4 results
Sort By
Results Per Page
4 results
Download the following citations:
Email the following citations:
Print the following citations:
  • Zhang L
  • Zhao XY
  • Guo SY
  • Jiang J
  • Wang G
  • et al.
Int Wound J. 2023 Aug;20(6):1979-1986 doi: 10.1111/iwj.14059.

Sepsis is a potentially lethal condition that occurs when the body's response to infection damages tissue and organs. The production of inflammatory mediators typically assists in defending the body against infection; however, an overreaction to inflammation can cause coagulation problems, vascular endothelial damage, and organ hypoperfusion. Blood purification methods, such as plasmapheresis, can effectively remove inflammatory mediators from plasma. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to explore the efficacy of plasma exchange for sepsis treatment as noted in recent studies. The authors searched the Pubmed (Medline), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), Embase (Ovid), and Scopus databases and included controlled clinical studies that compared plasmapheresis or plasma filtration with conventional treatment in patients with severe sepsis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale literature quality assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The primary study outcome was all-cause mortality. The random effects model was adopted for conducting the meta-analysis. Among the 1013 records found, the study included 5 trials, all of which carried a low risk of bias. The use of plasmapheresis was associated with a longer stay in the intensive care unit (odds ratio [OR], 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-1.32, heterogeneity [I2 ] = 0%), a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (OR, 0.54, 95% CI, 0.33-0.89, I2  = 70%), and reduced mortality (OR, 0.29, 95% CI, 0.13-0.67, I2  = 0%) in adults; the results for children differed from this (OR, 0.79, 95% CI, 0.36-1.72, I2  = 89%). Four trials reported no adverse events; one trial reported an adverse event related to plasma exchange, including an instance of hypotension in one patient. Plasmapheresis appeared to be an effective treatment for patients suffering from sepsis. A large number of additional randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm this finding.

  • Fan D
  • Ma J
  • Liu X
  • Zhang L
J Orthop Surg Res. 2022 Apr 7;17(1):211 doi: 10.1186/s13018-022-03095-4.

As an antifibrinolytic agent, tranexamic acid (TXA) is increasingly used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to reduce blood loss. The administration of intravenous and intra-articular TXA has been well explored, but the most efficient way to administer TXA remains in question. Peri-articular injection (PAI) of TXA is a recently mentioned method. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of PAI TXA in patients after TKA should be performed.


A systematic search was performed within PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to November 8, 2021. Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility and extracted data for analysis. The primary outcome was haemoglobin change. The secondary outcomes were haematocrit change, total drainage volume, thromboembolic events, and blood transfusion.


A total of ten studies were included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that there was a significant decrease in haemoglobin change when using PAI TXA compared with no TXA (mean difference - 1.05; 95% CI - 1.28 to - 0.81; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%), but it had no significant differences compared with IA and IV (mean difference - 0.01; 95% CI - 0.17 to - 0.14; P = 0.85; I2 = 39%). There were no significant differences between the TXA < 1.5 g subgroup (0.10, 95% CI - 0.27 to 0.46; P = 0.60; I2 = 0%) and the TXA ≥ 1.5 g subgroup (0.18, 95% CI - 0.12 to 0.48; P = 0.24; I2 = 74%). In addition, the combined group (PAI plus IV or IA) was superior to the IV or IA group in terms of haemoglobin change (mean difference - 0.51; 95% CI - 0.76 to - 0.27; P < 0.0001; I2 = 19%). Regarding haematocrit change, the pooled result showed it was significantly less in the PAI group than the non-TXA group. Similarly, comparing it against the IV subgroup, the result revealed a difference in favour of the PAI group, with a mean difference of - 1.89 g/dL (95% CI - 2.82 to - 0.95; P < 0.0001; I2 = 67%). For total drainage volume, the pooled result was in favour of PAI TXA over no TXA (297 ml, 95% CI - 497.26 to - 97.23; P = 0.004; I2 = 87%), but it had no significant difference compared with IA and IV (mean difference - 37.98; 95% CI - 115.68 to 39.71; P = 0.34; I2 = 95%). There was no significant difference in thromboembolic events (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.25 to 2.21; P = 0.59; I2 = 0%). Blood transfusion was not significantly different between the PAI group and the non-TXA group (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.23 to 1.06; P = 0.07; I2 = 21%), and there was no significant difference between PAI and the other two TXA injection methods (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.25; P = 0.24; I2 = 19%).


PAI has comparable effects to IV and IA injections. PAI is an alternative injection route of TXA for patients who have undergone TKA.

  • Zhang J
  • Diao P
  • Zhang L
Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Apr 9;100(14):e25136 doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025136.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) decrease the rate of rebleeding following endoscopic hemostatic therapy in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. This study compares the efficacy of oral omeprazole vs intravenous omeprazole in decrease of rebleeding of peptic ulcer patients.


The present study was authorized by the local research ethics committee of Jiangjin District Central Hospital (2020120987) and informed consent was obtained from all patients. All adult patients who were admitted to medical emergency rooms of Jiangjin District Central Hospital due to upper gastrointestinal bleeding (as evidenced by hematemesis, melena or hematochezia) were considered for inclusion in the study. Endoscopy was performed within 24 hours after admission. Patients older than 18 years with successful endoscopic therapy of high risk ulcers [defined as active bleeding (Forrest IA, IB), non-bleeding visible vessel (NBVV, Forrest IIA) or adherent clots (Forrest IIB)] were enrolled. Patients with low risk ulcers (clean base, ulcers with a simple washable clot), suspicious malignant ulcer, bleeding tendency, uremia, liver cirrhosis, Mallory Weiss tear or already on PPI as an outpatient were excluded from study. All were managed endoscopically by injecting 5-30 ml of epinephrine (diluted 1:10000) around the ulcer crater. Cavitations or flattening of bleeding vessel and disappearance of NBVV was considered as established homeostasis. A biopsy was taken from antrum for evaluating Helicobacter pylori infection. Patient with unsuccessful endoscopic therapy were not enrolled and were referred to general surgeon. Information on demography, history of previous upper gastrointestinal bleeding, NSAID or ASA ingestion, ulcer location, bleeding stigmata and blood transfusion volume at entry were recorded in all patients. In the oral omeprazole group, the patients received 40 mg omeprazole orally twice daily for 72 hours. In intravenous omeprazole group, they received omeprazole 80 mg bolus and then 8 mg/hour infusion for 48-72 hours. Then, all patients received omeprazole 20 mg orally for 30 days. On the day of discharge Helicobacter pylori infected patients received standard regimens.


Figure 1 showed the primary and secondary end points.


Intravenous administration of PPIs has limitations. They are expensive, require a dedicated intravenous line, need nursing supervision and hospital admission. So, it would be reasonable to prescribe oral PPIs to patients with high risk bleeding ulcers provided that it is as effective as its intravenous counterpart. Oral PPIs have a high bioavailability. Its effect initiates one hour after ingestion and the maximal plasma concentration is achieved after 2-3 hours. However, there are few studies comparing oral and intravenous PPI in decreasing risk of rebleeding in peptic ulcer patients. More high quality randomized controlled trials are still necessary.


researchregistry 6588.

  • Jiang L
  • Liu Y
  • Zhang L
  • Santoro C
  • Rodriguez A
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Aug 3;8(8):CD010810 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010810.pub4.

Hemophilia A and B are inherited coagulation disorders characterized by a reduced or absent level of factor VIII or factor IX respectively. The severe form is characterized by a factor level less than 0.01 international units (IU) per milliliter. The development of inhibitors in hemophilia is the main complication of treatment, because the presence of these antibodies, reduces or even nullifies the efficacy of replacement therapy, making it very difficult to control the bleeding. People with inhibitors continue to have significantly higher risks of morbidity and mortality, with considerable treatment costs. Given the wide 'off-label' use of rituximab for treating people with hemophilia and inhibitors, its efficacy and safety need to be evaluated. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.


To assess the efficacy and safety of rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with inherited severe hemophilia A or B.


We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, complied from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and also searched for ongoing or unpublished studies. We also undertook further searches of other bibliographic databases and trial registries. Date of last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register: 19 March 2020.


Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy and safety of rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with hemophilia.


No randomized controlled trials matching the selection criteria were eligible for inclusion.


No randomized controlled trials on rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with hemophilia were identified.


We were unable to identify any relevant trials on the efficacy and safety of rituximab for treating inhibitors in people with hemophilia. The research evidence available is from case reports and case series. Randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rituximab for this condition. However, prior to the publication of any possible future randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis of case reports and case series may provide some evidence.