-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Perioperative fluid management is a crucial element of perioperative care and has been studied extensively recently; however, 'the right amount' remains uncertain. One... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Perioperative fluid management is a crucial element of perioperative care and has been studied extensively recently; however, 'the right amount' remains uncertain. One concept in perioperative fluid handling is goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT), wherein fluid administration targets various continuously measured haemodynamic variables with the aim of optimizing oxygen delivery. Another recently raised concept is that perioperative restrictive fluid therapy (RFT) may be beneficial and at least as effective as GDFT, with lower cost and less resource utilization.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate whether RFT may be more beneficial than GDFT for adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases on 11 October 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, in the Cochrane Libary; MEDLINE; and Embase. Additionally, we performed a targeted search in Google Scholar and searched trial registries (World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov) for ongoing and unpublished trials. We scanned the reference lists and citations of included trials and any relevant systematic reviews identified.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perioperative RFT versus GDFT for adults (aged ≥ 18 years) undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened references for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion and consulted a third review author if necessary. When necessary, we contacted trial authors to request additional information. We presented pooled estimates for dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and for continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) with standard deviations (SDs). We used Review Manager 5 software to perform the meta-analyses. We used a fixed-effect model if we considered heterogeneity as not important; otherwise, we used a random-effects model. We used Poisson regression models to compare the average number of complications per person.
MAIN RESULTS
From 6396 citations, we included six studies with a total of 562 participants. Five studies were performed in participants undergoing abdominal surgery (including one study in participants undergoing cytoreductive abdominal surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)), and one study was performed in participants undergoing orthopaedic surgery. In all studies, surgeries were elective. In five studies, crystalloids were used for basal infusion and colloids for boluses, and in one study, colloid was used for both basal infusion and boluses. Five studies reported the ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) status of participants. Most participants were ASA II (60.4%), 22.7% were ASA I, and only 16.9% were ASA III. No study participants were ASA IV. For the GDFT group, oesophageal doppler monitoring was used in three studies, uncalibrated invasive arterial pressure analysis systems in two studies, and a non-invasive arterial pressure monitoring system in one study. In all studies, GDFT optimization was conducted only intraoperatively. Only one study was at low risk of bias in all domains. The other five studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in one to three domains. RFT may have no effect on the rate of major complications compared to GDFT, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.34; 484 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence). RFT may increase the risk of all-cause mortality compared to GDFT, but the evidence on this is also very uncertain (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 544 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence). In a post-hoc analysis using a Peto odds ratio (OR) or a Poisson regression model, the odds of all-cause mortality were 4.81 times greater with the use of RFT compared to GDFT, but the evidence again is very uncertain (Peto OR 4.81, 95% CI 1.38 to 16.84; 544 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Nevertheless, sensitivity analysis shows that exclusion of a study in which the final volume of fluid received intraoperatively was higher in the RFT group than in the GDFT group revealed no differences in mortality. Based on analysis of secondary outcomes, such as length of hospital stay (464 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence), surgery-related complications (364 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence), non-surgery-related complications (74 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), renal failure (410 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence), and quality of surgical recovery (74 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), GDFT may have no effect on the risk of these outcomes compared to RFT, but the evidence is very uncertain. Included studies provided no data on administration of vasopressors or inotropes to correct haemodynamic instability nor on cost of treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether RFT is inferior to GDFT in selected populations of adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. The evidence is based mainly on data from studies on abdominal surgery in a low-risk population. The evidence does not address higher-risk populations or other surgery types. Larger, higher-quality RCTs including a wider spectrum of surgery types and a wider spectrum of patient groups, including high-risk populations, are needed to determine effects of the intervention.
Topics: Fluid Therapy; Humans; Length of Stay; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 31829446
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012767.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Ascites is the accumulation of fluid within the abdominal cavity. Most women with advanced ovarian cancer and some women with advanced endometrial cancer need repeated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ascites is the accumulation of fluid within the abdominal cavity. Most women with advanced ovarian cancer and some women with advanced endometrial cancer need repeated drainage for ascites. Guidelines to advise those involved in the drainage of ascites are usually produced locally and are generally not evidence-based. Managing drains that improve the efficacy and quality of the procedure is key in making recommendations that could improve the quality of life (QoL) for women at this critical period of their lives.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and adverse events of different interventions for the management of malignant ascites drainage in the palliative care of women with gynaecological cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to 4 November 2019. We checked clinical trial registries, grey literature, reports of conferences, citation lists of included studies, and key textbooks for potentially relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with malignant ascites with gynaecological cancer. If studies also included women with non-gynaecological cancer, we planned to extract data specifically for women with gynaecological cancers or request the data from trial authors. If this was not possible, we planned to include the study only if at least 50% of participants were diagnosed with gynaecological cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, evaluated the quality of the included studies, compared results, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
In the original 2010 review, we identified no relevant studies. This updated review included one RCT involving 245 participants that compared abdominal paracentesis and intraperitoneal infusion of catumaxomab versus abdominal paracentesis alone. The study was at high risk of bias in almost all domains. The data were not suitable for analysis. The median time to the first deterioration of QoL ranged from 19 to 26 days in participants receiving paracentesis alone compared to 47 to 49 days among participants receiving paracentesis with catumaxomab infusion (very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were only reported among participants receiving catumaxomab infusion. The most common severe adverse events were abdominal pain and lymphopenia (157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data on the improvement of symptoms, satisfaction of participants and caregivers, and cost-effectiveness.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the most appropriate management of drainage for malignant ascites among women with gynaecological cancer, as there was only very low-certainty evidence from one small RCT at overall high risk of bias.
Topics: Ascites; Drainage; Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31825525
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007794.pub3 -
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 -
World Journal of Hepatology Jul 2019Spontaneous peritonitis is an infection of ascitic fluid without a known intra-abdominal source of infection. spontaneous fungal peritonitis (SFP) is a potentially fatal...
BACKGROUND
Spontaneous peritonitis is an infection of ascitic fluid without a known intra-abdominal source of infection. spontaneous fungal peritonitis (SFP) is a potentially fatal complication of decompensated cirrhosis, defined as fungal infection of ascitic fluid in the presence of ascitic neutrophil count of greater than 250 cells/mL.
AIM
To determine the prevalence of fungal pathogens, management and outcomes (mortality) of SFP in critically ill cirrhotic patients.
METHODS
Studies were identified using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus databases until February 2019. Inclusion criteria included intervention trials and observation studies describing the association between SFP and cirrhosis. The primary outcome was in-hospital, 1-mo, and 6-mo mortality rates of SFP in cirrhotic patients. Secondary outcomes were fungal microorganisms identified and in hospital management by anti-fungal medications. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute quality assessment tools were used to assess internal validity and risk of bias for each included study.
RESULTS
Six observational studies were included in this systematic review. The overall quality of included studies was good. A meta-analysis of results could not be performed because of differences in reporting of outcomes and heterogeneity of the included studies. There were 82 patients with SFP described across all the included studies. Candida species, predominantly was the fungal pathogen in majority of the cases (48%-81.8%) followed by (15%-25%) and (6.66%-20%). (53.3%) was the other major fungal pathogen. Antifungal therapy in SFP patients was utilized in 33.3% to 81.8% cases. The prevalence of in hospital mortality ranged from 33.3% to 100%, whereas 1-mo mortality ranged between 50% to 73.3%.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review suggests that SFP in end stage liver disease patient is associated with high mortality both in the hospital and at 1-mo, and that antifungal therapy is currently underutilized.
PubMed: 31388401
DOI: 10.4254/wjh.v11.i7.596 -
Endoscopic Ultrasound 2019Postoperative pancreatic fluid collection (POPFC) is an important complication following abdominal surgery. POPFC causes significant morbidity and mortality. Management... (Review)
Review
Postoperative pancreatic fluid collection (POPFC) is an important complication following abdominal surgery. POPFC causes significant morbidity and mortality. Management options are time-consuming and severely affect patient's quality of life. Surgical and/or percutaneous drainage (PCD) is the traditional mainstay of treatment. Studies have shown that EUS could have a role to play in the management of POPFC. Data are limited in the comparison of clinical outcomes with EUS as compared to PCD to this end. We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, LILACS, and Web of Science databases (earliest inception through September 2018) to identify studies that reported on the clinical outcomes of EUS and PCD in the management of POPFC. The goals were to estimate and compare the pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, adverse events, and POPFC recurrence with EUS and PCD. A total of 13 studies were included in the analysis. Ten studies (239 patients) used EUS and 6 studies (267 patients) used PCD in the management of POPFC. The pooled rate of clinical success with EUS was 93.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.2-96.2, I = 0) and with PCD was 79.8% (95% CI 70-87, I = 74). The difference was statistically significant, P = 0.002. Recurrence rate was significantly lower with EUS as compared to PCD (9.4%: 95% CI 5.2-16.5 vs. 25.7%: 95% CI 24.3-41.7; P = 0.02). Pooled rates of technical success and adverse events were similar with EUS and PCD. Our meta-analysis shows that EUS has significantly better clinical outcomes, in terms of clinical success and disease recurrence, in the management of POPFC as compared to PCD.
PubMed: 31249160
DOI: 10.4103/eus.eus_18_19