Safety of different electrocautery modes for endoscopic sphincterotomy: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background and aims
Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography acute pancreatitis (PAP) and post-sphincterotomy hemorrhage are known adverse events of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Various electrosurgical currents can be used for endoscopic sphincterotomy. The extent to which this influences adverse events remains unclear. We assessed the comparative safety of different electrosurgical currents, through a Bayesian network meta-analysis of published studies merging direct and indirect comparison of trials.Methods
We performed a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the safety of different electrocautery modes for endoscopic sphincterotomy.Results
Nine studies comparing four electrocautery modes (blended cut, pure cut, endocut, and pure cut followed by blended cut) with a combined enrollment of 1615 patients were included. The pooled results of the network meta-analysis did not show a significant difference in preventing post-sphincterotomy pancreatitis when comparing electrocautery modes. However, pure cut was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of bleeding compared with endocut [relative risk = 4.30; 95% confidence interval (1.53-12.87)]. On the other hand, the pooled results of the network meta-analysis showed no significant difference in prevention of bleeding when comparing blended cut versus endocut, pure cut followed by blended cut versus endocut, pure cut followed by blended cut versus blended cut, pure cut versus blended cut, and pure cut versus pure cut followed by blended cut. The results of rank probability found that endocut was most likely to be ranked the best.Conclusion
No electrocautery mode was superior to another with regard to preventing PAP. Endocut was superior with respect to preventing bleeding. Therefore, we suggest performing endoscopic sphincterotomy with endocut.
SUBMITTER: Hedjoudje A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8725216 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundEndoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is the standard treatment for common bile duct stones. The reported findings regarding complications, such as biliary pancreatitis and cholangitis, differ between cholecystectomy after ES. The purpose of this study is to compare cholecystectomy outcomes after endoscopic treatment of common bile duct stones whether or not the incidence of recurrent pancreatitis and cholangitis is reduced, especially in high-risk patients.MethodsWe analyzed 8 studies, including 7 randomized controlled trials retrieved from the PubMed (1990-2019), Embase (1990-2019), and Cochrane (1990-2019) databases for trials comparing the two strategies for treatment of gallstones after ES. A related study on gallbladder removal after ES was acquired, followed by analysis of each group using RevMan. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for categorical variables and differences in means were calculated for continuous variables.ResultsWe retrieved a total of 8 studies, including seven randomized controlled trials and one retrospective study. A total of 12,717 patients were included in the study (4922 in the early cholecystectomy group and 7795 in the gallbladder in situ group). During the follow-up period, 41 patients had pancreatitis after ES in the cholecystectomy group and 177 patients in the wait-and-see group. The incidence of pancreatitis in the cholecystectomy group was significantly reduced (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.27-0.53; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%). The incidence of cholangitis and jaundice in the cholecystectomy group was also less than the preserved gallbladder group (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.26-0.38; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%). There was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52-1.02; P = 0.07; I2 = 14%). There was a significant difference in cholecystitis and biliary colic (RR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.24-0.32; P < 0.00001; I2 = 17%).ConclusionEarly cholecystectomy after removal of common bile duct stones can effectively reduce biliary complications. This is still true for high-risk patients and has no significant effect on the mortality of patients. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is recommended after ES.
| S-EPMC7367327 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims The optimal technique for removal of large common bile duct (CBD) stones (≥ 10 mm) during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains unclear. We aimed to perform a comparative analysis between different endoscopic techniques. Methods Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a stringent search of the following databases through January 12, 2021, were undertaken: PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane. Randomized controlled trials comparing the following endoscopic techniques were included: (1) Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST); (2) Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD); and (3) EST plus large balloon dilation (ESLBD). Stone clearance rate (SCR) on index ERCP was the primary outcome/endpoint. Need for mechanical lithotripsy (ML) and adverse events were also evaluated as secondary endpoint. Random effects model and frequentist approach were used for statistical analysis. Results A total of 16 studies with 2545 patients (1009 in EST group, 588 in EPLBD group, and 948 patients in ESLBD group) were included. The SCR was significantly higher in ESLBD compared to EST risk ratio [RR]: 1.11, [confidence interval] CI: 1.00-1.24). Lower need for ML was noted for ESLBD (RR: 0.48, CI: 0.31-0.74) and EPLBD (RR: 0.58, CI: 0.34-0.98) compared to EST. All other outcomes including bleeding, perforation, post-ERCP pancreatitis, stone recurrence, cholecystitis, cholangitis, and mortality did not show significant difference between the three groups. Based on network ranking, ESLBD was superior in terms of SCR as well as lower need for ML and adverse events (AEs). Conclusions Based on network meta-analysis, ESLBD seems to be superior with higher SCR and lower need for ML and AEs for large CBD stones.
| S-EPMC9754880 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a common autoimmune disease with acquired neuromuscular transmission disorders. Recently, monoclonal antibodies have been shown to successfully treat a variety of diseases. Methods: In this meta-analysis, an appropriate search strategy was used to search eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on different monoclonal antibodies to treat patients with MG published up to September 2021 from the embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library. We assessed the average difference or odds ratio between each drug and placebo and summarized them as the average and 95% confidence interval (CI), respectively. Results: In indicators of efficacy, patients receiving eculizumab (MD, -1.9; 95% CI, -3.2-0.76) had decreases in MG-ADL scores compared to placebo. In addition, only eculizumab (MD, -3.1; 95% CI, -4.7-1.5) and efgartigimod (MD, -1.4; 95% CI, -2.1-0.68) showed a significant difference from placebo in the amount of reduction in QMG scores, while neither of the other two monoclonal antibodies was statistically significant. With regard to the safety of monoclonal antibody therapy, there was no significant difference in the probability of AE in subjects treated with any of the four monoclonal antibodies compared to placebo. Conclusions: eculizumab was effective in reducing MG-ADL scores and QMG scores in myasthenia gravis. Meanwhile, eculizumab also caused fewer AE. As an emerging therapy, monoclonal antibodies are prospective in the treatment of MG. However, more researches are required to be invested in the future as the results obtained from small sample sizes are not reliable enough.
| S-EPMC8804097 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo comprehensively compare and assess the effects of different lumbar fusion techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to December 24, 2022 in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were pain (pain, low back pain, and leg pain), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, reoperation, and fusion. Network plots illustrated the direct and indirect comparisons of different fusion techniques for the outcomes. League tables showed the comparisons of any two fusion techniques, based on both direct and indirect evidence. The efficacy of each fusion technique for LSS was ranked by rank probabilities.ResultsTotally 29 studies involving 2,379 patients were eligible. For pain, percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) was most likely to be the best technique, followed by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF) had the greatest likelihood to be the optimal technique for low back pain, followed sequentially by MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-PLIF), XLIF, Endo-TLIF, TLIF, oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). MIS-PLIF was ranked the most effective technique concerning leg pain, followed by Endo-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, TLIF, Endo-PLIF, PLIF, OLIF, PLF, and XLIF. As regards JOA scores, Endo-TLIF had the maximum probability to be the best technique, followed by MIS-TLIF and TLIF. Endo-PLIF had the greatest likelihood to be the optimum technique for complications, followed by TLIF, MIS-TLIF, Endo-TLIF, OLIF, and XLIF.ConclusionMinimally invasive fusion techniques may be effective in the treatment of LSS, compared with traditional techniques. Minimally invasive techniques were likely non-inferior with regards to postoperative complications.
| S-EPMC10652640 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding is a common complication of biliary sphincterotomy, and the incidence varies from 1% to 48%. It can be challenging to localize the bleeder or to administer various interventions through a side-viewing endoscope. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors of post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding and the outcome of endoscopic intervention therapies. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 513 patients who underwent biliary sphincterotomy in Mackay Memorial Hospital between 2011 and 2016. The blood biochemistry, comorbidities, indication for sphincterotomy, severity of bleeding, endoscopic features of bleeder, and type of endoscopic therapy were analyzed. Post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding occurred in 65 (12.6%) patients. Forty-five patients had immediate bleeding and 20 patients had delayed bleeding. The multivariate analysis of risk factors associated with post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding were liver cirrhosis (P = 0.029), end-stage renal disease (P = 0.038), previous antiplatelet drug use (P<0.001), and duodenal ulcer (P = 0.023). The complications of pancreatitis and cholangitis were higher in the bleeding group, with statistical significance. Delayed bleeding occurred within 1 to 7 days (mean, 2.5 days), and 60% (12/20) of the patients received endoscopic evaluation. In the delayed bleeding group, the successful hemostasis rate was 71.4% (5/7), and 65% (13/20) of the patients had ceased bleeding without endoscopic hemostasis therapy. Comparison of different therapeutic modalities showed that cholangitis was higher in patients who received epinephrine spray (P = 0.042) and pancreatitis was higher in patients who received epinephrine injection and electrocoagulation (P = 0.041 and P = 0.039 respectively). Clinically, post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding and further endoscopic hemostasis therapy increase the complication rate of pancreatitis and cholangitis. Realizing the effectiveness of each therapeutic modalities and appropriate management of different levels bleeding are important.
| S-EPMC5435171 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionTension-type headache (TTH) is the most prevalent neurological disease, with an estimated 1.5 billion cases worldwide. Pharmacotherapy should be considered by patients with TTH who have a limited response to non-pharmacological treatment. However, recommendations for the vast array of therapeutic drugs for TTH partially overlap, with conflicting recommendations for strength in different guidelines; these may confuse the decision-making process of clinicians. Hence, the aims of this study are to analyse the available direct and indirect evidence on different drug monotherapies for TTH in adults, and to generate a treatment ranking according to their efficacy and safety outcomes by using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).Methods and analysisWe will systematically search the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China Biomedical Literature Database, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and other resources for eligible studies. Randomised controlled trials on different drug monotherapies for TTH will be included. Two review authors (RX and YW) will independently search and select the studies, extract the data and assess the risk of bias. A Bayesian NMA will afterwards be conducted to pool the effect measures across all types of monotherapy drugs. The ranking probabilities of the efficacy and safety of different drug monotherapies will be estimated. Heterogeneity will be quantified using the Q statistic and the I² index. Inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence will be assessed by the node-splitting model. In addition, the overall quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical issues are foreseen. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, which will be disseminated electronically and in print.Prospero registration numberCRD42018090554.
| S-EPMC6340443 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND/AIMS:Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has recently come to the forefront in the management of achalasia. We aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of the use of electrocautery enhanced scissors (EES) for POEM. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study prospectively collected the data of all adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with normal foregut anatomy who underwent POEM using EES. The patients' baseline characteristics and procedure details (time, tunnel length, myotomy length, depth, and location) were recorded. The primary outcome was clinical success (3-month post-procedure Eckardt score of ≤3). The secondary outcomes were technical success and adverse events. A paired Student's t-test was performed. RESULTS:Fifteen patients were included in this study. The technical success rate of myotomy using EES was 100%. Fellows participated in the myotomy in all cases. The clinical success rate was 93.3% (14/15). The mean pre-Eckardt score was 5.4±2.5, while the mean post-Eckardt score was 1.3±1.3, which indicated a significant improvement (p≤0.0001). The most common treatment-related adverse events were post-procedure pain (4, 26.7%) and symptomatic reflux disease (4, 26.7%). CONCLUSION:In the largest series to date on the use of EES in POEM, we demonstrated that this technique has both technical and clinical efficacy as well as an excellent safety profile.
| S-EPMC7403010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture can be treated surgically or non-surgically, with several surgical interventions available at present. However, the comparatively effective surgical intervention with relatively fewer side effects remains unknown. This study aims to fill in this gap by conducting a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) and provide a theoretical basis for the clinical application.Method and analysisWe will perform a Bayesian NMA and will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English or Chinese that compare surgical intervention (ie, standard ACL reconstruction, ACL remnant-preserving reconstruction and ACL repair with suture augmentation to conservative therapy or studies that compare one surgical intervention to another for the symptom relief and function recovery of patients with ACL rupture. Primary outcome will be the proportion of patients with symptomatic and functional improvement measured by the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score before and 6 months after treatment, with scores ranging from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Secondary outcomes will be knee-specific quality of life (ACL QoL), return to activity and level of sport participation (Tegner or modified Tegner score), health-related QoL (EuroQol Group 5-Dimension 5-Level, EQ-5D-5L), resource use, intervention-related complications and patient satisfaction. We have developed search strategies for PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science, retrieving RCTs that meet the inclusion criteria from database inception to 1 December 2023. The methodological quality of the included RCTs will be assessed based on the Cochrane risk of bias table. The relative ranking probability of the best intervention will be estimated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. The Bayesian NMA will be conducted by using WinBUGS V.1.4.3. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be applied to determine our confidence in an overall treatment ranking from the NMA.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this study is not required because no private or confidential patient data will be used in this study. Findings of this study would be disseminated through the publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42023437115.
| S-EPMC10982744 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Parkinson's disease (PD) is a common, chronic, progressive, debilitating neurodegenerative disease. The current levodopa treatment requires the addition of other drugs, such as catechol-O-methyl transferase (COMT) inhibitors, to alleviate motor fluctuations in advanced PD. Therefore, a theoretical reference for treatment is urgently needed. In this study, an appropriate search strategy was used to screen eligible studies on different drugs to treat patients with PD from the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library. The publication dates were from January 1990 to June 2021. We integrated eligible randomized controlled trials, and statistical analysis was performed on three kinds of effectiveness outcomes and two types of safety outcomes. We assessed the average difference or odds ratio between each drug and placebo and summarized them as the average and 95% confidence interval (CI), respectively. In terms of efficacy, entacapone (mean difference [MD], 0.64 h; 95% CI, 0.29-1.0), opicapone (MD, 0.92 h; 95% CI, 0.35-1.5), and tolcapone (MD, 3.2 h; 95% CI, 2.1-4.2) increased patients' total ON-time compared to placebo. Tolcapone (MD, -100 mg; 95% CI -160 to -45) reduced the total daily dose of levodopa therapy. None of these three drugs was found to have statistical significance in mean change from baseline in UPDRS part III scores when compared with others. In terms of safety, tolcapone (MD, 3.8; 95% CI, 2.1-6.8), opicapone (MD, 3.7; 95% CI, 2-7.2), and entacapone (MD, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.5-3.3) increased the number of cases of dyskinesia compared to placebo. Entacapone (MD, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.2) and tolcapone (MD, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.3-15) were more likely to cause adverse events than placebo. In conclusion, opicapone showed higher efficiency and fewer safety problems in five indicators we selected when compared with the other two drugs.
| S-EPMC8497751 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Conventional systematic reviews have indicated that corticosteroids might result in a slight reduction in mortality in sepsis. However, the efficacy, safety, and optimal regimen of different corticosteroids partly remain unknown. In this study, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis for a head-to-head comparison of the therapeutic efficacy and safety of currently used corticosteroids in sepsis. Design:A Bayesian network meta-analysis for a head-to-head comparison of the therapeutic efficacy and safety of currently used corticosteroids in sepsis. Setting:A total of 35 eligible randomized controlled trials of corticosteroid use in sepsis. Patients:The present Bayesian network meta-analysis included 8,859 patients with sepsis. Interventions:Randomized controlled trials were screened from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to December 28, 2019. A head-to-head comparison of the therapeutic efficacy and safety between the different categories of corticosteroids from the trials was conducted by Bayesian network meta-analysis. An empirical Bayesian meta-regression and a post hoc Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed to explore the appropriate dose and therapeutic duration of steroids for sepsis. Measurements and Main Results:A total of 35 randomized controlled trials including 8,859 patients with sepsis were enrolled in the final analysis. Bayesian network meta-analysis revealed that methylprednisolone and dexamethasone might be more effective in reducing short-term mortality in sepsis than placebo: methylprednisolone versus placebo (relative risk, 0.65, 95% credible interval 0.40-0.93), dexamethasone versus placebo (relative risk, 0.42, 95% credible interval, 0.24-0.84). Hydrocortisone and hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone were superior to placebo in days to shock resolution (e-Table 5, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/CCX/A150): hydrocortisone versus placebo (mean difference, -1.70, 95% credible interval, -2.83 to -0.92), hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone versus placebo (mean difference, -2.54, 95% credible interval, -4.19 to -0.84). Hydrocortisone was superior to placebo in reducing the length of stay in the ICU (mean difference, -1.43, 95% credible interval, -3.36 to -0.15). Methylprednisolone was superior to placebo in improving ventilation-free days (mean difference, 7.71, 95% credible interval, 1.15-14.42). In addition, further analysis indicated that the optimal therapeutic dosage was 200-400?mg per day of hydrocortisones or equivalents (relative risk, 0.83, 95% credible interval, 0.64-0.98), and the appropriate therapeutic duration was 4-7 days (relative risk, 0.78; 95% credible interval, 0.57-0.96). Conclusions:This study provided moderate evidence that the dosage of 200-400?mg per day of hydrocortisone or equivalent for 4-7 days was most likely to benefit septic patients.
| S-EPMC7188436 | biostudies-literature