Abstract

BACKGROUND According to recent evidence, the use of local tranexamic acid (TXA) during plastic surgery may lessen blood loss. OBJECTIVES To comprehensively assess the use of local TXA during plastic surgery through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials addressing these issues. METHODS Four electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library, were searched until December 12, 2022. Following meta-analyses, the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for blood loss volume (BLV), ΔHct, ΔHb and operation time were calculated when appropriate. RESULTS Eleven randomized controlled trials were included in the qualitative synthesis, while 8 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with the control group, the local TXA group showed a reduction in blood loss volume of -1.05 (p < 0.00001; 95% CI, -1.72 to -0.38). However, local TXA had a limited effect on reducing ΔHct, ΔHb and operation time. A meta-analysis was not performed because of heterogeneity in other outcomes; however, except for 1 study in which no significant difference was observed on POD 1, all studies showed significantly lower rates of postoperative ecchymosis after surgery, 2 studies showed statistically significant reductions in transfusion risk or volume, and 3 studies reported significantly better surgical field quality in operations with local TXA. In the 2 included studies, the researchers concluded that local treatment does not play a role in relieving postoperative pain. CONCLUSIONS Local TXA is associated with less blood loss, less ecchymosis and better surgical field in plastic surgery patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Abstract

Introduction Immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP) is an acquired, fatal microangiopathy if untreated. Randomized controlled trials (RCT's) demonstrated faster time-to-response with adding caplacizumab to standard of care (SOC). However, concerns about RCT selection bias and the high cost of caplacizumab warrant examination of all evidence, including real-world observational studies. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the literature for comparative studies evaluating SOC with or without caplacizumab for the treatment of iTTP. We assessed risk-of-bias using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool (RCT's) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (observational studies). The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality, and the primary safety outcome was treatment-emergent bleeding. Secondary outcomes included exacerbation and relapse, refractory iTTP, and time-to-response. Results We included two high-quality RCT's and three observational studies at high-risk-of-bias comprising 632 participants. Compared with SOC, caplacizumab was associated with a non-significant reduction in the RR (0.21 [CI 0.05-1.74]) of death in RCT's and observational studies (RR 0.62 [CI 0.07, 4.41]). Compared with SOC, caplacizumab was associated with an increased risk of bleeding in RCT's (RR 1.37 [CI 1.06, 1.77]). In observational studies, the risk of bleeding was not significantly increased (RR 7.10 [CI 0.90, 56.14]). Addition of caplacizumab was also associated with a significant reduction in refractory iTTP and exacerbation, increased risk of relapse, and shortened response time. Conclusion Frontline addition of caplacizumab does not significantly reduce all-cause mortality compared with SOC alone, although it reduces refractory disease risk, shortens time-to-response, and improves exacerbation rates, at the expense of increased relapse and bleeding risk.

Abstract

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation-associated thrombotic microangiopathy (TA-TMA) is a fatal post-transplant complication. It has a high mortality rate and worse prognosis, but treatment strategies remain controversial. We screened 6 out of 3453 studies on the treatment of TA-TMA. These investigations compared 5 treatment strategies with a network meta-analysis approach. The final outcome was the proportion of patients who responded to these therapies. There were significant differences in response rates for each treatment. Achieving analysis through direct and indirect evidence in the rank probabilities shows that rTM (recombinant human soluble thrombomodulin) is most likely to be rank 1 (64.98%), Eculizumab intervention rank 2 (48.66%), ISM (immunosuppression manipulation) rank 3 (32.24%), TPE (therapeutic plasma exchange) intervention rank 4 (69.56%), and supportive care intervention rank 5 (70.20%). Eculizumab and ISM have significantly higher efficacy than supportive care (odds ratio (OR): 18.04, 18.21 respectively); and TPE having lower efficacy than all other TA-TMA therapies exception to supportive care. In our study, rTM and Eculizumab may be the best choice when treating TA-TMA.

Abstract

This work was to explore the efficacy of intelligent algorithm-based computed tomography (CT) to evaluate platelet-rich plasma (PRP) combined with vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) in the treatment of patients with pressure ulcers. Based on the u-net network structure, an image denoising algorithm based on double residual convolution neural network (Dr-CNN) was proposed to denoise the CT images. A total of 84 patients who were hospitalized in hospital were randomly divided into group A (without any intervention), group B (PRP treatment), group C (VSD treatment), and group D (PRP+VSD treatment). Procalcitonin (PCT) was detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) combined with immunofluorescence method, C-reactive protein (CRP) was detected by rate reflectance turbidimetry (RRT), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) was detected by electrochemiluminescence method. The results showed that after treatment, 44 cases (52.38%) of pressure ulcers patients recovered, 24 cases (28.57%) had no change in stage, and 16 cases (19.04%) developed pressure ulcers. The pain scores of group D at 1 week (3.35 ± 0.56 points) and 2 weeks (2.76 ± 0.55 points) after treatment were significantly lower than those in group C (7.77 ± 0.58 points and 6.34 ± 0.44 points, respectively). The time of complete wound healing in group D (24.5 ± 2.32) was obviously lower in contrast to that in groups A, B, and C (35.54 ± 3.22 days, 30.23 ± 2 days, and 29.34 ± 2.15 days, respectively). In addition, the medical satisfaction of group D (8.74 ± 0.69) was significantly higher than that of groups A, B, and C (4.69 ± 0.85, 5.22 ± 0.31, and 5.18 ± 0.59, respectively). The levels of IL-6 and PCT in group D were lower than those in groups A, B, and C, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.01). The average values of peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) and structural similarity index measure (SSIM) of the Dr-CNN network model were 37.21 ± 1.09 dB and 0.925 ± 0.01, respectively, which were higher than other algorithms. The mean values of root mean square error (MSE) and normalized mean absolute distance (NMAD) of the Dr-CNN network model were 0.022 ± 0.002 and 0.126 ± 0.012, respectively, which were significantly lower than other algorithms (P < 0.05). The experimental results showed that PrP combined with VSD could significantly reduce the inflammatory response of patients with pressure ulcers. PRP combined with VSD could significantly reduce the pain of dressing change for patients. Moreover, the performance model of image denoising algorithm based on double residual convolutional neural network was better than other algorithms.

Abstract

The optimal treatment for gastric varices (GVs) has not yet been fully determined. This study compared the efficacy and safety of endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection and balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) to prevent rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis and GVs after primary hemostasis. Patients with cirrhosis and history of bleeding from gastroesophageal varices type 2 or isolated gastric varices type 1 were randomized to cyanoacrylate injection (n = 32) or BRTO treatment (n = 32). The primary outcomes were gastric variceal rebleeding or all-cause rebleeding. The patient characteristics were well-balanced between two groups. The mean follow-up time was 27.1 ± 12 months in a cyanoacrylate injection group and 27.6 ± 14.3 months in a BRTO group. The probability of gastric variceal rebleeding was higher in the cyanoacrylate injection group than in the BRTO group (p = 0.024). The probability of remaining free of all-cause rebleeding at 1 and 2 years for cyanoacrylate injection vs BRTO was 77% vs 96.3% and 65.2% vs 92.6% (p = 0.004). The survival rates, frequency of complications, and worsening of EVs were similar in both groups. BRTO resulted in fewer hospitalizations, inpatient stays, and lower medical costs. CONCLUSIONS BRTO is more effective than cyanoacrylate injection in preventing rebleeding from GVs, with similar frequencies of complications and mortalities.

Abstract

Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) play a crucial role in stimulating thrombopoiesis. However, conventional meta-analyses have shown inconsistent results regarding the efficacy of thrombopoietin receptor agonists versus placebo. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to assess the effects of five TPO-RAs via indirect comparison. For this network meta-analysis, we considered randomized trials that included any of the following interventions: avatrombopag, lusutrombopag, eltrombopag, romiplostim, recombinant human thrombopoietin (rhTPO). We searched the Medline, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for randomized controlled clinical trials from inception to January 31, 2021. We use randomized controlled clinical trials of TPO-RAs for treatment of immune thrombocytopenia in adults. The primary outcome was the number of patients achieving platelet response which was defined as the achievement of a platelet count of more than 30 or 50 cells × 10(9)/L in the absence of rescue therapy, and the secondary outcome was the therapy-related serious adverse events and incidence of bleeding episodes. To obtain the estimates of efficacy and safety outcomes, we performed a random-effects network meta-analysis. These estimates were presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. We use surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities to rank the comparative effects and safety of all drugs against the placebo. In total, 2,207 patients were analyzed in 20 clinical trials. All preparations improved the point estimates of platelet response when compared with the placebo. Avatrombopag and lusutrombopag had the best platelet response compared to the placebo, the former had a non-significant advantage compared to the latter [odds ratio (OR) = 1.91 (95% confidence interval: 0.52, 7.05)]. The treatments were better than eltrombopag, romiplostim, rituximab, and rhTPO + rituximab, with corresponding ORs of 3.10 (1.01, 9.51), 9.96 (2.29, 43.29), 33.09 (8.76, 125.02), and 21.31 (3.78, 119.98) for avatrombopag and 1.62 (0.63, 4.17), 5.21 (1.54, 17.62), 17.34 (5.15, 58.36), and 11.16 (2.16, 57.62) for lusutrombopag. Regarding bleeding, the placebo group had the highest probability of bleeding, whereas lusutrombopag had the lowest risk of bleeding when compared to the placebo. Adverse events were slightly higher in patients receiving rituximab than in those receiving placebo or other treatments. Overall, this meta-analysis showed that avatrombopag may yield the highest efficacy because it has the most favorable balance of benefits and acceptability.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Chemotherapy plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) regimen is one of the available approaches to mobilize peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPCs). It causes thrombocytopenia and delays leukapheresis. This study aimed to evaluate the role of recombinant human thrombopoietin (rhTPO) before mobilization chemotherapy in facilitating leukapheresis in patients with lymphoma. METHODS In this randomized open-label phase 2 trial, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to receive mobilization with rhTPO plus GCSF in combination with chemotherapy (the rhTPO plus GCSF arm) or GCSF alone in combination with chemotherapy (the GCSF alone arm). The recovery of neutrophils and platelets and the amount of platelet transfusion were monitored. RESULTS Thirty patients were enrolled in this study between March 2016 and August 2018. Patients in the rhTPO plus GCSF arm (n = 10) had similar platelet nadir after mobilization chemotherapy (P=0.878) and similar amount of platelet transfusion (median 0 vs. 1 unit, P=0.735) when compared with the GCSF alone arm (n = 20). On the day of leukapheresis, the median platelet count was 86 × 10(9)/L (range 18-219) among patients who received rhTPO and 73 × 10(9)/L (range 42-197) among those who received GCSF alone (P=0.982). After the use of rhTPO, the incidence of platelet count <75 × 10(9)/L on the day of leukapheresis did not decrease significantly (30.0% vs. 50.0%, P=0.297). Platelet recovery after PBPC transfusion was more rapid in the rhTPO plus GCSF arm (median 8.0 days [95% confidence interval 2.9-13.1] to platelets ≥50 × 10(9)/L vs. 11.0 days [95% confidence interval 8.6-13.4], P=0.011). The estimated total cost of the mobilization and reconstitution phases per patient was similar between the two treatmtent groups (P=0.362 and P=0.067, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Our findings indicate that there was no significant clinical benefit of rhTPO use in facilitating mobilization of progenitor cells, but it may promote platelet recovery in the reconstitution phase after high-dose therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial has been registered in Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03014102.

Abstract

The optimal regimes of tranexamic acid (TXA) and dexamethasone (DXM) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are still uncertain. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of a prolonged course of intravenous TXA and DXM involving a high initial dose in TKA. Patients who underwent primary TKA at our center were randomized to receive one of four regimes: control (group A), prolonged course of TXA (B), prolonged course of DXM (C), or the combination of a prolonged course of TXA and DXM (D). The four groups were compared in primary outcomes (fibrinolytic and inflammatory markers, knee function, postoperative pain levels, and consumption of opioids) and secondary outcomes (blood loss, maximal drop in hemoglobin, coagulation, fasting blood glucose, and complications). A total of 162 patients were enrolled. On postoperative days 2 and 3, fibrinolytic markers were lower in groups B and D than in groups A and C; inflammatory markers were lower in groups C and D than in groups A and B. Inflammatory markers were lower in group B than in group A on postoperative day 3. Postoperative pain levels and oxycodone consumption were lower, and knee function was better in groups C and D. The four groups did not differ in any of the secondary outcomes. A prolonged course of intravenous TXA and DXM involving high initial doses can effectively inhibit postoperative fibrinolytic and inflammatory responses, reduce pain, and improve knee function after TKA.

Abstract

ImportanceConvalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but further data from randomized clinical trials are needed ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with COVID-19 Design, Setting, and ParticipantsOpen-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed in 7 medical centers in Wuhan, China, from February 14, 2020, to April 1, 2020, with final follow-up April 28, 2020 The trial included 103 participants with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 that was severe (respiratory distress and/or hypoxemia) or life-threatening (shock, organ failure, or requiring mechanical ventilation) The trial was terminated early after 103 of a planned 200 patients were enrolled InterventionConvalescent plasma in addition to standard treatment (n = 52) vs standard treatment alone (control) (n = 51), stratified by disease severity Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrimary outcome was time to clinical improvement within 28 days, defined as patient discharged alive or reduction of 2 points on a 6-point disease severity scale (ranging from 1 [discharge] to 6 [death]) Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to discharge, and the rate of viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results turned from positive at baseline to negative at up to 72 hours ResultsOf 103 patients who were randomized (median age, 70 years;60 [58 3%] male), 101 (98 1%) completed the trial Clinical improvement occurred within 28 days in 51 9% (27/52) of the convalescent plasma group vs 43 1% (22/51) in the control group (difference, 8 8% [95% CI, −10 4% to 28 0%];hazard ratio [HR], 1 40 [95% CI, 0 79-2 49];P =  26) Among those with severe disease, the primary outcome occurred in 91 3% (21/23) of the convalescent plasma group vs 68 2% (15/22) of the control group (HR, 2 15 [95% CI, 1 07-4 32];P =  03);among those with life-threatening disease the primary outcome occurred in 20 7% (6/29) of the convalescent plasma group vs 24 1% (7/29) of the control group (HR, 0 88 [95% CI, 0 30-2 63];P =  83) (Pfor interaction =  17) There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (15 7% vs 24 0%;OR, 0 65 [95% CI, 0 29-1 46];P =  30) or time from randomization to discharge (51 0% vs 36 0% discharged by day 28;HR, 1 61 [95% CI, 0 88-2 93];P =  12) Convalescent plasma treatment was associated with a negative conversion rate of viral PCR at 72 hours in 87 2% of the convalescent plasma group vs 37 5% of the control group (OR, 11 39 [95% CI, 3 91-33 18];P <  001) Two patients in the convalescent plasma group experienced adverse events within hours after transfusion that improved with supportive care Conclusion and RelevanceAmong patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, convalescent plasma therapy added to standard treatment, compared with standard treatment alone, did not result in a statistically significant improvement in time to clinical improvement within 28 days Interpretation is limited by early termination of the trial, which may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference Trial RegistrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry:ChiCTR2000029757

Abstract

Importance: Convalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but further data from randomized clinical trials are needed. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed in 7 medical centers in Wuhan, China, from February 14, 2020, to April 1, 2020, with final follow-up April 28, 2020. The trial included 103 participants with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 that was severe (respiratory distress and/or hypoxemia) or life-threatening (shock, organ failure, or requiring mechanical ventilation). The trial was terminated early after 103 of a planned 200 patients were enrolled. Intervention: Convalescent plasma in addition to standard treatment (n = 52) vs standard treatment alone (control) (n = 51), stratified by disease severity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was time to clinical improvement within 28 days, defined as patient discharged alive or reduction of 2 points on a 6-point disease severity scale (ranging from 1 [discharge] to 6 [death]). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to discharge, and the rate of viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results turned from positive at baseline to negative at up to 72 hours. Results: Of 103 patients who were randomized (median age, 70 years; 60 [58.3%] male), 101 (98.1%) completed the trial. Clinical improvement occurred within 28 days in 51.9% (27/52) of the convalescent plasma group vs 43.1% (22/51) in the control group (difference, 8.8% [95% CI, -10.4% to 28.0%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 0.79-2.49]; P = .26). Among those with severe disease, the primary outcome occurred in 91.3% (21/23) of the convalescent plasma group vs 68.2% (15/22) of the control group (HR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07-4.32]; P = .03); among those with life-threatening disease the primary outcome occurred in 20.7% (6/29) of the convalescent plasma group vs 24.1% (7/29) of the control group (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.30-2.63]; P = .83) (P for interaction = .17). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (15.7% vs 24.0%; OR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.29-1.46]; P = .30) or time from randomization to discharge (51.0% vs 36.0% discharged by day 28; HR, 1.61 [95% CI, 0.88-2.93]; P = .12). Convalescent plasma treatment was associated with a negative conversion rate of viral PCR at 72 hours in 87.2% of the convalescent plasma group vs 37.5% of the control group (OR, 11.39 [95% CI, 3.91-33.18]; P < .001). Two patients in the convalescent plasma group experienced adverse events within hours after transfusion that improved with supportive care. Conclusion and Relevance: Among patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, convalescent plasma therapy added to standard treatment, compared with standard treatment alone, did not result in a statistically significant improvement in time to clinical improvement within 28 days. Interpretation is limited by early termination of the trial, which may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000029757.