Graft-versus-host disease after pediatric liver transplantation: A diagnostic challenge.

BACKGROUND: Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a rare but serious complication after pediatric liver transplantation (LTx). Early diagnosis is difficult due to nonspecific presenting symptoms and non-pathognomonic skin histopathological features. The aim of this article was to describe a case of pediatric GVHD after LTx and to review available data on pediatric GVHD highlighting the diagnostic difficulty. We also propose a diagnostic algorithm to improve the diagnostic capability and increase clinical awareness about this potentially fatal condition. METHODS: We did a comprehensive literatures review on studies on GvHD following pediatric LTx between 1990 and February 2021, chimerism study by short tandem repeat (STR), HLA typing by sequence-specific oligonucleotide (SSO) method, and flowcytometry crossmatch. RESULTS: Our search yielded 23 case reports. The most common clinical manifestations were fever and rash (91%) followed by diarrhea. Mortality rate was 36.8% mainly due to sepsis and organ failure. Diagnosis was challenging and chimerism study to confirm donor engraftment was performed on only half of the cases. Prevalence of "donor dominant HLA one-way matching" typically occurs in homozygous parents-to-child transplantation was 75% in cases with HLA testing. CONCLUSION: So far, there are no available standard diagnostic criteria for GVHD following pediatric LTx. Recognition of multiple risk factors through proper laboratory assessment can predict the occurrence, and early chimerism study can confirm suggestive clinical manifestation. The strong likelihood of developing GVHD in "donor one-way HLA match" and the severe problems imposed by this complication may justify avoidance of HLA homozygous parent's donation.

Efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) compared to histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) should guide their use in reducing bleeding risk in the critically ill. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, clinical trials registries, and conference proceedings through November 2015 without language or publication date restrictions. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PPIs vs H2RAs for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill adults for clinically important bleeding, overt gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, nosocomial pneumonia, mortality, ICU length of stay and Clostridium difficile infection were included. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess our confidence in the evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: In 19 trials enrolling 2117 patients, PPIs were more effective than H2RAs in reducing the risk of clinically important GI bleeding (RR 0.39; 95 % CI 0.21, 0.71; P = 0.002; I (2) = 0 %, moderate confidence) and overt GI bleeding (RR 0.48; 95 % CI 0.34, 0.66; P < 0.0001; I (2) = 3 %, moderate confidence). PPI use did not significantly affect risk of pneumonia (RR 1.12; 95 % CI 0.86, 1.46; P = 0.39; I (2) = 2 %, low confidence), mortality (RR 1.05; 95 % CI 0.87, 1.27; P = 0.61; I (2) = 0 %, moderate confidence), or ICU length of stay (mean difference (MD), -0.38 days; 95 % CI -1.49, 0.74; P = 0.51; I (2) = 30 %, low confidence). No RCT reported Clostridium difficile infection. CONCLUSIONS: PPIs were superior to H2RAs in preventing clinically important and overt GI bleeding, without significantly increasing the risk of pneumonia or mortality. Their impact on Clostridium difficile infection is yet to be determined.

The efficacy and safety of prokinetic agents in critically ill patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Intolerance to enteral nutrition is common in critically ill adults, and may result in significant morbidity including ileus, abdominal distension, vomiting and potential aspiration events. Prokinetic agents are prescribed to improve gastric emptying. However, the efficacy and safety of these agents in critically ill patients is not well-defined. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of prokinetic agents in critically ill patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception up to January 2016. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of critically ill adults assigned to receive a prokinetic agent or placebo, and that reported relevant clinical outcomes. Two independent reviewers screened potentially eligible articles, selected eligible studies, and abstracted pertinent data. We calculated pooled relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes, with the corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI). We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the quality of evidence using grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs (enrolling 1341 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Prokinetic agents significantly reduced feeding intolerance (RR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.55, 0.97; P = 0.03; moderate certainty), which translated to 17.3 % (95 % CI 5, 26.8 %) absolute reduction in feeding intolerance. Prokinetics also reduced the risk of developing high gastric residual volumes (RR 0.69; 95 % CI 0.52, 0.91; P = 0.009; moderate quality) and increased the success of post-pyloric feeding tube placement (RR 1.60, 95 % CI 1.17, 2.21; P = 0.004; moderate quality). There was no significant improvement in the risk of vomiting, diarrhea, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay or mortality. Prokinetic agents also did not significantly increase the rate of diarrhea. CONCLUSION: There is moderate-quality evidence that prokinetic agents reduce feeding intolerance in critically ill patients compared to placebo or no intervention. However, the impact on other clinical outcomes such as pneumonia, mortality, and ICU length of stay is unclear.

Intraaortic balloon pump in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiogenic shock is associated with significant mortality, particularly when caused by myocardial infarction. Intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) is the primary hemodynamic adjunct in patients with cardiogenic shock; however, evidence suggests that IABP may not improve mortality in this population. METHODS: We conducted an electronic search of the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane trial registry databases. Two reviewers independently screened citations and identified eligible trials. The same reviewers abstracted data independently. We pooled the data using a fixed effect model and reported dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subsequently, we used the GRADE approach to judge the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included 4 randomized trials with 735 patients. The use of IABP did not reduce the risk of death in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to cardiac ischemia when compared with usual care (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.13; P = 0.52; I² = 0%; moderate confidence). The use of IABP was not associated with an increased risk of stroke (RR, 0.77; 95% CI 0.22-2.69; P = 0.68; I² = 48%; very low confidence), limb ischemia (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.59-2.59; P = 0.58; I² = 0%; low confidence), or major bleeding (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.34-1.72; P = 0.52; I² = 0%; low confidence). CONCLUSIONS: The use of IABP in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial ischemia does not reduce mortality (moderate confidence) and is not associated with a higher risk of complications (very low to low confidence). The results should be interpreted with caution owing to limitations such as imprecision, risk of bias, and clinical heterogeneity.