Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-stroke depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in patients with post-stroke depression (PSD). Six relevant electronic databases (PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared rTMS with control condition for PSD were included. The mean change in depression symptom scores was defined as the primary efficacy outcome. Secondary outcomes included the remission rate of depression, stroke recovery, and cognitive function recovery. In total, 7 RCTs with 351 participants were included. At post-treatment, rTMS was significantly more effective than the control condition, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -1.15 (95%CI: -1.62 to -0.69; P<0.001, I2=71%) and remission with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.46 (95%CI: 1.68 to 7.12; P<0.001; I2=11%). As for stroke recovery, rTMS was also better than the control condition (SMD=-0.67, 95%CI: -1.02 to -0.32; P<0.001). However, no significant difference was found for cognitive function recovery between the two groups (SMD=4.07, 95%CI: -1.41 to 9.55; P=0.15). To explore the potential moderators for the primary outcome, a series of subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. The results implied that rTMS may be more effective in Asian samples than in North American samples (P=0.03). In conclusion, from the current evidence in this study, rTMS could be an effective treatment for patients with PSD. Further clinical studies with larger sample sizes and clearer subgroup definitions are needed to confirm these outcomes.

Bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

There has been concern regarding the use of controversial paradigms for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to manage treatment-resistant depression (TRD). This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of bilateral rTMS compared with unilateral and sham rTMS in patients with TRD. PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EAGLE and NTIS databases were searched to identify relevant studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on bilateral rTMS for TRD patients were included. The response was defined as the primary outcome, and remission was the secondary outcome. Ten RCTs that included 634 patients met the eligibility criteria. The risk ratio (RRs) of both the primary and secondary outcomes of bilateral rTMS showed non-significant increases compared to unilateral rTMS (RR=1.01, P=0.93; odds ratio [OR]=0.77, P=0.22). Notably, the RR of the primary bilateral rTMS outcome was significantly increased compared to that for sham rTMS (RR=3.43, P=0.0004). The results of our analysis demonstrated that bilateral rTMS was significantly more effective than sham rTMS but not unilateral rTMS in patients with TRD. Thus, bilateral rTMS may not be a useful paradigm for patients with TRD.

Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for upper gastrointestinal multiple submucosal tumors originating from the muscular propria layer: A feasibility study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In recent years, submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) was applied more and more often for single gastrointestinal (GI) submucosal tumor (SMT). However, little is known about this technique for treating multiple SMTs in GI tract. In the present study, we investigated the feasibility and outcome of STER for upper GI multiple SMTs originating from the muscularis propria (MP) layer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A feasibility study was carried out including a consecutive cohort of 23 patients with multiple SMTs from MP layer in esophagus, cardia, and upper corpus who were treated by STER from June 2011 to June 2014. Clinicopathological, demographic, and endoscopic data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: All of the 49 SMTs were resected completely by STER technique. Furthermore, only one tunnel was built for multiple SMTs of each patient in this study. En bloc resection was achieved in all 49 tumors. The median size of all the resected tumors was 1.5 cm (range 0.8–3.5 cm). The pathological results showed that all the tumors were leiomyoma, and the margins of the resected specimens were negative. The median procedure time was 40 min (range: 20–75 min). Gas‑related complications were of the main complications, the rates of subcutaneous emphysema and pneumomediastinum, pneumothorax, and pneumoperitoneum were 13.0%, 8.7% and 4.3%. Another common complication was thoracic effusion that occurred in 2 cases (8.7%), among which only 1 case (4.3%) with low‑grade fever got the drainage. Delayed bleeding, esophageal fistula or hematocele, and infection in tunnel were not detected after the operation there were no treatment‑related deaths. The median hospital stay was 4 days (range, 2–9 days). No residual or recurrent lesion was found during the follow‑up period (median 18, ranging 3–36 months). CONCLUSION: Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection is a safe and efficient technique for treating multiple esophageal SMTs originating from MP layer, which can avoid patients suffering repeated resections.

Is endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation a better option than endoscopic large-balloon dilation alone in removal of large bile duct stones? A retrospective comparison study.

Background: Several comparison studies have demonstrated that endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) combined with large-balloon dilation (LBD) may be a better option than EST alone to manage large bile duct stones. However, limited data were available to compare this combination method with LBD alone in removal of large bile duct stones. Objective: To compare EST plus LBD and LBD alone for the management of large bile duct stones, and analyze the outcomes of each method. Patients and Methods: Sixty-one patients were included in the EST plus LBD group, and 48 patients were included in the LBD alone group retrospectively. The therapeutic success, clinical characteristics, procedure-related parameters and adverse events were compared. Results: Compared with EST plus LBD, LBD alone was more frequently performed in patients with potential bleeding diathesis or anatomical changes (P = 0.021). The procedure time from successful cannulating to complete stone removal was shorter in the LBD alone group significantly (21.5 vs. 17.3 min, P = 0.041). The EST plus LBD group and the LBD alone group had similar outcomes in terms of overall complete stone removal (90.2% vs. 91.7%, P = 1.000) and complete stone removal without the need for mechanical lithotripsy (78.7% vs. 83.3%, P = 0.542). Massive bleeding occurred in one patient of the EST plus LBD group, and successfully coagulated. Postoperative pancreatitis did not differ significantly between the EST plus LBD group and the LBD alone group (4.9% vs. 6.3%; P = 1.000). Conclusion: Endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with LBD offers no significant advantage over LBD alone for the removal of large bile duct stones. LBD can simplify the procedure compared with EST plus LBD in terms of shorten the procedure time.