RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of scheduled second-look endoscopy in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically search in four databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the usefulness of scheduled second-look endoscopy vs. single endoscopy in patients with PUB. Our primary outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes were surgery, mortality, and the number of units of blood transfused (NUBT). All meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and the quality of evidence (QoE) was rated with the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Eight full-text RCTs and two RCT abstracts were included (n=1513). We did not find differences in rebleeding (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.14, moderate QoE), surgery (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.29-1.15, moderate QoE), mortality (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.46-1.71, moderate QoE) or NUBT (MD, -0.01 units; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.28, low QoE) between second-look and single endoscopy. Sensitivity analyses had similar results to the main analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Routine second-look endoscopy was not more efficacious than single endoscopy in patients with PUB.

Assuntos

RESUMO

We assessed the impact of probiotics on outcomes related to caries in children and/or adolescents without underlying systemic diseases. We performed a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Searches were performed in Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science until March 2023 for RCTs assessing probiotics with a minimum intake duration of 0.2 months vs. control (no treatment or placebo) and reporting at least one primary or secondary outcome. Primary outcomes were number of carious, Streptococcus mutans count, and Lactobacillus count; secondary outcomes were bacterial plaque index, gingival index, salivary pH, and bleeding index. We performed meta-analyses with random effects models and the inverse variance method. Effects were described as mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). The risk of bias was assessed with the RoB 2.0 tool. The GRADE methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence (QoE). Nineteen RCTs were included (n = 2622), with a follow-up range of 0.2 to 108 months. Probiotics had no effect on reduction of dental caries (MD -0.24 carious pieces, 95%CI -0.72 to 0.23; I2 = 52%, low QoE) or Lactobacillus count (MD -0.78 CFU/mL, 95%CI -1.65 to 0.09; I2= 52%, very low QoE) vs. control. However, probiotics probably reduced S. mutans count vs. control (MD -0.40 CFU/mL, 95%CI -0.57 to -0.24; I2 = 11%, moderate QoE). Probiotics had no effect on bacterial plaque index (MD 0.21 units of bacterial plaque, 95%CI -0. 55-0.96; I2 = 80%, very low QoE), gingival index (MD 0.04 units of gingival index, 95%CI -0.18 to 0.27; I2= 0%, low QoE), and salivary pH (MD -0.12 pH units, 95%CI -0.72 to 0.48; I2 = 92%, very low QoE) vs. control. Probiotics were found to likely reduce S. mutans counts. However, no significant effect of probiotics was observed in reducing other outcomes compared to the control group.

RESUMO

Introduction: The use of combined immunotherapy could increase non-severe and severe cardiac events in patients with cancer. To examine the occurrence of severe cardiac adverse events of combined immunotherapy compared to single immunotherapy, we analysed 4 electronic databases from inception to August 2021. Material and methods: We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing combined versus single immunotherapy, for the treatment of melanoma, oesophagogastric cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and non-small cell lung cancer. Pre-defined combined immunotherapy included monoclonal antibodies against programmed cell death 1 (PD-1 inhibitors) plus against cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4 inhibitors) or against programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1 inhibitors) plus CTLA-4 inhibitors. The pooled risk ratios (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using a random-effects model. Results: Four RCTs involving 1581 patients were included, with a follow-up time between 18 and 39 months. The use of combined immunotherapy in comparison with single immunotherapy was not associated with an increased risk of severe cardiac adverse events: acute coronary syndromes (RR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.29-10.83, very low certainty of evidence (CoE)), myocardial infarction (RR = 3.93, 95% CI: 0.44-35.39, very low CoE), heart failure (RR = 2.99, 95% CI: 0.61-14.79, very low CoE), and atrial fibrillation (RR = 2.26, 95% CI: 0.62-8.16, very low CoE). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis shows that the risk of severe cardiac adverse events with combined immunotherapy seems similar to single immunotherapy, but the evidence is very uncertain. Therefore, more RCTs with longer follow-ups and adequately powered to assess cardiac adverse events are needed to confirm these findings.

RESUMO

Early enteral nutrition through a feeding tube is essential for the management of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). Nasojejunal tube nutrition has been preferred on the assumption that it provided pancreatic rest in comparison to the nasogastric tube. However, nasojejunal tube placement is complex, may delay feeding initiation and can increase hospital costs. Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of enteral feeding with a nasogastric tube versus nasojejunal tube in patients with SAP. We searched four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase) until December 1, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing enteral feeding by nasogastric and nasojejunal tubes in patients with SAP. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were organ failure, infection, complications, surgical intervention, duration of tube feeding and length of hospital stay. Risk of bias assessment was completed independently by two investigators using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We performed random effects model meta-analyses using the inverse variance method. Effect measures were reported as relative risks (RR) and their 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) and their 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We included four RCTs involving 192 patients with SAP. The mean ages ranged between 36 and 62 years old. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the nasogastric and nasojejunal feeding arms (18/98 vs. 23/93; RR 1.34, 95%CI 0.77-2.30; p=0.30). There were no significant differences in all secondary outcomes between feeding arms. There were three RCTs with some concerns of bias, in the randomization process. In conclusion, in patients with SAP, enteral feeding delivered by nasogastric tube was as efficacious and safe as nasojejunal tube. Further randomized controlled trials with more participants and better design are needed to confirm these findings.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Background: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the Mayo Clinic echocardiographic criteria for differentiating between constrictive pericarditis and restrictive cardiomyopathy. Methods: We searched electronic databases for the date range from their inception to July 1, 2022. The index tests were the Mayo Clinic echocardiographic criteria. We performed a bivariate random-effects model to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity, each with 95% confidence interval (CI). The area under the curve of the summary receiver operator characteristic curves, with 95% CI, was also calculated. Results: We included 17 case-control studies involving 889 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CI), respectively, were as follows: ventricular septal shift, 82% (60%-94%) and 78% (65%-87%); respiratory variation in mitral inflow ≥ 14.6%, 71% (51%-85%) and 82% (66%-91%); septal e' velocity ≥ 8 cm/s, 83% (80%-87%) and 90% (83%-95%); septal e' velocity/lateral e' velocity ≥ 0.88, 74% (64%-82%) and 81% (70%-88%); and hepatic vein ratio in expiration ≥ 0.79, 73% (65%-81%) and 71% (19%-96%). The area under the curve of the summary receiver operator characteristic curves varied from 0.75 to 0.85, with overlapping CIs across index tests. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests that all echocardiographic parameters from the Mayo Clinic criteria have good diagnostic accuracy for differentiating between constrictive pericarditis and restrictive cardiomyopathy.

Contexte: Évaluation de l'exactitude diagnostique des critères échocardiographiques de la clinique Mayo visant à faire la distinction entre une péricardite constrictive et une cardiomyopathie restrictive. Méthodologie: Nous avons effectué une recherche dans des bases de données électroniques pour la période s'étendant de leur date de création au 1er juillet 2022. Les tests de concordance portaient sur les critères échocardiographiques de la clinique Mayo. Nous avons réalisé un modèle à effets aléatoires et à deux variables afin d'estimer la sensibilité et la spécificité en fonction des données regroupées, chacune avec un intervalle de confiance (IC) à 95 %. L'aire sous la courbe des courbes caractéristiques sommaires de la performance du test, avec un IC à 95 %, a également été calculée. Résultats: Nous avons inclus 17 études cas-témoins comptant 889 patients. Selon les données groupées, la sensibilité et la spécificité (IC à 95 %), respectivement, étaient les suivantes : déplacement du septum interventriculaire, 82 % (60 à 94 %) et 78 % (65 à 87 %); variation respiratoire lors du remplissage mitral ≥ 14,6 %, 71 % (51 à 85 %) et 82 % (66 à 91 %); vitesse eʹ mesurée en septal ≥ 8 cm/s, 83 % (80 à 87 %) et 90 % (83 à 95 %); rapport vitesse eʹ mesurée en septal/vitesse eʹ mesurée en latéral ≥ 0,88, 74 % (64 à 82 %) et 81 % (70 à 88 %); et rapport veineux hépatique lors de l'expiration ≥ 0,79, 73 % (65 à 81 %) et 71 % (19 à 96 %). L'aire sous la courbe des courbes caractéristiques sommaires de la performance du test variait de 0,75 à 0,85, avec des IC se chevauchant dans les tests de concordance. Conclusions: Notre méta-analyse laisse entendre que tous les paramètres échocardiographiques de la clinique Mayo ont une bonne exactitude diagnostique pour faire la distinction entre la péricardite constrictive et la cardiomyopathie restrictive.

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether vegetarian diets (VDs) may improve outcomes in people with overweight and obesity. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the effects of VDs vs. omnivore diets on anthropometric, metabolic, and blood pressure outcomes in people with overweight and obesity. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus until February 2, 2022. Primary outcomes were anthropometric risk factors (weight, body mass index [BMI], waist circumference [WC], hip circumference [HC], and body fat percentage). Secondary outcomes were metabolic risk factors (fasting serum glucose, HbA1c, insulin levels) and blood pressure (systolic blood pressure [SBP], diastolic blood pressure [DBP]). Random-effects meta-analyses were performed and effects were expressed as mean difference (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. RESULTS: Nine RCTs (n = 1628) were included. VDs decreased weight (MD -3.60 kg, 95%CI -4.75 to -2.46) and glucose (MD -10.64 mg/dL, 95%CI -15.77 to -5.51), but did not decrease WC (MD -3.00 cm, 95%CI -6.20 to 0.20), BMI (MD -0.87 kg/m2, 95%CI -1.80 to 0.06), or HC (MD: -0.86 cm, 95%CI -3.46 to 1.74). VDs did not decrease HbA1c (MD -0.40%, 95%CI -0.89 to 0.10), insulin (MD -3.83 mU/L, 95%CI -8.06 to 0.40), SBP (MD -0.25 mmHg, 95%CI -2.58 to 2.07), or DBP (MD -1.57 mmHg, 95%CI -3.93 to 0.78). Subgroup analyses by type of VD (four RCTs evaluated lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets and five RCTs vegan diets) showed similar results to the main analyses. QoE was very low for most of the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to an omnivorous diet, VDs may reduce weight and glucose, but not blood pressure or other metabolic or anthropometric outcomes. However, the QoE was mostly very low. Larger RCTs are still needed to evaluate the effects of VD on anthropometric, metabolic factors, and blood pressure in people with overweight and obesity.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Early enteral nutrition through a feeding tube is essential for the management of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). Nasojejunal tube nutrition has been preferred on the assumption that it provided pancreatic rest in comparison to the nasogastric tube. However, nasojejunal tube placement is complex, may delay feeding initiation and can increase hospital costs. Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of enteral feeding with a nasogastric tube versus nasojejunal tube in patients with SAP. We searched four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase) until December 1, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing enteral feeding by nasogastric and nasojejunal tubes in patients with SAP. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were organ failure, infection, complications, surgical intervention, duration of tube feeding and length of hospital stay. Risk of bias assessment was completed independently by two investigators using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We performed random effects model meta-analyses using the inverse variance method. Effect measures were reported as relative risks (RR) and their 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) and their 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We included four RCTs involving 192 patients with SAP. The mean ages ranged between 36 and 62 years old. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the nasogastric and nasojejunal feeding arms (18/98 vs. 23/93; RR 1.34, 95%CI 0.77-2.30; p=0.30). There were no significant differences in all secondary outcomes between feeding arms. There were three RCTs with some concerns of bias, in the randomization process. In conclusion, in patients with SAP, enteral feeding delivered by nasogastric tube was as efficacious and safe as nasojejunal tube. Further randomized controlled trials with more participants and better design are needed to confirm these findings.

La nutrición enteral temprana a través de una sonda de alimentación es esencial para el tratamiento de la pancreatitis aguda severa (PAS). Se ha preferido la nutrición por sonda nasoyeyunal, bajo el supuesto de que proporciona descanso pancreático en comparación con la sonda nasogástrica. Sin embargo, la colocación de la sonda nasoyeyunal es compleja, puede retrasar el inicio de la alimentación y aumentar los costos hospitalarios. Nuestro objetivo fue comparar la eficacia y seguridad de la alimentación enteral con sonda nasogástrica versus sonda nasoyeyunal en pacientes con PAS. Se realizaron búsquedas en cuatro bases de datos (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus y Embase) hasta el 1 de diciembre de 2022. Se incluyeron ensayos controlados aleatorios (ECA) que compararon la alimentación enteral mediante sondas nasogástricas y nasoyeyunales en pacientes con PAS. El resultado primario fue la mortalidad por todas las causas. Los resultados secundarios fueron insuficiencia orgánica, infección, complicaciones, intervención quirúrgica, duración de la alimentación por sonda y duración de la estancia hospitalaria. Dos investigadores completaron de forma independiente la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo mediante la herramienta Cochrane RoB 2.0. Realizamos metanálisis de modelos de efectos aleatorios utilizando el método de varianza inversa. Las medidas del efecto se informaron como riesgos relativos (RR) y sus IC del 95% para resultados dicotómicos y diferencias de medias (DM) y sus IC del 95% para resultados continuos. Se incluyeron cuatro ECA con 192 pacientes con PAS. La edad media osciló entre 36 y 62 años. No hubo diferencias significativas en la mortalidad por todas las causas entre los brazos de alimentación nasogástrica y nasoyeyunal Cambiar lo resaltado por: (18/98 vs. 23/93; RR 1.34, 95%CI 0.77-2.30; p=0.30). No hubo diferencias significativas en todos los resultados secundarios entre los brazos de alimentación. Hubo tres ECA con algunas preocupaciones de sesgo en el proceso de asignación aleatorizado. En conclusión, en pacientes con PAS, la alimentación enteral administrada por sonda nasogástrica fue tan eficaz y segura como la sonda nasoyeyunal. Se necesitan más ensayos controlados aleatorios con más participantes y mejor diseño para confirmar estos hallazgos.

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The use of integrase inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy could be associated with worse weight and metabolic outcomes in patients with HIV infection. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched from inception to March 2022. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing integrase inhibitors with other antiretroviral classes (efavirenz-based or protease inhibitor-based therapies) in naïve HIV patients. Random effects meta-analysis was used to assess the effects of integrase inhibitors vs. controls on weight and lipid outcomes. Effects were described as mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Certain pieces of evidence (CoE) were evaluated using the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Six RCTs (n = 3521) were included, with patients followed up between 48 and 96 weeks. The use of integrase inhibitors in comparison with other antiretroviral classes was associated with an increase in weight (MD 2.15 kg, 95%CI 1.40 to 2.90, I2 = 0%, moderate CoE), and decreases in total cholesterol (MD -13.44 mg/dL, 95%CI -23.49 to -3.39, I2 = 96%, low CoE), LDL cholesterol (MD -1.37 mg/dL, 95%CI -19.24 to -3.50, I2 = 83%, low CoE), HDL cholesterol (MD -5.03 mg/dL, 95%CI -10.61 to 0.54, I2 = 95%, low CoE), and triglycerides (MD -20.70 mg/dL, 95%CI -37.25 to -4.15, I2 = 92%, low CoE). There was a high risk of bias in two RCTs and some concerns about bias in two RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: In HIV patients, the use of integrase inhibitor-based therapy in comparison with protease inhibitor- or NNRTI-based therapy was associated with a small increase in weight and small decreases in lipid serum levels.

RESUMO

We assessed the effects of hypertonic saline solution (HSS) plus furosemide versus furosemide alone in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). We searched four electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) until June 30, 2022. The quality of evidence (QoE) was assessed using the GRADE approach. All meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. A trial sequential analysis (TSA) was also conducted for intermediate and biomarker outcomes. Ten RCTs involving 3013 patients were included. HSS plus furosemide significantly reduced the length of hospital stay (mean difference [MD]: -3.60 days; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.56 to -2.64; QoE: moderate), weight (MD: -2.34 kg; 95% CI: -3.15 to -1.53; QoE: moderate), serum creatinine (MD: -0.41 mg/dL; 95% CI: -0.49 to -0.33; QoE: low), and type-B natriuretic peptide (MD: -124.26 pg/mL; 95% CI: -207.97 to -40.54; QoE: low) compared to furosemide alone. HSS plus furosemide significantly increased urine output (MD: 528.57 mL/24 h; 95% CI: 431.90 to 625.23; QoE: moderate), serum Na+ (MD: 6.80 mmol/L; 95% CI: 4.92 to 8.69; QoE: low), and urine Na+ (MD: 54.85 mmol/24 h; 95% CI: 46.31 to 63.38; QoE: moderate) compared to furosemide alone. TSA confirmed the benefit of HSS plus furosemide. Due to the heterogeneity in mortality and heart failure readmission, meta-analysis was not performed. Our study shows that HSS plus furosemide, compared to furosemide alone, improved surrogated outcomes in ADHF patients with low or intermediate QoE. Adequately powered RCTs are still needed to assess the benefit on heart failure readmission and mortality.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials evaluating the effect of probiotics on cardiovascular intermediate outcomes have been scarce in recent years. We systematically evaluated the efficacy of probiotics on intermediate cardiovascular outcomes in patients with overweight or obesity. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in four databases (until August 2021) that evaluated the effects of probiotics versus controls on intermediate cardiovascular outcomes. The outcomes were body mass index (BMI), weight, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), glucose, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels. Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were used. The effects were reported as mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The quality of evidence (QoE) was assessed with GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations) methodology. RESULTS: A total of 25 RCTs were included (n = 2170), with a range of follow-up from two to six months. Probiotics likely reduced BMI (MD -0.27 kg/m2, 95%CI: -0.35 to -0.19; 17 RCTs; I2 = 26%, QoE: moderate), as well as likely reduced weight (MD -0.61 kg, 95%CI: -0.89 to -0.34; 15 RCTs; I2 = 0%, QoE: moderate), and may have slightly reduce LDL (MD -4.08 mg/dL; 95%CI: -6.99 to -1.17; 9 RCTs; I2 = 87%, QoE: low) in comparison to the controls. However, probiotics had no effect on SBP (MD -0.40 mmHg; 95%CI: -5.04 to 4.25; 7 RCTs; I2 = 100%, QoE: very low), DBP (MD -1.73 mmHg; 95%CI: -5.29 to 1.82; 5 RCTs; I2 = 98%, QoE: very low), glucose (MD -0.07 mg/dL; 95%CI -0.89 to 0.75; I2 = 96%, QoE: very low), HDL (MD -1.83 mg/dL; 95%CI: -4.14 to 2.47; 14 RCTs; I2 = 98%, QoE: very low), or triglycerides (MD -3.29 mg/dL, 95%CI -17.03 to 10.45; 14 RCTs, I2 = 95%, QoE: very low) compared to control arms, and the evidence was very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: In obese or overweight patients, BMI, weight, and LDL were lower in patients who received probiotics compared to those who received controls. Other lipids, glucose, and blood pressure were not affected by the probiotics.