-
Annals of Gastroenterology 2022Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) are invasive interventions used for enteral access. We performed a systematic...
BACKGROUND
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) are invasive interventions used for enteral access. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with assessment of certainty of evidence to compare the risk of adverse outcomes and technical failure between PEG and PRG.
METHODS
We queried PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane from inception through January 2022 to identify studies comparing outcomes of PEG and PRG. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included the risk of colon perforation, peritonitis, bleeding, technical failure, peristomal infections, and tube-related complications. We performed GRADE assessment to assess the certainty of evidence and leave-one-out analysis for sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS
In the final analysis, 33 studies, including 26 high-quality studies, provided data on 275,117 patients undergoing PEG and 192,691 patients undergoing PRG. Data from high quality studies demonstrated that, compared to PRG, PEG had significantly lower odds of selected outcomes, including 30-day all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.95; P=0.02), colon perforation (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.49-0.75; P<0.001), and peritonitis (OR 0.71, 95%CI 0.63-0.81; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between PEG and PRG in terms of technical failure, bleeding, peristomal infections or mechanical complications. The certainty of the evidence was rated moderate for colon perforation and low for all other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
PEG is associated with a significantly lower risk of 30-day all-cause mortality, colon perforation, and peritonitis compared to PRG, while having a comparable technical failure rate. PEG should be considered as the first-line technique for enteral access.
PubMed: 36406969
DOI: 10.20524/aog.2022.0752 -
Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) 2014In HIV-seropositive individuals, the incidence of acute pancreatitis may achieve 40% per year, higher than the 2% found in the general population. Since 1996, when... (Review)
Review
In HIV-seropositive individuals, the incidence of acute pancreatitis may achieve 40% per year, higher than the 2% found in the general population. Since 1996, when combined antiretroviral therapy, known as HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy), was introduced, a broad spectrum of harmful factors to the pancreas, such as opportunistic infections and drugs used for chemoprophylaxis, dropped considerably. Nucleotide analogues and metabolic abnormalities, hepatic steatosis and lactic acidosis have emerged as new conditions that can affect the pancreas. To evaluate the role of antiretroviral drugs to treat HIV/AIDS in a scenario of high incidence of acute pancreatitis in this population, a systematic review was performed, including original articles, case reports and case series studies, whose targets were HIV-seropositive patients that developed acute pancreatitis after exposure to any antiretroviral drugs. This association was confirmed after exclusion of other possible etiologies and/or a recurrent episode of acute pancreatitis after re-exposure to the suspected drug. Zidovudine, efavirenz, and protease inhibitors are thought to lead to acute pancreatitis secondary to hyperlipidemia. Nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, despite being powerful inhibitors of viral replication, induce a wide spectrum of side effects, including myelotoxicity and acute pancreatitis. Didanosine, zalcitabine and stavudine have been reported as causes of acute and chronic pancreatitis. They pose a high risk with cumulative doses. Didanosine with hydroxyurea, alcohol or pentamidine are additional risk factors, leading to lethal pancreatitis, which is not a frequent event. In addition, other drugs used for prophylaxis of AIDS-related opportunistic diseases, such as sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim and pentamidine, can produce necrotizing pancreatitis. Despite comorbidities that can lead to pancreatic involvement in the HIV/AIDS population, antiretroviral drug-induced pancreatitis should always be considered in the diagnosis of patients with abdominal pain and elevated pancreatic enzymes.
Topics: Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome; Acute Disease; Anti-HIV Agents; Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly Active; Comorbidity; Female; Humans; Male; Pancreatitis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 24728257
DOI: 10.1590/s1679-45082014rw2561 -
International Journal of Surgery... 2014Postoperative pancreatic fistula formation (POPF) remains one of the most common and detrimental complications following pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ). The aim of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pancreatic fistula formation (POPF) remains one of the most common and detrimental complications following pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ). The aim of this meta-analysis is to analyze the efficacy of external pancreatic duct stent placement in preventing POPF formation following PJ.
METHODS
The primary end-point was the incidence of POPF formation following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in the presence and absence of external stent placement. Secondary outcomes examined were the incidence of perioperative mortality, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative wound infection, operative time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay.
RESULTS
Four trials were included comprising 416 patients. External pancreatic duct stenting was found to reduce the incidence of both any grade POPF formation (OR 0.37, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.58, p = 0.0001) and clinically significant (grade B or C) POPF formation (OR 0.50, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.84, p = 0.0009) following PD. The use of an external stent was also found to significantly lessen length of hospital stay (SMD -0.39, 95% CI = -0.63 to -0.15, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
This analysis has shown that external pancreatic duct stenting is indeed efficacious in the incidence of both any grade as well as clinically significant POPF formation following PD. Length of hospital stay was also found to be significantly less by external duct stenting.
Topics: Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Operative Time; Pancreatic Ducts; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Postoperative Period; Stents; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 25003575
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.06.008 -
Transplantation Proceedings Nov 2020As the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has emerged as a viral pandemic, data on the clinical characteristics and...
BACKGROUND
As the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has emerged as a viral pandemic, data on the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing solid organ transplant are emerging. The objective of this systematic review was to assess currently published literature relating to the management, clinical course, and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in liver, kidney, and heart solid organ transplant recipients.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to assess currently published literature relating to the management, clinical course, and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in liver, kidney, and heart solid organ transplant recipients. Articles published through June 2020 were searched in the MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and PubMed databases. We identified 49 eligible studies comprising a total of 403 solid organ transplant recipients.
RESULTS
Older age, male sex, and preexisting comorbidities, including hypertension and/or diabetes, were the most common prevailing characteristics among the solid organ transplant recipients. Clinical presentation ranged from mild to severe disease, including multiorgan failure and death. We found an overall mortality rate of 21%.
CONCLUSION
Our analysis suggests no increase in overall mortality or worse outcome in solid organ transplant recipients receiving immunosuppressive therapy compared with mortality in the general surgical population with SARS-CoV-2. Our findings suggest that transplant surgery and its immunosuppressive effects should not be a deterrent to proper surgical care for patients in the SARS-CoV-2 era.
Topics: Aged; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Comorbidity; Coronavirus Infections; Female; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; Male; Organ Transplantation; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 33127076
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.09.006 -
Endoscopy International Open Sep 2023Recently studies have compared early (<4 weeks) vs. late or standard (>4 weeks) endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrotic collections (PNC) and have reported... (Review)
Review
Recently studies have compared early (<4 weeks) vs. late or standard (>4 weeks) endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrotic collections (PNC) and have reported favorable results for early treatment. In this meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of early vs. late endoscopic treatment of PNC. We reviewed several databases from inception to September 30, 2021 to identify studies that compared early with late endoscopic treatment of PNC. Our outcomes of interest were adverse events (AEs), resolution of PNC, performance of direct endoscopic necrosectomy, need for further interventions, and mean number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for categorical variables and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous variables. Data were analyzed by random effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I statistic. We included four studies with 427 patients. We found no significant difference in rates of AEs, RR (95% CI) 1.70 (range, 0.56-5.20), resolution of necrotic or fluid collections, RR (95% CI) 0.89 (range, 0.71-1.11), need for further interventions, RR (95% CI) 1.47 (range, 0.70-3.08), direct necrosectomy, RR (95% CI) 1.39 (range, 0.22-8.80), mortality, RR (95% CI) 2.37 (range, 0.26-21.72) and mean number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions, MD (95% CI) 1.58 (range,-0.20-3.36) between groups. Early endoscopic treatment of PNC can be considered for indications such as infected necrosis or sterile necrosis with symptoms or complications; however, future large multicenter studies are required to further evaluate its safety.
PubMed: 37671081
DOI: 10.1055/a-2100-9076 -
Asian Journal of Surgery Nov 2020A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to estimate the incidence of possible complications following EUS-guided pancreas biopsy. Pancreatic cancer has a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to estimate the incidence of possible complications following EUS-guided pancreas biopsy. Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis with a high fatality rate. Early diagnosis is important to improve the prognosis of pancreatic cancer. We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for studies published from inception to Augest, 2018. Meta-analysis were conducted with random-effect models and heterogeneity was calculated with the Q, I and τ statistics. We enrolled 78 studies from 71 articles in the meta-analysis, comprising 11,652 patients. Pooled data showed that the whole complication incidences were low 0.210 × 10(95%CI -0.648 × 10, 1.068 × 10). And they were in bleeding 0.002 × 10 (95%CI -0.092 × 10, 0.097 × 10), pancreatitis 0.002 (95%CI -0.082 × 10, 0.086 × 10), abdominal pain 0 (95%CI -0.037 × 10, 0.038 × 10), fever 0 (95%CI -0.032 × 10, 0. 032 × 10), infection 0 (95%CI -0.030 × 10, 0.031 × 10), duodenal perforation 0 (95%CI -0.033 × 10, 0.034 × 10), pancreatic fistula 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10, 0.029 × 10), abscess 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10, 0.029 × 10) and sepsis 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10, 0.030 × 10). Subgroup analysis based on the tumor size, site, needle type and tumor style also showed robust results. The pooled data showed EUS-guided pancreas biopsy could be a safe approach for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. More large-scale studies will be necessary to confirm the findings across different population.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Cohort Studies; Duodenum; Early Detection of Cancer; Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration; Hemorrhage; Incidence; Intestinal Perforation; Pancreas; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreatitis; Safety
PubMed: 31974051
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2019.12.011 -
Pancreas Sep 2018Pancreatic cancer requires many genetic mutations. Combinations of underlying germline variants and environmental factors may increase the risk of cancer and accelerate...
Pancreatic cancer requires many genetic mutations. Combinations of underlying germline variants and environmental factors may increase the risk of cancer and accelerate the oncogenic process. We systematically reviewed, annotated, and classified previously reported pancreatic cancer-associated germline variants in established risk genes. Variants were scored using multiple criteria and binned by evidence for pathogenicity, then annotated with published functional studies and associated biological systems/pathways. Twenty-two previously identified pancreatic cancer risk genes and 337 germline variants were identified from 97 informative studies that met our inclusion criteria. Fifteen of these genes contained 66 variants predicted to be pathogenic (APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDKN2A, CFTR, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, NBN, PALB2, PALLD, PRSS1, SPINK1, TP53). Pancreatic cancer risk genes were organized into key biological mechanisms that promote pancreatic oncogenesis within an oncogenic model. Development of precision medicine approaches requires updated variant information within the framework of an oncogenic progression model. Complex risk modeling may improve interpretation of early biomarkers and guide pathway-specific treatment for pancreatic cancer in the future. Precision medicine is within reach.
Topics: Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Germ-Line Mutation; Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Proto-Oncogene Proteins; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 30113427
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001136 -
Annals of Medicine 2023Acute pancreatitis is a common condition of the digestive system, but sometimes it develops into severe cases. In about 10-20% of patients, necrosis of the pancreas or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/AIMS
Acute pancreatitis is a common condition of the digestive system, but sometimes it develops into severe cases. In about 10-20% of patients, necrosis of the pancreas or its periphery occurs. Although most have aseptic necrosis, 30% of cases will develop infectious necrotizing pancreatitis. Infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) requires a critical treatment approach. Minimally invasive surgical approach (MIS) and endoscopy are the management methods. This meta-analysis compares the outcomes of MIS and endoscopic treatments.
METHODS
We searched a medical database until December 2022 to compare the results of endoscopic and MIS procedures for INP. We selected eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported treatment complications for the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Five RCTs comparing a total of 284 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 139 patients underwent MIS, while 145 underwent endoscopic procedures. The results showed significant differences ( < 0.05) in the risk ratios (RRs) for major complications (RR: 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-0.97), new onset of organ failure (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.82), surgical site infection (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07-0.92), fistula or perforation (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.64), and pancreatic fistula (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.05-0.45). The hospital stay was significantly shorter for the endoscopic group compared to the MIS group, with a mean difference of 6.74 days (95% CI: -12.94 to -0.54). There were no significant differences ( > 0.05) in the RR for death, bleeding, incisional hernia, percutaneous drainage, pancreatic endocrine deficiency, pancreatic exocrine deficiency, or the need for enzyme use.
CONCLUSIONS
Endoscopic management of INP performs better compared to surgical treatment due to its lower complication rate and higher patient life quality.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Endoscopy; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Pancreas; Necrosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37930932
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2023.2276816 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Dec 2022Surgical site infections (SSI) cause significant morbidity. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) may promote wound healing and decrease SSI. The objective... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infections (SSI) cause significant morbidity. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) may promote wound healing and decrease SSI. The objective is to evaluate the effect of prophylactic NPWT on SSI in patients undergoing pancreatectomy.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched from inception until April 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic NPWT to standard dressings in patients undergoing pancreatectomy were included. The primary outcome was the risk of SSI. Secondary outcomes included the risk of superficial and deep SSI and organ space infection (OSI). Random effects models were used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Four single-centre RCTs including 309 patients were identified. Three studies were industry-sponsored, and two were at high risk of bias. There was no significant difference in the risk of SSI in patients receiving NPWT vs. control (14% vs. 21%, RR = 0.72, 95%CI = 0.32-1.60, p = 0.42, I = 53%). Likewise, there was no significant difference in the risk of superficial and deep SSI or OSI. No significant difference was found on subgroup analysis of patients at high risk of wound infection or on sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic NPWT does not significantly decrease the risk of SSI among patients undergoing pancreatectomy. Insufficient evidence exists to justify the routine use of NPWT.
Topics: Humans; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Surgical Wound Infection; Bandages; Wound Healing; Pancreatectomy
PubMed: 36244906
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2022.08.010 -
Cureus Apr 2024Type 1 diabetes mellitus is an autoimmune condition characterized by insulin deficiency resulting from loss of function of beta cells in the pancreas, leading to... (Review)
Review
Type 1 diabetes mellitus is an autoimmune condition characterized by insulin deficiency resulting from loss of function of beta cells in the pancreas, leading to hyperglycemia and associated long-term systemic complications and even death. Immunotherapy demonstrates beta cell function-preserving potential; however, its impact on C-peptide levels, a definitive biomarker of beta cell function, and endogenous insulin secretion remain unclear. A systematic review of various immunotherapeutic interventions is hence needed for a comprehensive assessment of their effectiveness as well as identifying research gaps and influencing future research and clinical decisions. An extensive literature search was done in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases using precise keywords and filters to identify relevant studies. Three independent reviewers assessed eligibility according to predetermined eligibility criteria, and data was extracted. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 2.0) was used to evaluate the quality and validity of the included studies. A senior reviewer resolved discrepancies and differences of opinion between independent reviewers. A total of 11 studies were included, with 1464 study participants. Both Phase II and III trials were included. Within the included studies, four studies assessed the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody otelixizumab as an intervention. Another anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody, teplizumab, was assessed as an intervention in four studies, whereas two studies assessed the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab and one study assessed abatacept as its interventional drug. Otelixizumab demonstrated benefits at higher doses but was associated with adverse effects like Ebstein-Barr virus reactivation and cytomegalovirus infection, while at lower doses it failed to show a significant difference in C-peptide levels or glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Teplizumab, on the other hand, showed promise in reducing C-peptide loss and exogenous insulin requirements and was associated with adverse events such as rash, lymphopenia, urinary tract infection, and cytokine release syndrome. However, these reactions were only associated with therapy initiation, and they subsided on their own. Rituximab improved C-peptide responses, and abatacept therapy demonstrated reduced loss of C-peptide, improved C-peptide levels, and lowered HbA1c. Teplizumab, rituximab, otelixizumab, and abatacept show potential for preserving beta cell function by reducing C-peptide loss in patients with type I diabetes mellitus. However, careful monitoring of adverse reactions, particularly viral infections and cytokine release syndrome, is necessary for the safe implementation of these therapies.
PubMed: 38800168
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.58981