Search

Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Objective: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) requires systemic anticoagulation to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events. Despite its historic role, activated clotting time (ACT) remains a widely used heparin monitoring method. Systematic evidence on the association of ACT-guided monitoring with hemorrhagic or thromboembolic complications does not exist., Design: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis (Scopus and PubMed, July 2023)., Setting: All cohort studies., Participants: Patients receiving ECMO support., Intervention: Anticoagulation monitoring with ACT., Measurements and Main Results: We identified 3,177 publications, with 8 studies reporting the average ACT values for patients with and without bleeding. Meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in the compared groups (SMD = 0.69; 95% CI -0.05 to 1.43, p = 0.069; I 2  = 87.4%). Three studies (n = 117 patients) reported on the average ACT values for patients with thrombosis, without significant differences in ACT between patients with and without thrombosis (SMD = 0.47; 95% CI -0.50 to 1.44, p = 0.342; I 2  = 81.1%)., Conclusions: Even though ACT is a widely used heparin monitoring tool, the evidence on its association with hemorrhagic or thromboembolic events is still controversial and limited. Further studies are essential to elucidate the role of ACT in anticoagulation monitoring during ECMO support., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) requires systemic anticoagulation to maintain the circuit patency. However, the use of anticoagulation carries a risk of severe hemorrhage, necessitating rigorous monitoring. Activated clotting time (ACT) is a widely used monitoring tool; however, the evidence of its correlation with unfractionated heparin (UFH) infusion dose is limited. Here we aimed to analyze the correlation between ACT and UFH infusion during ECMO., Design: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of correlation coefficients (Scopus and PubMed, up to July 13, 2024)., Prospero: CRD42023448888 SETTING: All retrospective and prospective studies PARTICIPANTS: Patients receiving ECMO support INTERVENTION: Anticoagulation monitoring during ECMO support MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included in the analysis, and the meta-analysis encompassed 16 studies. The vast majority of studies (n = 15) found a weak correlation, and no study reported a strong correlation between ACT and UFH infusion dose. The meta-analysis (n = 12,625 samples) identified a weak correlation, with a pooled estimate of correlation coefficients of 0.132 (95% confidence interval 0.03-0.23). The most common adverse events were hemorrhage (pooled incidence, 45%) and thrombosis (30%), and 47% of the patients died during their hospital stay., Conclusions: Even though ACT is a widely used UFH monitoring tool in ECMO patients, our meta-analysis found a weak correlation between ACT and UFH infusion dose. New trials are needed to investigate the role of emerging tools and to clarify the most appropriate monitoring strategy for patients receiving ECMO support., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To investigate the value of second-opinion evaluation of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by subspecialised uroradiologists for the detection of significant cancer in transperineal fusion prostate biopsy., Methods: The evaluated data included age, PSA (ng/ml), PSA density, Gleason score, digital rectal examination (DRE), prostate volume of 149 patients. Twenty-seven patients (18%) had no previous prostate biopsy, 114 patients (77%) had a previous negative biopsy, and 8 patients (5%) were on active surveillance. Using PI-RADS v2 scores for mpMRI a second report was performed by a specialist uroradiologist. In all cases a subsequent transperineal biopsy was performed with at least 2 cores per target and additional background systemic cores. Initial and second-opinion radiology reports were evaluated for detection of any cancer and Gleason score (GS) 7-10 cancer, including positive predictive value and negative (NPV) and compared by Fisher's exact test., Results: At transperineal biopsy, 51 % (76/149) of patients had a GS 6-10 prostate cancer (PCa), 27 % (40/149) of patients had a GS 3 + 3 PCa and 12 % (18/149) a GS 3 + 4 and 12 % (18/149) had a GS ≥4 + 3 PCa. Agreement between initial and second-opinion reads was observed in 57.7% (86/149; kappa value = 0.32). The detection of clinically significant cancers with second-opinion reads was significantly higher (0.61; 17/28) compared to initial reads (0.35; 17/49); P = 0.034., Conclusions: Second reading of prostate mpMRIs by subspecialised uroradiologists significantly improved the positive predictive value for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and showed a trend towards improved NPV for MRI-negative cases where biopsy could be safely avoided. Urologists should be aware that the experience of the reporter will affect the report when making decisions if and how to obtain biopsies. Reporter experience may help to reduce overcalling and avoid over-targeting of lesions., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)