Tranexamic acid in patients with traumatic brain injury: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We performed a meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of tranexamic acid in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: We searched the literature for articles evaluating the effectiveness and safety of tranexamic acid (TXA) in TBI published between January 2012 and January 2021, and identified 8 studies with a total of 10860 patients: 5660 received TXA and 5200 served as controls. We used a dichotomous or continuous approach with a random or fixed-effect model to assess the efficacy and safety of TXA in TBI, and calculated the mean difference (MD) and odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: In patients with TBI, early administration of TXA was associated with a greater relative benefit (MD -2.45; 95% CI = -4.78 to -0.12; p=0.04) and less total haematoma expansion (MD - 2.52; 95% CI = -4.85 to -0.19; p=0.03) compared to controls. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality (OR 0.94; 95% CI=0.85-1.03; p=0.18), presence of progressive haemorrhage (OR 0.75; 95% CI=0.56-1.01; p=0.06), need for neurosurgery (OR 1.15; 95% CI=0.66-1.98; p=0.63), high Disability Rating Scale score (OR 0.90; 95% CI=0.56-1.45; p=0.68), and incidence of ischaemic or thromboembolic complications (OR 1.34; 95% CI=0.33-5.46; p=0.68) between TBI patients treated with TXA and controls. CONCLUSIONS: Early administration of TXA in TBI patients may have a greater relative benefit and may inhibit haematoma expansion. There were no significant differences in mortality, presence of progressive haemorrhage, need for neurosurgery, high Disability Rating Scale score, and incidence of ischaemic or thromboembolic complications between TBI patients treated with TXA and controls. Further studies are needed to validate these results.

Safety and efficacy of candesartan versus valsartan combined with amlodipine on peripheral and central blood pressure.

INTRODUCTION: "Amlodipine/valsartan" or "amlodipine/candesartan" combinations represent two effective antihypertensive agents with complementary mechanisms of action. Nevertheless, a study has yet to be done to evaluate the effect of amlodipine/candesartan on central blood pressure and compare it with amlodipine/valsartan combination. To see how "amlodipine plus candesartan combination" reduces peripheral and central blood pressure compared to the most studied combination, "amlodipine plus valsartan". MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty-six patients were randomized in an open-label, prospective study by 1:1 ratio to two groups. Group I (n=42) received the amlodipine and valsartan combination, and group II (n=44) received the amlodipine and candesartan combination. Peripheral and central blood pressure (CBP) was measured at baseline, at 6 and 12 weeks of follow-up. DISCUSSION: Both treatment groups reduced peripheral systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure. There was no significant difference between and within both groups. The amlodipine/candesartan combination showed more reduction in peripheral systolic blood pressure (PSBP) after 12 weeks of treatment (p=<0.001). Both groups decreased CBP without significant differences between groups. The amlodipine/candesartan combination showed additional efficacy in decreasing CSBP after 12 weeks (p=<0.001). The two treatment groups did not exert significant efficacy in lowering heart rate (HR) and augmentation index% (AIx%). CONCLUSION: To conclude, the amlodipine 10mg/candesartan 16mg combination was non-inferior to the amlodipine 10mg/valsartan 160mg combination in terms of reducing peripheral and CBP over time.

Enhanced pharmaceutical recovery as postoperative standard care after radical cystectomy: A meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of enhanced pharmaceutical recovery as postoperative standard care after radical cystectomy. METHODS: A systematic literature search up to April 2021 was done and 33 studies included 6596 subjects submitted to surgery for radical cystectomy at the start of the study; 3143 of them received enhanced pharmaceutical recovery after surgery and 3453 were controls. The studies reported relationships about the effects of enhanced pharmaceutical recovery as postoperative standard care after radical cystectomy. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the effects of enhanced pharmaceutical recovery as postoperative standard care after radical cystectomy using the dichotomous and continuous methods with a random or fixed-effect model. RESULTS: Enhanced pharmaceutical recovery after surgery had significantly lower length of hospital stay (MD, -2.78; 95% CI, -3.59 to -1.97, p < 0.001), complications (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.94, p = 0.01), readmission within 30 days (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.94, p = 0.007), and time to defecation (MD, -1.30; 95% CI, -2.22 to -0.37, p = 0.006) compared to control in subjects submitted to radical cystectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced pharmaceutical recovery after surgery may reduce the length of hospital stay, complications, readmission within 30 days, and time to first bowel movement compared to control in subjects with surgery for radical cystectomy. Furthers studies are required to validate these findings.