-
Scandinavian Journal of Surgery : SJS :... Jun 2021Acute mesenteric venous thrombosis accounts for up to 20% of all patients with acute mesenteric ischemia in high-income countries. Acute mesenteric venous thrombosis is...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Acute mesenteric venous thrombosis accounts for up to 20% of all patients with acute mesenteric ischemia in high-income countries. Acute mesenteric venous thrombosis is nowadays relatively more often diagnosed with intravenous contrast-enhanced computed tomography in the portal phase than at explorative laparotomy No high-quality comparative studies between anticoagulation alone, endovascular therapy, or surgery exists. The aim of the present systematic review was to offer a contemporary overview on management.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Eleven relevant published original studies with series of at least ten patients were retrieved from a Pub Med search between 2015 and 2020 using the Medical Subject Heading term "mesenteric venous thrombosis."
RESULTS
When MVT is diagnosed early, immediate anticoagulation with either unfractionated heparin or subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin should commence. Surgeons need to be aware of the importance to scrutinize the computed tomography images themselves for assessment of secondary intestinal abnormalities to mesenteric venous thrombosis and the risk of bowel resection and worse prognosis. Progression toward peritonitis is an indication for explorative laparotomy and assessment of bowel viability. Frank transmural small bowel necrosis should be resected and bowel anastomosis may be delayed for several days until second look. Meanwhile, intravenous full-dose unfractionated heparin should be given at the end of the first operation. Postoperative major intra-abdominal or gastrointestinal bleeding occurs rarely, but the heparin effect can instantaneously be reversed by . Patients who do not improve during conservative therapy with anticoagulation alone but without developing peritonitis may be subjected to endovascular therapy in expert centers. When the patient's intestinal function has recovered, with or without bowel resection, switch from parenteral unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin therapy to oral anticoagulation can be performed. There is a trend that direct oral anticoagulants are increasingly used instead of vitamin K antagonists. Up to now, direct oral anticoagulants have been shown to be equally effective with the same rate of bleeding complications. Patients with no strong permanent trigger factor for mesenteric venous thrombosis such as intra-abdominal cancer should undergo blood screening for inherited and acquired thrombophilia.
CONCLUSION
Early diagnosis with emergency computed tomography with intravenous contrast-enhancement and imaging in the portal phase and anticoagulation therapy is necessary to be able to have a succesful non-operative succesful course.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Heparin; Humans; Mesenteric Ischemia; Mesenteric Veins; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 33118463
DOI: 10.1177/1457496920969084 -
Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy Dec 2017Peritoneal carcinomatosis results when tumour cells implant and grow within the peritoneal cavity. Treatment and prognosis vary based on the primary cancer. Although... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Peritoneal carcinomatosis results when tumour cells implant and grow within the peritoneal cavity. Treatment and prognosis vary based on the primary cancer. Although therapy with intention-to-cure is offered to selective patients using cytoreductive surgery with chemotherapy, the prognosis remains poor for most of the patients. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a cancer-therapeutic modality where a photosensitiser is administered to patients and exerts a cytotoxic effect on cancer cells when excited by light of a specific wavelength. It has potential application in the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed the evidence of using PDT to treat peritoneal carcinomatosis in both animals and humans (Medline/EMBASE searched in June 2017).
RESULTS
Three human and 25 animal studies were included. Phase I and II human trials using first-generation photosensitisers showed that applying PDT after surgical debulking in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis is feasible with some clinical benefits. The low tumour-selectivity of the photosensitisers led to significant toxicities mainly capillary leak syndrome and bowel perforation. In animal studies, PDT improved survival by 15-300%, compared to control groups. PDT led to higher tumour necrosis values (categorical values 0-4 [4=highest]: PDT 3.4±1.0 vs. control 0.4±0.6, p<0.05) and reduced tumour size (residual tumour size is 10% of untreated controls, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION
PDT has potential in treating peritoneal carcinomatosis, but is limited by its narrow therapeutic window and possible serious side effects. Recent improvement in tumour-selectivity and light delivery systems is promising, but further development is needed before PDT can be routinely applied for peritoneal carcinomatosis.
Topics: Animals; Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Peritoneal Neoplasms; Photochemotherapy; Photosensitizing Agents; Prognosis
PubMed: 29111390
DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2017.10.021 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries significant mortality, morbidity, and resource use. There is considerable uncertainty as to how people with necrotising... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries significant mortality, morbidity, and resource use. There is considerable uncertainty as to how people with necrotising pancreatitis should be treated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of different interventions in people with acute necrotising pancreatitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to April 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCT). We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered only RCTs performed in people with necrotising pancreatitis, irrespective of aetiology, presence of infection, language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Review Manager 5 based on an available-case analysis using fixed-effect and random-effects models. We planned a network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods, but due to sparse data and uncertainty about the transitivity assumption, performed only indirect comparisons and used Frequentist methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with 311 participants in this review. After exclusion of five participants, we included 306 participants in one or more outcomes. Five trials (240 participants) investigated the three main treatments: open necrosectomy (121 participants), minimally invasive step-up approach (80 participants), and peritoneal lavage (39 participants) and were included in the network meta-analysis. Three trials (66 participants) investigated the variations in the main treatments: early open necrosectomy (25 participants), delayed open necrosectomy (11 participants), video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach (12 participants), endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach (10 participants), minimally invasive step-up approach (planned surgery) (four participants), and minimally invasive step-up approach (continued percutaneous drainage) (four participants). The trials included infected or sterile necrotising pancreatitis of varied aetiology.All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias and the overall quality of evidence was low or very low for all the outcomes. Overall, short-term mortality was 30% and serious adverse events rate was 139 serious adverse events per 100 participants. The differences in short-term mortality and proportion of people with serious adverse events were imprecise in all the comparisons. The number of serious adverse events and adverse events were fewer in the minimally invasive step-up approach compared to open necrosectomy (serious adverse events: rate ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68; 88 participants; 1 study; adverse events: rate ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68; 88 participants; 1 study). The proportion of people with organ failure and the mean costs were lower in the minimally invasive step-up approach compared to open necrosectomy (organ failure: OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.60; 88 participants; 1 study; mean difference in costs: USD -11,922; P value < 0.05; 88 participants; 1 studies). There were more adverse events with video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group compared to endoscopic-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group (rate ratio 11.70, 95% CI 1.52 to 89.87; 22 participants; 1 study), but the number of interventions per participant was less with video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group compared to endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach group (difference in medians: 2 procedures; P value < 0.05; 20 participants; 1 study). The differences in any of the other comparisons for number of serious adverse events, proportion of people with organ failure, number of adverse events, length of hospital stay, and intensive therapy unit stay were either imprecise or were not consistent. None of the trials reported long-term mortality, infected pancreatic necrosis (trials that included participants with sterile necrosis), health-related quality of life at any time frame, proportion of people with adverse events, requirement for additional invasive intervention, time to return to normal activity, and time to return to work.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low to very low quality evidence suggested that the minimally invasive step-up approach resulted in fewer adverse events, serious adverse events, less organ failure, and lower costs compared to open necrosectomy. Very low quality evidence suggested that the endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach resulted in fewer adverse events than the video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach but increased the number of procedures required for treatment. There is currently no evidence to suggest that early open necrosectomy is superior or inferior to peritoneal lavage or delayed open necrosectomy. However, the CIs were wide and significant benefits or harms of different treatments cannot be ruled out. The TENSION trial currently underway in Netherlands is assessing the optimal way to perform the minimally invasive step-up approach (endoscopic drainage followed by endoscopic necrosectomy if necessary versus percutaneous drainage followed by video-assisted necrosectomy if necessary) and is assessing important clinical outcomes of interest for this review. Implications for further research on this topic will be determined after the results of this RCT are available.
Topics: Humans; Necrosis; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Peritoneal Lavage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Video-Assisted Surgery
PubMed: 27083933
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011383.pub2 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021Postoperative colorectal anastomotic leakage (CAL) is a devastating complication following colorectal resection. However, the diagnosis of anastomotic leakage is often...
BACKGROUND
Postoperative colorectal anastomotic leakage (CAL) is a devastating complication following colorectal resection. However, the diagnosis of anastomotic leakage is often delayed because the current methods of identification are unable to achieve 100% clinical sensitivity and specificity. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the predictive value of peritoneal fluid cytokines in the detection of CAL following colorectal surgery.
METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science before June 2021 to retrieve studies regarding peritoneal fluid cytokines as early markers of CAL. Pooled analyses of interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) were performed. The means (MD) and standard deviations (SD) of the peritoneal fluid cytokines were extracted from the included studies. Review Manager Software 5.3 was used for data analysis.
RESULTS
We included eight studies with 580 patients, among which 85 (14.7%) and 522 (44.5%) were evaluated as the CAL and non-CAL groups, respectively. Compared to the non-CAL group, the CAL group had significantly higher peritoneal IL-6 levels on postoperative day (POD) 1-3 (P = 0.0006, 0.0002, and 0.002, respectively) and slightly higher TNF levels on POD 4 (P = 0.0002). Peritoneal levels of IL-1β and IL-10 were not significantly different between the two groups in this study.
CONCLUSION
Peritoneal IL-6 levels can be a diagnostic marker for CAL following colorectal surgery, whereas the value of TNF needs further exploration in the future.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#myprospero], PROSPERO (CRD42021274973).
PubMed: 35127496
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.791462 -
BMC Oral Health Jan 2020This systematic review aimed to investigate whether non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) can reduce systemic inflammatory levels and improve metabolism in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effects of non-surgical periodontal therapy on systemic inflammation and metabolic markers in patients undergoing haemodialysis and/or peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
This systematic review aimed to investigate whether non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) can reduce systemic inflammatory levels and improve metabolism in patients undergoing haemodialysis (HD) and/or peritoneal dialysis (PD).
METHODS
Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CNKI, and WFPD) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed through July 2019. The risk of bias within studies was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's risk assessment tool. The systemic inflammatory and metabolic outcomes included the highly sensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), interleukin 6 (IL-6), tumour necrosis factor-a (TNF-a), the albumin (Alb), and lipid metabolite levels. Meta-analyses (MAs) were performed to calculate the overall effect size where appropriate.
RESULTS
Five RCTs were included in this study. Compared with untreated periodontitis groups, the dialysis patients after NSPT significantly showed decreased hs-CRP levels at less than or equal to 2 months (standardized mean difference: - 1.53, 95% confidence interval - 2.95 to - 0.11). No significant difference was found in IL-6 and Alb levels following NSPT at either the 3- or 6- month follow-ups. No MAs could be performed on the TNF-a level and the lipid metabolic markers.
CONCLUSIONS
NSPT can moderately reduce serum hs-CRP levels in HD and/or PD patients, but did not significantly change IL-6 or Alb levels. For TNF-a and lipid metabolism markers, no sufficient evidence supports that these levels are changed after NSPT. Additional scientific research is necessary to assess the effects of NSPT on systemic inflammation and metabolic parameters in dialysis patients.
Topics: Biomarkers; C-Reactive Protein; Chronic Periodontitis; Humans; Inflammation; Interleukin-6; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Lipids; Peritoneal Dialysis; Renal Dialysis; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 31969148
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-1004-1 -
Acta Bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis Dec 2018Shiga-toxin Escherichia coli productor (STEC) provokes frequently an important intestinal damage that may be considered in differential diagnosis with the onset of...
BACKGROUND
Shiga-toxin Escherichia coli productor (STEC) provokes frequently an important intestinal damage that may be considered in differential diagnosis with the onset of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). The aim of this work is to review in the current literature about Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS) and IBD symptoms at the onset, comparing the clinical presentation and symptoms, as the timing of diagnosis and of the correct treatment of both these conditions is a fundamental prognostic factor. A focus is made about the association between typical or atypical HUS and IBD and a possible renal involvement in patient with IBD (IgA-nephropathy).
METHODS
A systematic review of scientific articles was performed consulting the databases PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, and consulting most recent textbooks of Pediatric Nephrology.
RESULTS
In STEC-associated HUS, that accounts for 90% of cases of HUS in children, the microangiopathic manifestations are usually preceded by gastrointestinal symptoms. Initial presentation may be considered in differential diagnosis with IBD onset. The transverse and ascending colon are the segments most commonly affected, but any area from the esophagus to the perianal area can be involved. The more serious manifestations include severe hemorrhagic colitis, bowel necrosis and perforation, rectal prolapse, peritonitis and intussusception. Severe gastrointestinal involvement may result in life-threatening complications as toxic megacolon and transmural necrosis of the colon with perforation, as in Ulcerative Colitis (UC). Transmural necrosis of the colon may lead to subsequent colonic stricture, as in Crohn Disease (CD). Perianal lesions and strictures are described. In some studies, intestinal biopsies were performed to exclude IBD. Elevation of pancreatic enzymes is common. Liver damage and cholecystitis are other described complications. There is no specific form of therapy for STEC HUS, but appropriate fluid and electrolyte management (better hyperhydration when possible), avoiding antidiarrheal drugs, and possibly avoiding antibiotic therapy, are recommended as the best practice. In atypical HUS (aHUS) gastrointestinal manifestation are rare, but recently a study evidenced that gastrointestinal complications are common in aHUS in presence of factor-H autoantibodies. Some report of patients with IBD and contemporary atypical-HUS were found, both for CD and UC. The authors conclude that deregulation of the alternative complement pathway may manifest in other organs besides the kidney. Finally, searching for STEC-infection, or broadly for Escherichia coli (E. coli) infection, and IBD onset, some reviews suggest a possible role of adherent invasive E. coli (AIEC) on the pathogenesis of IBD.
CONCLUSIONS
The current literature shows that gastrointestinal complications of HUS are quite exclusive of STEC-associated HUS, whereas aHUS have usually mild or absent intestinal involvement. Severe presentation as toxic megacolon, perforation, ulcerative colitis, peritonitis is similar to IBD at the onset. Moreover, some types of E. coli (AIEC) have been considered a risk factor for IBD. Recent literature on aHUS shows that intestinal complications are more common than described before, particularly for patients with anti-H factor antibodies. Moreover, we found some report of patient with both aHUS and IBD, who benefit from anti-C5 antibodies injection (Eculizumab).
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Anemia, Hemolytic; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Apoptosis; Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome; Combined Modality Therapy; Contraindications, Drug; Diagnosis, Differential; Diarrhea; Escherichia coli Infections; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Granuloma; Hemolytic-Uremic Syndrome; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Necrosis; Shiga-Toxigenic Escherichia coli; Thrombocytopenia
PubMed: 30561409
DOI: 10.23750/abm.v89i9-S.7911 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2013People with advanced kidney disease treated with dialysis experience mortality rates from cardiovascular disease that are substantially higher than for the general... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People with advanced kidney disease treated with dialysis experience mortality rates from cardiovascular disease that are substantially higher than for the general population. Studies that have assessed the benefits of statins (HMG CoA reductase inhibitors) report conflicting conclusions for people on dialysis and existing meta-analyses have not had sufficient power to determine whether the effects of statins vary with severity of kidney disease. Recently, additional data for the effects of statins in dialysis patients have become available. This is an update of a review first published in 2004 and last updated in 2009.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of statin use in adults who require dialysis (haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 29 February 2012 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of statins with placebo, no treatment, standard care or other statins on mortality, cardiovascular events and treatment-related toxicity in adults treated with dialysis were sought for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two or more authors independently extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. Treatment effects were summarised using a random-effects model and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore sources of heterogeneity. Treatment effects were expressed as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes together with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
The risk of bias was high in many of the included studies. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment was reported in three (12%) and four studies (16%), respectively. Participants and personnel were blinded in 13 studies (52%), and outcome assessors were blinded in five studies (20%). Complete outcome reporting occurred in nine studies (36%). Adverse events were only reported in nine studies (36%); 11 studies (44%) reported industry funding.We included 25 studies (8289 participants) in this latest update; 23 studies (24 comparisons, 8166 participants) compared statins with placebo or no treatment, and two studies (123 participants) compared statins directly with one or more other statins. Statins had little or no effect on major cardiovascular events (4 studies, 7084 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.03), all-cause mortality (13 studies, 4705 participants: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.02), cardiovascular mortality (13 studies, 4627 participants: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06) and myocardial infarction (3 studies, 4047 participants: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.07); and uncertain effects on stroke (2 studies, 4018 participants: RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.72).Risks of adverse events from statin therapy were uncertain; these included effects on elevated creatine kinase (5 studies, 3067 participants: RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.83) or liver function enzymes (4 studies, 3044 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.25), withdrawal due to adverse events (9 studies, 1832 participants: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.25) or cancer (2 studies, 4012 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.11). Statins reduced total serum cholesterol (14 studies, 1803 participants; MD -44.86 mg/dL, 95% CI -55.19 to -34.53) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (12 studies, 1747 participants: MD -39.99 mg/dL, 95% CI -52.46 to -27.52) levels. Data comparing statin therapy directly with another statin were sparse.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Statins have little or no beneficial effects on mortality or cardiovascular events and uncertain adverse effects in adults treated with dialysis despite clinically relevant reductions in serum cholesterol levels.
Topics: Adult; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Cholesterol; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Hyperlipidemias; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Myocardial Infarction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Dialysis
PubMed: 24022428
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004289.pub5 -
PloS One 2022Beta-blockers has been reported to improve all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in patients receiving dialysis, but type of beta-blockers (i.e., high vs. low... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Beta-blockers has been reported to improve all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in patients receiving dialysis, but type of beta-blockers (i.e., high vs. low dialyzable) on patient outcomes remains unknown. This study aimed at assessing the outcomes of patients receiving dialyzable beta-blockers (DBBs) compared to those receiving non-dialyzable beta-blockers (NDBBs).
METHODS
We searched the databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov until 28 February 2022 to identify articles investigating the impact of DBBs/NDBBs among patients with renal failure receiving hemodialysis/peritoneal dialysis (HD/PD). The primary outcome was risks of all-cause mortality, while the secondary outcomes included risk of overall major adverse cardiac event (MACE), acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF). We rated the certainty of evidence (COE) by Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
Analysis of four observational studies including 75,193 individuals undergoing dialysis in hospital and community settings after a follow-up from 180 days to six years showed an overall all-cause mortality rate of 11.56% (DBBs and NDBBs: 12.32% and 10.7%, respectively) without significant differences in risks of mortality between the two groups [random effect, aHR 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.02), p = 0.11], overall MACE [OR 1.03 (95% CI, 0.78-1.38), p = 0.82], and AMI [OR 1.02 (95% CI, 0.94-1.1), p = 0.66]. Nevertheless, the pooled odds ratio of HF among patients receiving DBBs was lower than those receiving NDBB [random effect, OR 0.87 (95% CI, 0.82-0.93), p<0.001]. The COE was considered low for overall MACE, AMI and HF, while it was deemed moderate for all-cause mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of dialyzable and non-dialyzable beta-blockers had no impact on the risk of all-cause mortality, overall MACE, and AMI among dialysis patients. However, DBBs were associated with significant reduction in risk of HF compared with NDBBs. The limited number of available studies warranted further large-scale clinical investigations to support our findings.
Topics: Humans; Renal Dialysis; Myocardial Infarction; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Cause of Death; Heart Failure
PubMed: 36584227
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279680