-
Helicobacter Apr 2012The most common complications of peptic ulcer are bleeding and perforation. In many regions, definitive acid reduction surgery has given way to simple closure and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The most common complications of peptic ulcer are bleeding and perforation. In many regions, definitive acid reduction surgery has given way to simple closure and Helicobacter pylori eradication.
AIM
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to ask whether this change in practice is in fact justified.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A search on the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, and Embase was made for controlled trials of duodenal ulcer perforation patients using simple closure method plus postoperative H. pylori eradication therapy versus simple closure plus antisecretory non-eradication therapy. The long-term results for prevention of ulcer recurrence were compared.
RESULTS
The pooled incidence of 1-year ulcer recurrence in H. pylori eradication group was 5.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.7 and 9.7], which is significantly lower than that of the control group (35.2%) with 95% CI of 0.25 and 0.45. The pooled relative risk was 0.15 with 95% CI of 0.06 and 0.37.
CONCLUSIONS
Helicobacter pylori eradication after simple closure of duodenal ulcer perforation gives better result than the operation plus antisecretory non-eradication therapy for prevention of ulcer recurrence. All duodenal ulcer perforation patients should be tested for H. pylori infection, and eradication therapy is required in all infected patients.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Peptic Ulcer Perforation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 22404446
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-5378.2011.00928.x -
Gut Pathogens Oct 2010In 2005, the first disease-specific Helicobacter pylori virulence factor that induced duodenal ulcer and had a suppressive action on gastric cancer has been identified,...
BACKGROUND
In 2005, the first disease-specific Helicobacter pylori virulence factor that induced duodenal ulcer and had a suppressive action on gastric cancer has been identified, and was named duodenal ulcer promoting gene (dupA). However, the importance of the dupA gene on clinical outcomes is conflicting in subsequent studies. The aim of this study was to estimate the magnitude of the risk for clinical outcomes associated with dupA gene.
METHODS
A meta-analysis of case-control studies which provided raw data on the infection rates with the dupA-positive H. pylori detected by polymerase chain reaction was performed.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies with a total of 2,466 patients were identified in the search. Infection with the dupA-positive H. pylori increased the risk for duodenal ulcer by 1.41-fold (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.76) overall. Subgroup analysis showed that the summary odds ratio (OR) was 1.57 (95% CI, 1.19-2.06) in Asian countries and 1.09 (95% CI, 0.73-1.62) in Western countries. There was no association between the presence of the dupA gene and gastric cancer and gastric ulcer. Publication bias did not exist.
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis confirmed the importance of the presence of the dupA gene for duodenal ulcer, especially in Asian countries.
PubMed: 21040520
DOI: 10.1186/1757-4749-2-13 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Oct 2009The principal effect of Helicobacter pylori infection is lifelong chronic gastritis, affecting up to 20% of younger adults but 50% to 80% of adults born in resource-rich... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The principal effect of Helicobacter pylori infection is lifelong chronic gastritis, affecting up to 20% of younger adults but 50% to 80% of adults born in resource-rich countries before 1950.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of H pylori eradication treatment in people with a confirmed duodenal ulcer, a confirmed gastric ulcer, confirmed gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), confirmed non-ulcer dyspepsia, uninvestigated dyspepsia, localised B cell lymphoma of the stomach, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related peptic ulcers? What are the effects of H pylori eradication treatment for preventing NSAID-related peptic ulcers in people with or without previous ulcers or dyspepsia? What are the effects of H pylori eradication treatment on the risk of developing gastric cancer? Do H pylori eradication treatments differ in their effects? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 58 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: effects of H pylori eradication in different populations; relative effects of triple regimens, quadruple regimens, and sequential regimens.
Topics: Duodenal Ulcer; Dyspepsia; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans
PubMed: 21718575
DOI: No ID Found -
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 2009Despite the introduction of histamine H2-receptor antagonists, proton-pump inhibitors and the discovery of Helicobacter pylori, both the incidence of emergency surgery... (Review)
Review
Despite the introduction of histamine H2-receptor antagonists, proton-pump inhibitors and the discovery of Helicobacter pylori, both the incidence of emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcer and the mortality rate for patients undergoing surgery for peptic ulcer perforation have increased. This increase has occurred despite improvements in perioperative treatment and monitoring. To improve the outcome of these patients, it is necessary to investigate the reasons behind this high mortality rate. In this review we evaluate the existing evidence in order to identify significant risk factors with an emphasis on risks that are preventable. A systematic review including randomized studies was carried out. There are a limited number of studies of patients with peptic ulcer perforation. Most of these studies are of low evident status. Only a few randomized, controlled trials have been published. The mortality rate and the extent of postoperative complications are fairly high but the reasons for this have not been thoroughly explained, even though a number of risk factors have been identified. Some of these risk factors can be explained by the septic state of the patient on admission. In order to improve the outcome of patients with peptic ulcer perforation, sepsis needs to be factored into the existing knowledge and treatment.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Clinical Trials as Topic; Denmark; Duodenal Ulcer; Evidence-Based Medicine; Gastrectomy; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Incidence; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Peptic Ulcer Perforation; Prevalence; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Smoking; Stomach Ulcer; Survival Rate
PubMed: 18752147
DOI: 10.1080/00365520802307997 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2006Endoscopic balloon dilation was introduced as an alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy to preserve the sphincter of Oddi and avoid undesirable effects due to an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endoscopic balloon dilation was introduced as an alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy to preserve the sphincter of Oddi and avoid undesirable effects due to an incompetent sphincter. Endoscopic balloon dilation has been largely abandoned by USA endoscopists due to increased risks of pancreatitis noted in one multicentre trial, but is still practiced in parts of Asia and Europe.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of endoscopic balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy in the management of common bile duct stones.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE until January 2004. We hand searched Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (1983-2002), read through bibliographies of all included randomised clinical trials, and contacted all primary authors regarding missed randomised trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing endoscopic balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy in removal of common bile duct stones irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data collection was done by two independent authors for decisions on study inclusion, data abstraction, and quality assessment. When there was a non-resolvable discrepancy, the third author made the final decision. Analysis was run with RevMan Analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifteen randomised trials met our inclusion criteria (1768 participants). Less than half of the trials reported adequate methods of randomisation and only two trials used blinded outcome assessment. Endoscopic balloon dilation is statistically less successful for stone removal (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97), requires higher rates of mechanical lithotripsy (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.66), and carries a higher risk of pancreatitis (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.89). Conversely, endoscopic balloon dilation has statistically significant lower rates of bleeding. When a fixed-effect model is applied endoscopic balloon dilation leads to significantly less short-term infection and long-term infection. There was no statistically significant difference with regards to mortality, perforation, or total short-term complications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Endoscopic balloon dilation is slightly less successful than endoscopic sphincterotomy in stone extraction and more risky regarding pancreatitis. However, endoscopic balloon dilation seems to have a clinical role in patients who have coagulopathy, who are at risk for infection, and possibly in those who are older.
Topics: Catheterization; Gallstones; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sphincter of Oddi; Sphincterotomy, Endoscopic
PubMed: 17054222
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004890.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2006The role of early postoperative enteral nutrition after gastrointestinal surgery is controversial. Traditional management consist of 'nil by mouth', where patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The role of early postoperative enteral nutrition after gastrointestinal surgery is controversial. Traditional management consist of 'nil by mouth', where patients receive fluids followed by solids when tolerated. Although several trials have implicated lower incidence of septic complications and faster wound healing upon early enteral feeding, other trials have shown opposite results. The immediate advantage of caloric intake could be a faster recovery with fewer complications, to be evaluated systematically.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate whether early commencement of postoperative enteral nutrition compared to traditional management (no nutritional supply) is associated with fewer complications in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PUBMED, EMBASE, and LILACS from 1979 (first RCT published) to March 2006. We manually scanned the references from the relevant articles, and consulted primary authors for additional information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We looked for randomised controlled trials (RCT's) comparing early commencement of feeding (within 24 hours) with no feeding in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Early enteral nutrition is defined as all oral intakes (i.e. registered oral intake, supplemented oral feeding) and any kind of tube feeding (gastric, duodenal or jejunal) containing caloric content. No feeding is traditional management, defined as none caloric oral intake or any kind of tube feeding before bowel function. The definition 'no nutrition' includes non caloric placebo and water.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The three authors independently assessed the identified trials, and extracted the relevant data using a specifically developed data extraction sheet. Primary end points of interest were: Wound infections and intraabdominal abscesses, postoperative complications such as acute myocardial infarction, postoperative thrombosis or pneumonia, anastomotic leakages, mortality, length of hospital stay, and significant adverse effects. We combined data to estimate the common relative risk of postoperative complications, and calculated the associated 95% confidence intervals. For analysis, we used fixed effects model (risk ratios to summarise the treatment effect) whenever feasible. The treatment effect on length of stay was estimated using effect size (presented as mean +/- SD). Some outcomes were not analysed but presented in a descriptive way. We used a random effects model to estimate overall risk ratio and effect size.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified thirteen randomised controlled trials, with a total of 1173 patients, all undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Individual clinical complications failed to reach statistical significance, but the direction of effect indicates that earlier feeding may reduce the risk of post surgical complications. Mortality was the only outcome showing a significant benefit, but not necessarily associated with early commencement of feeding, as the reported cause of death was anastomotic leakage, reoperation, and acute myocardial infarction.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although non-significant results, there is no obvious advantage in keeping patients 'nil by mouth' following gastrointestinal surgery, and this review support the notion on early commencement of enteral feeding.
Topics: Colon; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectum; Time Factors
PubMed: 17054196
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004080.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2006Peptic ulcer disease is the cause for dyspepsia in about 10% of patients. 95% of duodenal and 70% of gastric ulcers are associated with Helicobacter pylori. Eradication... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Peptic ulcer disease is the cause for dyspepsia in about 10% of patients. 95% of duodenal and 70% of gastric ulcers are associated with Helicobacter pylori. Eradication of H pylori reduces the relapse rate of ulcers but the magnitude of this effect is uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
The primary outcomes were the proportion of peptic ulcers healed initially and proportion of patients free from relapse following successful healing. Eradication therapy was compared to placebo or pharmacological therapies in H. pylori positive patients. Secondary aims included symptom relief and adverse effects.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Searches were conducted on the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 2002) MEDLINE (1966 to July 2002) and EMBASE (1980 to July 2002). Reference lists from trials selected by electronic searching were handsearched to identify further relevant trials. Published abstracts from conference proceedings from the United European Gastroenterology Week (published in Gut) and Digestive Disease Week (published in Gastroenterology) were handsearched. The search was updated in September 2003, November 2004 and November 2005. Members of the Cochrane UGPD Group, and experts in the field were contacted and asked to provide details of outstanding clinical trials and any relevant unpublished materials
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of short and long-term treatment of peptic ulcer disease in H. pylori positive adults were analysed. Patients received at least one week of H pylori eradication compared with ulcer healing drug, placebo or not treatment. Trials were included if they reported assessment from 2 weeks onwards.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were collected on ulcer healing, recurrence, relief of symptoms and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
63 trials were eligible. Data extraction was not possible in 7 trials, and 56 trials were included. In duodenal ulcer healing, eradication therapy was superior to ulcer healing drug (UHD) (34 trials, 3910 patients, relative risk [RR] of ulcer persisting = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58, 0.76) and no treatment (2 trials, 207 patients, RR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.26, 0.53). In gastric ulcer healing, no significant differences were detected between eradication therapy and UHD (14 trials, 1572 patients, RR = 1.25; 95% CI = 0.88, 1.76). In preventing duodenal ulcer recurrence no significant differences were detected between eradication therapy and maintenance therapy with UHD (4 trials, 319 patients, relative risk [RR] of ulcer recurring = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.42, 1.25), but eradication therapy was superior to no treatment (27 trials 2509 patients, RR = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.15, 0.26). In preventing gastric ulcer recurrence, eradication therapy was superior to no treatment (11 trials, 1104 patients, RR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.20, 0.42).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
A 1 to 2 weeks course of H. pylori eradication therapy is an effective treatment for H. pylori positive peptic ulcer disease.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Duodenal Ulcer; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Ulcer
PubMed: 16625592
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003840.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2004Peptic ulcer disease is the cause for dyspepsia in about 10% of patients. 95% of duodenal and 70% of gastric ulcers are associated with Helicobacter pylori. Eradication... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Peptic ulcer disease is the cause for dyspepsia in about 10% of patients. 95% of duodenal and 70% of gastric ulcers are associated with Helicobacter pylori. Eradication of H pylori reduces the relapse rate of ulcers but the magnitude of this effect is uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
The primary outcomes were the proportion of peptic ulcers healed initially and proportion of patients free from relapse following successful healing. Eradication therapy was compared to placebo or pharmacological therapies in H. pylori positive patients. Secondary aims included symptom relief and adverse effects.
SEARCH STRATEGY
A search was undertaken according to the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Review Group module using CCTR, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases. Experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies were contacted. Abstract books between 1994 and 2003 were hand-searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of short and long-term treatment of peptic ulcer disease in H. pylori positive adults were analysed. Patients received at least one week of H pylori eradication compared with ulcer healing drug, placebo or not treatment. Trials were included if they reported assessment from 2 weeks onwards.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were collected on ulcer healing, recurrence, relief of symptoms and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
60 trials were eligible. Data extraction was not possible in 7 trials, and 53 trials were included. In duodenal ulcer healing, eradication therapy was superior to ulcer healing drug (UHD) (34 trials, 3910 patients, relative risk [RR] of ulcer persisting = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58, 0.76) and no treatment (2 trials, 207 patients, RR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.26, 0.53). In gastric ulcer healing, no significant differences were detected between eradication therapy and UHD (13 trials, 1469 patients, RR = 1.32; 95% CI = 0.92, 1.90). In preventing duodenal ulcer recurrence no significant differences were detected between eradication therapy and maintenance therapy with UHD (4 trials, 319 patients, relative risk [RR] of ulcer recurring = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.42, 1.25), but eradication therapy was superior to no treatment (27 trials 2509 patients, RR = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.15, 0.26). In preventing gastric ulcer recurrence, eradication therapy was superior to no treatment (10 trials, 1029 patients, RR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.18, 0.43).
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS
A 1 to 2 weeks course of H. pylori eradication therapy is an effective treatment for H. pylori positive peptic ulcer disease.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Duodenal Ulcer; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Ulcer
PubMed: 15495066
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003840.pub2 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Oct 2004The effect of Helicobacter pylori in provoking or protecting against gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is unclear and studies have given conflicting results. Recent... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The effect of Helicobacter pylori in provoking or protecting against gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is unclear and studies have given conflicting results. Recent guidelines recommend H. pylori eradication in patients on long-term proton pump inhibitors.
AIM
To ascertain the effect of H. pylori eradication on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease outcomes (reflux oesophagitis and heartburn) in patients with duodenal ulcer disease, and to ascertain the effect of H. pylori infection on reflux oesophagitis concerning heartburn, pH, severity, healing and relapse rates.
METHODS
A systematic review of electronic databases was undertaken to September 2003. Experts in the field, pharmaceutical companies and journals were contacted about unpublished trials. Studies were reviewed according to predefined eligibility and quality criteria. Twenty-seven studies/trials were included in the systematic review.
RESULTS
Study variation rather than therapy-influenced results in relation to the presence or absence of oesophagitis in patients with duodenal ulcer who underwent H. pylori eradication at 6-48 months follow-up. In patients with reflux oesophagitis no obvious differences were discovered in heartburn scores, 24-h pH values, healing and relapse rates between H. pylori-positive and -negative cases.
CONCLUSION
There is no evidence to indicate that H. pylori eradication in duodenal ulcer disease provokes reflux oesophagitis or worsens heartburn; (ii) there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusions about the impact of H. pylori in patients with reflux oesophagitis.
Topics: Duodenal Ulcer; Esophagitis; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans
PubMed: 15379833
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.02172.x