Comparison of the benefits and risks of hemihepatic inflow occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11230829 | biostudies-literature | 2024 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The control of bleeding during laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is still a focus of research. However, the advantages of the main bleeding control methods, including total hepatic inflow occlusion (TIO) vs. hemihepatic inflow occlusion (HIO), during LLR remain controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who received TIO and patients who received HIO. This meta-analysis searched the Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Ovid, and Cochrane Library databases. The language of the studies was restricted to English, and comparative studies of patients treated with TIO and HIO during LLR were included. The primary outcome was to compare the intraoperative details, such as the operative time, occlusion time, and volume of blood loss, between the two groups. Secondary outcomes included conversion, overall complications, liver failure, biliary leakage, ascites, pleural effusion, and hospital stay. Five studies including 667 patients, 419 (62.82%) of whom received TIO and 248 (37.18%) of whom received HIO, were included in the analysis. The demographic data, including age, sex, hemoglobin, total bilirubin, albumin, and alpha-fetoprotein, were comparable. No significant differences noted in operative time, occlusion time, volume of blood loss, conversion, overall complications, liver failure, biliary leakage, hemorrhage, ascites, or pleural effusion. The hospital stay in patients who received HIO was significantly shorter than that for patients who received TIO [mean difference (MD), 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.87; p < 0.0001; I 2 = 54%]. The blood loss of patients with liver cirrhosis in the TIO group was significantly less than that in the HIO group (MD, -107.63; 95% CI, -152.63 to -62.63; p < 0.01; I 2 = 27%). Both the TIO and HIO methods are safe and feasible for LLR. Compared with HIO, TIO seems to have less blood loss in cirrhotic patients. However, this result demands further research, especially multicenter randomized controlled trials, for verification in the future. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, Identifier PROSPERO (CRD42022382334).
| S-EPMC11467754 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Optimal thromboprophylaxis after cardiac surgery is uncertain. This systematic review aimed to define the incidence and risk factors for deep vein thrombosis (DVT), fatal and nonfatal pulmonary embolism (PE), and assess whether venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis was effective in reducing VTE without complications after cardiac surgery.Two reviewers independently searched and assessed the quality and outcomes of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies on VTE after cardiac surgery in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane controlled trial register (1966 to December 2014). Sixty-eight studies provided data on VTE outcomes or complications related to thromboprophylaxis after cardiac surgery. The majority of the studies were observational studies (n=49), 16 studies were RCTs, and 3 were meta-analyses. VTE prophylaxis was associated with a reduced risk of PE (relative risk [RR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.72; P=0.0008) or symptomatic VTE (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.71; P=0.0006) compared to the control without significant heterogeneity. Median incidence (interquartile range) of symptomatic DVT, PE, and fatal PE were 3.2% (0.6-8.1), 0.6% (0.3-2.9), and 0.3% (0.08-1.7), respectively. Previous history of VTE, obesity, left or right ventricular failure, and prolonged bed rest, mechanical ventilation, or use of a central venous catheter were common risk factors for VTE. Bleeding or cardiac tamponade requiring reoperation owing to pharmacological VTE prophylaxis alone, without systemic anticoagulation, was not observed.Unless proven otherwise by adequately powered RCTs, initiating pharmacological VTE prophylaxis as soon as possible after cardiac surgery for patients who have no active bleeding is highly recommended.
| S-EPMC4845147 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundMoyamoya disease (MMD) is a leading cause of stroke in children and young adults, whereas no specific drugs are available. Antiplatelet therapy (APT) has been considered a promising treatment option, but its effectiveness remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to comprehensively evaluate the benefits and risks of APT for MMD.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library electronic databases from their inception to 30 June 2022 and conducted a systematic review. All-cause mortality was taken as the primary outcome.ResultsNine studies that enrolled 16,186 patients with MMD were included. The results from a single study showed that APT was associated with lower mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.50-0.71); p < 0.01] and improved bypass patency after surgical revascularization [HR = 1.57; 95% CI (1.106-2.235); p < 0.05]. The results of the meta-analysis showed that APT reduced the risk of hemorrhagic stroke [HR = 0.47; 95% CI (0.24-0.94); p < 0.05] but neither reduced the risk of ischemic stroke [HR = 0.80; 95% CI (0.33-1.94); p = 0.63] nor increased the proportion of independent patients [RR = 1.02; 95% CI (0.97-1.06); p = 0.47].ConclusionCurrent evidence showed that APT was associated with a reduced risk of hemorrhagic stroke in MMD patients but did not reduce the risk of ischemic stroke or increase the proportion of independent patients. There was insufficient evidence about the benefit of APT on survival and postoperative bypass patency after surgical revascularization. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously because of the limited number of studies.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.
| S-EPMC10318533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: To compare the benefits and risks between Rapid ART and standard/delayed treatment for HIV. Methods: Databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of science were searched from the inception to 28 October 2021. Two investigators independently screened studies related to Rapid ART, extracted data, and evaluated the literature quality. The risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the statistical software Stata15.0 was used for meta-analysis. Results: Ten eligible studies were included in this meta-analysis, the results showed Rapid ART was superior to standard/delayed treatment in continuing care for at least 8 months (RR = 1.13, 95%CI: 1.03∼1.25, Z = 2.44, p = 0.015), and severe bacterial infection (RR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.25∼0.70, Z = 3.33, p = 0.001). At 12 months following treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in viral load <100 copies/mL (RR = 1.05, 95%CI: 0.80∼1.39, Z = 0.35, p = 0.726), mortality (RR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.47∼1.24, Z = 1.09, p = 0.277), or the incidence of adverse events (RR = 0.52, 95%CI: 0.16∼1.76, Z = 1.05, p = 0.294) compared with standard/delayed treatment. Conclusion: In comparison to standard/delayed treatment, rapid ART can reduce the incidence of TB and severe bacterial infections in HIV patients. Our findings suggest that rapid ART should be utilized when clinical conditions and the patient's physical state allow. Systematic Review Registration: [https://inplasy.com/?s=202210004], identifier [INPLASY202210004].
| S-EPMC9205577 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt has been reported that caseload midwifery, which implies continuity of midwifery care during pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period, improves the outcomes for the mother and child. The aim of this study was to review benefits and risks of caseload midwifery, compared with standard care comparable to the Swedish setting where the same midwife usually provides antenatal care and the checkup postnatally, but does not assist during birth and the first week postpartum.MethodsMedline, Embase, Cinahl, and the Cochrane Library were searched (Nov 4th, 2021) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Retrieved articles were assessed and pooled risk ratios calculated when possible, using random-effects meta-analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed according to GRADE.ResultsIn all, 7,594 patients in eight RCTs were included, whereof five RCTs without major risk of bias, including 5,583 patients, formed the basis for the conclusions. There was moderate certainty of evidence for little or no difference regarding the risk of Apgar ≤ 7 at 5 min, instrumental birth, and preterm birth. There was low certainty of evidence for little or no difference regarding the risk of perinatal mortality, neonatal intensive care, perineal tear, bleeding, and acute caesarean section. Caseload midwifery may reduce the overall risk of caesarean section. Regarding breastfeeding after hospital discharge, maternal mortality, maternal morbidity, health-related quality of life, postpartum depression, health care experience/satisfaction and confidence, available studies did not allow conclusions (very low certainty of evidence). For severe child morbidity and Apgar ≤ 4 at 5 min, there was no literature available.ConclusionsWhen caseload midwifery was compared with models of care that resembles the Swedish one, little or no difference was found for several critical and important child and maternal outcomes with low-moderate certainty of evidence, but the risk of caesarean section may be reduced. For several outcomes, including critical and important ones, studies were lacking, or the certainty of evidence was very low. RCTs in relevant settings are therefore required.
| S-EPMC10504769 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of anticancer drugs without active comparators in patients who have exhausted standard of care treatment options are debated. We aimed to quantify the safety and the efficacy of anticancer drugs in advanced cancer patients who have exhausted standard of care treatments from RCTs without active comparators.Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to preferred reporting Items for systematic review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (CRD42021243968). A systematic literature search of English language publications from January 1, 2000, to January 7, 2021, was performed using MEDLINE (PubMed). Eligible trials included all RCTs evaluating anticancer drugs in adult patients with advanced solid tumors with a control arm without any anticancer drug consisting of best supportive care with or without a placebo. RCTs performed in the adjuvant, neoadjuvant or maintenance settings were excluded, as were clinical trials evaluating anticancer drugs in combination with radiotherapy. Two authors (C.M.B. and E.C.) independently reviewed the studies for inclusion. Data from published reports were extracted by investigators, and random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the overall hazard ratios (HRs) of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Correlations between severe toxicity and efficacy was assessed using R2 measures.Findings: Of 3551 studies screened, 128 eligible trials were found involving 47,432 patients. The HRs for PFS and OS were 0·58 [95%CI: 0·53-0·63] and 0·82 [95%CI: 0·78-0·85]. The absolute benefits however were limited with PFS and OS gains of 2·1 and 0·5 months. The absolute excesses in all grade, severe grade III, IV and V (death) adverse events between the two arms were +13·9%, 10·2%, and +0·5%. A weak correlation was measured between the excess of severe toxicity and efficacy (all R² < 0·2).Interpretation: Anticancer drugs evaluated in RCTs against no active treatment benefited trial participants. Severe toxicity did not significantly correlate with efficacy.FundingNone.
| S-EPMC8548931 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Radial artery occlusion (RAO) may occur posttransradial intervention and limits the radial artery as a future access site, thus precluding its use as an arterial conduit. In this study, we investigate the incidence and factors influencing the RAO in the current literature.We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies of RAO in transradial access. Relevant studies were identified and data were extracted. Data were synthesized by meta-analysis, quantitative pooling, graphical representation, or by narrative synthesis. A total of 66 studies with 31 345 participants were included in the analysis. Incident RAO ranged between <1% and 33% and varied with timing of assessment of radial artery patency (incidence of RAO within 24 hours was 7.7%, which decreased to 5.5% at >1 week follow-up). The most efficacious measure in reducing RAO was higher dose of heparin, because lower doses of heparin were associated with increased RAO (risk ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.17-0.76), whereas shorter compression times also reduced RAO (risk ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.05-1.50). Several factors were found to be associated with RAO including age, sex, sheath size, and diameter of radial artery, but these factors were not consistent across all studies.RAO is a common complication of transradial access. Maintenance of radial patency should be an integral part of all procedures undertaken through the radial approach. High-dose heparin along with shorter compression times and patent hemostasis is recommended in reducing RAO.
| S-EPMC4859386 | biostudies-other
Project description:Purpose: This study aims to analyse the efficacy of different treatment methods for acute basilar artery occlusion, with an emphasis placed on evaluating the latest treatment methods. Method: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to analyse the current data on the therapies available for treating acute basilar artery occlusion. Results: A total of 102 articles were included. The weighted pooled rate of mortality was 43.16% (95% CI 38.35-48.03%) in the intravenous thrombolysis group, 45.56% (95% CI 39.88-51.28) in the intra-arterial thrombolysis group, and 31.40% (95% CI 28.31-34.56%) for the endovascular thrombectomy group. The weighted pooled rate of Modified Ranking Score (mRS) 0-2 at 3 months was 31.40 (95% CI 28.31-34.56%) in the IVT group, 28.29% (95% CI 23.16-33.69%) in the IAT group, and 35.22% (95% CI 32.39-38.09%) for the EVT group. Meta-analyses were also done for the secondary outcomes of recanalization and symptomatic haemorrhage. There was no difference between stent retriever and thrombo-aspiration thrombectomy on subgroup analysis in both clinical outcome and safety profile. Limitations: The included studies were observational in nature. There was significant heterogeneity in some of the outcomes. Conclusions: Superior outcomes and better recanalization rates for acute basilar occlusion were seen with patients managed with endovascular thrombectomy when compared with either intravenous and/or intraarterial thrombolysis. No superiority of stent-retrievers over thrombo-aspiration thrombectomy was seen.
| S-EPMC6456838 | biostudies-other
Project description:AimThough combination of clopidogrel added to aspirin has been compared to aspirin alone in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack, limited data exists on the relative efficacy and safety between clopidogrel and aspirin monotherapy in patients with a recent ischemic stroke. We aimed to compare clopidogrel versus aspirin monotherapy in this population.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to May 2018 to identify clinical trials and observational studies comparing clopidogrel versus aspirin for secondary prevention in patients with recent ischemic stroke within 12 months. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using a random effects model and were reported as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsFive studies meeting eligibility criteria were included in the analysis. A total of 29,357 adult patients who had recent ischemic stroke received either clopidogrel (n = 14, 293) or aspirin (n = 15, 064) for secondary prevention. Pairwise meta-analysis showed a statistically significant risk reduction in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (risk ratio 0.72 [95% CI, 0.53-0.97]), any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke (0.76 [0.58, 0.99), and recurrent ischemic stroke (0.72 [0.55, 0.94]) in patients who received clopidogrel versus aspirin. The risk of bleeding was also lower for clopidogrel versus aspirin (0.57 [0.45, 0.74]). There was no difference in the rate of all-cause mortality between the two groups.ConclusionsThe analysis showed lower risks of major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, recurrent stroke, and bleeding events for clopidogrel monotherapy compared to aspirin. These findings support clinical benefit for single antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel over aspirin for secondary prevention in patients with recent ischemic stroke.
| S-EPMC6913341 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Primary outcome(s): Colorectal cancer incidence, Colorectal tumor incidence
| 79216 | ecrin-mdr-crc