Continuous vs. intermittent terlipressin infusion for portal hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hassan M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10553058 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the clinical and haemodynamic effects of carvedilol for patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. DESIGN:A systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:We searched PubMed, Cochrane library databases, EMBASE and the Science Citation Index Expanded through December 2015. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. OUTCOME MEASURE:We calculated clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, bleeding-related mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding) as well as haemodynamic outcomes (hepatic venous pressure (HVPG) reduction, haemodynamic response rate, post-treatment arterial blood pressure (mean arterial pressure; MAP) and adverse events). RESULTS:12 RCTs were included. In 7 trials that looked at haemodynamic outcomes compared carvedilol versus propranolol, showing that carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction (%) of HVPG within 6?months (mean difference -8.49, 95% CI -12.36 to -4.63) without a greater reduction in MAP than propranolol. In 3 trials investigating differences in clinical outcomes between carvedilol versus endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVL), no significant differences in mortality or variceal bleeding were demonstrated. 1 trial compared clinical outcomes between carvedilol versus nadolol plus isosorbide-5-mononitrate (ISMN), and showed that no significant difference in mortality or bleeding had been found. 1 trial comparing carvedilol versus nebivolol showed a greater reduction in HVPG after 14?days follow-up in the carvedilol group. CONCLUSIONS:Carvedilol may be more effective in decreasing HVPG than propranolol or nebivolol and it may be as effective as EVL or nadolol plus ISMN in preventing variceal bleeding. However, the overall quality of evidence is low. Further large-scale randomised studies are required before we can make firm conclusions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42015020542.
| S-EPMC4861122 | biostudies-other
Project description:The programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) technique offers multiple benefits over continuous epidural infusion (CEI), but controversy still exists when it is used in conjunction with a parturient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) regimen. A systematic review and meta-analysis was thus conducted using the Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Web of Science databases with the aim of identifying those randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that performed a comparison between PIEB and CEI in healthy parturients using a PCEA regimen with regard to the duration of labor, labor pain, anesthesia interventions, maternal satisfaction and main side effects. The data were analyzed using a random-effects model. Eleven eligible trials were included, in which 717 participants were allocated to the PIEB + PCEA group and 650 patients were allocated to the CEI + PCEA group. The rate of instrumental delivery, incidence of breakthrough pain, PCEA usage rates and local anesthetic usage were significantly reduced, the labor duration was statistically shorter, and the maternal satisfaction score was significantly improved in the PIEB + PCEA group compared with that in the CEI + PCEA group. There were no differences in the side effects between the two groups. The results of the present study suggest that the PIEB technique in conjunction with the PCEA regimen was more advantageous than CEI + PCEA, but additional studies should be conducted to consistently demonstrate an improvement in the maternal and fetal obstetric outcomes.
| S-EPMC6384894 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMeropenem belongs to the carbapenem class, which is categorized as beta-lactam antibiotics. These antibiotics are administered in intermittent bolus doses at specific time intervals. However, the continuous infusion approach ensures sustained drug exposure, maintaining the drug concentration above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) throughout the entire treatment period. This study aimed to find out the association between continuous infusions of meropenem and mortality rates.Materials and methodsWe conducted a search of the PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases up to 14 August 2023. The six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified and included in our analysis. The random-effects model was implemented using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software to examine the outcomes.ResultsOur study included a total of 1,529 adult patients from six randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome indicated that continuous infusion of meropenem did not lead to reduction in the mortality rate (odds ratio = 0.844, 95% CI: 0.671-1.061, P =0.147). Secondary outcomes revealed no significant differences in ICU length of stay (LOS), ICU mortality, clinical cure, or adverse events between continuous infusion and traditional intermittent bolus strategies of meropenem. Notably, we observed significant improvements in bacterial eradication (odds ratio 19 = 2.207, 95% CI: 1.467-3.320, P < 0.001) with continuous infusion of meropenem. Our study also suggested that performing continuous infusion may lead to better bacterial eradication effects in resistant pathogens (coefficient: 2.5175, P = 0.0138*).ConclusionContinuous infusion of meropenem did not result in the reduction of mortality rates but showed potential in improving bacterial eradication. Furthermore, this strategy may be particularly beneficial for achieving better bacterial eradication, especially in cases involving resistant pathogens.
| S-EPMC10957759 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceCurrent 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.ObjectiveTo compare intermittent PPI therapy with the currently recommended bolus plus continuous-infusion PPI regimen for reduction of ulcer rebleeding.Data sourcesSearches 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 selectionRandomized 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 synthesisDuplicate 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 measuresThe 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%.ResultsThe 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 relevanceIntermittent 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.
| S-EPMC4415726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLiver disease causes 2 million deaths annually, accounting for 4% of all deaths worldwide. Liver surgery is one of the effective therapeutic options. Bleeding is a major complication during liver surgery. Perioperative bleeding and allogeneic blood transfusion may deteriorate the prognosis. Terlipressin (TP), a synthetic analogue of the antidiuretic hormone, may reduceblood loss during abdominal surgery. Several clinical centres have attempted to use TP during liver surgery, but the evidence for its effectiveness in reducing blood loss and the need for allogeneic blood transfusion, as well as its safety during the perioperative period, remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TP in reducing blood loss and allogeneic blood transfusion needs during liver surgery.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science for studies on perioperative use of TP during liver surgery from inception to July 2023. We will limit the language to English, and two reviewers will independently screen and select articles. The primary study outcomes are estimated blood loss and the need for allogeneic blood transfusion. Secondary outcomes include operating time, intensive care unit stay, length of stay, intraoperative urine output, acute kidney injury rate, postoperative complications, hepatic and renal function during follow-up, and TP-related adverse effects. We will include studies that met the following criteria: (1) randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies or case-control studies; (2) the publication time was till July 2023; (3) adult patients (≥18 years old) undergoing elective liver surgery; (4) comparison of TP with other treatments and (5) the study includes at least one outcome. We will exclude animal studies, case reports, case series, non-original articles, reviews, paediatric articles, non-controlled trials, unpublished articles, non-English articles and other studies that are duplicates. We will use Review Manager V.5.3 software for meta-analysis and perform stratification analysis for the study quality of RCTs based on the Jadad score. For cohort or case-control studies, the study quality will be analysed based on Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scores. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation will be used to assess confidence in the cumulative evidence. For primary outcomes, we will conduct subgroup analyses based on meta-regression. We will also perform leave-one-out sensitivity analyses to evaluate the effect of each individual study on the combined results by removing the individual studies one by one for outcomes with significant heterogeneity. The protocol follows the Cochrane Handbook for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines.Ethics and disseminationThis study is a secondary analysis of existing data; therefore, it does not require ethical approval. We will disseminate the results through peer-reviewed publications.Prospero registration numberCRD42023450333.
| S-EPMC10982717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Diabetes mellitus (DM) has a growing prevalence worldwide, even in developing countries. Many antidiabetic agents are used to improve glycemic control; however, in cases of an insufficient outcome, insulin is administered. Yet, the timing of proper insulin administration is still a subject of intense research. To date, there have been no recommendations or guidelines for the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). In the present study, we have performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the use of CSII in patients with T2DM. An extensive literature search was conducted through the electronic databases Pubmed, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from October 2019-May 2022, for interventional studies related to T2DMI and CSII versus multiple daily injections (MDI). We included articles published in the English language only, yielding a total of thirteen studies. We found better outcomes in patients receiving CSII, in regard to glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and total insulin dose. In contrast, fasting plasma glucose and body weight did not show statistically significant differences between the two groups. Our analyses showed that CSII could be beneficial in patients with T2DM in order to achieve their glucose targets.
| S-EPMC9861993 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBoth intermittent intravenous (IIV) infusion and continuous intravenous (CIV) infusion of Endostar are widely used for NSCLC in China. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of CIV of Endostar versus IIV in combination with first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC.MethodsRCTs, NRCTs and cohort studies which compared CIV of Endostar with IIV in advanced NSCLC patients and reported efficacy or safety outcomes were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis for short-term efficacy and safety outcomes, and hazard ratios (HRs) for survival outcomes.ResultsFinally nine studies involving 597 patients were included, containing two RCTs, three NRCTs and four cohort studies. For short-term efficacy, moderate quality of evidence showed that there were no significant differences between CIV of Endostar and IIV in objective response rate (ORR; RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.91-1.98, P = 0.14) and disease control rate (DCR; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.94-1.30, P = 0.21). Very low quality of evidence indicated that CIV of Endostar significantly improved both overall survival (OS; HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.48-0.99, P = 0.046) and progression-free survival (PFS; HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.93, P = 0.01) compared with IIV. As for safety outcomes, moderate quality of evidence found that CIV of Endostar significantly reduced the risk of myelosuppression (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96, P = 0.03) and cardiovascular toxicity (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.78, P = 0.02) compared with IIV.ConclusionsIn advanced NSCLC, compared with IIV, CIV of Endostar had similar short-term efficacy, and substantially lower risk of myelosuppression and cardiovascular toxicity. Although very low quality of evidence supported the survival benefit of CIV compared with IIV, large RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed to demonstrate survival benefits. Caution should be given for off-label use of CIV of Endostar.
| S-EPMC7579986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis meta-analysis was performed to investigate the correlation between von Willebrand factor (vWF) antigen and hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and to evaluate the diagnostic performance of vWF to detect clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) and severe portal hypertension (SPH).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were screened up to 5 April 2018. Studies related to the diagnostic performance of vWF to detect CSPH and/or SPH with HVPG as the reference standard were included. Study quality was assessed by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies scale. Two authors independently used a standardised form to extract data.OutcomesThe primary outcome was the correlation coefficient between vWF and HVPG. The secondary outcome was the diagnostic performance of vWF to detect CSPH or SPH.ResultsA total of six articles involving 994 patients were included in this study. Five of the included articles were used to stratify the results for the correlation coefficient, three for the diagnostic performance of CSPH and two for SPH. The pooled correlation coefficient based on the random effects model was 0.54 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.69), thus suggesting a moderate correlation between vWF and HVPG. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve of vWF for CSPH detection were 82% (95% CI 78 to 86), 76% (95% CI 68 to 83) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.94), respectively. Regarding the ability of vWF to detect SPH, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 86% (95% CI 80 to 90) and 75% (95% CI 66 to 83), respectively. These results supported the satisfactory diagnostic performance of vWF for CSPH and SPH detection.ConclusionsvWF, as a novel biomarker, has a moderate correlation with HVPG and shows a satisfactory performance for the diagnosis of CSPH and SPH in patients with cirrhosis.
| S-EPMC6720471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMeropenem exhibits time-dependent antimicrobial activity and prolonged infusion (PI) (extended infusion or continuous infusion, EI or CI) of meropenem can better achieve pharmacodynamics target when comparing with intermittent bolus (IB). However, the clinical outcomes between two groups remain inconclusive.ObjectiveTo evaluate current published literatures by meta-analysis to ascertain whether PI of meropenem can improve clinical outcomes.MethodsMedline, Cochrane database and EMBASE were searched. Randomized control trails (RCT) and observational studies which compared the clinical outcomes of PI and IB groups were included and evaluated for quality. The data of studies were extracted and meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 software.ResultsSix RCTs and 4 observation studies with relatively high quality were included in this analysis. Compared to IB group, PI group had a higher clinical success rate (odd ratio 2.10, 95% confidence interval 1.31-3.38) and a lower mortality (risk ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.88). The sensitivity analysis showed the results were stable.ConclusionPI of meropenem was associated with a higher clinical improvement rate and a lower mortality. It is recommended for patients with severe infection or infected by less sensitive microbial.
| S-EPMC6066326 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis is a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of intermittent energy restriction (IER) vs. continuous energy restriction (CER) on weight loss, body composition, blood pressure, and other cardiometabolic risk factors in patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS) risk factors.MethodsWe searched and screened PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to May 8, 2022 for randomized controlled trials. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed quality and risk of bias and cross-checked extracts to resolve discrepancies when required. We expressed effect size as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The major outcome was the improvement of MetS risk factors, including changes in waist circumference (WC), triglycerides (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c), blood pressure (BP), and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels. The secondary outcomes were body weight (BW), body mass index (BMI), body fat (BF), fat free mass (FFM), hip circumference (HC), fasting insulin (FINs), total cholesterol (TC), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c).ResultsThe meta-analysis included 16 articles (20 trials) with a total of 1,511 participants. All studies had a low risk of bias for random sequence generation. The IER and CER intervention equally improved MetS risk factors WC (MD = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.25]), TG (MD = -0.02 mmol/L, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.07]), FPG (MD = -0.02 mmol/L, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.05]) and BP (systolic blood pressure: MD = 0.93 mmHg, 95% CI [-2.74, 4.61]; diastolic blood pressure: MD =1.15 mmHg, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.55]), but HDL-c (MD = 0.03 mmol/L, 95% CI [0.01, 0.05]) was significant improved in IER when compared with CER. For second outcomes, BW (MD = -0.8 kg, 95% CI [-1.26, -0.33]), BF (MD = -0.75 kg, 95% CI [-1.73, -0.13]) and FFM (MD = -0.49 kg, 95% CI [-0.92, -0.05]) were also significant improved in IER, and not for other outcomes.ConclusionBoth IER and CER could improve MetS biomarkers, but IER was more effective than CER in the improvement of HDL-c only. For secondary outcomes, IER was also more effective for BW, BF and FFM, but there were no differences in effects for other outcomes.
| S-EPMC10204925 | biostudies-literature