-
Cardiovascular and Interventional... May 2016To study the effectiveness of prophylactic embolization of hepaticoenteric arteries to prevent gastrointestinal complications during radioembolization. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To study the effectiveness of prophylactic embolization of hepaticoenteric arteries to prevent gastrointestinal complications during radioembolization.
METHODS
A PubMed, Embase and Cochrane literature search was performed. We included studies assessing both a group of patients with and without embolization.
RESULTS
Our search revealed 1401 articles of which title and abstract were screened. Finally, eight studies were included investigating 1237 patients. Of these patients, 456 received embolization of one or more arteries. No difference was seen in the incidence of gastrointestinal complications in patients with prophylactic embolization of the gastroduodenal artery (GDA), right gastric artery (RGA), cystic artery (CA) or hepatic falciform artery (HFA) compared to patients without embolization. Few complications were reported when microspheres were injected distal to the origin of these arteries or when reversed flow of the GDA was present. A high risk of confounding by indication was present because of the non-randomized nature of the included studies.
CONCLUSION
It is advisable to restrict embolization to those hepaticoenteric arteries that originate distally or close to the injection site of microspheres. There is no conclusive evidence that embolization of hepaticoenteric arteries influences the risk of complications.
Topics: Brachytherapy; Digestive System; Duodenum; Embolization, Therapeutic; Gallbladder; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Hepatic Artery; Humans; Liver; Liver Neoplasms; Microspheres; Stomach
PubMed: 26935724
DOI: 10.1007/s00270-016-1310-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death for both, men and women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death for both, men and women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of these procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, postoperative mortality, complications, and quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of CW and PPW techniques for surgical treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted searches on 28 March 2006, 11 January 2011, 9 January 2014, and 18 August 2015 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), while applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases on 18 August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE (1946 to August 2015); and EMBASE (1980 to August 2015). We also searched abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010); we did not update this part of the search for the 2014 and 2015 updates because the prior searches did not contribute any additional information. We identified two additional trials through the updated search in 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs comparing CW versus PPW including participants with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (ORs), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs), and used hazard ratios (HRs) for meta-analysis of survival. Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of included trials according to the standards of The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with a total of 512 participants. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. Postoperative mortality (OR 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.54; P = 0.32), overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P = 0.29), and morbidity showed no significant differences, except of delayed gastric emptying, which significantly favoured CW (OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.05 to 8.70; P = 0.04). Furthermore, we noted that operating time (MD -45.22 minutes, 95% CI -74.67 to -15.78; P = 0.003), intraoperative blood loss (MD -0.32 L, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.03; P = 0.03), and red blood cell transfusion (MD -0.47 units, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.07; P = 0.02) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results were associated with low-quality evidence based on GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence suggests no relevant differences in mortality, morbidity, and survival between the two operations. However, some perioperative outcome measures significantly favour the PPW procedure. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future high-quality RCTs of complex surgical interventions based on well-defined outcome parameters are required.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Female; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Male; Operative Time; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pylorus; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26905229
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006053.pub6 -
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology &... Nov 2014Peptic ulcer rebleeding (PUR) usually occurs within three days following endoscopic hemostasis. However, recent data have increasingly suggested delayed rebleeding. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Peptic ulcer rebleeding (PUR) usually occurs within three days following endoscopic hemostasis. However, recent data have increasingly suggested delayed rebleeding.
OBJECTIVE
To better characterize the timing of PUR (Forrest Ia to IIb) following initially successful endoscopic hemostasis.
METHODS
An exhaustive literature search (1989 to 2013), with cross-referencing, was performed to identify pertinent randomized controlled trial (RCT) arms. Patients receiving high-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) infusion following successful modern-day endoscopic hemostasis were included. A sensitivity analysis included any patients receiving PPI doses >40 mg daily. The main outcome measure was 30-day rebleeding, while weighted mean averages at t = three, seven, 14 and 28 to 30 days are also reported.
RESULTS
Of 756 citations, six RCTs were included (561 patients; 58.5% to 89.5% male; 55.3 to 67.5 years of age). Among patients receiving high-dose PPI (five RCTs [393 patients]), 11.5% (95% CI 8.4% to 14.7%) experienced rebleeding, 55.6% (95% CI 41.1% to 70.1%) rebled within three days, 20% (95% CI 8.3% to 31.7%) between four and seven days, 17.8% (95% CI 6.6% to 28.9%) at eight to 14 days, and 6.7% (95% CI 0% to 14%) at 15 to 28 to 30 days. Using the relaxed lower PPI dosing threshold, similar respective rates were 14.4% (95% CI 11.5% to 17.3%) overall, with interval rates of 39.5% (95% CI 28.9% to 50.15%), 34.6% (95% CI 24.2% to 44.9%), 19.7% (95% CI 11% to 28.4%) and 6.2% (95% CI 0.95% to 11.5%). Qualitative review of patient characteristics, limited by small sample size, possible bias and study heterogeneity, suggested increased patient comorbidity and postendoscopic use of lower PPI dosing may predict delayed rebleeding.
CONCLUSION
In patients with high-risk PUR undergoing successful endoscopic hemostasis, most rebled within three days, with many experiencing later rebleeding. Additional research is needed to better predict such an outcome.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Duodenal Ulcer; Female; Hemostasis, Endoscopic; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Peptic Ulcer; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Recurrence; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 25390616
DOI: 10.1155/2014/324967 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Background Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and the fifth for women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and the fifth for women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of these procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, mortality, complications and quality of life.Objectives The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of CW and PPW techniques for surgical treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region.Search methods We conducted searches on 28 March 2006, 11 January 2011 and 9 January 2014 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs),while applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects(DARE) from The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1946 to January 2014); and EMBASE (1980 to January 2014). We also searched abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010). We identified no additional studies upon updating the systematic review in 2014.Selection criteria We considered RCTs comparing CW versus PPW to be eligible if they included study participants with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (ORs), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs) and used hazard ratios (HRs) for meta-analysis of survival. Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of included studies according to the standards of The Cochrane Collaboration.Main results We included six RCTs with a total of 465 participants. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. In-hospital mortality (OR 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.40; P value 0.18), overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P value 0.29) and morbidity showed no significant differences. However, we noted that operating time (MD -68.26 minutes, 95% CI -105.70 to -30.83; P value 0.0004) and intraoperative blood loss (MD -0.76 mL, 95%CI -0.96 to -0.56; P value < 0.00001) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results are associated with low quality of evidence as determined on the basis of GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.Authors' conclusions No evidence suggests relevant differences in mortality, morbidity and survival between the two operations. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future research must be undertaken to perform high-quality randomised controlled trials of complex surgical interventions on the basis of well-defined outcome parameters.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Operative Time; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pylorus; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25387229
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006053.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate and the need for surgery in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate and the need for surgery in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether a second procedure improves haemostatic efficacy or patient outcomes or both after epinephrine injection in adults with high-risk bleeding ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS
For our update in 2014, we searched the following versions of these databases, limited from June 2009 to May 2014: Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to May Week 2 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily Update May 22, 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations May 22, 2014 (Appendix 1); Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews-the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) April 2014 (Appendix 2); and EMBASE 1980 to Week 20 2014 (Appendix 3).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing epinephrine alone versus epinephrine plus a second method. Populations consisted of patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers, that is, patients with haemorrhage from peptic ulcer disease (gastric or duodenal) with major stigmata of bleeding as defined by Forrest classification Ia (spurting haemorrhage), Ib (oozing haemorrhage), IIa (non-bleeding visible vessel) and IIb (adherent clot) (Forrest Ia-Ib-IIa-IIb).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model; risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented for dichotomous data.
MAIN RESULTS
Nineteen studies of 2033 initially randomly assigned participants were included, of which 11 used a second injected agent, five used a mechanical method (haemoclips) and three employed thermal methods.The risk of further bleeding after initial haemostasis was lower in the combination therapy groups than in the epinephrine alone group, regardless of which second procedure was applied (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81). Adding any second procedure significantly reduced the overall bleeding rate (persistent and recurrent bleeding) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). Mortality rates were not significantly different when either method was applied.Rebleeding in the 10 studies that scheduled a reendoscopy showed no difference between epinephrine and combined therapy; without second-look endoscopy, a statistically significant difference was observed between epinephrine and epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, with fewer participants rebleeding in the combined therapy group (nine studies) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.48).For ulcers of the Forrest Ia or Ib type (oozing or spurting), the addition of a second therapy significantly reduced the rebleeding rate (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.88); this difference was not seen for type IIa (visible vessel) or type IIb (adherent clot) ulcers. Few procedure-related adverse effects were reported, and this finding was not statistically significantly different between groups. Few adverse events occurred, and no statistically significant difference was noted between groups.The addition of a second injected method reduced recurrent and persistent rebleeding rates and surgery rates in the combination therapy group, but these findings were not statistically significantly different. Significantly fewer participants died in the combined therapy group (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.00).Epinephrine and a second mechanical method decreased recurrent and persistent bleeding (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.54) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect mortality rates.Epinephrine plus thermal methods decreased the rebleeding rate (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.78) and the surgery rate (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect the mortality rate.Our risk of bias estimates show that risk of bias was low, as, although the type of study did not allow a double-blind trial, rebleeding, surgery and mortality were not dependent on subjective observation. Although some studies had limitations in their design or implementation, most were clear about important quality criteria, including randomisation and allocation concealment, sequence generation and blinding.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Additional endoscopic treatment after epinephrine injection reduces further bleeding and the need for surgery in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcer. The main adverse events include risk of perforation and gastric wall necrosis, the rates of which were low in our included studies and favoured neither epinephrine therapy nor combination therapy. The main conclusion is that combined therapy seems to work better than epinephrine alone. However, we cannot conclude that a particular form of treatment is equal or superior to another.
Topics: Adult; Combined Modality Therapy; Epinephrine; Hemostasis, Endoscopic; Humans; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 25308912
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005584.pub3 -
Journal of Research in Medical Sciences... Mar 2012Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is known as a major etiologic factor for a variety of gastroduodenal diseases. In Iran, with a high rate of H. pylori infection...
BACKGROUND
Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is known as a major etiologic factor for a variety of gastroduodenal diseases. In Iran, with a high rate of H. pylori infection close to 90%, numerous studies have revealed many aspects of interaction between the bacterium, mucosal surface and induction of disease outcome. The organism is genetically diverse and several virulence factors are attributed to the more virulent strains. The well-characterized virulence factors of H. pylori are cytotoxin associated gene A and vacuolating cytotoxin gene A. The distribution pattern of H. pylori genotypes and its association with disease status varies geographically. The present review focused on the virulence factors and genotyping of H. pylori in relation to gastroduodenal disorders in different regions of Iran.
METHODS
In total, 398 studies were reported on different aspects related to H. pylori in our electronic search from 1995-2011. H. pylori infection and its virulence factors in association with disease status were investigated in 159 reports. Looking specifically at the gastrointestinal tract disorders, the most relevant reports including 37 papers were selected.
RESULTS
We found no correlation of cagA genotype and disease status in the majority of studies, whereas vacA was demonstrated as a useful marker in predicting the disease outcome. The results of reports on other virulence factors of H. pylori such as blood group antigen-binding adhesion gene A, the induced by contact with epithelium gene A, the outer inflammatory protein A, the duodenal ulcer promoting gene A, and Helicobacter outer membrane gene and their relation with disease status were contradictory.
CONCLUSIONS
Although different markers of H. pylori were emphasized as useful when predicting disease outcomes in some studies, the inconsistent researches and the scarcity of data made any conclusion or even comparison impossible. Considering the gap of information observed during our search relating to genotyping and other aspects of H. pylori infection, further investigations are suggested.
PubMed: 23267382
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Mar 2012A systematic review of the literature on symptomatic duodenal perforation caused by inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review of the literature on symptomatic duodenal perforation caused by inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.
METHODS
Three databases, PubMed MEDLINE, Web of Sciences, and Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), reference lists of review articles and conference proceedings were searched. All articles containing data on clinical presentation, diagnostic strategy, and available treatment of symptomatic duodenal perforation caused by an IVC filter were included regardless of design, language, size, or length of follow-up.
RESULTS
Seventy-two articles were selected for full-text screening, being 21 case reports were selected. The median age was 46 years old (range, 21-83 years old). Abdominal pain was reported in 11 patients and gastrointestinal bleed in 5 patients. The indications for IVC filter placement in this cohort of patients were contraindication of anticoagulation and recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE) despite therapeutic levels in 8 and 5 patients, respectively. Three different imaging modalities were obtained in 9 patients (43%) before confirming the diagnosis. All but 1 patient underwent open approach through laparotomy with or without removal of the filter. No PEs or deaths were reported and only 1 patient had a severe clinical complication of IVC and bilateral iliac vein thrombosis with massive lower extremities edema.
CONCLUSIONS
Duodenal perforation caused by IVC filters is a rare complication that frequently requires extensive workup. Excellent outcomes with low complication rate have been reported in cases where an open procedure was performed with either extraction of the filter or removal of the offending struts.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Device Removal; Duodenum; Female; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Intestinal Perforation; Male; Middle Aged; Prosthesis Design; Treatment Outcome; Vena Cava Filters; Young Adult
PubMed: 22209606
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.09.082 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Jul 2011There may be a positive association between coeliac disease and serum hypertransaminasaemia but evidence is conflicting. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There may be a positive association between coeliac disease and serum hypertransaminasaemia but evidence is conflicting.
AIMS
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prevalence of coeliac disease in adults presenting with cryptogenic serum hypertransaminasaemia and the prevalence of hypertransaminasaemia in patients with newly diagnosed coeliac disease.
METHODS
MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to August 2010. Case series and case-control studies recruiting adults with either cryptogenic hypertransaminasaemia that applied serological tests for coeliac disease and/or distal duodenal biopsy to participants or newly diagnosed biopsy-proven coeliac disease that assessed serum transaminases were eligible. The pooled prevalence of coeliac disease in individuals presenting with abnormal serum transaminases and the pooled prevalence of hypertransaminasaemia in newly diagnosed coeliac disease were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
Eleven eligible studies were identified. Pooled prevalences of positive coeliac serology and biopsy-proven coeliac disease in cryptogenic hypertransaminasaemia were 6% (95% CI 3% to 10%) and 4% (95% CI 1% to 7%) respectively. Pooled prevalence of abnormal serum transaminases in newly diagnosed coeliac disease was 27% (95% CI 13% to 44%). Exclusion of gluten led to normalisation of serum transaminase levels in 63% to 90% of patients within 1 year.
CONCLUSIONS
Undetected coeliac disease is a potential cause for cryptogenic hypertransaminasaemia in 3% to 4% of cases. More than 20% of individuals with newly diagnosed coeliac disease may have abnormal serum transaminases and these normalise on a gluten-free diet in the majority of cases.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Celiac Disease; Confidence Intervals; Female; Humans; Liver Diseases; Male; Middle Aged; Prevalence; Transaminases
PubMed: 21545472
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04685.x -
European Journal of Vascular and... Oct 2009Aneurysms of the visceral veins are considered rare clinical entities. The aim is to assess their clinical presentation, natural history and management. (Review)
Review
AIM
Aneurysms of the visceral veins are considered rare clinical entities. The aim is to assess their clinical presentation, natural history and management.
METHODS
An electronic search of the pertinent English and French literature was undertaken. All studies reporting on aneurysms of visceral veins were considered. Cases describing patients with arterial-venous fistulae and extrahepatic or intra-hepatic portosystemic venous shunts were excluded.
RESULTS
Ninety-three reports were identified, including 176 patients with 198 visceral venous aneurysms. Patients' age ranges from 0 to 87 years, and there is no apparent male/female preponderance. The commonest location of visceral venous aneurysms is the portal venous system (87 of 93 reports, 170 of 176 patients, 191 of 198 aneurysms). Aneurysms of the renal veins and inferior mesenteric vein are also described. Portal system venous aneurysms were present with abdominal pain in 44.7% of the patients, gastrointestinal bleeding in 7.3%, and are asymptomatic in 38.2%. Portal hypertension is reported in 30.8% and liver cirrhosis in 28.3%. Thrombosis occurred in 13.6% and rupture in 2.2% of the patients. Adjacent organ compression is reported in 2.2% (organs compressed: common bile duct, duodenum, inferior vena cava). The management ranged from watchful waiting to intervention. In 94% of the cases, aneurysm diameter remained stable and no complications occurred during follow-up. In most of the cases, indications for operation were symptoms and complications. Six cases of renal vein aneurysm are reported; three of them were asymptomatic. Three of these patients were treated surgically.
CONCLUSION
The most frequent location of visceral venous aneurysms is the portal venous system. They are often associated with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. They may be asymptomatic or present with abdominal pain and other symptoms. Watchful waiting is an appropriate treatment, except when complications occur. Most common complications are aneurysm thrombosis and rupture. Other visceral venous aneurysms are extremely rare.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aneurysm; Aneurysm, Ruptured; Child; Child, Preschool; Disease Progression; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Mesenteric Veins; Middle Aged; Portal Vein; Renal Veins; Severity of Illness Index; Thrombosis; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Surgical Procedures; Viscera; Young Adult
PubMed: 19560947
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2009.05.016 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Jul 2009The prevalence of coeliac disease (CD) may be increased in individuals with dyspepsia, but evidence is conflicting. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of coeliac disease (CD) may be increased in individuals with dyspepsia, but evidence is conflicting.
AIMS
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting prevalence of CD in dyspepsia.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched up to February 2009. Case series and case-control studies applying serological tests and/or distal duodenal biopsy for CD to unselected adults with dyspepsia were eligible. Prevalence of positive coeliac serology and biopsy-proven CD were pooled for all studies and compared between cases and controls using an odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Fifteen studies were identified. Prevalence of positive coeliac serology was higher in cases with dyspepsia (7.9%) compared with controls (3.9%), but not significantly so (OR for positive endomysial antibodies or tissue transglutaminase 1.89; 95% CI 0.90-3.99). Prevalence of biopsy-proven CD following positive serology was also higher (3.2% in cases vs. 1.3% in controls), but again this was not statistically significant (OR 2.85; 95% CI 0.60-13.38). Prevalence of biopsy-proven CD was 1% in ten studies performing duodenal biopsy first-line.
CONCLUSION
Prevalence of biopsy-proven CD in subjects with dyspepsia was 1% and was higher than in controls, although this difference was not statistically significant.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antibodies; Biomarkers; Celiac Disease; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Dyspepsia; Epidemiologic Studies; Humans; Middle Aged; Young Adult
PubMed: 19416130
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04008.x