-
Journal of Infection in Developing... Jul 2015The varieties of infections caused by Helicobacter pylori may be due to differences in bacterial genotypes and virulence factors as well as environmental and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The varieties of infections caused by Helicobacter pylori may be due to differences in bacterial genotypes and virulence factors as well as environmental and host-related factors. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of cagA and vacA genes among H. pylori-infected patients in Iran and analyze their relevance to the disease status between two clinical groups via a meta-analysis method. Different databases including PubMed, ISI, Scopus, SID, Magiran, Science Direct, and Medlib were investigated, and 23 relevant articles from the period between 2001 and 2012 were finally analyzed. The relevant data obtained from these papers were analyzed by a random-effects model. Data were analyzed using R software and STATA. The prevalence of cagA and vacA genes among H. pylori-infected patients was 70% (95% CI, 64-75) and 41% (95% CI, 24.3-57.7), respectively. The prevalence of duodenal ulcers, peptic ulcers, and gastritis among cagA+ individuals was 53% (95% CI, 20-86), 65% (95% CI, 34-97), and 71% (95% CI, 59-84), respectively. Odds ratio (OR) between cagA-positive compared with cagA-negative patients showed a 1.89 (95% CI, 1.38-2.57) risk of ulcers. In conclusion, the frequency of cagA gene among H. pylori strains is elevated in Iran and it seems to be more frequently associated with gastritis. Therefore, any information about cagA and vacA prevalence among different H. pylori-infected clinical groups in the country can help public health authorities to plan preventive policies to reduce the prevalence of diseases associated with H. pylori infection.
Topics: Antigens, Bacterial; Bacterial Proteins; Gastritis; Genotype; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Iran; Peptic Ulcer; Prevalence
PubMed: 26230117
DOI: 10.3855/jidc.5970 -
Medicine Jul 2015Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders often manifest similar symptoms with overlapping clinical diagnosis and unmet medical needs. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Common Mechanism of Pathogenesis in Gastrointestinal Diseases Implied by Consistent Efficacy of Single Chinese Medicine Formula: A PRISMA-Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders often manifest similar symptoms with overlapping clinical diagnosis and unmet medical needs. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has history-proven benefits for GI diseases; albeit language barrier prevents Western readers from accessing the original reports in Chinese. The TCM formula Si-Ni-San (SNS) consists of 4 herbs targeting on homeostatic disturbances characterized by "reflux" and "irritable" problems. Here we used SNS as a therapeutic tool to explore the common mechanisms of pathogenesis in non-neoplastic GI diseases.Data sources from PUBMED, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were searched for clinical trials. Comparisons were SNS as intervention and Western conventional medicine as control, which treat patients with upper GI disorders (gastroesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer, chronic gastritis, duodenogastric reflux), lower GI diseases (irritable bowel syndrome, ulcerative colitis), and functional dyspepsia. Participants and studies in accordance with the Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement were eligible. We used the Jadad scale to assess methodological qualities, the fixed or random-effect model to evaluate therapeutic efficacy, and the funnel plots to explore publication bias. Outcome was clinical efficacy defined by symptom relief with normal GI endoscopy, radiology, and pathology.We included 83 studies involving 7762 participants: 1708 versus 1397 of the upper GI disorders in 34 studies, 901 versus 768 of the lower GI diseases in 19 studies, 1641 versus 1348 of functional dyspepsia in 30 studies, and 328 versus 287 of relapse rate in 8 studies. Six studies had a Jadad score >2 points and the rest were <2 points. Pooled data showed significant efficacy of SNS for the upper GI disorders (odds ratio [OR] = 3.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.09-4.92), lower GI diseases (OR = 4.91, 95% CI = 3.71-6.51), and functional dyspepsia (N = 2989; OR = 3.94, 95% CI = 3.17-4.90). The relapse rate was 12.9% for SNS, significantly <46.5% for conventional therapies (OR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.11-0.25).The consistent efficacy of the single TCM formula implicates common mechanisms of pathogenesis in GI disorders.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Dyspepsia; Female; Gastrointestinal Agents; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Male; Odds Ratio
PubMed: 26166106
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001111 -
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 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Oct 2014Peptic ulcer disease continues to be issue especially due to its high prevalence in the developing world. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection associated duodenal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Peptic ulcer disease continues to be issue especially due to its high prevalence in the developing world. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection associated duodenal ulcers should undergo eradication therapy. There are many regimens offered for H. pylori eradication which include triple, quadruple, or sequential therapy regimens. The central aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the evidence for H. pylori therapy from a meta-analytical outlook. The consequence of the dose, type of proton-pump inhibitor, and the length of the treatment will be debated. The most important risk factor for eradication failure is resistance to clarithromycin and metronidazole.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chi-Square Distribution; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Drug Therapy, Combination; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Odds Ratio; Peptic Ulcer; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25356018
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i40.14527 -
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 -
JAMA Internal Medicine Nov 2014Current guidelines recommend an intravenous bolus dose of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) followed by continuous PPI infusion after endoscopic therapy in patients with... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
Current guidelines recommend an intravenous bolus dose of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) followed by continuous PPI infusion after endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers. Substitution of intermittent PPI therapy, if similarly effective as bolus plus continuous-infusion PPI therapy, would decrease the PPI dose, costs, and resource use.
OBJECTIVE
To compare intermittent PPI therapy with the currently recommended bolus plus continuous-infusion PPI regimen for reduction of ulcer rebleeding.
DATA SOURCES
Searches included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases through December 2013; US and European gastroenterology meeting abstracts from 2009 to 2013; and bibliographies of systematic reviews.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials of patients with endoscopically treated high-risk bleeding ulcers (active bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessels, and adherent clots) comparing intermittent doses of PPIs and the currently recommended regimen (80-mg intravenous bolus dose of a PPI followed by an infusion of 8 mg/h for 72 hours).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Duplicate independent data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were performed. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects model or a random effects model if statistical heterogeneity was present.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was rebleeding within 7 days; additional predefined outcomes included rebleeding within 3 and 30 days, need for urgent intervention, mortality, red blood cell transfusion, and length of hospital stay. The primary hypothesis, defined before initiation of the literature review, was that intermittent use of PPIs was noninferior to bolus plus continuous infusion of PPIs, with the noninferiority margin predefined as an absolute risk difference of 3%.
RESULTS
The risk ratio of rebleeding within 7 days for intermittent vs bolus plus continuous infusion of PPIs was 0.72 (upper boundary of 1-sided 95% CI, 0.97) and the absolute risk difference was -2.64% (upper boundary of 1-sided 95% CI, -0.28%, which is well below the predefined noninferiority margin of 3%). Risk ratios for rebleeding within 30 days and 3 days, mortality, and urgent interventions were less than 1 and mean differences for blood transfusion and hospital length of stay were less than 0, indicating that no summary estimate showed an increased risk with intermittent therapy. The upper boundaries of 95% CIs for absolute risk differences were less than 1.50% for all predefined rebleeding outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Intermittent PPI therapy is comparable to the current guideline-recommended regimen of intravenous bolus plus a continuous infusion of PPIs in patients with endoscopically treated high-risk bleeding ulcers. Guidelines should be revised to recommend intermittent PPI therapy.
Topics: Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Peptic Ulcer; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 25201154
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4056 -
BMJ Open May 2014To assess whether corticosteroids are associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess whether corticosteroids are associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind, controlled trials comparing a corticosteroid to placebo for any medical condition or in healthy participants. Studies with steroids given either locally, as a single dose, or in crossover studies were excluded.
DATA SOURCES
Literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews between 1983 and 22 May 2013.
OUTCOME MEASURE
Outcome measures were the occurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation. Predefined subgroup analyses were carried out for disease severity, use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or gastroprotective drugs, and history of peptic ulcer.
RESULTS
159 studies (N=33 253) were included. In total, 804 (2.4%) patients had a gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation (2.9% and 2.0% for corticosteroids and placebo). Corticosteroids increased the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation by 40% (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66). The risk was increased for hospitalised patients (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66). For patients in ambulatory care, the increased risk was not statistically significant (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 6.34). Only 11 gastrointestinal bleeds or perforations occurred among 8651 patients in ambulatory care (0.13%). Increased risk was still present in subgroup analyses (studies with NSAID use excluded; OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.71, peptic ulcer as an exclusion criterion excluded; OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.78, and use of gastroprotective drugs excluded; OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.67).
CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroid use was associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation. The increased risk was statistically significant for hospitalised patients only. For patients in ambulatory care, the total occurrence of bleeding or perforation was very low, and the increased risk was not statistically significant.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Intestinal Perforation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Stomach Rupture
PubMed: 24833682
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004587 -
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer... 2014The multidrug resistance 1 gene (MDR1) C3435T polymorphism has been demonstrated to influence the P-glycoprotein (P-gp) activity level which is related to inflammation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The multidrug resistance 1 gene (MDR1) C3435T polymorphism has been demonstrated to influence the P-glycoprotein (P-gp) activity level which is related to inflammation and carcinogenesis. This meta-analysis was performed to estimate the association between the MDR1 C3435T polymorphism and the risk of gastric cancer (GC) and peptic ulcer (PU).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A literature search was conducted with PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library up to November 2013. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the strength of association. Data were analyzed using Review Manager (Version 5.2), and Stata package (version 12.0) for estimation of publication bias.
RESULTS
Six case-control studies were included, of which five were for GC and two for PU. Overall, no evidence was found for any association between the MDR1 C3435T polymorphism and the susceptibility to GC and PU. In the stratified analysis by H. pylori infection status, stage and histology classification of GC, and PU type, there was still no significant association between them.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis suggested that the MDR1 C3435T polymorphism is not associated with susceptibility to GC and PU. Large and well-designed studies are warranted to validate our findings.
Topics: ATP Binding Cassette Transporter, Subfamily B; ATP Binding Cassette Transporter, Subfamily B, Member 1; Carcinogenesis; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Inflammation; Peptic Ulcer; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 24815441
DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.7.3021 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2013Treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) improves clinical outcomes in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. However, the optimal dose and route of administration of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) improves clinical outcomes in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. However, the optimal dose and route of administration of PPIs remains controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of different regimens of PPIs in the management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding using evidence from direct comparison randomized controlled trials (RCTs).We specifically intended to assess the differential effect of the dose and route of administration of PPI on mortality, rebleeding, surgical intervention, further endoscopic haemostatic treatment (EHT), length of hospital stay, transfusion requirements and adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (in The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE and EMBASE (from inception to September 2010) and proceedings of major gastroenterology meetings (January 2000 to September 2010), without language restrictions. Original investigators were contacted to request missing data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs that compared at least two different regimens of the same or a different PPI in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding, diagnosed endoscopically.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We synthesized data using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method and performed multivariate meta-regression with random permutations based on Monte Carlo simulation. We measured heterogeneity with the I² statistic and Cochrane Q test and assessed publication bias with funnel plots and Egger's test. We graded the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty two RCTs were included; risk of bias was high in 17 and unclear in 5. The main analysis included 13 studies (1716 patients) comparing "high" dose regimens (72-hour cumulative dose > 600 mg of intravenous PPI) to other doses; there was no significant heterogeneity for any clinical outcome. We found low quality evidence that did not exclude a potential reduction or increase in mortality, rebleeding, surgical interventions or endoscopic haemostatic treatment (EHT) with "high" dose regimens. For mortality, pooled risk ratio (RR) was 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.54); pooled risk difference (RD) was 0 more deaths per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 1 fewer to 2 more deaths per 100 treated). For rebleeding, pooled RR was 1.27 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.67); pooled RD was 2 more rebleeding events per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 0 fewer to 5 more rebleeding events per 100 treated). For surgical interventions, pooled RR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.63 to 2.77); pooled RD was 1 more surgical intervention per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 1 fewer to 2 more surgical interventions per 100 treated). For further EHT, pooled RR was 1.39 (95% CI 0.88 to 2.18), pooled RD was 2 more events per 100 patients treated with "high" dose PPI (95% CI from 1 fewer to 5 more events per 100 treated). We found moderate quality evidence suggesting no important difference between the two regimens with regards to length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.26 days; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.6 days) or blood transfusion requirements (MD 0.05 units; 95% CI -0.21 to 0.3 units). There was visual and statistical evidence of "inverse" publication bias for mortality (missing small studies with favourable outcomes for "high" dose), but not for any other outcome. The results were similar for all subgroup analyses (according to risk of bias, geographical location, route of administration for non-"high" dose regimens, continuous infusion vs. bolus administration for intravenous non-"high" regimens group), sensitivity analyses (restriction to patients who had EHT for high risk stigmata, use of different dose thresholds for comparative regimens) and post hoc analyses (inclusion of all studies (N = 22) that compared at least two PPI regimens with different cumulative 72 hour doses; restriction of the previous analysis to patients who had EHT for high risk stigmata). Meta-regression analysis did not show any statistically significant associations between treatment effect (for the outcomes of mortality, rebleeding and surgical intervention) and the three study-level factors that were assessed (geographical location (Asia versus not Asia), route of PPI administration (intravenous versus oral), within-study ratio among the 72-hour cumulative doses of the two PPI regimens).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence for concluding superiority, inferiority or equivalence of high dose PPI treatment over lower doses in peptic ulcer bleeding.
Topics: Acute Disease; Drug Administration Routes; Humans; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23760821
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007999.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2013Perforated peptic ulcer is a common abdominal disease that is treated by surgery. The development of laparoscopic surgery has changed the way to treat such abdominal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Perforated peptic ulcer is a common abdominal disease that is treated by surgery. The development of laparoscopic surgery has changed the way to treat such abdominal surgical emergencies. The results of some clinical trials suggest that laparoscopic surgery could be a better strategy than open surgery in the correction of perforated peptic ulcer but the evidence is not strongly in favour for or against this intervention.
OBJECTIVES
To measure the effect of laparoscopic surgical treatment versus open surgical treatment in patients with a diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer in relation to abdominal septic complications, surgical wound infection, extra-abdominal complications, hospital length of stay and direct costs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library (2004, Issue 2), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to July 2004), EMBASE (1985 to November 2004) and LILACS (1988 to November 2004) as well as the reference lists of relevant articles. Searches in all databases were updated in December 2009 and January 2012. We did not confine our search to English language publications.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for the repair of perforated peptic ulcer using any mechanical method of closure (suture, omental patch or fibrin sealant).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Primary outcome measures included proportion of septic and other abdominal complications (surgical site infection, suture leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus) and extra-abdominal complications (pulmonary). Secondary outcomes included mortality, time to return to normal diet, time of nasogastric aspiration, hospital length-of-stay and costs. Outcomes were summarized by reporting odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the fixed-effect model.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three randomized clinical trials of acceptable quality. We found no statistically significant differences between laparoscopic and open surgery in the proportion of abdominal septic complications (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.47), pulmonary complications (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.12) or number of septic abdominal complications (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.15). Heterogeneity was significant for pulmonary complications and operating time.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that a decrease in septic abdominal complications may exist when laparoscopic surgery is used to correct perforated peptic ulcer. However, it is necessary to perform more randomized controlled trials with a greater number of patients to confirm such an assumption, guaranteeing a long learning curve for participating surgeons. With the information provided it could be said that laparoscopic surgery results are not clinically different from those of open surgery.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Peptic Ulcer Perforation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23450555
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004778.pub3