Search

Objective: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) or metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is a significant contributor to chronic liver disease worldwide. Orlistat blocks intestinal fat absorption, leading to decreased liver fat content. Therefore, it is a viable option for NAFLD management. Methods: We performed a systematic review and metaanalysis using randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We used mean difference (MD) to pool continuous outcomes presented with the corresponding confidence interval (CI). Results: We included four RCTs with a total of 379 patients. Orlistat was effective in reducing liver fat content (MD: −5.02, 95% CI [–7.23, −2.82], P = 0.00001), alanine transferase (MD: −10.03, 95% CI [–17.80, −2.26], P = 0.01), aspartate transferase (MD: −4.29, 95% CI [–7.59, −0.99], P = 0.01), waist circumference (MD: −3.18, 95% CI [–4.25, −2.10], P = 0.00001), body mass index (MD: −1.03, 95% CI [–1.34, −0.73], P = 0.00001), total cholesterol (MD: −3.75, 95% CI [–4.02, −3.49], P = 0.00001), and low-density lipoprotein (MD: −3.83, 95% CI [–4.05, −3.61], P = 0.00001). However, orlistat was associated with increased serum triglycerides (MD: 7.46, 95% CI [6.48, 8.44], P = 0. 00001). Conclusion: Orlistat is a viable option for NAFLD management; however, it increases triglyceride levels. Larger RCTs are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is prevalent in about 30% to 60% of patients undergoing cardiac surgery, leading to worse outcomes. Botulinum toxin type A (BTX) epicardial injection has been proposed to prevent POAF by impairing cholinergic signaling. A systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized randomized controlled trials, which were retrieved by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through November 23, 2022. RevMan version 5.4 was used to pool dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes using mean differences (MD) presented with the corresponding confidence interval (CI). Three randomized controlled trials with 509 patients (308 in the BTX group and 205 in the placebo group) were included in the analysis. There was no difference between BTX and placebo regarding POAF incidence (RR 0.81 with 95% CI [0.65, 1.00], P = 0.05), postoperative hospital length of stay in days (MD −0.03 with 95% CI [–0.54, 0.49], P = 0.91), all-cause mortality (RR 1.64 with 95% CI [0.22, 12.17], P = 0.63), any adverse event (RR 1.03 with 95% CI [0.94, 1.12], P = 0.51), or any serious adverse event (RR 0.89 with 95% CI [0.68, 1.15], P = 0.36). There was no difference between the epicardial fat injection of BTX versus placebo for preventing POAF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Direct factor Xa inhibitors have been extensively prescribed for multiple indications; however, hemodialysis patients have been excluded from most of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of direct factor Xa inhibitors. Therefore, the efficacy and safety of direct factor Xa inhibitors versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in hemodialysis patients is uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs was conducted by systematically searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through November 25, 2022. We used the fixed-effect model to pool the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). RevMan v5.4 software was used to pool dichotomous outcomes using RR and continuous outcomes using mean difference presented with the corresponding CI. Three RCTs with a total of 341 patients were included in our analysis. There was no difference between direct factor Xa inhibitors and VKAs regarding all-cause mortality (RR, 0.99; 95% CI [0.76, 1.30]; P = 0.96), cardiovascular mortality (RR, 1.35; 95% CI [0.71, 2.60]; P = 0.36), noncardiovascular mortality (RR, 0.75; 95% CI [0.53, 1.05]; P = 0.09), sudden mortality (RR, 1.33; 95% CI [0.53, 3.33]; P = 0.54), any cerebrovascular event (RR, 0.52; 95% CI [0.21, 1.29]; P = 0.16), ischemic stroke (RR, 0.51; 95% CI [0.19, 1.37]; P = 0.18), and hemorrhagic stroke (RR, 0.61; 95% CI [0.10, 3.70]; P = 0.59). In patients with atrial fibrillation who are on hemodialysis, direct factor Xa inhibitors and VKAs were similar in terms of efficacy and safety outcomes. However, evidence is still sparse, warranting dedicated RCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the management of small and diminutive polyps, cold polypectomy is favored over electrocautery polypectomy. However, the optimal cold polypectomy technique is still controversial. Hence, this review aims to investigate the most effective cold technique for small and diminutive colorectal polyps. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which were retrieved by systematically searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through 10 February 2023. R software, (R version 4.2.0) and meta-insight software were used to pool dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) presented with the corresponding confidence interval (CI). Our protocol was prospectively published in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022345619. Nineteen RCTs with 3649 patients and 4800 polyps were included in our analysis. Cold techniques (cold forceps polypectomy (CFP), jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP), dedicated cold snare polypectomy (D-CSP), conventional cold snare polypectomy (C-CSP), underwater cold snare polypectomy (U-CSP), and cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) were included in our comparative analysis. CFP was less effective in achieving complete histological resection than C-CSP (RR: 1.10 with 95% CI [1.03–1.18]), CS-EMR (RR: 1.12 with 95% CI [1.02–1.23]), D-CSP (RR: 1.17 with 95% CI [1.04–1.32]), and U-CSP (RR: 1.21 with 95% CI [1.07–1.38]). However, the rest of the comparisons showed no difference. CFP is the least effective method for small and diminutive polyps' removal, and any snare polypectomy technique will achieve better results, warranting more large-scale RCTs to investigate the most effective snare polypectomy technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic constipation is a challenging functional gastrointestinal disorder that remains a global burden. Pharmacologic therapy, including laxatives and dietary fibers, are suggested as lines of treatment. Recent trials introduced an orally ingested vibrating capsule (VC) as an eligible option for chronic constipation management. We conducted a literature search in English on electronic databases CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and WOS until February 27th, 2023. RevMan was used to perform the meta-analysis. The results were reported as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO with ID: (CRD42023409422). Three RCTs with a total of 601 patients were included in our analysis. There was no difference between the VC and placebo in responder rate (RR: 1.37 with 95% CI [0.82, 2.28], p =.22), CSBM change from baseline (MD: 0.21 with 95% CI [−0.26, 0.69], p =.38), SBM change from baseline (MD: 0.14 with 95% CI [−0.22, 0.49], p =.46), and the incidence of any adverse event (RR: 1.45 with a 95% CI of [0.79, 2.63], p =.23). However, VC was associated with increased vibration sensation (RR: 17.23, 95% CI [3.29, 90.20], p =.0008). VC was not effective to improve bowel movement in patients with functional constipation with no difference in response rate. However, evidence is still uncertain, with only three small RCTs that yielded heterogenous findings, mainly due to the different vibration protocols. Also, our findings suggest that VC is safe and well-tolerated, with no significant harmful effects observed. Therefore, more large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of VC in patients with functional constipation, determining the most effective dose, frequency, and duration of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colonoscopy is the gold standard method for colorectal cancer screening. Looping occurs in 91% of cases undergoing colonoscopy and can cause patient discomfort, prolonged cecal intubation time (CIT), and colon perforation. This meta-analysis investigates the impact of abdominal compression devices (ACD) on colonoscopy outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), retrieved by systematically searching: PubMed, EMBASE, WOS, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through February 2nd, 2023. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were pooled using mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) along with confidence interval (CI) using Revman. Our review protocol was prospectively published on PROSPERO with ID: CRD42023397344. We included eight RCTs with a total of 1,889 patients. ACD was effective to decrease CIT (MD: −2.15 with a 95% CI [−3.49, −0.80], p =.002), postural change (RR: 0.57 with 95% CI [0.49, 0.66], p =.00001), and VAS pain score (MD: −1.49 with 95% CI [−1.81, −1.17], p =.0001). However, there was no difference between ACD and control groups regarding manual compression (RR: 0.65 with 95% CI [0.42, 1.00], p =.05), complete colonoscopy rate (CCR) (RR: 1.01 with 95% CI [0.99, 1.04], p =.31), and cecal intubation length (CIL) (MD: −2.25 with 95% CI [−7.64, 3.14], p =.41). ACD during colonoscopy may enhance patient comfort by reducing CIT, pain, and postural changes. Nevertheless, additional RCTs are necessary to validate these results and determine the most suitable approach to utilize ACD for colonoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Double sequential external defibrillation (DSED) and vector‐change defibrillation (VCD) have been suggested to enhance clinical outcomes for patients with ventricular fibrillation (VF) refractory of standard defibrillation (SD). Therefore, this network meta‐analysis aims to evaluate the comparative efficacy of DSED, VCD, and SD for refractory VF. Methods: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, WOS, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through November 15th, 2022. R software netmeta and netrank package (R version 4.2.0) and meta‐insight software were used to pool dichotomous outcomes using odds ratio (OR) presented with the corresponding confidence interval (CI). Our protocol was prospectively published in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022378533. Results: We included seven studies with a total of 1632 participants. DSED was similar to SD in survival to hospital discharge (OR: 1.14 with 95% CI [0.55, 2.83]), favorable neurological outcome (modified Rankin scale ≤2 or cerebral performance category ≤2) (OR: 1.35 with 95% CI [0.46, 3.99]), and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (OR: 0.81 with 95% CI [0.43; 1.5]). In addition, VCD was similar to SD in survival to hospital discharge (OR: 1.12 with 95% CI [0.27, 4.57]), favorable neurological outcome (OR: 1.01 with 95% CI [0.18, 5.75]), and ROSC (OR: 0.88 with 95% CI [0.24; 3.15]). Conclusion: Double sequential external defibrillation and VCD were not associated with enhanced outcomes in patients with refractory VF out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest, compared to SD. However, the current evidence is still inconclusive, warranting further large‐scale RCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Post-orthopaedic operative pain is a serious concern that often requires the administration of analgesics; however, the optimal time of analgesic administration is still inconclusive. Perioperative analgesia is administrating pre-emptive analgesia before and during the surgery followed by postoperative analgesia to decrease the procedure associated nociceptive response. We aim to assess perioperative meloxicam versus postoperative meloxicam for pain control after orthopaedic operations. A systematic review and meta-analysis involving randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, WOS, and Cochrane until 28th May 2022. We pooled dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) presented with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and continuous outcomes using mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. We registered our protocol in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022336046. We included five RCTs with 964 patients. All the included trials showed high risk of performance and detection biases because of lack of blinding. Pooled analysis favored perioperative meloxicam in reducing pain score after six hours (MD: −0.42 with 95% CI [−0.63, −0.21], p =.0001), 12 h (MD: −0.54 with 95% CI [−0.69, −0.39], p =.00001), and 24 h (MD: −0.23 with 95% CI [−0.36, −0.10]. Pooled analysis favored perioperative meloxicam in improving patient global assessment scale after 12 h (MD: −0.66 with 95% CI [−0.86, −0.46], p =.00001), 24 h (MD: −0.30 with 95% CI [−0.49, −0.11, p =.002), and 48 h (MD: −0.17 with 95% CI [−0.33, −0.01], p =.04). Pooled analysis favored perioperative meloxicam in reducing patient-controlled analgesia (MD: −4.25 with 95% CI [−5.96, −2.54], p =.00001). Short-term pain management after orthopaedic procedures is better accomplished with perioperative meloxicam than postoperative meloxicam. Before recommending perioperative meloxicam for pain control following orthopaedic surgeries, further multicentre trials are still warranted to examine the impact of perioperative meloxicam in different orthopaedic procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) identifies and treats pancreatic and biliary diseases. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis examining relevant papers in five databases to examine the frequency of hypoxia throughout the surgery and the lowest oxygen saturation level in patients under sedation. Our meta-analysis included three randomized controlled trials with 390 participants, 196 in the high-flow oxygen (HFNC) group and 194 in the low-flow oxygen (LFNC) group. Their ages ranged from 65.3 to 79 years. The pooled effect estimate showed that HFNC decreased the incidence of hypoxia during the procedure when compared to LFNC (odds ratio −0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] −1.65, −0.02; P = 0.04), and the mean of lowest oxygen saturation in patients during sedation was significantly lower in LFNC compared to HFNC (mean difference 2.34; 95% CI 1.35, 3.32; P = 0.001). The pooled effect estimate showed that the HFNC group had a lower incidence rate of jaw thrusting adverse events during anesthesia than the LFNC group (risk difference −0.12; 95% CI −0.21, −0.04; P = 0.001). In summary, HFNC systems reduced the incidence of hypoxia for patients undergoing ERCP and had a higher mean lowest oxygen saturation during sedation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Lymphatic filariasis is a serious public health issue. Recent studies showed that a single dosage of triple therapy (Ivermectin, Diethylcarbamazepine, and Albendazole) is more effective than dual therapy (Ivermectin plus Albendazole or Diethylcarbamazepine plus Albendazole) for clearing microfilaria from the blood. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple therapy versus dual therapy in patients infected with microfilaria and communities endemic to lymphatic filariasis. Methods: For this systematic review and meta‐analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science until 24th June 2021. We included randomized control trials that compared triple with dual therapy given to patients with lymphatic filariasis or endemic communities. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021266724). Results: We included eight articles after the screening process. Triple therapy caused more clearance of microfilaria in the blood (RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.15, 2.02; p = 0.003), while dual therapy caused more clearance of the circulating filariae antigen in the blood (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.65, 0.88; p = 0.0003), both 12 months after drug administration. The triple therapy had a similar adverse effect compared with the dual therapy group. Conclusion: Based on the greater efficacy in the clearance of microfilaria and the safety of triple therapy, it constitutes a better strategy for the eradication programs of lymphatic filariasis in endemic regions. However, further studies are needed to confirm our results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence regarding the type and rate of intravenous (IV) fluid administration during labor is still inconclusive and the studies assessing the impact of IV fluids had mixed results. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of IV fluids at an infusion rate of 250 mL/h as compared with 125 mL/h on labor outcomes in nulliparous women. Search Strategy: We searched six databases for relevant studies through a search strategy containing the relevant keywords "IV hydration", "IV fluids", and "labor" from the inception of these databases to May 1, 2023, without any applied restrictions. Selection Criteria: Search results were imported to Covidence for screening of eligible articles for this review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of IV fluids at 250 mL/h on the outcomes of labor in nulliparous women at term (>37 weeks) as compared with 125 mL/h were included only. Data Collection and Analysis: Data regarding the characteristics of included studies, participant's baseline characteristics, and concerned outcomes were collected in an Excel spreadsheet and all the concerned outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in the meta‐analysis models using RevMan 5.4. Main results: Pooled data from 11 RCTs with 1815 patients showed that 250 mL/h infusion rate had a significant reduction in cesarean section rate (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56–0.88, P = 0.002), the first stage of labor duration (MD –46.97, 95% CI –81.79 to −12.14, P = 0.008), the second stage of labor duration (MD –2.69, 95% CI –4.34 to −1.05, P = 0.001), prolonged labor incidence (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58–0.89, P = 0.003), as compared with 125 mL/h. Also, the vaginal delivery rate (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02–1.12, P = 0.009) was higher with a 250 mL/h infusion rate. Conclusion: IV fluids at an infusion rate of 250 mL/h during labor in nulliparous women decreased the cesarean delivery rate, increased the vaginal delivery rate, shortened the first and second‐stage labor duration, decreased the incidence of prolonged labor as compared with 125 mL/h. These findings suggest enhanced labor progression and a lower risk of labor complications with higher infusion rates. However, future research involving a more diverse population and exploring the potential benefits of combining IV infusion rates with other interventions, such as adding dextrose or less restrictive oral intake during labor, is needed. Synopsis: IV fluids at 250 mL/h reduce cesarean section rates and significantly affect the labor outcomes as compared with 125 mL/h. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]