Search

Background: Plastic and covered metal stents need to be removed or exchanged within appropriate time in case of undesirable complications. However, it is not uncommon that patients do not follow the recommendation for further stent management after Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The effect of short message service (SMS) intervention monthly on the stent removal/exchange adherence in patients after ERCP is unknown at this time. Methods: A prospective, randomized controlled study was conducted. After receiving regular instructions, patients were randomly assigned to receive SMS reminding monthly (SMS group) for stent removal/exchange or not (control group). The primary outcome was stent removal/exchange adherence within appropriate time (4 months for plastic stent or 7 months for covered stent). Multivariate analysis was performed to assess factors associated with stent removal/exchange adherence within appropriate time. Intention-to-treat analysis was used. Results: A total of 48 patients were randomized, 23 to the SMS group and 25 to the control. Adherence to stent removal/exchange was reported in 78.2 % (18/23) of patients receiving the SMS intervention compared with 40 % (10/25) in the control group (RR 1.98, 95 % CI 1.16-3.31; p = 0 · 010). Among patients with plastic stent insertion, the median interval time from stent implantation to stent removal/exchange were 90 days in the SMS group and 136 days in the control respectively (HR 0.36, 95 % CI 0.16-0.84, p = 0.018). No difference was found between the two groups regarding late-stage stent-related complications. The rate of recurrent abdominal pain tended to be lower in SMS group without significant difference (8.7 vs 28 %, p = 0.144). Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that SMS reminding was the only factor associated with adherence of stent removal/exchange (OR 6.73, 95 % CI 1.64-27.54, p = 0.008). Conclusion: This first effectiveness trial demonstrated that SMS reminding monthly could significantly increase the patient adherence to stent removal/exchange after ERCP. Trial Registration: The study was respectively registered on July 10 in 2016 at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02831127 ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since antiplatelet therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients is very important after intracoronary stenting, and because the most commonly used therapies have been the dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of aspirin and clopidogrel and the triple antiplatelet therapy (TAPT) consisting of aspirin, clopidogrel and cilostazol, we aim to compare the effectiveness and safety between triple antiplatelet therapy and dual antiplatelet therapy in T2DM patients.Methods: Systematic literature search was done from the databases of PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and WanFang. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness and safety between triple therapy and dual therapy in T2DM patients after coronary stents placement were included. Endpoints included major adverse cardiac effects (MACEs), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), death, stent thrombosis, bleeding and adverse drug reactions during a 9-12 months period, as well as platelet activities.Results: Four studies including 1005 patients reporting the adverse clinical outcomes and six studies including 519 patients reporting the platelet activities, with a total of 1524 patients have been analyzed in this meta-analysis. The pooling analysis shows that TAPT has significantly decreased the occurrence of MACEs (RR: 0.55; 95 % CI: 0.36-0.86, P = 0.009), TLR (RR 0.41; 95 % CI: 0.21-0.80, P = 0.008), TVR (RR 0.55; 95 % CI: 0.34-0.88, P = 0.01) and the overall incidence of Death/ Myocardial Infarction (MI)/TVR (RR 0.54; 95 % CI: 0.31-0.94, P = 0.03) during this 9 to 12 months follow up period after stents implantation. Stent thrombosis was almost similar in both groups. Bleeding seemed to favor DAPT but the result was not statistically significant. Platelet aggregation, platelet reactivity index (PRI) and platelet reactivity unit (PRU) were also reduced with Weight Mean Difference (WMD) of (-13.80; 95 % CI: -17.03 to -10.56, P < 0.00001), (-22.87; 95 % CI: -23.66 to -22.07, P < 0.00001) and (-44.17; 95 % CI: -58.56 to -29.77, P < 0.00001) respectively.Conclusion: Since MACEs have been significantly decreased in the triple group, TAPT appears to be more effective than DAPT in T2DM patients after intracoronary stenting. No significant difference in stent thrombosis and bleeding risks between these 2 groups shows TAPT to be almost as safe as DAPT in these diabetic patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Currently, there is still a lack of an optimal treatment for no-reflow phenomenon (NR). The aim of this simple meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intracoronary (IC) administration of tirofiban compared with other conventional drugs during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for NR. Methods: Systematic literature search was done from PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, EBSCO, Springer and CNKI databases without language or time limitation. Randomized controlled trials were enrolled for analyzing if they investigated the treatment of IC administration of tirofiban versus other conventional drugs for NR. Results: Ten studies with 702 patients were included. Significantly, the treatment of tirofiban was more effective in improving the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15-0.37, P < 0.00001) and reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05-0.18, P < 0.00001). There was a trend to increase the risk of bleeding, but the data of the result did not reach the statistical significance (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.69-3.00, P = 0.32). Conclusions: Tirofiban is more effective than conventional drugs for NR during PCI, but the potential risk of bleeding complication induced by tirofiban shouldn't be ignored during clinical practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]