Search

Background: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we examined the evidence on transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) as a bridge to elective and emergency surgery in cirrhotic patients. We aimed to assess the perioperative characteristics, management approaches, and outcomes of this intervention, which is used to achieve portal decompression and enable the safe performance of elective and emergent surgery. Methods: MEDLINE and Scopus were searched for studies reporting the outcomes of cirrhotic patients undergoing elective and emergency surgery with preoperative TIPS. The risk of bias was evaluated using the methodological index for non-randomized studies of interventions, and the JBI critical appraisal tool for case reports. The outcomes of interest were: 1. Surgery after TIPS; 2. Mortality; 3. Perioperative transfusions; and 4. Postoperative liver-related events. A DerSimonian and Laird (random-effects) model was used to perform the meta-analyses in which the overall (combined) effect estimate was presented in the form of an odds ratio (summary statistic). Results: Of 426 patients (from 27 articles), 256 (60.1%) underwent preoperative TIPS. Random effects MA showed significantly lower odds of postoperative ascites with preoperative TIPS (OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.22–0.72; I2 = 0%). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (3 studies: OR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.33–1.77; I2 = 18.2%), perioperative transfusion requirement (3 studies: OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.28–2,84; I2 = 70.1%), postoperative hepatic encephalopathy (2 studies: OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.35–2.69; I2 = 0%), and postoperative ACLF (3 studies: OR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.15–6.8, I2 = 78.9%). Conclusions: Preoperative TIPS appears safe in cirrhotic patients who undergo elective and emergency surgery and may have a potential role in postoperative ascites control. Future randomized clinical trials should test these preliminary results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous observational studies showed higher rates of abdominal wall closure with the use of hypertonic saline in trauma patients with abdominal injuries. However, no randomized controlled trials have been performed on this matter. This double-blind randomized clinical trial assessed the effect of 3% hypertonic saline (HS) solution on primary fascial closure and the timing of abdominal wall closure among patients who underwent damage control laparotomy for bleeding control. Methods: Double-blind randomized clinical trial. Patients with abdominal injuries requiring damage control laparotomy (DCL) were randomly allocated to receive a 72-h infusion (rate: 50 mL/h) of 3% HS or 0.9 N isotonic saline (NS) after the index DCL. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with abdominal wall closure in the first seven days after the index DCL. Results: The study was suspended in the first interim analysis because of futility. A total of 52 patients were included. Of these, 27 and 25 were randomly allocated to NS and HS, respectively. There were no significant differences in the rates of abdominal wall closure between groups (HS: 19 [79.2%] vs. NS: 17 [70.8%]; p = 0.71). In contrast, significantly higher hypernatremia rates were observed in the HS group (HS: 11 [44%] vs. NS: 1 [3.7%]; p < 0.001). Conclusion: This double-blind randomized clinical trial showed no benefit of HS solution in primary fascial closure rates. Patients randomized to HS had higher sodium concentrations after the first day and were more likely to present hypernatremia. We do not recommend using HS in patients undergoing damage control laparotomy. Trial registration The trial protocol was registered in clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT02542241). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the association of REBOA and mortality in a group of patients with penetrating trauma to the torso, treated in a level-I trauma center from Colombia. Methods: In a retrospective cohort study, patients with penetrating trauma, requiring emergency surgery, and treated between 2014 and 2018, were included. The decision to use or not use REBOA during emergent surgery was based on individual surgeon's opinion. A propensity score (PS) was calculated after adjusting for age, clinical signs on admission (systolic blood pressure, cardiac rate, Glasgow coma scale), severe trauma in thorax and abdomen, and the presence of non-compressive torso hemorrhage. Subsequently, logistic regression for mortality was adjusted for the number of red blood cells (RBC) transfused within the first six hours after admission, injury severity score (ISS), and quintiles of PS. Results: We included 345 patients; 28 of them (8.1%) were treated with REBOA. Crude mortality rates were 17.9% (5 patients) in REBOA group and 15.3% (48 patients) in control group (p = 0.7). After controlling for RBC transfused, ISS, and the PS, the odds of death in REBOA group was 78% lower than that in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.20, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.05–0.77, p = 0.01). Conclusion: We found that, when compared to no REBOA use, patients treated with REBOA had lower risk-adjusted odds of mortality. These findings should be interpreted with caution and confirmed in future comparative studies, if possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effect of REBOA, compared to resuscitative thoracotomy, on mortality and among non-compressible torso hemorrhage trauma patients. Methods: Relevant articles were identified by a literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE. We included studies involving trauma patients suffering non-compressible torso hemorrhage. Studies were eligible if they evaluated REBOA and compared it to resuscitative thoracotomy. Two investigators independently assessed articles for inclusion and exclusion criteria and selected studies for final analysis. We conducted meta-analysis using random effect models. Results: We included three studies in our systematic review. These studies included a total of 1276 patients. An initial analysis found that although lower in REBOA-treated patients, the odds of mortality did not differ between the compared groups (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.17-1.03). Sensitivity analysis showed that the risk of mortality was significantly lower among patients who underwent REBOA, compared to those who underwent resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.68-0.97). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis, mainly from observational data, suggests a positive effect of REBOA on mortality among non-compressible torso hemorrhage patients. However, these results deserve further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness and safety of propranolol compared to placebo or usual care for improving clinical relevant outcomes in severely burned patients (TBSA >20%). Methods: Relevant articles from randomized controlled trials were identified by a literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. We included trials involving patients with a severe burn (>20% of total body surface area affected). Trials were eligible if they evaluated propranolol and compared to usual care or placebo. Two investigators independently assessed articles for inclusion and exclusion criteria and selected studies for the final analysis. We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Results: We included ten studies in our systematic review. These studies randomized a total of 1236 participants. There were no significant differences between propranolol and placebo with respect to mortality (RD -0.02 [95% CI -0. 06 to 0.02]), sepsis (RD -0.03 [95% CI -0.09 to 0.04]), and the overall hospital stay (MD -0.37 [-4.52 to 3.78]). Propranolol-treated adults had a decrease in requirements of blood transfusions (MD -185.64 [95% CI -331.06 to -40.43]) and a decreased heart rate (MD -26.85 [95% CI -39.95 to -13.75]). Conclusions: Our analysis indicates that there were no differences in mortality or sepsis in severely burned patients treated with propranolol compared with those who had usual care or placebo. However, the use of propranolol in these patients resulted in lower requirements of blood transfusion and lower values of heart rate. The evidence synthesized in this systematic review is limited to conclude that propranolol reduces the length of hospital stay among severely burned patients. Future trials should assess the impact of propranolol on clinically relevant outcomes such as mortality and adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]