Clinical and Organizational Impact of the AIRSEAL® Insufflation System During Laparoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Several low-impact laparoscopic strategies have been developed to improve the safety of pneumoperitoneum. We conducted a systematic review to establish the current evidence base for the use of the AIRSEAL® insufflation device for low-pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery. We searched the literature using several electronic databases, for studies with comparative design published in the English language from January 2010 to April 2020. The population of interest included patients with any type of health condition who underwent laparoscopic surgery using the AIRSEAL® insufflation system or a standard CO2 insufflator. Ten studies (four randomized clinical trials/six non-randomized clinical trials), that enrolled 1394 participants in total who underwent urology, gynaecology or abdominal surgeries, were included. Total complication rates were similar between groups. Only three studies evaluated the impact of the insufflation system on post-operative pain, and showed inconsistent benefit of AIRSEAL® (significant decrease in pain in two studies, no difference in one). The same was observed in the two sole studies in which pain killers consumption was measured (significant decrease in morphine consumption 24 h after surgery in one study, no difference in the other). Operative duration was significantly shorter with AIRSEAL® in three studies. For both post-operative room and total length of stay, there was no difference between groups. No studies reported economic outcomes. Current literature supports the feasibility of the AIRSEAL® system during laparoscopic surgery but more studies are required to establish the added clinical benefit and to explore the preferences of physicians and patients.

Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for high-risk pulmonary embolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

High-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) requires hemodynamic and respiratory support along with reperfusion strategies. Recently updated European guidelines assign a low class of recommendation to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for high-risk PE. This systematic review assessed clinical outcomes after ECMO in high-risk PE. We searched electronic databases including PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from January 2000 to April 2020. Efficacy outcomes included in-hospital survival with good neurological outcome and survival at follow-up. Safety outcomes included lower limb ischemia and hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke. Where possible (absence of high heterogeneity), meta-analyses of outcomes were undertaken using a random-effects model. We included 16 uncontrolled case-series (533 participants). In-hospital survival with good neurological outcome ranged between 50% and 95% while overall survival at follow-up ranged from 35% to 95%, both with a major degree of heterogeneity (I2 > 70%). The prevalence of lower limb ischemia was 8% (95% CI 3% to 15%). The prevalence of stroke (either hemorrhagic or ischemic) was 11% (95% CI 3% to 23%), with notable heterogeneity (I² = 63.35%). Based on currently available literature, it is not possible to draw definite conclusions on the usefulness of ECMO for high-risk PE. Prospective, multicenter, large-scale studies or nationwide registries are needed to best define the role of ECMO for high-risk PE. PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42019136282.