-
1.
Tranexamic acid for percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Cleveland, B., Norling, B., Wang, H., Gandhi, V., Price, C. L., Borofsky, M. S., Pais, V., Dahm, P.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2023;10(10):Cd015122
-
-
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the gold standard for the treatment of large kidney stones but comes with an increased risk of bleeding compared to other treatments, such as ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent that has been used to reduce bleeding complications in other settings. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of TXA in individuals with kidney stones undergoing PCNL. SEARCH METHODS We performed a comprehensive literature search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed (including MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus, Global Index Medicus, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings. We applied no restrictions on the language of publication nor publication status. The latest search date was 11 May 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with PCNL with administration of TXA to placebo (or no TXA) for patients ≥ 18 years old. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. Primary outcomes were: blood transfusion, stone-free rate (SFR), and thromboembolic events (TEEs). Secondary outcomes were: adverse events (AEs), secondary interventions, major surgical complications, minor surgical complications, unplanned hospitalizations or readmissions, and hospital length of stay (LOS). We performed statistical analyzes using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) according to the GRADE approach using a minimally contextualized approach with predefined thresholds for minimally clinically important differences (MCIDs). MAIN RESULTS We analyzed 10 RCTs assessing the effect of systemic TXA in PCNL versus placebo (or no TXA) with 1883 randomized participants. Eight studies were published as full text. One was published in abstract proceedings, but it was separated into two separate studies for the purpose of our analyzes. Average stone surface area ranged 3.45 to 6.62 cm(2). We also found a single RCT published in full text assessing the effects of topical TXA in PCNL versus placebo (or no TXA) with 400 randomized participants, the results of which are further described in the review. Here we focus only on the results of TXA used systemically. Blood transfusion - Based on a representative baseline risk of 5.7% for blood transfusions taken from a large presentative observational studies, systemic TXA may reduce blood transfusions (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.76; I(2) = 28%; 9 studies, 1353 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 2%. Based on 57 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) being transfused, this corresponds to 31 fewer (from 42 fewer to 14 fewer) participants being transfused per 1000. Stone-free rate - Based on a representative baseline risk of 75.7% for SFR, systemic TXA may increase SFRs (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; I(2) = 62%; 4 studies, 603 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 5%. Based on 757 participants per 1000 being stone free with placebo (or no TXA), this corresponds to 83 more (from 15 fewer to 204 more) stone-free participants per 1000. Thromboembolic events - There is probably no difference in TEEs (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; I(2) = 0%; 6 studies, 841 participants; moderate CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 2%. Since there were no thromboembolic events in intervention and/or control groups in 5 out of6 studies, we opted to assess a risk difference with systemic TXA for this outcome. Adverse events - Systemic TXA may increase AEs (RR 5.22, 95% CI 0.52 to 52.72; I(2) = 75%; 4 studies, 602 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 5%. Based on 23 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) having an adverse event, this corresponds to 98 more (from 11 fewer to 1000 more) participants with adverse events per 1000. Secondary interventions - Systemic TXA may have little to no effect on secondary interventions (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.57; I(2) = 0%; 2 studies, 319 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 5%. Based on 278 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) having a secondary intervention, this corresponds to 42 more (from 44 fewer to 158 more) participants with secondary interventions per 1000. Major surgical complications - Based on a representative baseline risk for major surgical complications of 4.1%, systemic TXA may reduce major surgical complications (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62; I(2) = 0%; 5 studies, 733 participants; moderate CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 2%. Based on 41 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) having a major surgical complication, this corresponds to 26 fewer (from 32 fewer to 16 fewer) participants with major surgical complications per 1000. Minor surgical complications - Systemic TXA may reduce minor surgical complications (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; I(2) = 76%; 5 studies, 733 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 5%. Based on 396 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) having a minor surgical complication, this corresponds to 115 fewer (from 218 fewer to 40 more) participants with minor surgical complications per 1000. Unplanned hospitalizations or readmissions - We are very uncertain how unplanned hospitalizations or readmissions are affected (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.31; I(2) = not applicable; 1 study, 189 participants; very low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 2%. Hospital length of stay - Systemic TXA may reduce hospital LOS (mean difference 0.52 days lower, 95% CI 0.93 lower to 0.11 lower; I(2) = 98%; 7 studies, 1151 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 0.5 days. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Based on 10 RCTs with substantial methodological limitations that lowered all CoE of effect, we found that systemic TXA in PCNL may reduce blood transfusions, major and minor surgical complications, and hospital LOS, as well as improve SFRs; however, it may increase AEs. We are uncertain about the effects of systemic TXA on other outcomes. Findings of this review should assist urologists and their patients in making informed decisions about the use of TXA in the setting of PCNL.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with kidney stones undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), (10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), n= 1,883).
Intervention
Tranexamic acid.
Comparison
Placebo or no tranexamic acid.
Outcome
The primary outcomes were: blood transfusion, stone-free rate, and thromboembolic events. Based on 10 RCTs with substantial methodological limitations that lowered all certainty of evidence of effect, the authors found that systemic tranexamic acid in PCNL may reduce blood transfusions, major and minor surgical complications, and hospital length of stay, as well as improve stone-free rates; however, it may increase adverse events. The authors were uncertain about the effects of systemic TXA on other outcomes.
-
2.
Endoscopic Versus Conservative Therapy for Bleeding Peptic Ulcer with Adherent Clot: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Beran, A., Al-Abboodi, Y., Majzoub, A. M., Ghazaleh, S., Sayeh, W., Mohamed, M. F. H., Elfert, K., Mhanna, M., Montalvan-Sanchez, E., Musallam, R., et al
Digestive diseases and sciences. 2023
-
-
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Peptic ulcers with adherent clots are associated with a high-risk of rebleeding and mortality. However, the optimal management of bleeding ulcers with adherent clots remains unclear. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare endoscopic therapy and conservative therapy to manage bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. METHODS We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases through October 2022 to include all studies comparing the endoscopic and conservative therapeutic approaches for bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. Our primary outcome was rebleeding (overall and 30-day). The secondary outcomes were mortality (overall and 30-day), need for surgery, and length of hospital stay (LOS). The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with the corresponding confidence intervals (CI) for proportional and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS Eleven studies (9 RCTs) with 833 patients (431 received endoscopic therapy vs. 402 received conservative therapy) were included. Overall, endoscopic therapy was associated with lower overall rebleeding (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.79, P = 0.007), 30-day rebleeding (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, P = 0.002), overall mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23-0.95, P = 0.04), 30-day mortality (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, P = 0.002), need for surgery (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.95, P = 0.04), and LOS (MD - 3.17 days, 95% CI - 4.14, - 2.19, P < 0.00001). However, subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed no significant difference in overall mortality (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.24-2.52, P = 0.68) between the two strategies, with numerically lower but statistically non-significant rates of overall rebleeding (7.2% vs. 18.5%, respectively; OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.17-1.05, P = 0.06), statistically lower rate of need for surgery (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.96, P = 0.04) with endoscopic therapy compared to conservative therapy. CONCLUSIONS Our meta-analysis demonstrates that endoscopic therapy was overall associated with lower rates of rebleeding (overall and 30-day), mortality (overall and 30-day), need for surgery, and LOS, compared to conservative therapy for the management of bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. However, subgroup analysis of RCTs showed that endoscopic therapy was associated with numerically lower but statistically non-significant rates of overall rebleeding and a statistically lower rate of need for surgery compared to conservative therapy with similar overall mortality rates. Combined treatment with thermal therapy and injection therapy was the most effective treatment modality in reducing rebleeding risk. Further large-scale RCTs are needed to validate our findings.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding and endoscopic findings of ulcers with adherent clots (11 studies, n= 833).
Intervention
Endoscopic therapy (n= 431).
Comparison
Conservative therapy (n= 402).
Outcome
Endoscopic therapy was overall associated with lower rates of rebleeding (overall and 30-day), mortality (overall and 30-day), need for surgery, and length of hospital stay, compared to conservative therapy for the management of bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. Subgroup analysis of randomised controlled trials showed that endoscopic therapy was associated with numerically lower but statistically non-significant rates of overall rebleeding and a statistically lower rate of need for surgery compared to conservative therapy with similar overall mortality rates. Combined treatment with thermal therapy and injection therapy was the most effective treatment modality in reducing rebleeding risk.
-
3.
Fibrin-based haemostatic agents for reducing blood loss in adult liver resection
Malik, A. K., Amer, A. O., Tingle, S. J., Thompson, E. R., White, S. A., Manas, D. M., Wilson, C.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2023;8(8):Cd010872
-
-
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Liver resection is the optimal treatment for selected benign and malignant liver tumours, but it can be associated with significant blood loss. Numerous anaesthetic and surgical techniques have been developed to reduce blood loss and improve perioperative outcomes. One such technique is the application of topical fibrin-based haemostatic agents (FBHAs) to the resection surface. There is no standard practice for FBHA use, and a variety of commercial agents and devices are available, as well as non-FBHAs (e.g. collagen-based agents). The literature is inconclusive on the effectiveness of these methods and on the clinical benefits of their routine use. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the benefits and harms of fibrin-based haemostatic agents in reducing intraoperative blood loss in adults undergoing liver resection. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (CHBG) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science up to 20 January 2023. We also searched online trial registries, checked the reference lists of all primary studies, and contacted the authors of included trials for additional published or unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials evaluating FBHAs versus no topical intervention or non-FBHAs, irrespective of publication type, publication status, language of publication, and outcomes reported. Eligible participants could have any liver pathology and be undergoing major or minor liver resections through open or laparoscopic surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened the results of the literature search and used data extraction forms to collate the results. We expressed dichotomous outcome results as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcome results as mean differences (MDs), each with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We used a random-effects model for the main analyses. Our primary outcomes were perioperative mortality, serious adverse events, haemostatic efficacy, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were efficacy as sealant, adverse events considered non-serious, operating time, and length of hospital stay. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with GRADE and presented results in two summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS We included 22 trials (2945 participants) evaluating FBHAs versus no intervention or non-FBHAs; 19 trials with 2642 participants provided data for the meta-analyses. Twelve trials reported commercial funding, one trial reported no financial support, and nine trials provided no information on funding. Below we present the most clinically relevant outcome results, also displayed in our summary of findings table. Fibrin-based haemostatic agents versus no intervention Six trials (1001 participants) compared FBHAs with no intervention. One trial was at low risk of bias in all five domains, and all other trials were at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Two trials were at high risk of bias related to blinding. It is unclear if FBHAs compared with no intervention have an effect on perioperative mortality (RR 2.58, 95% CI 0.89 to 7.44; 4 trials, 782 participants), serious adverse events (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; 4 trials, 782 participants), postoperative transfusion (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40; 5 trials, 864 participants), reoperation (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 14.61; 2 trials, 612 participants), or postoperative bile leak (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.48; 4 trials, 782 participants), as the certainty of evidence was very low for all these outcomes. Fibrin-based haemostatic agents versus non-fibrin-based haemostatic agents Sixteen trials (1944 participants) compared FBHAs with non-FBHAs. All trials had at least one domain at high or unclear risk of bias. Twelve trials were at high risk of bias related to blinding. It is unclear if FBHAs compared with non-FBHAs have an effect on perioperative mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.72; 11 trials, 1436 participants), postoperative transfusion (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.25; 7 trials, 599 participants), reoperation (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.90; 3 trials, 358 participants), or postoperative bile leak (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.21; 9 trials, 1115 participants), as the certainty of evidence was very low for all these outcomes. FBHAs compared with non-FBHAs may have little or no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03; 9 trials, 1176 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence for the outcomes in both comparisons (FBHAs versus no intervention and FBHAs versus non-FBHAs) was of very low certainty (or low certainty in one instance) and cannot justify the routine use of FBHAs to reduce blood loss in adult liver resection. While the meta-analysis showed a reduced risk of reoperation with FBHAs compared with non-FBHAs, the analysis was confounded by the small number of trials reporting the event and the risk of bias in all these trials. Future trials should focus on the use of FBHAs in people undergoing liver resection who are at particularly high risk of bleeding. Investigators should evaluate clinically meaningful and patient-important outcomes and follow the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements.
PICO Summary
Population
Adults undergoing liver resection (22 randomised controlled trials, n= 2,945).
Intervention
Fibrin-based haemostatic agents (FBHAs).
Comparison
No intervention. Non-FBHAs.
Outcome
FBHAs vs. no intervention (6 RCTs, 1,001 participants): It is unclear if FBHAs compared with no intervention have an effect on perioperative mortality (RR 2.58; 95% CI [0.89, 7.44] 4 trials), serious adverse events (RR 0.96; 95% CI [0.88, 1.05] 4 trials), postoperative transfusion (RR 1.04; 95% CI [0.77, 1.40] 5 trials), reoperation (RR 2.92, 95% CI [0.58, 14.61] 2 trials), or postoperative bile leak (RR 1.00; 95% CI [0.67, 1.48] 4 trials), as the certainty of evidence was very low for all these outcomes. FBHAs vs. non-FBHAs (16 RCTs, 1,944 participants): It is unclear if FBHAs compared with non-FBHAs have an effect on perioperative mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI [0.62, 1.72] 11 trials), postoperative transfusion (RR 0.92; 95% CI [0.68, 1.25] 7 trials), reoperation (RR 0.48; 95% CI [0.25, 0.90] 3 trials), or postoperative bile leak (RR 1.15; 95% CI [0.60, 2.21] 9 trials), as the certainty of evidence was very low for all these outcomes. FBHAs compared with non-FBHAs may have little or no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.99; 95% CI [0.95, 1.03] 9 trials, low-certainty evidence).
-
4.
Should Cell Salvage be Used in Liver Resection and Transplantation? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Rajendran L, Lenet T, Shorr R, Abou Khalil J, Bertens KA, Balaa FK, Martel G
Annals of surgery. 2022
-
-
-
Free full text
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of intraoperative blood salvage and autotransfusion (IBSA) use on red blood cell (RBC) transfusion and postoperative outcomes in liver surgery. BACKGROUND Intraoperative RBC transfusions are common in liver surgery and associated with increased morbidity. IBSA can be utilized to minimize allogeneic transfusion. A theoretical risk of cancer dissemination has limited IBSA adoption in oncologic surgery. METHODS Electronic databases were searched from inception until May 2021. All studies comparing IBSA use to control in liver surgery were included. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently, in duplicate. The primary outcome was intraoperative allogeneic RBC transfusion (proportion of patients and volume of blood transfused). Core secondary outcomes included: overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), transfusion-related complications, length of hospital stay, and hospitalization costs. Data from transplant and resection studies were analyzed separately. Random effects models were used for meta-analysis. RESULTS Twenty-one observational studies were included (16 transplant, 5 resection, n=3,433 patients). Seventeen studies incorporated oncologic indications. In transplant, IBSA was associated with decreased allogeneic RBC transfusion (MD -1.81, 95% CI[-3.22, -0.40], P=0.01, I2=86%, very-low certainty). Few resection studies reported on transfusion for meta-analysis. No significant difference existed in OS or DFS in liver transplant (HR=1.12[0.75, 1.68], P=0.59, I2=0%; HR=0.93[0.57, 1.48], P=0.75, I2=0%) and liver resection (HR=0.69[0.45, 1.05], P=0.08, I2=0%; HR=0.93[0.59, 1.45], P=0.74, I2=0%). CONCLUSION IBSA may reduce intraoperative allogeneic RBC transfusion without compromising oncologic outcomes. The current evidence base is limited in size and quality, and high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients undergoing oncologic and non-oncologic liver surgery (either resection or transplantation), (21 studies, n= 3,433).
Intervention
Any intraoperative blood salvage and autotransfusion (IBSA) device.
Comparison
No IBSA use.
Outcome
Data from transplant and resection studies were analyzed separately. Despite significant heterogeneity, most studies reported lower rates and volumes of intraoperative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion in patients undergoing IBSA. In transplant, IBSA was associated with decreased allogeneic red blood cell transfusion (mean difference: -1.81, very-low certainty). Few resection studies reported on transfusion for meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in overall survival or disease-free survival in liver transplant and liver resection.