Dataset Information

Systematic review and meta-analysis: Efficacy and safety of POEM for achalasia.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic esophageal myotomy (POEM) represents a less invasive alternative, as compared with conventional laparoscopic Heller myotomy for treating achalasia patients. In the last years, a number of prospective and retrospective experiences with POEM use for achalasia have been published. METHODS: Relevant publications in which patients affected by achalasia underwent POEM treatment were identified by PubMed databases for the period 2010 - 2013. From each study, we extracted the number and type of major complications (defined as those requiring any additional medical or surgical intervention). Data were pooled, using random-effects models. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed by using Cochran's Q and the I (2) statistic. RESULTS: We found 16 studies that provided data on 551 patients. The median surveillance period was 6 months (range: 3-12). The median of mean POEM duration was 156 minutes (range: 42-112). Median myotomy length was 10?cm (range: 6-14). Technical and clinical success were reported in 97% (95% CI: 94-98%) and 93% (407/428; 95% CI: 90-95%). No heterogeneity (I (2?)=?0%) or publication bias was present in both estimates. When limiting the analysis only to adverse events that require medical or surgical interventions, major adverse events occurred in 14% (95% CI: 11-17%); however, only one patient needed post-POEM surgery (0.2%; 95% CI: 0-0.5%). CONCLUSIONS: POEM appeared to be a highly feasible and effective endoscopic treatment for achalasia. Despite POEM being apparently associated with relatively high morbidity, most patients are successfully managed conservatively, so that POEM appears as a very safe procedure; however, POEM should only be performed in centers able to treat POEM complications, such as pneumothorax or pneumoperitoneum.

SUBMITTER: Barbieri LA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4528214 | biostudies-other | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review and meta-analysis: Efficacy and safety of POEM for achalasia.

Barbieri Lavinia A LA Hassan Cesare C Rosati Riccardo R Romario Uberto Fumagalli UF Correale Loredana L Repici Alessandro A Repici Alessandro A

United European gastroenterology journal 20150801 4

<h4>Background</h4>Peroral endoscopic esophageal myotomy (POEM) represents a less invasive alternative, as compared with conventional laparoscopic Heller myotomy for treating achalasia patients. In the last years, a number of prospective and retrospective experiences with POEM use for achalasia have been published.<h4>Methods</h4>Relevant publications in which patients affected by achalasia underwent POEM treatment were identified by PubMed databases for the period 2010 - 2013. From each study, ...[more]

PMID: 26279840

Similar Datasets

Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.

Project description:BackgroundCefepime is a fourth-generation cephalosporin antibiotic used to treat a variety of infections. The US Food and Drug Administration approved its use in certain types of infections among pediatric patients, and yet there have been mixed data about its efficacy and safety in this population.ObjectiveThe objective of this review is to compare efficacy and all-cause mortality of cefepime to other clinically indicated antibiotics among children.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, and clinicaltrials.gov databases through February 8, 2016. We included randomized controlled trials comparing cefepime to other clinical antibiotics, placebo, or no treatment in children aged 0-19 years in the inpatient setting with clinical signs of infection. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were success rate, treatment failure, and incidence of adverse events. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.ResultsSeventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. There was a total of 1,285 participants included, 624 participants in the cefepime arm and 661 in the comparison arm. A random effects meta-analysis for all-cause mortality showed no difference in rates of mortality between cefepime and comparator antibiotics with a mortality risk ratio of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.71-1.08). For the secondary outcomes of success rate and treatment failure, a random effects model meta-analysis conducted of the studies showed no difference in rate between cefepime and comparator antibiotics with an overall risk ratio of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.92-1.05) and 1.04 (95% CI: 0.91-1.19), respectively. Adverse events were not statistically assessed given widespread heterogeneity. Overall, the studies had unclear risk of bias and were limited by high heterogeneity and methodological flaws.ConclusionThe efficacy and safety of cefepime in pediatric patients remain unclear despite the inclusion of newer trials since the last index systematic review conducted a decade ago.

Dataset Information

Systematic review and meta-analysis: Efficacy and safety of POEM for achalasia.

Publications

Systematic review and meta-analysis: Efficacy and safety of POEM for achalasia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets