-
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2020Sinus augmentation can be performed with or without grafting biomaterials, and to date, there is no quality evidence regarding the augmentation of the sinus floor using... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Sinus augmentation can be performed with or without grafting biomaterials, and to date, there is no quality evidence regarding the augmentation of the sinus floor using only platelet concentrates, which can improve the healing period and enhance bone regeneration by stimulating angiogenesis and bone formation. The main objective of this paper was to assess the effect of the sole use of platelet concentrates in sinus augmentation in terms of newly formed bone, augmented bone height, and clinical outcomes and to assess the additional beneficial effects of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in combination with other grafting biomaterials.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Pooled analyses were performed with the Review Manager software.
RESULTS
For sinus elevation only using platelet concentrates, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for qualitative synthesis. Only one study was a clinical trial, which reported improved outcomes for the allograft group compared to the titanium-PRF (T-PRF) group. A total of 12 studies where PRF was used in addition to grafting biomaterials met eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Results from meta-analyses provided no additional beneficial effects of PRF in sinus augmentation in terms of bone height and percentage of soft tissue area. There was a statistically significant lower percentage of residual bone substitute material in the PRF (+) group compared to the PRF (-) group. The percentage of newly formed bone was slightly higher in the PRF (+) group, but this was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
There is no robust evidence to make firm conclusions regarding the beneficial effects of the sole use of platelet concentrates in sinus augmentation. However, studies have shown favorable outcomes regarding implant survival, bone gain, and bone height. The use of PRF with other grafting biomaterials appears to provide no additional beneficial effects in sinus lift procedures, but they may improve the healing period and bone formation. Well-conducted randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are necessary to confirm the available results to provide recommendations for the clinical practice.
PubMed: 32019255
DOI: 10.3390/ma13030622 -
Digestive Diseases and Sciences May 2020Type 1 hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a fatal complication of cirrhosis. Treatments trend toward HRS reversal, but few show clear mortality benefit. We sought to quantify... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Type 1 hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a fatal complication of cirrhosis. Treatments trend toward HRS reversal, but few show clear mortality benefit. We sought to quantify the progress-or lack thereof-in improving outcomes of type 1 HRS over time.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing type 1 HRS outcomes including (a) overall survival (liver transplant-free survival if reported) and (b) HRS reversal. Each study arm was analyzed separately to look at changes in outcomes over time. RCTs published comparing medical treatments for type 1 HRS were searched using several databases through July 31, 2019.
RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs (28 arms) involving 778 participants enrolled between 2002 and 2018 were included. Twelve RCTs measured HRS reversal. In conjunction with albumin (or plasma expander), the most common medications used were terlipressin (13 arms), antibiotics (7), norepinephrine (6), dopamine (4), and midodrine/octreotide (3). Pooled survival rate was 34.6% (95% CI 26.4-43.8), and pooled HRS reversal rate was 42.8% (95% CI 34.2-51.9). Regression analyzing the incremental effect of the year the RCT was initiated showed that more recent studies were not associated with improved survival (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94-1.11, p = 0.66) or HRS reversal rates (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96-1.11, p = 0.41). There was no survival improvement when RCTs with endpoints assessed ≤ or > 1 month were analyzed separately with respective OR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.95-1.20, p = 0.26) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.85-1.12, p = 0.70).
CONCLUSION
Outcomes have not improved for patients with type 1 HRS since 2002. There is a need to improve prevention and treatment of type 1 HRS.
Topics: Adult; Albumins; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Dopamine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Hepatorenal Syndrome; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Midodrine; Norepinephrine; Octreotide; Plasma Substitutes; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Survival Rate; Terlipressin; Treatment Outcome; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Young Adult
PubMed: 31571102
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-019-05858-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2019Plasma volume expanders are used in connection to paracentesis in people with cirrhosis to prevent reduction of effective plasma volume, which may trigger deleterious... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Plasma volume expanders are used in connection to paracentesis in people with cirrhosis to prevent reduction of effective plasma volume, which may trigger deleterious effect on haemodynamic balance, and increase morbidity and mortality. Albumin is considered the standard product against which no plasma expansion or other plasma expanders, e.g. other colloids (polygeline , dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch solutions, fresh frozen plasma), intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol have been compared. However, the benefits and harms of these plasma expanders are not fully clear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of any plasma volume expanders such as albumin, other colloids (polygeline, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch solutions, fresh frozen plasma), intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus no plasma volume expander or versus another plasma volume expander for paracentesis in people with cirrhosis and large ascites.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index until January 2019. Furthermore, we searched FDA, EMA, WHO (last search January 2019), www.clinicaltrials.gov/, and www.controlled-trials.com/ for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials, no matter their design or year of publication, publication status, and language, assessing the use of any type of plasma expander versus placebo, no intervention, or a different plasma expander in connection with paracentesis for ascites in people with cirrhosis. We considered quasi-randomised, retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials only, for reports on harms.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) using the fixed-effect model and the random-effects model meta-analyses, based on the intention-to-treat principle, whenever possible. If the fixed-effect and random-effects models showed different results, then we made our conclusions based on the analysis with the highest P value (the more conservative result). We assessed risks of bias of the individual trials using predefined bias risk domains. We assessed the certainty of the evidence at an outcome level, using GRADE, and constructed 'Summary of Findings' tables for seven of our review outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 27 randomised clinical trials for inclusion in this review (24 published as full-text articles and 3 as abstracts). Five of the trials, with 271 participants, assessed plasma expanders (albumin in four trials and ascitic fluid in one trial) versus no plasma expander. The remaining 22 trials, with 1321 participants, assessed one type of plasma expander, i.e. dextran, hydroxyethyl starch, polygeline, intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus another type of plasma expander, i.e. albumin in 20 of these trials and polygeline in one trial. Twenty-five trials provided data for quantitative meta-analysis. According to the Child-Pugh classification, most participants were at an intermediate to advanced stage of liver disease in the absence of hepatocellular carcinoma, recent gastrointestinal bleeding, infections, and hepatic encephalopathy. All trials were assessed as at overall high risk of bias. Ten trials seemed not to have been funded by industry; twelve trials were considered unclear about funding; and five trials were considered funded by industry or a for-profit institution.We found no evidence of a difference in effect between plasma expansion versus no plasma expansion on mortality (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.06 to 4.83; 248 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); renal impairment (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.02 to 5.88; 181 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); other liver-related complications (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.27; 248 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); and non-serious adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.40; 158 participants; 3 trials; very low certainty). Two of the trials stated that no serious adverse events occurred while the remaining trials did not report on this outcome. No trial reported data on health-related quality of life.We found no evidence of a difference in effect between experimental plasma expanders versus albumin on mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; 1014 participants; 14 trials; very low certainty); serious adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.10 to 8.30; 118 participants; 2 trials; very low certainty); renal impairment (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.91; 1107 participants; 17 trials; very low certainty); other liver-related complications (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.48; 1083 participants; 16 trials; very low certainty); and non-serious adverse events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.85; 977 participants; 14 trials; very low certainty). We found no data on heath-related quality of life and refractory ascites.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review and meta-analysis did not find any benefits or harms of plasma expanders versus no plasma expander or of one plasma expander such as polygeline, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch, intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus albumin on primary or secondary outcomes. The data originated from few, small, mostly short-term trials at high risks of systematic errors (bias) and high risks of random errors (play of chance). GRADE assessments concluded that the evidence was of very low certainty. Therefore, we can neither demonstrate or discard any benefit of plasma expansion versus no plasma expansion, and differences between one plasma expander versus another plasma expander.Larger trials at low risks of bias are needed to assess the role of plasma expanders in connection with paracentesis. Such trials should be conducted according to the SPIRIT guidelines and reported according to the CONSORT guidelines.
Topics: Humans; Ascites; Liver Cirrhosis; Paracentesis; Plasma Substitutes; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31251387
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004039.pub2 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jun 2019Although numerous treatments exist for fecal incontinence (FI), no consensus exists on the best treatment strategy. The aim was to review the literature and to compare... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Although numerous treatments exist for fecal incontinence (FI), no consensus exists on the best treatment strategy. The aim was to review the literature and to compare the clinical outcomes and effectiveness of treatments available for FI.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
A systematic literature review was performed, from inception to May 2018, of the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Cochrane Library. The search terms used were "faecal incontinence" and "treatment". Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for FI were considered. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method.
RESULT
Forty-seven RCTs were included comparing 37 treatments and reporting on 3748 participants. No treatment ranked best or worst with high probability for any outcome of interest. No significant difference was identified between treatments for frequency of FI per week, or in changing the resting pressure, maximum resting pressure, squeeze pressure, and maximum squeeze pressure. Radiofrequency resulted in more adverse events compared to placebo. Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) and zinc-aluminium improved the fecal incontinence quality of life questionnaire (FIQL) lifestyle, coping, and embarrassment domains compared to placebo. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation (TPTNS) improved the FIQL embarrassment domain compared to placebo. Autologous myoblasts and zinc-aluminium improved the FIQL depression domain compared to placebo. SNS, artificial bowel sphincter (ABS), and zinc-aluminium significantly improved incontinence scores compared to placebo. Injection of non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid/dextranomer (NASHA/Dx) resulted in more patients with ≥50% reduction in FI episodes compared to placebo.
CONCLUSION
SNS, ABS, TPTNS, NASHA/Dx, zinc-aluminium, and autologous myoblasts resulted in isolated improvements in specific outcomes of interest. No difference was identified in incontinence episodes, no treatment ranked best persistently or persistently improved outcomes, and many included treatments did not significantly benefit patients compared to placebo. Large multicentre RCTs with long-term follow-up and standardized inclusion criteria and outcome measures are needed.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Dextrans; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Fecal Incontinence; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Network Meta-Analysis; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tibial Nerve
PubMed: 31022519
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.04.007 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2019Vesicoureteric reflux (VUR) results in urine passing retrograde up the ureter. Urinary tract infections (UTI) associated with VUR have been considered a cause of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Vesicoureteric reflux (VUR) results in urine passing retrograde up the ureter. Urinary tract infections (UTI) associated with VUR have been considered a cause of permanent renal parenchymal damage in children with VUR. Management has been directed at preventing UTI by antibiotic prophylaxis and/or surgical correction of VUR. This is an update of a review first published in 2004 and updated in 2007 and 2011.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review was to evaluate the available evidence for both benefits and harms of the currently available treatment options for primary VUR: operative, non-operative or no intervention.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 3 May 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings, and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs in any language comparing any treatment of VUR and any combination of therapies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently determined study eligibility, assessed quality and extracted data. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous data as mean differences (MD) with 95% CI. Data were pooled using the random effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty four studies involving 4001 children were included. Interventions included; long-term low-dose antibiotics, surgical reimplantation of ureters, endoscopic injection treatment, probiotics, cranberry products, circumcision, and oxybutynin. Interventions were used alone and in combinations. The quality of conduct and reporting of these studies was variable, with many studies omitting crucial methodological information used to assess the risk of bias. Only four of the 34 studies were considered at low risk of bias across all fields of study quality. The majority of studies had many areas of uncertainty in the risk of bias fields, reflecting missing detail rather than stated poor design.Low-dose antibiotic prophylaxis compared to no treatment/placebo may make little or no difference to the risk of repeat symptomatic UTI (9 studies, 1667 children: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.09; low certainty evidence) and febrile UTI (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.21; low certainty evidence) at one to two years. At one to three years, antibiotic prophylaxis made little or no difference to the risk of new or progressive renal damage on DMSA scan (8 studies, 1503 children: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.61; low certainty evidence). Adverse events were reported in four studies with little or no difference between treatment groups (1056 children: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08; ), but antibiotics increased the likelihood of bacterial drug resistance threefold (187 UTIs: RR 2.97, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.74; moderate certainty evidence).Seven studies compared long-term antibiotic prophylaxis alone with surgical reimplantation of ureters plus antibiotics, but only two reported the outcome febrile UTI (429 children). Surgery plus antibiotic treatment may reduce the risk of repeat febrile UTI by 57% (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.70; moderate certainty evidence). There was little or no difference in the risk of new kidney defects detected using intravenous pyelogram at 4 to 5 years (4 studies, 572 children, RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.49; moderate certainty evidence)Four studies compared endoscopic injection with antibiotics alone and three reported the outcome febrile UTI. This analysis showed little or no difference in the risk of febrile UTI with endoscopic injection compared to antibiotics (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.78; low certainty evidence). Four studies involving 425 children compared two different materials for endoscopic injection under the ureters (polydimethylsiloxane (Macroplastique) versus dextranomer/hyaluronic acid polymer (Deflux), glutaraldehyde cross-linked (GAX) collagen (GAX) 35 versus GAX 65 and Deflux versus polyacrylate polyalcohol copolymer (VANTRIS)) but only one study (255 children, low certainty evidence) had the outcome of febrile UTI and it reported no difference between the materials. All four studies reported rates of resolution of VUR, and the two studies comparing Macroplastique with Deflux showed that Macroplastique was probably superior to dextranomer/hyaluronic acid polymer (3 months: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.78; 12 months: RR 0.54 95% CI 0.35 to 0.83; low certainty evidence)Two studies compared probiotic treatment with antibiotics and showed little or no difference in risk of repeat symptomatic UTI (RR 0.82 95% CI 0.56 to 1.21; low certainty evidence)Single studies compared circumcision with antibiotics, cranberry products with no treatment, oxybutynin with placebo, two different surgical techniques and endoscopic injection with no treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with no treatment, the use of long-term, low-dose antibiotics may make little or no difference to the number of repeat symptomatic and febrile UTIs in children with VUR (low certainty evidence). Considerable variation in the study designs and subsequent findings prevented drawing firm conclusions on efficacy of antibiotic treatment.The added benefit of surgical or endoscopic correction of VUR over antibiotic treatment alone remains unclear since few studies comparing the same treatment and with relevant clinical outcomes were available for analysis.
Topics: Acrylic Resins; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Child; Collagen; Dextrans; Dimethylpolysiloxanes; Female; Fever; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Kidney; Male; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Replantation; Ureter; Urinary Tract Infections; Vesico-Ureteral Reflux
PubMed: 30784039
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001532.pub5 -
Perioperative Medicine (London, England) 2018Buffered intravenous fluid preparations contain substrates to maintain acid-base status. The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effects of buffered... (Review)
Review
Perioperative administration of buffered versus non-buffered crystalloid intravenous fluid to improve outcomes following adult surgical procedures: a Cochrane systematic review.
BACKGROUND
Buffered intravenous fluid preparations contain substrates to maintain acid-base status. The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effects of buffered and non-buffered fluids administered during the perioperative period on clinical and biochemical outcomes.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library until May 2017 and included all randomised controlled trials that evaluated buffered versus non-buffered fluids, whether crystalloid or colloid, administered to surgical patients. We assessed the selected studies for risk of bias and graded the level of evidence in accordance with Cochrane recommendations.
RESULTS
We identified 19 publications of 18 randomised controlled trials, totalling 1096 participants. Mean difference (MD) in postoperative pH was 0.05 units lower immediately following surgery in the non-buffered group (12 studies of 720 participants; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.07; = 61%). This difference did not persist on postoperative day 1. Serum chloride concentration was higher in the non-buffered group at the end of surgery (10 trials of 530 participants; MD 6.77 mmol/L, 95% CI 3.38 to 10.17). This effect persisted until postoperative day 1 (5 trials of 258 participants; MD 8.48 mmol/L, 95% CI 1.08 to 15.88). Quality of this evidence was moderate. We identified variable protocols for fluid administration and total volumes of fluid administered to patients intraoperatively. Outcome data was variably reported at disparate time points and with heterogeneous patient groups. Consequently, the effect size and overall confidence interval was reduced, despite the relatively low inherent risk of bias. There was insufficient evidence on the effect of fluid composition on mortality and organ dysfunction. Confidence intervals of this outcome were wide and the quality of evidence was low (3 trials of 276 participants for mortality; odds ratio (OR) 1.85, 95% CI 0.37 to 9.33; = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
Small effect sizes for biochemical outcomes and lack of correlated clinical follow-up data mean that robust conclusions on major morbidity and mortality associated with buffered versus non-buffered perioperative fluid choices are still lacking. Buffered fluid may have biochemical benefits, including a significant reduction in postoperative hyperchloraemia and metabolic acidosis.
PubMed: 30559961
DOI: 10.1186/s13741-018-0108-5 -
Journal of Critical Care Apr 2019Guidelines recommend crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in sepsis/shock and switching to albumin in cases where crystalloids are insufficient. We evaluated hemodynamic... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Guidelines recommend crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in sepsis/shock and switching to albumin in cases where crystalloids are insufficient. We evaluated hemodynamic response to crystalloids/colloids in critically ill adults.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The primary research question was: "Are crystalloids sufficient for volume replacement in severe indications (intensive care unit [ICU]/critical illness)?" Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) were identified using PubMed and EMBASE, and screened against predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were performed on extracted data.
RESULTS
Fifty-five RCTs (N = 27,036 patients) were eligible. Central venous pressure was significantly lower with crystalloids than with albumin, hydroxyethyl starch (HES), or gelatin (all p < .001). Mean arterial pressure was significantly lower with crystalloids vs. albumin (mean difference [MD]: -3.5 mm Hg; p = .03) or gelatin (MD: -9.2 mm Hg; p = .02). Significantly higher volumes of crystalloids were administered vs. HES (MD: +1775 mL); volume administered was numerically higher vs. albumin (MD: +1985 mL). Compared with the albumin group, cardiac index was significantly lower in the crystalloid group (MD: -0.6 L/min/m, p < .001). All mortality and 90-day mortality were significantly lower for crystalloids compared with HES (relative risk 0.91; p = .009 and 0.9; p = .005, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
Crystalloids were less efficient than colloids at stabilizing resuscitation endpoints; guidance on when to switch is urgently required.
Topics: Albumins; Central Venous Pressure; Colloids; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Crystalloid Solutions; Fluid Therapy; Gelatin; Hemodynamics; Humans; Hydroxyethyl Starch Derivatives; Intensive Care Units; Isotonic Solutions; Resuscitation; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 30540968
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.11.031 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2018Almost 358,000 women die each year in childbirth, mainly in low-income countries. More than half of all maternal deaths occur within 24 hours of giving birth; severe... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Almost 358,000 women die each year in childbirth, mainly in low-income countries. More than half of all maternal deaths occur within 24 hours of giving birth; severe bleeding in the postpartum period is the single most important cause. Depending on the rate of blood loss and other factors, such as pre-existing anaemia, untreated postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) can lead to hypovolaemic shock, multi-organ dysfunction, and maternal death, within two to six hours.This review investigated different methods for estimating blood loss. The most common method of measuring blood loss during the third stage of labour is visual estimation, during which the birth attendant makes a quantitative or semi-quantitative estimate of the amount of blood lost. In direct blood collection, all blood lost during the third stage of labour (except for the placenta and membranes) is contained in a disposable, funnelled, plastic collector bag, which is attached to a plastic sheet, and placed under the woman's buttocks. When the bleeding stops, there are two options: the bag can be weighed (also called gravimetric technique), or the bag can be calibrated, allowing for a direct measurement. A more precise measurement of blood loss is haemoglobin concentration (Hb) in venous blood sampling and spectrophotometry. With the dye dilution technique, a known quantity of dye is injected into the vein and its plasmatic concentration is monitored after the uterus stops bleeding. Using nuclear medicine, a radioactive tracer is injected, and its concentration is monitored after the uterus stops bleeding. Although hypothetically, these advanced methods could provide a better quantification of blood loss, they are difficult to perform and are not accessible in most settings.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effect of alternative methods to estimate blood loss during the third stage of labour, to help healthcare providers reduce the adverse consequences of postpartum haemorrhage after vaginal birth.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (2 February 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 21 March 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised trials, including cluster-randomised trials, evaluating methods for estimating blood loss after vaginal birth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
The search retrieved 62 reports in total. Of these, we assessed 12 reports in full, corresponding to six trials. We included three trials and excluded one; two trials are ongoing.The included trials were conducted in hospital settings. Two trials were conducted in India; the third trial was a large cluster-randomised trial, which took place in 13 European countries. Overall, we judged the included trials to be at a low risk of bias. One study evaluated the use of calibrated drapes versus visual estimation, another evaluated the use of calibrated drapes versus the gravimetric technique (weight of blood-soaked materials), therefore, we were unable to pool the data from the two studies. The third study did not measure any of the outcomes of interest, so did not contribute data to the analyses.Direct measurement using calibrated drapes versus visual estimationOne cluster-randomised controlled trial in 13 western European countries, with over 25,000 women, examined this comparison.The trial did not report on postpartum anaemia (defined as Hb lower than 9 mg/dL), blood loss greater than 500 mL, or maternal infection.Moderate-quality evidence suggests there is probably little or no difference between groups in: severe morbidity (coagulopathy, organ failure, intensive care unit admission; adjusted risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 1.39); the risk of blood transfusion (adjusted RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.46); the use of plasma expanders (adjusted RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.42); and the use of therapeutic uterotonics (adjusted RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.76).Direct measurement using calibrated drapes (Excellent BRASSS-V Drape™) versus gravimetric techniqueOne randomised controlled trial in India, with 900 women, examined this comparison.The trial did not report on postpartum anaemia (defined as Hb lower than 9 mg/dL), severe morbidity, or maternal infection.High-quality evidence showed that using calibrated drapes improved the detection of blood loss greater than 500 mL when compared with the gravimetric technique (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.11). Low-quality evidence suggests there may be little or no difference in the risk of blood transfusion between the two groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.94), or in the use of plasma expanders, reported as intravenous fluids given for PPH treatment (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.35). High-quality evidence showed little or no difference in the use of therapeutic uterotonics (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.13), but the use of therapeutic uterotonics was extremely high in both arms of the study (57% and 56%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the evidence in this review is insufficient to support the use of one method over another for blood loss estimation after vaginal birth. In general, the quality of evidence for our predefined outcomes ranged from low to high quality, with downgrading decisions due to imprecision. The included trials did not report on many of our primary and secondary outcomes.In trials that evaluate methods for estimating blood loss during vaginal birth, we believe it is important to measure their impact on clinical maternal and neonatal outcomes, along with their diagnostic accuracy. This body of knowledge needs further, well designed, appropriately powered, randomised controlled trials that correlate blood loss with relevant clinical outcomes, such as those listed in this review.
Topics: Blood Specimen Collection; Blood Transfusion; Female; Humans; Labor Stage, Third; Oxytocics; Plasma Substitutes; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Drapes
PubMed: 30211952
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010980.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Critically ill people may lose fluid because of serious conditions, infections (e.g. sepsis), trauma, or burns, and need additional fluids urgently to prevent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Critically ill people may lose fluid because of serious conditions, infections (e.g. sepsis), trauma, or burns, and need additional fluids urgently to prevent dehydration or kidney failure. Colloid or crystalloid solutions may be used for this purpose. Crystalloids have small molecules, are cheap, easy to use, and provide immediate fluid resuscitation, but may increase oedema. Colloids have larger molecules, cost more, and may provide swifter volume expansion in the intravascular space, but may induce allergic reactions, blood clotting disorders, and kidney failure. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of using colloids versus crystalloids in critically ill people requiring fluid volume replacement on mortality, need for blood transfusion or renal replacement therapy (RRT), and adverse events (specifically: allergic reactions, itching, rashes).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two other databases on 23 February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of critically ill people who required fluid volume replacement in hospital or emergency out-of-hospital settings. Participants had trauma, burns, or medical conditions such as sepsis. We excluded neonates, elective surgery and caesarean section. We compared a colloid (suspended in any crystalloid solution) versus a crystalloid (isotonic or hypertonic).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Independently, two review authors assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and synthesised findings. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 69 studies (65 RCTs, 4 quasi-RCTs) with 30,020 participants. Twenty-eight studied starch solutions, 20 dextrans, seven gelatins, and 22 albumin or fresh frozen plasma (FFP); each type of colloid was compared to crystalloids.Participants had a range of conditions typical of critical illness. Ten studies were in out-of-hospital settings. We noted risk of selection bias in some studies, and, as most studies were not prospectively registered, risk of selective outcome reporting. Fourteen studies included participants in the crystalloid group who received or may have received colloids, which might have influenced results.We compared four types of colloid (i.e. starches; dextrans; gelatins; and albumin or FFP) versus crystalloids.Starches versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using starches or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.09; 11,177 participants; 24 studies); within 90 days (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 10,415 participants; 15 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.09; 10,135 participants; 11 studies).We found moderate-certainty evidence that starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.39; 1917 participants; 8 studies), and RRT (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.48; 8527 participants; 9 studies). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether either fluid affected adverse events: we found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 2.59, 95% CI 0.27 to 24.91; 7757 participants; 3 studies), fewer incidences of itching with crystalloids (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.82; 6946 participants; 2 studies), and fewer incidences of rashes with crystalloids (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.89; 7007 participants; 2 studies).Dextrans versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using dextrans or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11; 4736 participants; 19 studies); or within 90 days or 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; 3353 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether dextrans or crystalloids reduce the need for blood transfusion, as we found little or no difference in blood transfusions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 1272 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). We found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 144.93; 739 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured RRT.Gelatins versus crystalloidsWe found low-certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between gelatins or crystalloids in mortality: at end of follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.08; 1698 participants; 6 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; 1388 participants; 1 study); or within 30 days (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.16; 1388 participants; 1 study). Evidence for blood transfusion was very low certainty (3 studies), with a low event rate or data not reported by intervention. Data for RRT were not reported separately for gelatins (1 study). We found little or no difference between groups in allergic reactions (very low-certainty evidence).Albumin or FFP versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using albumin or FFP or using crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 13,047 participants; 20 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 12,492 participants; 10 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 12,506 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether either fluid type reduces need for blood transfusion (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; 290 participants; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Using albumin or FFP versus crystalloids may make little or no difference to the need for RRT (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.27; 3028 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), or in allergic reactions (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.33; 2097 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Using starches, dextrans, albumin or FFP (moderate-certainty evidence), or gelatins (low-certainty evidence), versus crystalloids probably makes little or no difference to mortality. Starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion and RRT (moderate-certainty evidence), and albumin or FFP may make little or no difference to the need for renal replacement therapy (low-certainty evidence). Evidence for blood transfusions for dextrans, and albumin or FFP, is uncertain. Similarly, evidence for adverse events is uncertain. Certainty of evidence may improve with inclusion of three ongoing studies and seven studies awaiting classification, in future updates.
Topics: Colloids; Critical Illness; Crystalloid Solutions; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Isotonic Solutions; Plasma Substitutes; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rehydration Solutions; Renal Replacement Therapy
PubMed: 30073665
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000567.pub7 -
Stem Cells International 2018The purpose of this study was to highlight the clinical performance of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) used as an adjunctive tool for regeneration in infrabony periodontal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to highlight the clinical performance of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) used as an adjunctive tool for regeneration in infrabony periodontal defects using different biomaterials or performing different surgical flap approaches. Comparative evaluation of main clinical outcomes as probing pocket depth reduction, clinical attachment gain, and recession reduction with and without the use of PRP has been analysed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
According to the focused question, an electronic and hand searching has been performed up to December 2016. From a batch of 73 articles, the selection strategy and Jadad quality assessment led us to include 15 studies for the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Despite the high heterogeneity found and the lack of complete data regarding the selected clinical outcomes, a comparative analysis has been possible by the categorization of used biomaterials and surgical flap approaches. This method led us to observe the best performance of grafts with the use of adjunctive PRP in CAL gain and PPD reduction. No difference has been outlined with a specific surgical flap.
CONCLUSIONS
Although PRP is considered a cheap and patient's derived growth factor, the not conclusive data reported would suggest that its use in addition to bone substitutes could be of some clinical benefit in the regenerative treatment of infrabony defects.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
This systematic review was intended to sort out the huge controversial debate in the field about the possible use of PRP in regenerative surgery in infrabony defect. The clinical relevance of using blood-borne growth factors to conventional procedures is effective as these could determine a better performance and outcomes despite the surgical approach adopted and limit the use of additional biomaterials for the blood clot stabilization.
PubMed: 29755531
DOI: 10.1155/2018/9594235