared transabdominal and transcervical CVS (women = 7978). There were no clear differences between the two methods in pregnancy losses (average RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.65; very low-quality evidence), spontaneous miscarriages (average RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.58; very low-quality evidence), or anomalies (average RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.12; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the evidence to low due to heterogeneity between studies. Transcervical CVS may be more technically demanding than transabdominal CVS, with more failures to obtain sample (2.0% versus 1.1%; average RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.82, moderate-quality evidence).Overall, we found low-quality evidence for outcomes when early amniocentesis was compared to transabdominal CVS. Spontaneous miscarriage was the only outcome supported by moderate-quality evidence, resulting in more miscarriages after early AC compared with transabdominal CVS (2.3% versus 1.3%; average RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.60). There were no clear differences in pregnancy losses (average RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.54; low-quality evidence), or anomalies (average RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.30; very low-quality evidence).We found one study that examined AC with or without ultrasound, which evaluated a type of ultrasound-assisted procedure that is now considered obsolete.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Second trimester amniocentesis increased the risk of pregnancy loss, but it was not possible to quantify this increase precisely from only one study, carried out more than 30 years ago.Early amniocentesis was not as safe as second trimester amniocentesis, illustrated by increased pregnancy loss and congenital anomalies (talipes). Transcervical chorionic villus sampling compared with second trimester amniocentesis may be associated with a higher risk of pregnancy loss, but results were quite heterogeneous.Diagnostic accuracy of different methods could not be assessed adequately because of incomplete karyotype data in most studies.
Topics: Amniocentesis; Chorionic Villi Sampling; Congenital Abnormalities; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Pregnancy Trimester, Second; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28869276
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003252.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Fetal assessment following preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (PPROM) may result in earlier delivery due to earlier detection of fetal compromise. However, early... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fetal assessment following preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (PPROM) may result in earlier delivery due to earlier detection of fetal compromise. However, early delivery may not always be in the fetal or maternal interest, and the effectiveness of different fetal assessment methods in improving neonatal and maternal outcomes is uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To study the effectiveness of fetal assessment methods for improving neonatal and maternal outcomes in PPROM. Examples of fetal assessment methods that would be eligible for inclusion in this review include fetal cardiotocography, fetal movement counting and Doppler ultrasound.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2014) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing any fetal assessment methods, or comparing one fetal assessment method to no assessment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion into the review. The same two review authors independently assessed trial quality and independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies involving 275 women (data reported for 271) with PPROM at up to 34 weeks' gestation. All three studies were conducted in the United States. Each study investigated different methods of fetal assessment. One study compared weekly endovaginal ultrasound scans with no assessment (n = 93), one compared amniocentesis with no assessment (n = 47), and one compared daily nonstress testing with daily modified biophysical profiling (n = 135). We were unable to perform a meta-analysis, but were able to report data from individual studies.There was no convincing evidence of increased risk of neonatal death in the group receiving endovaginal ultrasound scans compared with the group receiving no assessment (risk ratio (RR) 7.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 137.54; one study, 92 women), or in the group receiving amniocentesis compared with the group receiving no amniocentesis (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.00; one study, 44 women). For both these interventions, we inferred that there were no fetal deaths in the intervention or control groups. The study comparing daily nonstress testing with daily modified biophysical profiling did not report fetal or neonatal death. Primary outcomes of maternal death and serious maternal morbidity were not reported in any study. Overall, there were few statistically significant differences in outcomes between the comparisons.The overall quality of evidence is poor, because participant blinding was not possible for any study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of fetal assessment methods for improving neonatal and maternal outcomes in women with PPROM to draw firm conclusions. The overall quality of evidence that does exist is poor.Further high-quality randomised controlled trials are required to guide clinical practice.
Topics: Amniocentesis; Female; Fetal Membranes, Premature Rupture; Fetal Monitoring; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ultrasonography, Prenatal
PubMed: 25279580
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010209.pub2 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Jan 2015To estimate procedure-related risks of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) based on a systematic review of the literature and a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To estimate procedure-related risks of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) based on a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis.
METHODS
A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL and The Cochrane Library (2000-2014) was performed to review relevant citations reporting procedure-related complications of amniocentesis and CVS. Only studies reporting data on more than 1000 procedures were included in this review to minimize the effect of bias from smaller studies. Heterogeneity between studies was estimated using Cochran's Q, the I(2) statistic and Egger bias. Meta-analysis of proportions was used to derive weighted pooled estimates for the risk of miscarriage before 24 weeks' gestation. Incidence-rate difference meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled procedure-related risks.
RESULTS
The weighted pooled risks of miscarriage following invasive procedures were estimated from analysis of controlled studies including 324 losses in 42 716 women who underwent amniocentesis and 207 losses in 8899 women who underwent CVS. The risk of miscarriage prior to 24 weeks in women who underwent amniocentesis and CVS was 0.81% (95% CI, 0.58-1.08%) and 2.18% (95% CI, 1.61-2.82%), respectively. The background rates of miscarriage in women from the control group that did not undergo any procedures were 0.67% (95% CI, 0.46-0.91%) for amniocentesis and 1.79% (95% CI, 0.61-3.58%) for CVS. The weighted pooled procedure-related risks of miscarriage for amniocentesis and CVS were 0.11% (95% CI, -0.04 to 0.26%) and 0.22% (95% CI, -0.71 to 1.16%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
The procedure-related risks of miscarriage following amniocentesis and CVS are much lower than are currently quoted.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Amniocentesis; Aneuploidy; Chorionic Villi Sampling; Decision Making; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Odds Ratio; Patient Education as Topic; Pregnancy; Prenatal Diagnosis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 25042845
DOI: 10.1002/uog.14636