Renal functional and cardiovascular outcomes of partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy for renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the postoperative renal and cardiovascular outcomes of partial nephrectomy (PN) versus radical nephrectomy (RN) for the treatment of renal carcinoma. A systematic literature search was performed on scientific databases including Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from their inception to September 2021. Studies comparing renal and cardiovascular outcomes between PN and RN in patients with renal cancer were included. The generic inverse variance method with random-effects models was used to determine the pooled hazard ratios and odds ratio for each outcome. Quality Assessment for observational studies was guided by the New-Castle Ottawa Scale. Overall, a total of 31 studies (n=51,866) reported renal outcomes, while 11 studies (n= 101,678) reported cardiovascular outcomes. When compared to PN, RN had a higher rate of new-onset postoperative EGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (HR 3.39; CI 2.45 - 4.70; I2=93%; P=<0.00001) and EGFR <45 mL/min/1.73 m2 (HR 4.70; CI 2.26 - 9.79; I2=98%; P=<0.0001). No difference was observed in new-onset advanced kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. A 19% reduction in cardiovascular events was observed in the PN group (HR 0.81; CI 0.70 - 0.93, P=0.002). No protective effect of PN was observed in new-onset or worsening hypertension (HR 0.85; CI 0.64 - 1.14, P=0.28) nor myocardial infarction (HR 0.86; CI 0.71 - 1.04, P=0.13). PN was associated with a decreased risk of postoperative early-stage CKD and cardiovascular events compared with RN. However, no benefit of PN over RN was observed in advanced CKD, new-onset or worsening hypertension, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular mortality.

Intensive vs. conventional blood pressure goals in older patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Assess the effect of intensive vs conventional blood pressure goals on patient-important outcomes in older adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed using electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing intensive vs conventional blood pressure goals in adults over 60 years of age with type 2 diabetes were included. Events were evaluated using a modified Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis with Peto's method. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. RESULTS: Seven trials were included. A 19% risk reduction (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.69-0.95; I2 = 8%; p = 0.35) in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and 37% risk reduction (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51-0.79; I2 = 0%; p = 0.56) in the occurrence of fatal or non-fatal stroke was documented in the intensive treatment group. There were no differences in the occurrence of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and peripheral vascular disease. Data regarding treatment adverse effects and microvascular outcomes was scarce. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive blood pressure goals in older patients with diabetes were associated with a lower risk of stroke and MACE, but not with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and peripheral vascular disease.