Acute graft thrombosis in patients who underwent renal transplant and received anticoagulant or antiplatelet agents. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Thrombosis is a major cause of early allograft loss in renal transplantation. Herein, we assessed the frequency of acute graft thrombosis in patients who underwent renal transplant and received anticoagulant or antiplatelet agents. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of all available case series studies of anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet prophylaxis of thrombosis in renal transplantation. The data were pooled in a proportional meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one case series were identified from 7,160 retrieved titles. A total of 3,246 patients were analyzed (1,718 treated with antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant agents and 1,528 non-treated control subjects). Allograft thrombosis occurred in 7.24% (95% CI 3.45 to 12.27%) of the patients receiving no intervention compared with 3.38% (95% CI 1.45 to 6.1%), 1.2% (95% CI 0.6 to 2.1%) and 0.47% (95% CI 0.001 to 1.79%) of the patients in the anticoagulant, aspirin, and aspirin + anticoagulant groups, respectively. The bleeding complication rate for anticoagulants was significantly higher than in the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggests that anticoagulants, and aspirin, either alone or in association with an anticoagulant, seem to have a low frequency of acute allograft thrombosis after kidney transplantation. Higher hemorrhagic complication rates might occur when anticoagulants are used.

Is the risk of low birth weight or preterm labor greater when maternal stress is experienced during pregnancy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Antenatal stress is linked to fetal risks that increase the chances of neonatal complications and reduction of child cognitive ability. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate if maternal stress affects fetal, neonatal or child development. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (1966 to May 2016), Embase (1980 to May 2016), LILACS (1982 to May 2016) and CENTRAL (1972 to May 2016). Observational studies published in English and Portuguese were included whether there was any relationship between fetal and neonatal outcome, such as birth weight, preterm labor, child development with pregnant women that were subjected to any stress type during at least one month of follow-up. Two independent reviewers screened eligible articles, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Thus, 8 cohort studies with about 8,271 pregnant women and 1,081,151 children proved eligible. Results suggested a significant association between antenatal stress exposure and increasing rates of low birth weight (Odds ratio (OR) 1.68 [95% Confidential Interval (CI) 1.19, 2.38]). However, there was no statistically significance difference between non-exposed and exposed groups related to preterm labor (OR 1.98 [95% CI 0.91 to 4.31]; I2 = 68%, p = 0.04). Although, results were inconsistent with primary analysis suggesting a significant association between antenatal stress exposure and the occurrence of higher rates of preterm birth (OR 1.42 [95% CI 1.05 to 1.91]; I2 = 68%, p = 0.04) in the sensitivity analysis. Furthermore, the current review has suggested that stress perceived during antenatal negatively influences fetal life and child development. Yet, further studies are necessary with adequate sample size and longer follow-up time to confirm our findings.

Nephrectomy Versus Embolization of Non-Functioning Renal Graft: A Systematic Review with a Proportional Meta-Analysis.

There is no standardization on the timing of the best approach to treat a non-functioning renal graft. We reviewed the literature and performed a proportional meta-analysis of case series of transplantectomy and embolization for a non-functioning renal graft. The groups were compared for mortality and morbidity outcomes. A total of 2421 patients were included in this review. Of these, 2232 patients underwent transplantectomy and 189 underwent percutaneous embolization. The mortality rate in the nephrectomy group was 4% [95% confidence interval [CI], 2-7%; I²=87%] as compared with 0.1% [95% CI, 0.1-0.5%; I²=0%] in the embolization group. The rates of common morbidities were 18% [95% CI, 13-26%, I²=79.7%] for nephrectomy compared with 1.2% [95% CI, 0.7-2.1%, I²=26.4%] for embolization. The incidence of post-embolization syndrome was 68%, and 20% of patients needed post-embolization nephrectomy. Percutaneous embolization was associated with lower mortality and morbidity rates but also with a high rate of post-embolization syndrome. However, in most cases this complication had easily manageable symptoms. Embolization is a new and attractive technique that can be considered in treating non-functioning renal grafts.

Evidence-based medicine: An update on treatments for peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis.

Peritonitis continues to be a major complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD), and adequate treatment is crucial for a favorable outcome. There is no consensus regarding the optimal therapeutic regimen, and few prospective controlled studies have been published. The objective of this manuscript is to review the results of PD peritonitis treatment reported in narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and proportional meta-analyses. Two narrative reviews, the only existing systematic review and its update published between 1991 and 2014 were included. In addition, we reported the results of a proportional meta-analysis published by our group. Results from systematic reviews of randomized control trials (RCT) and quasi-RCT were not able to identify any optimal antimicrobial treatment, but glycopeptide regimens were more likely to achieve a complete cure than a first generation cephalosporin. Compared to urokinase, simultaneous catheter removal and replacement resulted in better outcomes. Continuous and intermittent IP antibiotic use had similar outcomes. Intraperitoneal antibiotics were superior to intravenous antibiotics in reducing treatment failure. In the proportional meta-analysis of RCTs and the case series, the resolution rate (86%) of ceftazidime plus glycopeptide as initial treatment was significantly higher than first generation cephalosporin plus aminoglycosides (66%) and glycopeptides plus aminoglycosides (75%). Other comparisons of regimens used for either initial treatment or treatment of gram-positive rods or gram-negative rods did not show statistically significant differences. The superiority of a combination of a glycopeptide and a third generation cephalosporin was also reported by a narrative review study published in 1991, which reported an 88% resolution rate.

Effect of ambulatory versus hospital treatment for gestational diabetes or hyperglycemia on infant mortality rates: a systematic review.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Pregnancies complicated by diabetes are associated with increased neonatal and maternal complications. The most serious maternal complication is the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, 10-12 years after the delivery. For rigorous control over blood glucose, pregnant women are treated through ambulatory management or hospitalization. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of ambulatory management versus hospitalization in pregnancies complicated by diabetes or hyperglycemia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review conducted in a public university hospital. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed and the main electronic databases were searched. The date of the most recent search was September 4, 2011. Two authors independently selected relevant clinical trials, assessed their methodological quality and extracted data. RESULTS: Only three studies were selected, with small sample sizes. There was no statistically significance different between ambulatory management and hospitalization, regarding mortality in any of the subcategories analyzed: perinatal and neonatal deaths (relative risk [RR] 0.65; 95% confidential interval [CI]: 0.11 to 3.84; P = 0.63); neonatal deaths (RR 0.29; 95% CI: 0.01 to 6.07; P = 0.43); and infant deaths (RR 0.29; 95% CI: 0.01 to 6.07; P = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: This review, based on studies with high or moderate risk of bias, showed that there was no statistically significant difference between ambulatory management and hospital care, regarding reduction of mortality rates in pregnancies complicated by diabetes or hyperglycemia. It also suggested that there is a need for further randomized controlled trials on this issue.

Effect of ambulatory versus hospital treatment for gestational diabetes or hyperglycemia on infant mortality rates: a systematic review / Efeito do tratamento ambulatorial versus hospitalar de diabetes ou hiperglicemia gestacional nas taxas de mortalidade infantil: revisão sistemática

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Pregnancies complicated by diabetes are associated with increased neonatal and maternal complications. The most serious maternal complication is the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, 10-12 years after the delivery. For rigorous control over blood glucose, pregnant women are treated through ambulatory management or hospitalization. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of ambulatory management versus hospitalization in pregnancies complicated by diabetes or hyperglycemia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review conducted in a public university hospital. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed and the main electronic databases were searched. The date of the most recent search was September 4, 2011. Two authors independently selected relevant clinical trials, assessed their methodological quality and extracted data. RESULTS: Only three studies were selected, with small sample sizes. There was no statistically significance different between ambulatory management and hospitalization, regarding mortality in any of the subcategories analyzed: perinatal and neonatal deaths (relative risk [RR] 0.65; 95% confidential interval [CI]: 0.11 to 3.84; P = 0.63); neonatal deaths (RR 0.29; 95% CI: 0.01 to 6.07; P = 0.43); and infant deaths (RR 0.29; 95% CI: 0.01 to 6.07; P = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: This review, based on studies with high or moderate risk of bias, showed that there was no statistically significant difference between ambulatory management and hospital care, regarding reduction of mortality rates in pregnancies complicated by diabetes or hyperglycemia. It also suggested that there is a need for further randomized controlled trials on this issue. .

CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: Gestações complicadas pelo diabetes estão associadas com aumento das complicações neonatais e maternas. A complicação mais grave materna é o risco de desenvolver diabetes tipo 2 após 10-12 anos do parto. Para o controle rigoroso da glicose no sangue, as mulheres grávidas são tratadas de forma ambulatorial ou com internações hospitalares. O objetivo deste estudo é avaliar a efetividade do tratamento ambulatorial versus hospitalização em gestações complicadas por diabetes ou hiperglicemia. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL: Revisão sistemática conduzida em hospital universitário público. MÉTODOS: Uma revisão sistemática da literatura foi realizada e as principais bases de dados eletrônicas foram pesquisadas. A data da pesquisa mais recente foi 4 de setembro de 2011. Dois autores selecionaram independentemente os ensaios clínicos relevantes, avaliaram a qualidade metodológica e extraíram os dados. RESULTADOS: Apenas três estudos foram selecionados, com tamanho de amostra pequeno. Não houve diferença estatisticamente significativa entre o tratamento ambulatorial versus hospitalização em relação à mortalidade em nenhuma das subcategorias analisadas: mortes perinatais e neonatais, (risco relativo [RR] 0,65; 95% de intervalo de confiança [IC] 0,11-3,84, P = 0,63); morte neonatal (RR 0,29, IC 95% 0,01-6,07, P = 0,43), e óbitos infantis (RR 0,29, IC 95% 0,01-6,07, P = 0,43). CONCLUSÕES: Com base em estudos com risco de viés alto ou moderado, esta revisão demonstrou que não há diferença estatisticamente significante entre o tratamento ambulatorial comparado com o hospitalar na redução das taxas de mortalidade em gestações complicadas por diabetes ou hiperglicemia. Esta revisão ...

A systematic review of the interventions to promote the wearing of hearing protection

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Noise-induced hearing loss can only be prevented by eliminating or lowering noise exposure levels. When the source of the noise cannot be eliminated, workers have to rely on hearing protection equipment. The aim here was to summarize the evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to enhance the wearing of hearing protection among workers exposed to noise in the workplace. DATA SOURCE: Studies with random assignment were identified by an electronic search of the medical literature up to 2005. Data were double-entered into the Review Manager software, version 4.2.5. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two studies were found. A computer-based intervention tailored to individual workers’ risks and lasting 30 minutes was not found to be more effective than a video providing general information for workers. A second randomized controlled trial evaluated the effect of a four-year school-based hearing loss prevention program among schoolchildren working on their parents’ farms. The intervention group was twice as likely to wear some kind of hearing protection as was the control group (which received only minimal intervention). REVIEWERS’ CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence does not show whether tailored interventions are more or less effective than general interventions among workers, 80 percent of whom already use hearing protection. Long-lasting school-based interventions may increase the use of hearing protection substantially. Better interventions to enhance the use of hearing protection need to be developed and evaluated in order to increase the prevention of noise-induced hearing loss among workers.

CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: Perda auditiva induzida por ruído pode apenas ser prevenida eliminando ou diminuindo os níveis de exposição sonora. Quando a fonte do ruído não pode ser eliminada, trabalhadores devem utilizar os equipamentos de proteção auditiva. O objetivo foi sumarizar as evidências sobre efetividade das intervenções para aumentar o uso de protetores auriculares entre trabalhadores expostos a ruídos. ESTRATÉGIA DE BUSCA: Estudos randomizados foram identificados por busca eletrônica na literatura médica até 2005. Os dados foram checados duplamente e inseridos no software Review Manager software, versão 4.2.5. RESULTADO PRINCIPAL: Dois estudos foram encontrados. Uma intervenção padronizada por computador em relação ao risco de um trabalhador individual durou 30 minutos e não foi mais efetiva do que um vídeo fornecendo informações gerais entre os trabalhadores. Um segundo ensaio clínico randomizado avaliou os efeitos de um programa de prevenção auditiva de quatro anos em uma escola onde jovens trabalhavam nas fazendas de seus pais. O grupo de intervenção foi duas vezes mais provável de usar algum tipo de protetor auricular do que o grupo controle, que recebeu mínima intervenção. CONCLUSÃO DOS REVISORES: Limitada evidência não demonstrou quando as intervenções padronizadas são mais ou menos efetivas do que intervenções gerais em trabalhadores, 80 por cento deles já utilizavam o protetor auricular. Intervenções longas em escolas podem aumentar substancialmente o uso de protetores auriculares. Melhores intervenções para aumentar o uso de Equipamentos de Proteção Individual (EPIs) devem ser desenvolvidas e avaliadas com intuito de aumentar a prevenção de perda auditiva induzida por ruído em trabalhadores.

A systematic review of the interventions to promote the wearing of hearing protection.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Noise-induced hearing loss can only be prevented by eliminating or lowering noise exposure levels. When the source of the noise cannot be eliminated, workers have to rely on hearing protection equipment. The aim here was to summarize the evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to enhance the wearing of hearing protection among workers exposed to noise in the workplace. DATA SOURCE: Studies with random assignment were identified by an electronic search of the medical literature up to 2005. Data were double-entered into the Review Manager software, version 4.2.5. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two studies were found. A computer-based intervention tailored to individual workers risks and lasting 30 minutes was not found to be more effective than a video providing general information for workers. A second randomized controlled trial evaluated the effect of a four-year school-based hearing loss prevention program among schoolchildren working on their parents farms. The intervention group was twice as likely to wear some kind of hearing protection as was the control group (which received only minimal intervention). REVIEWERS CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence does not show whether tailored interventions are more or less effective than general interventions among workers, 80% of whom already use hearing protection. Long-lasting school-based interventions may increase the use of hearing protection substantially. Better interventions to enhance the use of hearing protection need to be developed and evaluated in order to increase the prevention of noise-induced hearing loss among workers.

Ximelagatran versus warfarin for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in major orthopedic surgery: systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Ximelagatran has been recently studied for prophylaxis in surgical orthopedic cases. PURPOSE: We proposed to establish whether interventions involving ximelagatran, as compared with warfarin, would increase thromboembolic prophylaxis in patients undergoing major orthopedic knee surgery. DATA SOURCE: Studies with random assignment were identified by an electronic search of the medical literature up to 2006. Data were double-entered into the Review Manager software, version 4.2.5. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included three well-conducted clinical trials involving 4,914 participants. Sub-groups with two dosages of ximelagatran (24 mg and 36 mg, b.i.d.), were defined. Ximelagatran showed significantly lower frequency of total venous thromboembolism (VTE) than warfarin, but only with the 36-mg dosage (risk relative, RR: 0.72; 95 percent confidence interval, CI: 0.64-0.81; p < 0.00001). For the 24-mg subgroup, total VTE frequency was similar (RR: 0.86; 95 percent CI: 0.73-1.01; p = 0.06). No significant differences were shown with either ximelagatran dosage for deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, any bleeding or severe bleeding. At the end of the treatment, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation was less frequent in the 24-mg ximelagatran sub-group (RR: 0.33; 95 percent CI: 0.12-0.91; p = 0.03], but during the follow-up period, the ALT elevation rate was greater in the 36-mg ximelagatran group (RR: 6.97; 95 percent CI: 1.26-38.50; p = 0.03]. CONCLUSIONS: Ximelagatran appears to be more effective than warfarin when used in higher dosages (36 mg b.i.d.), but at the expense of increased frequency of ALT elevation during the follow-up period.

INTRODUÇÃO: O ximelagatrano foi recentemente estudada para profilaxia do tromboembolismo venoso (TEV). OBJETIVO: Avaliar se o ximelagatrano comparado com a varfarina melhora a profilaxia do TEV em pacientes submetidos à cirurgia ortopédica do joelho. FONTE DE DADOS: Estudos randomizados identificados por pesquisa eletrônica na literatura médica, até 2006, cujos dados foram compilados no programa Review Manager, versão 4.2.5. RESULTADOS: Foram incluídos três estudos randomizados bem conduzidos envolvendo 4.914 participantes. Foram definidos dois sub-grupos com dosagens diferentes de ximelagatrano (24 mg and 36 mg, duas vezes ao dia). O tratamento com ximelagatrano mostrou freqüência significantemente menor de TEV que o tratamento com varfarina, mas somente na dosagem de 36-mg [risco relativo, RR 0.72 ([intervalo de confiança, IC, 95 por cento 0.64, 0.81), p < 0.00001]. A freqüência de TEV no sub-grupo de 24-mg foi similar a da varfarina [RR 0.86 (IC 95 por cento 0.73, 1.01), p = 0.06]. Para TEV maior, embolia pulmonar, sangramento e sangramento maior não houve diferença entre varfarina e a ximelagatrano. Ao final do tratamento, a elevação da alanino-aminotransferase (ALT) foi menos freqüente no sub-grupo de 24 mg de ximelagatrano que no grupo da varfarina [RR 0.33 (IC 95 por cento 0.12, 0.91) p = 0.03], mas no período de acompanhamento essa elevação foi maior com 36 mg de ximelagatrano [RR 6.97 (IC 95 por cento 1.26, 38.50) p = 0.03]. CONCLUSÃO: O ximelagatrano foi mais efetivo que a varfarina quando usado em dosagens maiores (36 mg, 2 vezes ao dia), mas às expensas de aumento de enzimas hepáticas no período de acompanhamento.

Ximelagatran versus warfarin for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in major orthopedic surgery: systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Ximelagatran has been recently studied for prophylaxis in surgical orthopedic cases. PURPOSE: We proposed to establish whether interventions involving ximelagatran, as compared with warfarin, would increase thromboembolic prophylaxis in patients undergoing major orthopedic knee surgery. DATA SOURCE: Studies with random assignment were identified by an electronic search of the medical literature up to 2006. Data were double-entered into the Review Manager software, version 4.2.5. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included three well-conducted clinical trials involving 4,914 participants. Sub-groups with two dosages of ximelagatran (24 mg and 36 mg, b.i.d.), were defined. Ximelagatran showed significantly lower frequency of total venous thromboembolism (VTE) than warfarin, but only with the 36-mg dosage (risk relative, RR: 0.72; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.64-0.81; p < 0.00001). For the 24-mg subgroup, total VTE frequency was similar (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.73-1.01; p = 0.06). No significant differences were shown with either ximelagatran dosage for deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, any bleeding or severe bleeding. At the end of the treatment, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation was less frequent in the 24-mg ximelagatran sub-group (RR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.12-0.91; p = 0.03], but during the follow-up period, the ALT elevation rate was greater in the 36-mg ximelagatran group (RR: 6.97; 95% CI: 1.26-38.50; p = 0.03]. CONCLUSIONS: Ximelagatran appears to be more effective than warfarin when used in higher dosages (36 mg b.i.d.), but at the expense of increased frequency of ALT elevation during the follow-up period.