ABSTRACT
Background: Nearly 60% of patients with cancer have metabolic syndrome, which increases the risk of mortality, but there is no clear guidance for oncology providers about its management. Here, we report on the qualitative component of a larger mixed methods study that aimed to understand cancer patients' knowledge, attitudes, and preferences regarding metabolic syndrome. Methods: Adult cancer patients with metabolic syndrome were recruited during 2022-2023 in the MD Anderson General Internal Medicine clinic and participated in semistructured interviews focused on metabolic syndrome and lifestyle interventions. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants' demographic information was collected. Interviews were analyzed using hybrid thematic analysis and constant comparison involving deductive and inductive coding. Researcher triangulation and debriefing were used to ensure rigor. Results: There were 19 participants, 12 female and 12 White. Eighteen had solid tumors, including gynecologic (n = 5), genitourinary (n = 4), colorectal (n = 3), and breast (n = 2). Analysis yielded 5 major themes: 1) patients' understanding of metabolic syndrome; 2) attitudes about and approaches to managing metabolic syndrome; 3) capacity and limitations regarding managing metabolic syndrome; 4) patient-led care; and 5) tailored intervention plans. Participants had limited knowledge of metabolic syndrome and its cancer-related consequences; most desired additional education. Many participants reported that their cancer or diabetes diagnosis motivated them to prioritize lifestyle Modifications. Participants expressed strong interest in personalized care plans focused on healthy lifestyle rather than simply weight loss. As part of their tailored intervention plans, participants desired clear communication with their medical team, coordination of care among team members, and collaboration with providers about treatment decisions. Conclusion: Cancer patients with metabolic syndrome want collaborative, patient-centered care. Shared decision-making based on respect for patients' distinctive needs and preferences is an essential component of the development of such collaborative care. Tailored interventions, practical implementation strategies, and personalized care plans are needed for cancer patients with metabolic syndrome. The study findings contribute to filling the gap in knowledge regarding clear guidance for oncology providers on managing metabolic syndrome and will inform the development of future lifestyle interventions for patients diagnosed with metabolic syndrome.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite the enthusiasm for endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI), it is not clear if early benefits offset long-term patency rates. This systematic review aimed to provide an up-to-date comprehensive evidence synthesis evaluating the two approaches. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus through July 15, 2016, for studies that compared the endovascular with the open surgical approach for revascularization in CMI patients. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to pool outcomes of interest across studies. RESULTS: We included 100 observational studies (22 comparative, 78 noncomparative; 18,726 patients; mean age, 69 years). Open surgery was associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of in-hospital complications (relative risk [RR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-2.6) and a nonsignificant increase in mortality at 30 days (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.84-2.93). Open surgery was associated with lower risk of 3-year recurrence rates (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.66) and a similar 3-year survival. Data from noncomparative studies provided similar inferences. The quality of evidence was low. CONCLUSIONS: Observational evidence suggests that the endovascular approach for revascularization in patients with CMI may offer better early outcomes than open surgery, although this effect may not be durable. Long-term mortality appears to be similar.
Subject(s)
Endovascular Procedures , Mesenteric Ischemia/surgery , Mesenteric Vascular Occlusion/surgery , Vascular Surgical Procedures , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Chronic Disease , Endovascular Procedures/adverse effects , Endovascular Procedures/mortality , Female , Humans , Male , Mesenteric Ischemia/diagnosis , Mesenteric Ischemia/mortality , Mesenteric Ischemia/physiopathology , Mesenteric Vascular Occlusion/diagnosis , Mesenteric Vascular Occlusion/mortality , Mesenteric Vascular Occlusion/physiopathology , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Recurrence , Risk Factors , Splanchnic Circulation , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Vascular Patency , Vascular Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Vascular Surgical Procedures/mortality , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Thromboprophylaxis regimens include pharmacologic and mechanical options such as intermittent pneumatic compression devices (IPCDs). There are a wide variety of IPCDs available, but it is uncertain if they vary in effectiveness or ease of use. This is a systematic review of the comparative effectiveness of IPCDs for selected outcomes (mortality, venous thromboembolism [VTE], symptomatic or asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis, major bleeding, ease of use, and adherence) in postoperative surgical patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL from January 1, 1995, to October 30, 2014, for randomized controlled trials, as well as relevant observational studies on ease of use and adherence. RESULTS: We identified 14 eligible randomized controlled trials (2633 subjects) and 3 eligible observational studies (1724 subjects); most were conducted in joint arthroplasty patients. Intermittent pneumatic compression devices were comparable to anticoagulation for major clinical outcomes (VTE: risk ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-2.64). Limited data suggest that concurrent use of anticoagulation with IPCD may lower VTE risk compared with anticoagulation alone, and that IPCD compared with anticoagulation may lower major bleeding risk. Subgroup analyses did not show significant differences by device location, mode of inflation, or risk of bias elements. There were no consistent associations between IPCDs and ease of use or adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent pneumatic compression devices are appropriate for VTE thromboprophylaxis when used in accordance with current clinical guidelines. The current evidence base to guide selection of a specific device or type of device is limited.
