Tranexamic acid for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an abridged Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of tranexamic acid (TXA) in individuals with kidney stones undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a literature search of Cochrane Library, PubMed (including MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus, Global Index Medicus, trials registries, grey literature, and conference proceedings. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with PCNL with administration of TXA to placebo (or no TXA) for patients aged ≥18 years. Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. Primary outcomes were blood transfusion, stone-free rate (SFR), thromboembolic events (TEE). We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach using a minimally contextualised approach with pre-defined thresholds for minimally clinically important differences (MCID). RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs assessing the effect of systemic TXA in PCNL vs placebo (or no TXA). Eight studies were published as full text. Based on an adjusted baseline risk of blood transfusion of 5.7%, systemic TXA may reduce blood transfusions (risk ratio [RR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.76). Based on an adjusted baseline SFR of 75.7%, systemic TXA may increase SFR (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98-1.27). There is probably no difference in TEEs (risk difference 0.001, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01). Systemic TXA may increase adverse events (AEs) (RR 5.22, 95% CI 0.52-52.72). Systemic TXA may have little to no effect on secondary interventions (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84-1.57). The CoE for most outcomes was assessed as low or very low. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a body of evidence of 10 RCTs, we found that systemic TXA in PCNL may reduce blood transfusions, major surgical complications, and hospital length of stay, as well as improve the SFR; however, it may increase AEs. These findings should inform urologists and their patients in making informed decisions about the use of TXA in the setting of PCNL.

Tranexamic acid for percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the gold standard for the treatment of large kidney stones but comes with an increased risk of bleeding compared to other treatments, such as ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent that has been used to reduce bleeding complications in other settings. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of TXA in individuals with kidney stones undergoing PCNL. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed (including MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus, Global Index Medicus, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings. We applied no restrictions on the language of publication nor publication status. The latest search date was 11 May 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with PCNL with administration of TXA to placebo (or no TXA) for patients ≥ 18 years old. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. Primary outcomes were: blood transfusion, stone-free rate (SFR), and thromboembolic events (TEEs). Secondary outcomes were: adverse events (AEs), secondary interventions, major surgical complications, minor surgical complications, unplanned hospitalizations or readmissions, and hospital length of stay (LOS). We performed statistical analyzes using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) according to the GRADE approach using a minimally contextualized approach with predefined thresholds for minimally clinically important differences (MCIDs). MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed 10 RCTs assessing the effect of systemic TXA in PCNL versus placebo (or no TXA) with 1883 randomized participants. Eight studies were published as full text. One was published in abstract proceedings, but it was separated into two separate studies for the purpose of our analyzes. Average stone surface area ranged 3.45 to 6.62 cm2. We also found a single RCT published in full text assessing the effects of topical TXA in PCNL versus placebo (or no TXA) with 400 randomized participants, the results of which are further described in the review. Here we focus only on the results of TXA used systemically. Blood transfusion - Based on a representative baseline risk of 5.7% for blood transfusions taken from a large presentative observational studies, systemic TXA may reduce blood transfusions (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.76; I2 = 28%; 9 studies, 1353 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 2%. Based on 57 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) being transfused, this corresponds to 31 fewer (from 42 fewer to 14 fewer) participants being transfused per 1000. Stone-free rate - Based on a representative baseline risk of 75.7% for SFR, systemic TXA may increase SFRs (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; I2 = 62%; 4 studies, 603 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 5%. Based on 757 participants per 1000 being stone free with placebo (or no TXA), this corresponds to 83 more (from 15 fewer to 204 more) stone-free participants per 1000. Thromboembolic events - There is probably no difference in TEEs (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 841 participants; moderate CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 2%. Since there were no thromboembolic events in intervention and/or control groups in 5 out of6 studies, we opted to assess a risk difference with systemic TXA for this outcome. Adverse events - Systemic TXA may increase AEs (RR 5.22, 95% CI 0.52 to 52.72; I2 = 75%; 4 studies, 602 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 5%. Based on 23 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) having an adverse event, this corresponds to 98 more (from 11 fewer to 1000 more) participants with adverse events per 1000. Secondary interventions - Systemic TXA may have little to no effect on secondary interventions (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.57; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 319 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 5%. Based on 278 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) having a secondary intervention, this corresponds to 42 more (from 44 fewer to 158 more) participants with secondary interventions per 1000. Major surgical complications - Based on a representative baseline risk for major surgical complications of 4.1%, systemic TXA may reduce major surgical complications (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 733 participants; moderate CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 2%. Based on 41 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) having a major surgical complication, this corresponds to 26 fewer (from 32 fewer to 16 fewer) participants with major surgical complications per 1000. Minor surgical complications - Systemic TXA may reduce minor surgical complications (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; I2 = 76%; 5 studies, 733 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 5%. Based on 396 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) having a minor surgical complication, this corresponds to 115 fewer (from 218 fewer to 40 more) participants with minor surgical complications per 1000. Unplanned hospitalizations or readmissions - We are very uncertain how unplanned hospitalizations or readmissions are affected (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.31; I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 189 participants; very low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 2%. Hospital length of stay - Systemic TXA may reduce hospital LOS (mean difference 0.52 days lower, 95% CI 0.93 lower to 0.11 lower; I2 = 98%; 7 studies, 1151 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 0.5 days. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on 10 RCTs with substantial methodological limitations that lowered all CoE of effect, we found that systemic TXA in PCNL may reduce blood transfusions, major and minor surgical complications, and hospital LOS, as well as improve SFRs; however, it may increase AEs. We are uncertain about the effects of systemic TXA on other outcomes. Findings of this review should assist urologists and their patients in making informed decisions about the use of TXA in the setting of PCNL.

Telemedicine and Dementia Care: A Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitators.

OBJECTIVES: An increasing reliance on telemedicine for older adults with cognitive impairment requires a better understanding of the barriers and facilitators for this unique patient population. DESIGN: The study team queried PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov on May 1, 2020, for studies in English published from January 2010 to May 2020. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a systematic review of articles investigating the use of telemedicine among older adults with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) that focused on the patient and care partner perspectives. METHODS: Telemedicine encounter purpose, technological requirements, and findings regarding sensory needs were extracted. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool was applied for quality assessment. RESULTS: The search yielded 3551 abstracts, from which 90 articles were reviewed and 17 were included. The purpose of telemedicine encounters included routine care, cognitive assessment, and telerehabilitation. All studies reported successful implementation of telemedicine, supported by patient and care partner satisfaction, similar results on cognitive assessment and diagnosis compared to in-person visits, and improvement in outcome measures following rehabilitation. Sixteen studies relied on staff and care partners to navigate technologies. Six studies reported participants reporting difficulty hearing the provider during the telemedicine visits. Five studies excluded participants with visual or hearing impairment because of the potential difficulty of using telemedicine technology. No studies reported technological adaptations to account for sensory impairment. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Telemedicine is well received among patients and care partners, but successful delivery incorporates support staff and the care partners to navigate technologies. The exclusion of older adults with sensory impairment, especially given that it is highly prevalent, in developing telemedicine systems may further exacerbate access to care in this population. Adapting technologies for sensory needs is critical to the advancement of accessible dementia care through telemedicine.

Head-Mounted Display Use in Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Purpose. We analyzed the literature to determine (1) the surgically relevant applications for which head-mounted display (HMD) use is reported; (2) the types of HMD most commonly reported; and (3) the surgical specialties in which HMD use is reported. Methods. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched through August 27, 2017, for publications describing HMD use during surgically relevant applications. We identified 120 relevant English-language, non-opinion publications for inclusion. HMD types were categorized as "heads-up" (nontransparent HMD display and direct visualization of the real environment), "see-through" (visualization of the HMD display overlaid on the real environment), or "non-see-through" (visualization of only the nontransparent HMD display). Results. HMDs were used for image guidance and augmented reality (70 publications), data display (63 publications), communication (34 publications), and education/training (18 publications). See-through HMDs were described in 55 publications, heads-up HMDs in 41 publications, and non-see-through HMDs in 27 publications. Google Glass, a see-through HMD, was the most frequently used model, reported in 32 publications. The specialties with the highest frequency of published HMD use were urology (20 publications), neurosurgery (17 publications), and unspecified surgical specialty (20 publications). Conclusion. Image guidance and augmented reality were the most commonly reported applications for which HMDs were used. See-through HMDs were the most commonly reported type used in surgically relevant applications. Urology and neurosurgery were the specialties with greatest published HMD use.

Early versus deferred standard androgen suppression therapy for advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Standard androgen suppression therapy (AST) using surgical or medical castration is considered a mainstay of advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer treatment. AST can be initiated early when disease is asymptomatic or deferred when patients suffer symptoms of disseminated prostate cancer. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of early versus deferred standard AST for advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS: For this Cochrane Review update, we performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science; last searched November 2018) and two clinical trial registers, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. We also searched bibliographies of included studies and conference proceedings (last searched January 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a direct comparison of early versus deferred standard AST. We excluded all other study designs. Participants included had advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer receiving surgical or medical castration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. The primary outcomes were time to death of any cause and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were time to disease progression, time to death from prostate cancer, adverse events and quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the certainty of evidence according to GRADE. We performed subgroup analyses for advanced but non-metastatic disease (T2-4/N+ M0), metastatic disease (M1), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse. MAIN RESULTS: We identified seven new RCTs since publication of the original review in 2002. In total, we included 10 RCTs.Primary outcomesEarly AST probably reduces the risk of death from any cause over time (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.90; moderate-certainty evidence; 4767 participants). This corresponds to 57 fewer deaths (95% CI 80 fewer to 31 fewer) per 1000 participants at 5 years for the moderate risk group and 23 fewer deaths (95% CI 32 fewer to 13 fewer) per 1000 participants at 5 years in the low risk group. We downgraded for study limitations. Early versus deferred AST may have little or no effect on serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence; 10,575 participants) which corresponds to 6 more serious adverse events (6 fewer to 18 more) per 1000 participants. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and selective reporting.Secondary outcomesEarly AST probably reduces the risk of death from prostate cancer over time (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.84; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 62 fewer prostate cancer deaths per 1000 (95% CI 87 fewer to 31 fewer) at 5 years for the moderate risk group and 24 fewer death from prostate cancer (95% CI 34 fewer to 12 fewer) per 1000 men at 5 years in the low risk group. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations.Early AST may decrease the rate of skeletal events (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.80; low-certainty evidence) corresponding to 23 fewer skeletal events per 1000 (95% CI 31 fewer to 7 fewer). We downgraded for study limitations and imprecision. It may also increase fatigue (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.62; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 31 more men with this complaint per 1000 (95% CI 18 more to 48 more). We downgraded for study limitations and imprecision. It may increase the risk of heart failure (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.33; low-certainty evidence) corresponding to 27 more events per 1000 (95% CI 3 more to 69 more). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision.Global quality of life is probably similar after two years as assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) questionnaire (mean difference -1.56, 95% CI -4.50 to 1.38; moderate-certainty evidence) with higher scores reflecting better quality of life. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Early AST probably extends time to death of any cause and time to death from prostate cancer. It may slightly decrease the rate of skeletal events. Rates of serious adverse events and quality of life may be similar. It may increase fatigue and may increase the risk of heart failure. Better quality trials would be particularly important to better understand the outcomes related to possible treatment-related harm, for which we only found low-certainty evidence.