Chinese Trauma Surgeon Association for management guidelines of vacuum sealing drainage application in abdominal surgeries-Update and systematic review.

Vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) is frequently used in abdominal surgeries. However, relevant guidelines are rare. Chinese Trauma Surgeon Association organized a committee composed of 28 experts across China in July 2017, aiming to provide an evidence-based recommendation for the application of VSD in abdominal surgeries. Eleven questions regarding the use of VSD in abdominal surgeries were addressed: (1) which type of materials should be respectively chosen for the intraperitoneal cavity, retroperitoneal cavity and superficial incisions? (2) Can VSD be preventively used for a high-risk abdominal incision with primary suture? (3) Can VSD be used in severely contaminated/infected abdominal surgical sites? (4) Can VSD be used for temporary abdominal cavity closure under some special conditions such as severe abdominal trauma, infection, liver transplantation and intra-abdominal volume increment in abdominal compartment syndrome? (5) Can VSD be used in abdominal organ inflammation, injury, or postoperative drainage? (6) Can VSD be used in the treatment of intestinal fistula and pancreatic fistula? (7) Can VSD be used in the treatment of intra-abdominal and extra-peritoneal abscess? (8) Can VSD be used in the treatment of abdominal wall wounds, wound cavity, and defects? (9) Does VSD increase the risk of bleeding? (10) Does VSD increase the risk of intestinal wall injury? (11) Does VSD increase the risk of peritoneal adhesion? Focusing on these questions, evidence-based recommendations were given accordingly. VSD was strongly recommended regarding the questions 2-4. Weak recommendations were made regarding questions 1 and 5-11. Proper use of VSD in abdominal surgeries can lower the risk of infection in abdominal incisions with primary suture, treat severely contaminated/infected surgical sites and facilitate temporary abdominal cavity closure.

Application of furazolidone in Helicobacter pylori infection eradication.

Increasing antibiotic resistance is the primary reason for treatment failure of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection. To enhance the eradication rate, minimize the development of secondary resistance, and alleviate the socioeconomic burden, it is crucial to select H. pylori-sensitive antibiotics carefully. Furazolidone has been used for H. pylori eradication in developing countries for decades due to its affordability and low resistance rate. Numerous studies have demonstrated that furazolidone-containing regimens are more efficacious than those containing other antibiotics, as both first- and second-line therapies, and are also well tolerated. However, utility of furazolidone is restricted or not optimal in certain countries due to its infrequent but potentially severe adverse effects. The decision to discontinue usage of furazolidone because of concerns regarding adverse effects may be misguided. Here we comprehensively reviewed the studies on furazolidone at different dosages and treatment durations for H. pylori eradication. Further research on the mechanisms of action and clinical trials of furazolidone are of great practical importance.

Comparing high-dose dual therapy with bismuth-containing quadruple therapy for the initial eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection on Hainan Island: A randomized, multicenter clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Traditional bismuth-containing quadruple therapy, as a first-line eradication treatment for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori), has several disadvantages, including drug side effects, low medication adherence, and high costs. Trials of high-dose dual treatment have demonstrated its advantages, which include good safety and adherence profiles. In this study, we investigated the efficacy, safety, and compliance of a high-dose dual therapy when compared with bismuth-based quadruple treatment for the initial eradication of H. pylori infection on Hainan Island, China. METHODS: We randomized 846 H. pylori-infected patients into two groups. A bismuth-containing quadruple therapy group was administered the following: esomeprazole 20 mg, amoxicillin 1000 mg, and clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily, and colloidal bismuth pectin in suspension 150 mg three times/day for 2 weeks. A high-dose dual therapy group was administered the following: esomeprazole 20 mg four times/day and amoxicillin 1000 mg three times/day for 2 weeks. Patients were given a 13C urea breath test at 4 weeks at treatment end. Adverse effects and compliance were evaluated at follow-up visits. RESULTS: Eradication rates in the high-dose dual therapy group were: 90.3% (381/422, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 87.1%-92.9%) in intention-to-treat (ITT) and 93.6% (381/407, 95% CI: 90.8%-95.8%) in per-protocol (PP) analyses. Eradication rates were 87.3% in ITT (370/424, 95% CI: 83.7%-90.3%) and 91.8% in PP analyses (370/403, 95% CI: 88.7%-94.3%) for quadruple therapy, with no statistical differences (P = 0.164 in ITT and P = 0.324 in PP analyses). Adverse effects were 13.5% (55/407) in the dual group and 17.4% (70/403) in the quadruple group (P = 0.129). Compliance was 92.4% (376/407) in the dual group and 86.6% (349/403) in the quadruple group (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: High-dose dual therapy had high eradication rates comparable with bismuth-based quadruple treatment, with no differences in adverse effects, however higher adherence rates were recorded.