Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic liver disease: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend routine screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients, but the strength of evidence supporting these recommendations is unclear. PURPOSE: To review the benefits and harms of HCC screening in patients with chronic liver disease. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to April 2014; Cochrane databases to June 2013; reference lists; and technical advisors. STUDY SELECTION: English-language trials and observational studies comparing screening versus no screening, studies of harms, and trials comparing different screening intervals. DATA EXTRACTION: Mortality and adverse events were the outcomes of interest. Individual-study quality and the overall strength of evidence were dual-reviewed using published criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 13,801 citations, 22 studies met inclusion criteria. The overall strength of evidence on the effects of screening was very low. One large trial of patients with hepatitis B found decreased HCC mortality with periodic ultrasonographic screening (rate ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.98]), but the study was limited by methodological flaws. Another trial in patients with hepatitis B found no survival benefit with periodic α-fetoprotein screening. In 18 observational studies, screened patients had earlier-stage HCC than clinically diagnosed patients, but lead- and length-time biases confounded the effects on mortality. Two trials found no survival differences between shorter (3- to 4-month) and longer (6- to 12-month) screening intervals. Harms of screening were not well-studied. LIMITATIONS: Only English-language studies were included. The evidence base is limited by methodological issues and a paucity of trials. CONCLUSION: There is very-low-strength evidence about the effects of HCC screening on mortality in patients with chronic liver disease. Screening tests can identify early-stage HCC, but whether systematic screening leads to a survival advantage over clinical diagnosis is uncertain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative.

Antithrombotic Strategies After Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antithrombotic regimen after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (bAVR) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review of various anticoagulation strategies following surgical or transcatheter bAVR (TAVR). METHODS: We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, and gray literature through June 2017 for controlled clinical trials and cohort studies that directly compared different antithrombotic strategies in nonpregnant adults who had undergone bAVR. We assessed risk of bias and graded the strength of the evidence using established methods. RESULTS: Of 4,554 titles reviewed, 6 clinical trials and 13 cohort studies met inclusion criteria. We found moderate-strength evidence that mortality, thromboembolic events, and bleeding rates are similar between aspirin and warfarin after surgical bAVR. Observational data suggest lower mortality and thromboembolic events with aspirin combined with warfarin compared with aspirin alone after surgical bAVR, but the effect size is small and the combination is associated with a substantial increase in bleeding risk. We found insufficient evidence for all other treatment comparisons in surgical bAVR. In TAVR patients, we found moderate-strength evidence that mortality, stroke, and major cardiac events are similar between dual antiplatelet therapy and aspirin alone, though a nonsignificantly lower rate of bleeding occurred with aspirin alone. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with warfarin or aspirin leads to similar outcomes after surgical bAVR. Combining aspirin with warfarin may lead to a small decrease in thromboembolism and mortality, but is accompanied by increased bleeding. For TAVR patients, aspirin is equivalent to dual antiplatelet therapy for reducing thromboembolism and mortality, with a possible decrease in bleeding.

Effectiveness of Left Atrial Appendage Exclusion Procedures to Reduce the Risk of Stroke: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is an important cause of cardioembolic stroke. Oral anticoagulants (OAC) reduce stroke risk but increase the risk of serious bleeding. Left atrial appendage (LAA) procedures have been developed to isolate the LAA from circulating blood flow, as an alternative to OAC. We conducted a systematic review of the benefits and harms of surgical and percutaneous LAA exclusion procedures. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched multiple data sources, including Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase, through January 7, 2015. Of 2567 citations, 20 primary studies met prespecified inclusion criteria. We abstracted data on patient characteristics, stroke, mortality, and adverse effects. We assessed study quality and graded the strength of evidence using published criteria. Trials found low-strength evidence that percutaneous LAA exclusion confers similar risks of stroke and mortality as continued OAC, but this evidence was limited to the Watchman device in patients eligible for long-term OAC. Observational studies found moderate-strength evidence of serious harms with a variety of percutaneous LAA procedures. There is low-strength evidence that surgical LAA exclusion does not add significant harm during heart surgery for another indication, but evidence on stroke reduction is insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence that the Watchman device may be noninferior to long-term OAC in selected patients. Data on effectiveness of LAA exclusion devices is lacking in patients ineligible for long-term OAC. Percutaneous LAA devices are associated with high rates of procedure-related harms. Although surgical LAA exclusion during heart surgery does not seem to add incremental harm, there is insufficient evidence of benefit.

Management of hyperglycemia in a hospitalized patient with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease.

Hyperglycemia in patients with and without known diabetes is a common finding in patients hospitalized with cardiovascular disease, and is associated with poor outcomes. Investigators have been examining the role of insulin to treat patients with acute myocardial infarction since the 1960's. Until the 1990's most studies evaluated fixed doses of glucose-insulin-potassium (GIK) infusions. The Diabetes Mellitus Insulin-Glucose Infusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction (DIGAMI) trial, published in 1995, evaluated the role of adjustable-dose insulin infusion to lower blood glucose. Its promising results spurred further interest and a number of trials evaluating the use of insulin to lower blood glucose in hospitalized patients - many of which included patients with cardiovascular disease - have been conducted over the last two decades with conflicting results. This manuscript reviews the epidemiology and pathophysiology of hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients, summarizes the evidence for benefits and harms of using insulin to treat hyperglycemic patients hospitalized with cardiovascular disease, and offers some practical management considerations.