Dataset Information

TAVR in Cancer Patients: Comprehensive Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression.

ABSTRACT: Objectives: This study sought to systematically analyze the available clinical evidence on TAVR therapy in cancer patients with symptomatic severe AS. Background: Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease in the world. TAVR has expanded the treatment options for this lethal disease process. The safety and efficacy of TAVR in cancer patients has not yet been reliably established. We thus conducted the largest known multi-center meta-analysis on TAVR and cancer status. Methods: We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2015 to 2020. Studies that compared the use of TAVR in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and cancer against patients without cancer were included. Meta-regression was also conducted to determine if common clinical factors modified the possible association between cancer status and TAVR mortality. Results: Five studies with 11,129 patients in the cancer group and 41,706 patients in the control group met inclusion criteria. The short-term mortality in the cancer group was 2.4% compared with 3.3% in the control group (odds ratio: 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.63-0.82; p < 0.0001). The frequency of stroke was 2.4% compared with 2.7% (odds ratio of 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.76-0.99; p < 0.04). The frequency of AKI was 14.2% in cancer patients vs. 16.4% (odds ratio of 0.81, 95% confidence interval: 0.76-0.85; p < 0.04). The rates of bleeding and need for new pacemaker implantation were not significantly different. Meta-regression demonstrated there was no significant association modifying. Conclusions: On the basis of the results of this meta-analysis TAVR may be a safe and effective therapeutic option for patients with cancer and symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Larger, longer, and randomized trials are required to adequately test this above hypothesis.

SUBMITTER: Marmagkiolis K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8371265 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeResistance exercise improves an array of treatment-related adverse effects in men with prostate cancer; however, the minimal dosage required is unknown. We systematically reviewed the resistance training effects in prostate cancer patients to determine the minimal dosage regarding the exercise components (type, duration, volume, and intensity) on body composition, physical function, muscle strength, cardiorespiratory fitness, body mass index, and prostate-specific antigen.MethodsUsing PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases were searched. Eligible randomized controlled trials examined prostate cancer patients undertaking resistance-based exercise programs during or after treatment. Meta-analysis was undertaken when more than three studies were included. Associations between mean differences and exercise components were tested by univariate and multivariate meta-regression analysis.ResultsTwenty-three articles describing 21 trials and involving 1748 prostate cancer patients were included. Exercise improved fat mass (-1% in body fat and -0.6 kg in fat mass), lean mass (~0.5 kg in lean and appendicular lean mass), functional capacity (i.e., chair rise, 400-m test, 6-m fast walk, and stair climb tests), and fitness outcomes (i.e., V?O2peak and muscle strength) (P = 0.040-<0.001) with no change in body mass index or prostate-specific antigen (P = 0.440-0.735). Meta-regression indicated no association between exercise type, resistance training duration, weekly volume and intensity, and primary outcomes (P = 0.075-0.965). There was a significant association between exercise intensity and chest press muscle strength (favoring moderate intensity, P = 0.012), but not in other secondary outcomes.ConclusionIn untrained older men with prostate cancer initiating an exercise program, lower volume at moderate to high intensity is as effective as higher volume resistance training for enhancing body composition, functional capacity, and muscle strength in the short term. A low exercise dosage may help reduce barriers to exercise and enhance adherence.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at high risk of fatal outcomes. This meta-analysis quantifies the prevalence of mortality among (1) diabetic and (2) non-diabetic, and (3) the prevalence of DM, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.MethodsPublished studies were retrieved from four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and medRxiv) and appraised critically utilizing the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's tool. Meta-analyses were performed using the random-effects model. The measures of heterogeneity were ascertained by I- squared (I 2 ) and Chi-squared (Chi 2 ) tests statistics. Predictors of heterogeneity were quantified using meta-regression models.ResultsOf the reviewed 475 publications, 22 studies (chiefly case series (59.09 %)), sourcing data of 45,775 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, were deemed eligible. The weighted prevalence of mortality in hospitlized COVID-19 patients with DM (20.0 %, 95 % CI: 15.0-26.0; I 2 , 96.8 %) was 82 % (1.82-time) higher than that in non-DM patients (11.0 %, 95 % CI: 5.0-16.0; I 2 , 99.3 %). The prevalence of mortality among DM patients was highest in Europe (28.0 %; 95 % CI: 14.0-44.0) followed by the United States (20.0 %, 95 % CI: 11.0-32.0) and Asia (17.0 %, 95 % CI: 8.0-28.0). Sample size and severity of the COVID-19 were associated (p < 0.05) with variability in the prevalence of mortality. The weighted prevalence of DM among hospitalized COVID-19 patients was 20 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 15-25, I 2 , 99.3 %). Overall, the quality of the studies was fair.ConclusionsHospitalized COVID-19 patients were appreciably burdened with a high prevalence of DM. DM contributed to the increased risk of mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to non-DM patients, particularly among critically ill patients. Registration: PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42020196589).Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-021-00779-2.

Project description:BackgroundWe performed a systematic review of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, which analysed the effect of tracheostomy timing and technique (surgical vs percutaneous) on mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), decannulation from tracheostomy, duration of mechanical ventilation, and complications.MethodsFour databases were screened between January 1, 2020 and January 10, 2022 (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane). Papers were selected according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Population or Problem, Intervention or exposure, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) guidelines. Meta-analysis and meta-regression for main outcomes were performed.ResultsThe search yielded 9024 potentially relevant studies, of which 47 (n=5268 patients) were included. High levels of between-study heterogeneity were observed across study outcomes. The pooled mean tracheostomy timing was 16.5 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.7-18.4; I2=99.6%). Pooled mortality was 22.1% (95% CI: 18.7-25.5; I2=89.0%). Meta-regression did not show significant associations between mortality and tracheostomy timing, mechanical ventilation duration, time to decannulation, and tracheostomy technique. Pooled mean estimates for ICU and hospital LOS were 29.6 (95% CI: 24.0-35.2; I2=98.6%) and 38.8 (95% CI: 32.1-45.6; I2=95.7%) days, both associated with mechanical ventilation duration (coefficient 0.8 [95% CI: 0.2-1.4], P=0.02 and 0.9 [95% CI: 0.4-1.4], P=0.01, respectively) but not tracheostomy timing. Data were insufficient to assess tracheostomy technique on LOS. Duration of mechanical ventilation was 23.4 days (95% CI: 19.2-27.7; I2=99.3%), not associated with tracheostomy timing. Data were insufficient to assess the effect of tracheostomy technique on mechanical ventilation duration. Time to decannulation was 23.8 days (95% CI: 19.7-27.8; I2=98.7%), not influenced by tracheostomy timing or technique. The most common complications were stoma infection, ulcers or necrosis, and bleeding.ConclusionsIn patients with COVID-19 requiring tracheostomy, the timing and technique of tracheostomy did not clearly impact on patient outcomes.Systematic review protocolPROSPERO CRD42021272220.

Dataset Information

TAVR in Cancer Patients: Comprehensive Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets