Is there any difference between blood and crystalloid cardioplegia for myocardial protection during cardiac surgery? A meta-analysis of 5576 patients from 36 randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of blood versus crystalloid cardioplegia for myocardial protection in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for clinical studies that reported in-hospital outcomes after blood or crystalloid cardioplegia for myocardial protection during cardiac surgery procedures from 1966 to 2011. The principal summary measures were risk ratio (RR) for blood compared to crystalloid cardioplegia with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and P values (considered statistically significant when <0.05). The RRs were combined across studies using the DerSimonian-Laird random effects model and fixed effects model using the Mantel-Haenszel model - both models were weighted. The meta-analysis was completed using the software Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2 (Biostat Inc., Englewood, New Jersey). RESULTS: Thirty-six studies (randomized trials) were identified and included a total of 5576 patients (2834 for blood and 2742 for crystalloid). There was no significant difference between the blood and crystalloid groups in the risk for death (risk ratio [RR] 0.951, 95% CI 0.598 to 1.514, P=0.828, for both effect models) or myocardial infarction (RR 0.795, 95% CI 0.547 to 1.118, P=0.164, for both effect models) or low cardiac output syndrome (RR 0.765, 95% CI 0.580 to 1.142, P=0.094, for the fixed effect model; RR 0.690, 95% CI 0.480 to 1.042, P=0.072, for the random effect model). It was observed that there was no publication bias or heterogeneity of effects about any outcome. CONCLUSION: We found evidence that argues against any superiority in terms of hard outcomes between blood or crystalloid cardioplegia for myocardial protection during cardiac surgery.

Importance of peniscopy, oncologic cytology and histopathology in the diagnosis of penile infection by human papillomavirus.

INTRODUCTION: Male genital infection by human papillomavirus is of particular importance since it is often asymptomatic. The patient generally presents no clinical lesion. Therefore, men represent an important reservoir of virus, playing a special role in the transmission and perpetuation of the disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the present prospective clinical trial study, 190 sex partners of women with genital infection by human papillomavirus, associated or not with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, were investigated. All patients were unaware of or denied the presence of a genital lesion. RESULTS: Cytologic examination revealed koilocytosis in 9 cases (4.7%) in the urethra and in 3 cases (1.6%) in the corona of the glans and the distal prepuce. Peniscopy with the previous use of 5% acetic acid revealed white lesions in 97.9% of the patients. Toluidine blue stained most of the lesions. At least one fragment revealed koilocytosis in the histopathologic study of 97 cases (51.05%). CONCLUSION: The three methods complement one another, allowing a more precise diagnosis of the infection in men.