The Effects of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy on Pelvic Radiation Induced Gastrointestinal Complications (Rectal Bleeding, Diarrhea, and Pain): A Meta-Analysis
Yuan JH, Song LM, Liu Y, Li MW, Lin Q, Wang R, Zhang CS, Dong J
Front Oncol. 2020;10:390
Background: Radiotherapy is a routine treatment for pelvic cancer patients. While it had been proven effective, gastrointestinal side effects remain a concern, impairing the quality of life. A few studies focused on the effects of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) treatment to alleviate radiation-induced gastrointestinal complications. This meta-analysis aimed to critically review and summarize existing literature, assessing the effectiveness of HBO therapy for the treatment of radiation-induced gastrointestinal side effects. Methods: Medical literature search was performed with PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE up to March 14, 2019. Literatures about HBO treatment upon patients undergoing pelvic cancer (endometrial, cervix, rectum, or prostate cancers) radiotherapy were collected, and the effects of HBO treatment on radiotherapy-induced gastrointestinal complications were evaluated. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled effect size. Subgroup analyses were performed to search for sources of heterogeneity. Publication bias was detected with Funnel plots and Egger's test. Results: Three different radiotherapy-related gastrointestinal complications, including rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and pain, were analyzed after screening. It was revealed that the improvement rates were considerable in rectal bleeding (0.81, 95% CI: 0.74-0.89) and diarrhea (0.75, 95% CI: 0.61-0.90) and slightly in pain (0.58, 95% CI: 0.38-0.79). Subgroup analysis revealed factors that significantly influenced the heterogeneity of rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and pain (evaluation criteria, follow-up time, and scoring system, respectively). No significant publication bias was detected. Conclusion: HBO treatment might have the potential to alleviate radiotherapy-related gastrointestinal complications, including rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and pain, but more data are needed for further conclusions. Other symptoms were not further analyzed, as the number of studies was insufficient. More large-scale and prospective studies are needed for better evaluation of HBO's therapeutic values.
Terlipressin versus norepinephrine as infusion in patients with septic shock: a multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial
Liu ZM, Chen J, Kou Q, Lin Q, Huang X, Tang Z, Kang Y, Li K, Zhou L, Song Q, et al
Intensive Care Medicine. 2018;44((11):):1816-1825
PURPOSE Recent clinical data suggest that terlipressin, a vasopressin analogue, may be more beneficial in septic shock patients than catecholamines. However, terlipressin's effect on mortality is unknown. We set out to ascertain the efficacy and safety of continuous terlipressin infusion compared with norepinephrine (NE) in patients with septic shock. METHODS In this multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial, patients with septic shock recruited from 21 intensive care units in 11 provinces of China were randomised (1:1) to receive either terlipressin (20-160 microg/h with maximum infusion rate of 4 mg/day) or NE (4-30 microg/min) before open-label vasopressors. The primary endpoint was mortality 28 days after the start of infusion. Primary efficacy endpoint analysis and safety analysis were performed on the data from a modified intention-to-treat population. RESULTS Between 1 January 2013 and 28 February 2016, 617 patients were randomised (312 to the terlipressin group, 305 to the NE group). The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 526 (85.3%) patients (260 in the terlipressin group and 266 in the NE group). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality rate between the terlipressin group (40%) and the NE group (38%) (odds ratio 0.93 [95% CI 0.55-1.56]; p = 0.80). Change in SOFA score on day 7 was similar between the two groups: - 7 (IQR - 11 to 3) in the terlipressin group and - 6 (IQR - 10 to 5) in the NE group. There was no difference between the groups in the number of days alive and free of vasopressors. Overall, serious adverse events were more common in the terlipressin group than in the NE group (30% vs 12%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS In this multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial, we observed no difference in mortality between terlipressin and NE infusion in patients with septic shock. Patients in the terlipressin group had a higher number of serious adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: ID NCT01697410.
Efficacy and safety of autologous blood products compared with corticosteroid injections in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Qian X, Lin Q, Wei K, Hu B, Jing P, Wang J
Pm & R : the Journal of Injury, Function, and Rehabilitation. 2016;8((8):):780-91
OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and safety between autologous blood products (ABPs) and corticosteroid injections (CSIs) in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis (LE). TYPE Meta-analysis. LITERATURE SURVEY We systematically searched the EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ABPs versus CSIs for the treatment of LE without language and publication date restriction through April 2015. METHODOLOGY Two investigators independently included and assessed the quality of each eligible study according to the method recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. Available data about the main outcomes were extracted from each study and heterogeneity was assessed using the Q statistic and the inconsistency index (I2). We also evaluated the publication bias and conducted a subgroup analysis. The Review Manager 5.2 software was used for data syntheses and analyses, the standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) were estimated by using random effects models with 95% confidence interval (CI). To investigate the efficacy among different trial durations, the follow-up times were therefore divided into short (2-4 weeks), intermediate (6-24 weeks) and long term (≥ 24 weeks). SYNTHESIS Ten RCTs (n = 509) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed that CSIs were more effective than ABPs on pain relief (SMD = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.31to1.46%; P = .003) in the short term. However, in the intermediate term, ABPs exhibited a better therapeutic effect for pain relief (SMD = -0.38; 95% CI = -0.70 to -0.07%; P = .02), function (SMD = -0.60; 95% CI = -1.13 to -0.08%; P = .03), DASH (MD = -11.04; 95% CI = -21.72 to -0.36%; P = .04), and Nirschl stage (MD = -0.81; 95% CI = -1.11 to -0.51%; P < .0001). In the long term, ABPs were superior to CSIs for pain relief (SMD = -0.94; 95% CI = -1.32 to -0.57%; P < .0001) and Nirschl stage (MD = -1.04; 95% CI = -1.66 to -0.42%; P = .001). Moreover, for grip strength recovery, there was no significant difference between the two therapies (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS There was limited evidence supporting the conclusion that CSIs were superior to ABPs for pain relief in the short term; however, this result was reversed in the intermediate and long term. ABPs seemed to be more effective at restoring function in the intermediate term. Due to the small sample size and the limited number of high-quality RCTs, more high-quality RCTs with large sample sizes are required to further validate this result.
Hemostatic agents used for nephrostomy tract closure after tubeless PCNL: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Yu C, Xu Z, Long W, Longfei L, Feng Z, Lin Q, Xiongbing Z, Hequn C
To evaluate the role of hemostatic agents used for nephrostomy tract closure after tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane was performed. All studies that compared hemostatic agents with common methods (silk stitch or pressure dressing) were included. The analyzed outcomes were hospital stay, operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, fever rate, and complication rate. A total of eight articles including six RCTs met our criteria. Hemostatic agents showed short hospital stay (MD -4.54, 95 % CI -6.78 to -2.36, p < 0.0001). There was no difference between hemostatic agents and common methods on operative time (MD 2.00, 95 % CI -17.32 to 21.33, p = 0.84), blood loss (MD -0.19, 95 % CI -0.41 to 0.03, p = 0.08), transfusion rate (OR 1.42, 95 % CI 0.34-5.96, p = 0.63), fever rate (OR 1.02, 95 % CI 0.33-3.12, p = 0.97) and complication rate (OR 1.02, 95 % CI 0.33-3.12, p = 0.97). Eight studies including six RCTs showed that use of hemostatic agents was safe. Hemostatic agents showed short hospital stay. There were no difference between hemostatic agents and common methods on blood loss, transfusion rate, fever rate, and complication rate.