Incidence and prevalence of Parkinson's disease in the Italian region of Umbria: a population-based study using healthcare administrative databases.

Parkinson's disease is known to pose a significant burden on society in industrialized countries. However, few studies have been conducted in Italy using administrative healthcare databases for epidemiological purposes. We wanted to estimate the incidence and prevalence rates of Parkinson's disease in the Italian region of Umbria by means of linkage between several sources of administrative healthcare data: hospitalization episodes, exemptions from medical charges, drug prescriptions from general practitioners and physicians working in the public sector. Using a pre-defined algorithm, we estimated incident and prevalent cases of Parkinson's disease for the year 2016. The regional incidence rate, adjusted with Italian standard population data, was 0.40 new cases/1000 person-years (0.41 in females, 0.39 in males). We estimated that 5550 subjects were affected by Parkinson's disease, leading to an age-adjusted prevalence rate of 5.42/1000 inhabitants. Prevalence and incidence increased with age and male gender. However, due to the longer life expectancy of females, the absolute number of prevalent cases was greater among females. The heterogeneity of spatial distribution of disease was high. A considerable proportion of prevalent cases was hospitalized in 2016. The most recurrent reasons for hospitalization episodes were disorders related to the nervous system, respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and musculoskeletal and connective tissue apparatus. The study findings support the feasibility of future epidemiological studies of Parkinson's disease with administrative data as well as the need for an integrative care pathway for the patients with Parkinson's disease.

Laparoscopic versus open resection for sigmoid diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND: Diverticular disease is a common condition in Western industrialised countries. Most individuals remain asymptomatic throughout life; however, 25% experience acute diverticulitis. The standard treatment for acute diverticulitis is open surgery. Laparoscopic surgery - a minimal-access procedure - offers an alternative approach to open surgery, as it is characterised by reduced operative stress that may translate into shorter hospitalisation and more rapid recovery, as well as improved quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgical resection compared with open surgical resection for individuals with acute sigmoid diverticulitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 23 February 2017); Ovid Embase (1974 to 23 February 2017); clinicaltrials.gov (February 2017); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry (February 2017). We reviewed the bibliographies of identified trials to search for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing elective or emergency laparoscopic sigmoid resection versus open surgical resection for acute sigmoid diverticulitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the domains of risk of bias from each included trial, and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes, we planned to calculate mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for outcomes such as hospital stay, and standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs for quality of life and global rating scales, if researchers used different scales. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials with 392 participants met the inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in three European countries (Switzerland, Netherlands, and Germany). The median age of participants ranged from 62 to 66 years; 53% to 64% were female. Inclusion criteria differed among studies. One trial included participants with Hinchey I characteristics as well as those who underwent Hartmann's procedure; the second trial included only participants with "a proven stage II/III disease according to the classification of Stock and Hansen"; the third trial considered for inclusion patients with "diverticular disease of sigmoid colon documented by colonoscopy and 2 episodes of uncomplicated diverticulitis, one at least being documented with CT scan, 1 episode of complicated diverticulitis, with a pericolic abscess (Hinchey stage I) or pelvic abscess (Hinchey stage II) requiring percutaneous drainage."We determined that two studies were at low risk of selection bias; two that reported considerable dropouts were at high risk of attrition bias; none reported blinding of outcome assessors (unclear detection bias); and all were exposed to performance bias owing to the nature of the intervention.Available low-quality evidence suggests that laparoscopic surgical resection may lead to little or no difference in mean hospital stay compared with open surgical resection (3 studies, 360 participants; MD -0.62 (days), 95% CI -2.49 to 1.25; I² = 0%).Low-quality evidence suggests that operating time was longer in the laparoscopic surgery group than in the open surgery group (3 studies, 360 participants; MD 49.28 (minutes), 95% CI 40.64 to 57.93; I² = 0%).We are uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery improves postoperative pain between day 1 and day 3 more effectively than open surgery. Low-quality evidence suggests that laparoscopic surgery may improve postoperative pain at the fourth postoperative day more effectively than open surgery (2 studies, 250 participants; MD = -0.65, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.25).Researchers reported quality of life differently across trials, hindering the possibility of meta-analysis. Low-quality evidence from one trial using the Short Form (SF)-36 questionnaire six weeks after surgery suggests that laparoscopic intervention may improve quality of life, whereas evidence from two other trials using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) v3 and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index score, respectively, suggests that laparoscopic surgery may make little or no difference in improving quality of life compared with open surgery.We are uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery improves the following outcomes: 30-day postoperative mortality, early overall morbidity, major and minor complications, surgical complications, postoperative times to liquid and solid diets, and reoperations due to anastomotic leak. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results from the present comprehensive review indicate that evidence to support or refute the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgical resection for treatment of patients with acute diverticular disease is insufficient. Well-designed trials with adequate sample size are needed to investigate the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery towards important patient-oriented (e.g. postoperative pain) and health system-oriented outcomes (e.g. mean hospital stay).

Ultrasonography for endoleak detection after endoluminal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: People with abdominal aortic aneurysm who receive endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) need lifetime surveillance to detect potential endoleaks. Endoleak is defined as persistent blood flow within the aneurysm sac following EVAR. Computed tomography (CT) angiography is considered the reference standard for endoleak surveillance. Colour duplex ultrasound (CDUS) and contrast-enhanced CDUS (CE-CDUS) are less invasive but considered less accurate than CT. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of colour duplex ultrasound (CDUS) and contrast-enhanced-colour duplex ultrasound (CE-CDUS) in terms of sensitivity and specificity for endoleak detection after endoluminal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ISI Conference Proceedings, Zetoc, and trial registries in June 2016 without language restrictions and without use of filters to maximize sensitivity. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any cross-sectional diagnostic study evaluating participants who received EVAR by both ultrasound (with or without contrast) and CT scan assessed at regular intervals. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two pairs of review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality of included studies using the QUADAS 1 tool. A third review author resolved discrepancies. The unit of analysis was number of participants for the primary analysis and number of scans performed for the secondary analysis. We carried out a meta-analysis to estimate sensitivity and specificity of CDUS or CE-CDUS using a bivariate model. We analysed each index test separately. As potential sources of heterogeneity, we explored year of publication, characteristics of included participants (age and gender), direction of the study (retrospective, prospective), country of origin, number of CDUS operators, and ultrasound manufacturer. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 42 primary studies with 4220 participants. Twenty studies provided accuracy data based on the number of individual participants (seven of which provided data with and without the use of contrast). Sixteen of these studies evaluated the accuracy of CDUS. These studies were generally of moderate to low quality: only three studies fulfilled all the QUADAS items; in six (40%) of the studies, the delay between the tests was unclear or longer than four weeks; in eight (50%), the blinding of either the index test or the reference standard was not clearly reported or was not performed; and in two studies (12%), the interpretation of the reference standard was not clearly reported. Eleven studies evaluated the accuracy of CE-CDUS. These studies were of better quality than the CDUS studies: five (45%) studies fulfilled all the QUADAS items; four (36%) did not report clearly the blinding interpretation of the reference standard; and two (18%) did not clearly report the delay between the two tests.Based on the bivariate model, the summary estimates for CDUS were 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.91) for sensitivity and 0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.96) for specificity whereas for CE-CDUS the estimates were 0.94 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.98) for sensitivity and 0.95 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98) for specificity. Regression analysis showed that CE-CDUS was superior to CDUS in terms of sensitivity (LR Chi2 = 5.08, 1 degree of freedom (df); P = 0.0242 for model improvement).Seven studies provided estimates before and after administration of contrast. Sensitivity before contrast was 0.67 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.83) and after contrast was 0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.99). The improvement in sensitivity with of contrast use was statistically significant (LR Chi2 = 13.47, 1 df; P = 0.0002 for model improvement).Regression testing showed evidence of statistically significant effect bias related to year of publication and study quality within individual participants based CDUS studies. Sensitivity estimates were higher in the studies published before 2006 than the estimates obtained from studies published in 2006 or later (P < 0.001); and studies judged as low/unclear quality provided higher estimates in sensitivity. When regression testing was applied to the individual based CE-CDUS studies, none of the items, namely direction of the study design, quality, and age, were identified as a source of heterogeneity.Twenty-two studies provided accuracy data based on number of scans performed (of which four provided data with and without the use of contrast). Analysis of the studies that provided scan based data showed similar results. Summary estimates for CDUS (18 studies) showed 0.72 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.85) for sensitivity and 0.95 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.96) for specificity whereas summary estimates for CE-CDUS (eight studies) were 0.91 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.98) for sensitivity and 0.89 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.96) for specificity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that both ultrasound modalities (with or without contrast) showed high specificity. For ruling in endoleaks, CE-CDUS appears superior to CDUS. In an endoleak surveillance programme CE-CDUS can be introduced as a routine diagnostic modality followed by CT scan only when the ultrasound is positive to establish the type of endoleak and the subsequent therapeutic management.

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY DISINVESTMENT WORLDWIDE: OVERVIEW OF PROGRAMS AND POSSIBLE DETERMINANTS.

OBJECTIVES: In the past decade, there has been a growing interest in health technology disinvestment. A disinvestment process should involve all relevant stakeholders to identify and deliver the most effective, safe, and cost-effective healthcare interventions. The aim of the present study was to describe the state of the art of health technology disinvestment around the world and to identify parameters that could be associated with the implementation of disinvestment programs. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed from database inception to November 2014, together with the collection of original data on socio-economic indicators from forty countries. RESULTS: Overall, 1,456 records (1,199 from electronic databases and 257 from other sources) were initially retrieved. After analyzing 172 full text articles, 38 papers describing fifteen disinvestment programs/experiences in eight countries were included. The majority (12/15) of disinvestment programs began after 2006. As expected, these programs were more common in developed countries, 63 percent of which had a Beveridge model healthcare system. The univariate analysis showed that countries with disinvestment programs had a significantly higher level of Human Development Index, Gross Domestic Product per capita, public expenditure on health and social services, life expectancy at birth and a lower level of infant mortality rate, and of perceived corruption. The existence of HTA agencies in the country was a strong predictor (p = .034) for the development of disinvestment programs. CONCLUSIONS: The most significant variables in the univariate analysis were connected by a common factor, potentially related to the overall development stage of the country.

Thoracic stent graft versus surgery for thoracic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) is an uncommon disease with an incidence of 10.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. It occurs mainly in older individuals and is evenly distributed among both sexes. There are no signs or symptoms indicative of the presence of the disease. Progressive but unpredictable enlargement of the dilated aorta is the natural course of the disease and can lead to rupture. Open chest surgical repair using prosthetic graft interposition has been a conventional treatment for TAAs. Despite improvements in surgical procedures perioperative complications remain significant. The alternative option of thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) is considered a less invasive and potentially safer technique, with lower morbidity and mortality compared with conventional treatment. Evidence is needed to support the use of TEVAR for these patients, rather than open surgery. This is an update of the review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to assess the efficacy of TEVAR versus conventional open surgery in patients with thoracic aortic aneurysms. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (last searched January 2016) and CENTRAL (2015, Issue 12). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in which patients with TAAs were randomly assigned to TEVAR or open surgical repair. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified and evaluated potential trials for eligibility. Excluded studies were further checked by another author. We did not perform any statistical analyses as no randomised controlled trials were identified. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any published or unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing TEVAR with conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of thoracic aortic aneurysms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Stent grafting of the thoracic aorta is technically feasible and non-randomised studies suggest reduction of early outcomes such as paraplegia, mortality and hospital stay. High quality randomised controlled trials assessing all clinically relevant outcomes including open-conversion, aneurysm exclusion, endoleaks, and late mortality are needed.

Lasers for caries removal in deciduous and permanent teeth.

BACKGROUND: Despite considerable improvements in oral health, dental caries continue to be a public health issue. The most frequently used, and universally accepted technique, to remove caries is through mechanical ablation of decayed tissues by means of rotating drills (diamond or tungsten carbide, or both). In the past few decades, the introduction of adhesive filling materials (resin composites) has affected cavity filling procedures by reducing its retention needs, with advantages for dental tissue conservation. Consequently, new minimally invasive strategies were introduced into dental practice, such as the use of lasers to perform highly controlled tissue ablation. Laser use has also raised expectations of limiting pain and discomfort compared to using drills, as well as overcoming drill phobia. OBJECTIVES: The main objective of the review was to compare the effects of laser-based methods to conventional mechanical methods for removing dental caries in deciduous and permanent teeth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 22 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5) in the Cochrane Library (searched 22 June 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 22 June 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 22 June 2016), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1980 to 22 June 2016), Zetoc (limited to conference proceedings) (1993 to 22 June 2016), and ISI Web of Knowledge (limited to conference proceedings) (1990 to 22 June 2016). We checked the reference lists of relevant articles to identify additional studies. We searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, split-mouth trials and cluster-randomised trials (irrespective of their language) comparing laser therapy to drill ablation of caries. We included participants of any age (children, adolescents and adults). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of citations identified by the review search strategy. Two review authors independently evaluated the full text of relevant primary studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine randomised trials, published between 1998 and 2014, involving 662 participants. The population consisted of both children and adolescents in four trials, only adults in four trials, and both children/adolescents and adults in one trial. Four studies examined only permanent teeth, and five studies evaluated both deciduous and permanent teeth. Six trials used Er:YAG (erbium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet) lasers, two trials employed Er,Cr:YSGG (erbium, chromium: yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet) lasers, and one trial used Nd:YAG (neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet) laser.Overall, the trials had small sample sizes, and the majority were at unclear or high risk of bias. The primary outcomes were evaluated in a limited number of trials (removal of caries (four trials (but only two reported quantitative data)); episodes of pain (five studies)). There was insufficient evidence to suggest that either lasers or drill were better at caries removal (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.01; 2 studies; 256 treated caries; P = 0.75; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence).The incidence of moderate or high pain was greater in the drill group compared to the laser group (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.57; 2 studies; 143 participants; P < 0.001; I2 = 50%). Similarly, the need for anaesthesia was significantly higher in the drill group than in the laser group (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.65; 3 studies; 217 children/adolescents; P = 0.004; I2 = 0%).In terms of marginal integrity of restoration, there was no evidence of a difference between laser and drill comparisons evaluated at 6 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.78; 3 studies), 1 year (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.34 to 7.38; 2 studies), or 2 years (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.74; 1 study).There was no evidence of a difference for durability of restoration between laser therapy or drill at 6 months' follow-up (RR 2.40, 95% CI 0.65 to 8.77; 4 studies), at 1 year (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 6.78; 2 studies) or at 2 years' follow-up (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.02 to 14.60; 1 study).Only two trials investigated the recurrence of caries, but no events occurred during 6 months' follow-up.There was insufficient evidence of a difference between laser or drill in terms of pulpal inflammation or necrosis at 1 week (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.75; 3 studies) and at 6 months (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.10 to 9.41; 2 studies). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the low quality of the body of evidence, we concluded that evidence was insufficient to support the use of laser as an alternative to traditional drill therapy for caries removal. We found some evidence in favour of laser therapy for pain control, need of anaesthesia and patient discomfort, but, again, the body of evidence was of low quality. Additional well-designed, randomised trials investigating the most relevant outcomes are needed.

Fresh frozen plasma for cardiovascular surgery.

BACKGROUND: Fresh frozen plasma (FFP) is a blood component containing procoagulant factors, which is sometimes used in cardiovascular surgery with the aim of reducing the risk of bleeding. The purpose of this review is to assess the risk of mortality for patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery who receive FFP. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the risk to benefit ratio of FFP transfusion in cardiovascular surgery for the treatment of bleeding patients or for prophylaxis against bleeding. SEARCH METHODS: We searched 11 bibliographic databases and four ongoing trials databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, 2015), MEDLINE (OvidSP, 1946 to 21 April 2015), EMBASE (OvidSP, 1974 to 21 April 2015), PubMed (e-publications only: searched 21 April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP and the ISRCTN Register (searched 21 April 2015). We also searched the references of all identified trials and relevant review articles. We did not limit the searches by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in patients undergoing major cardiac or vascular surgery who were allocated to a FFP group or a comparator (no plasma or an active comparator, either clinical plasma (any type) or a plasma-derived blood product). We included participants of any age (neonates, children and adults). We excluded studies of plasmapheresis and plasma exchange. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors screened all electronically derived citations and abstracts of papers identified by the review search strategy. Two authors assessed risk of bias in the included studies and extracted data independently. We took care to note whether FFP was used therapeutically or prophylactically within each trial. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials, with a total of 755 participants for analysis in the review. Fourteen trials compared prophylactic use of FFP against no FFP. One study compared therapeutic use of two types of plasma. The timing of intervention varied, including FFP transfusion at the time of heparin neutralisation and stopping cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) (seven trials), with CPB priming (four trials), after anaesthesia induction (one trial) and postoperatively (two trials). Twelve trials excluded patients having emergency surgery and nine excluded patients with coagulopathies.Overall the trials were small, with only four reporting an a priori sample size calculation. No trial was powered to determine changes in mortality as a primary outcome. There was either high risk of bias, or unclear risk, in the majority of trials included in this review.There was no difference in the number of deaths between the intervention arms in the six trials (with 287 patients) reporting mortality (very low quality evidence). There was also no difference in blood loss in the first 24 hours for neonatal/paediatric patients (four trials with 138 patients; low quality evidence): mean difference (MD) -1.46 ml/kg (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.7 to 1.78 ml/kg); or adult patients (one trial with 120 patients): MD -12.00 ml (95% CI -101.16 to 77.16 ml).Transfusion with FFP was inferior to control for preventing patients receiving any red cell transfusion: Peto odds ratio (OR) 2.57 (95% CI 1.30 to 5.08; moderate quality evidence). There was a difference in prothrombin time within two hours of FFP transfusion in eight trials (with 210 patients; moderate quality evidence) favouring the FFP arm: MD -0.71 seconds (95% CI -1.28 to -0.13 seconds). There was no difference in the risk of returning to theatre for reoperation (eight trials with 398 patients; moderate quality evidence): Peto OR 0.81 (95% CI 0.26 to 2.57). Only one included study reported adverse events as an outcome and reported no significant adverse events following FFP transfusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review has found no evidence to support the prophylactic administration of FFP to patients without coagulopathy undergoing elective cardiac surgery. There was insufficient evidence about treatment of patients with coagulopathies or those who are undergoing emergency surgery. There were no reported adverse events attributable to FFP transfusion, although there was a significant increase in the number of patients requiring red cell transfusion who were randomised to FFP. Variability in outcome reporting between trials precluded meta-analysis for many outcomes across all trials, and there was evidence of a high risk of bias in most of the studies. Further adequately powered studies of FFP, or comparable pro-haemostatic agents, are required to assess whether larger reductions in prothrombin time translate into clinical benefits. Overall the evidence from randomised controlled trials for the safety and efficacy of prophylactic transfusion of FFP for cardiac surgery is insufficient.

Thoracic stent graft versus surgery for thoracic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) is an uncommon disease with an incidence of 10.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. It occurs mainly in older individuals and is evenly distributed among both sexes. There are no signs or symptoms indicative of the presence of the disease. Progressive but unpredictable enlargement of the dilated aorta is the natural course of the disease and can lead to rupture. Open chest surgical repair using prosthetic graft interposition has been a conventional treatment for TAAs. Despite improvements in surgical procedures perioperative complications remain significant. The alternative option of thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) is considered a less invasive and potentially safer technique, with lower morbidity and mortality compared with conventional treatment. Evidence is needed to support the use of TEVAR for these patients, rather than open surgery. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to assess the efficacy of TEVAR versus conventional open surgery in patients with TAAs. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched March 2013) and CENTRAL (2013, Issue 2). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in which patients with TAAs were randomly assigned to TEVAR or open surgical repair. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified and evaluated potential trials for eligibility. Excluded studies were further checked by another author. We did not perform any statistical analyses as no randomised controlled trials were identified. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any published or unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing TEVAR with conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of thoracic aortic aneurysms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Though stent grafting of the thoracic aorta is technically feasible and non-randomised studies suggest reduction of early outcomes such as paraplegia, mortality and hospital stay, high quality randomised controlled trials assessing all clinically relevant outcomes including open-conversion, aneurysm exclusion, endoleaks, and late mortality are needed.

Damage control surgery for abdominal trauma.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is one of the leading causes of death in any age group. The 'lethal triad' of acidosis, hypothermia, and coagulopathy has been recognized as a significant cause of death in patients with traumatic injuries. In order to prevent the lethal triad two factors are essential, early control of bleeding and prevention of further heat loss. In patients with major abdominal trauma, damage control surgery (DCS) avoids extensive procedures on unstable patients, stabilizes potentially fatal problems at initial operation, and applies staged surgery after successful initial resuscitation. It is not currently known whether DCS is superior to immediate surgery for patients with major abdominal trauma. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of damage control surgery compared to traditional immediate definitive surgical treatment for patients with major abdominal trauma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12 of 12), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science: Science Citation Index & ISI Proceedings, Current Controlled Trials MetaRegister, Clinicaltrials.gov, Zetoc, and CINAHL for all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. We did not restrict the searches by language, date, or publication status. The search was through December 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of damage control surgery versus immediate traditional surgical repair were included in this review. We included patients with major abdominal trauma (Abbreviated Injury Scale > 3) who were undergoing surgery. Patient selection was crucial as patients with relatively simple abdominal injuries should not undergo unnecessary procedures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently evaluated the search results. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 2551 studies were identified by our search. No randomised controlled trials comparing DCS with immediate and definitive repair in patients with major abdominal trauma were found. A total of 2551 studies were excluded because they were not relevant to the review topic and two studies were excluded with reasons after examining the full-text. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence that supports the efficacy of damage control surgery with respect to traditional laparotomy in patients with major abdominal trauma is limited.

Radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common malignant tumour and the third leading cause of cancer deaths in USA. For advanced CRC, the liver is the first site of metastatic disease; approximately 50 % of patients with CRC will develop liver metastases either synchronously or metachronously within 2 years after primary diagnosis. Hepatic resection (HR) is the only curative option, but only 15-20% of patients with liver metastases from CRC (CRLMs) are suitable for surgical standard treatment. In patients with unresectable CRLMs downsizing chemotherapy can improve resectability (16%). Modern systemic chemotherapy represents the only significant treatment for unresectable CRLMs. However several loco-regional treatments have been developed: hepatic arterial infusion (HAI), cryosurgical ablation (CSA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation and selective internal radion treatment (SIRT). During the past decade RFA has superseded other ablative therapies, due to its low morbidity, mortality, safety and patient acceptability. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to systematically review the role of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of CRLMs. SEARCH METHODS: We performed electronic searches in the following databases:CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Current trials were identified through the Internet using the Clinical-Trials.gov site (to January 2, 2012) and ASCO Proceedings. The reference lists of identified trials were reviewed for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing RFA to any other therapy for CRLMs were included. Observational study designs including comparative cohort studies comparing RFA to another intervention, single arm cohort studies or case control studies have been included if they have: prospectively collected data, ten or more patients; and have a mean or median follow-up time of 24 months. Patients with CRLMs who have no contraindications for RFA. Patients with unresectable extra-hepatic disease were also included.Trials have been considered regardless of language of origin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A total of 1144 records were identified through the above electronic searching. We included 18 studies: 10 observational studies, 7 Clinical Controlled Trials (CCTs) and an additional 1 Randomized Clinical Trial (RCT) (abstract) identified by hand searching in the 2010 ASCO Annual Meeting. The most appropriate way of summarizing time-to-event data is to use methods of survival analysis and express the intervention effect as a hazard ratio. In the included studies these outcome are mostly reported as dichotomous data so we should have asked authors research data for each participant and perform Individual Patient Data (IPD) meta-analysis. Given the study design and low quality of included studies we decided to give up and not to summarize these data. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen studies were not randomised and this increases the potential for selection bias. In addition, there was imbalance in the baseline characteristics of the participants included in all studies. All studies were classified as having a elevate risk of bias. The assessment of methodological quality of all non-randomized studies included in meta-analysis performed by the STROBE checklist has allowed us to identify several methodological limits in most of the analysed studies. At present, the information from the single RCT included (Ruers 2010) comes from an abstract of 2010 ASCO Annual Meeting where the allocation concealment was not reported; however in original protocol allocation concealment was adequately reported (EORTC 40004 protocol). The heterogeneity regarding interventions, comparisons and outcomes rendered the data not suitable. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review gathers information from several controlled clinical trials and observational studies which are vulnerable to different types of bias. The imbalance between characteristics of patients in the allocated groups appears to be the main concern. Only one randomised clinical trial (published as an abstract), comparing 60 patients receiving RFA plus CT versus 59 patients receiving CT alone, was identified. This study showed that PFS was significantly higher in the group that received RFA. However, it was not able to provide information on overall survival. In conclusion, evidence from the included studies are insufficient to recommend RFA for a radical oncological treatment of CRLMs.

Non-resection versus resection for an asymptomatic primary tumour in patients with unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In a majority of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, the metastatic disease is not resectable and the focus of management is on how best to palliate the patient. How to manage the primary tumour is an important part of palliation. A small proportion of these patients present with either obstructing or perforating cancers and require urgent surgical care. However, a majority are relatively asymptomatic from their primary cancer. Chemotherapy has been shown to prolong survival in this group of patients, and a majority of patients would be treated this way. Nonetheless, A recent meta-analysis (Stillwell 2010) suggests an improved overall survival and reduced requirement for emergency surgery in those patients who undergo primary tumour resection. This review was also able to quantify the mortality and morbidity associated with surgery to remove the primary. OBJECTIVES: To determine if there is an improvement in overall survival following resection of the primary cancer in patients with unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer and an asymptomatic primary who are treated with chemo/radiotherapy. SEARCH METHODS: In January 2012 we searched for published randomised and non-randomised controlled clinical trials without language restrictions using the following electronic databases: CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library (latest issue)), MEDLINE (1966 to date), EMBASE (1980 to date), Science Citation Index (1981 to date), ISI Proceedings (1990 to date), Current Controlled Trials MetaRegister (latest issue), Zetoc (latest issue) and CINAHL (1982 to date). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled studies evaluating the influence on overall survival of primary tumour resection versus no resection in asymptomatic patients with unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer who are treated with palliative chemo/radiotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted the review according to the recommendations of The Cochrane Collaboration and the Cochrane Colorectal Group. "Review Manager 5" software was used. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 798 studies were identified following the initial search. No published or unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing primary tumour resection versus no resection in asymptomatic patients with unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer who were treated with chemo/radiotherapy were identified. Seven non-randomised studies, potentially eligible for inclusion, were identified: 2 case-matched studies, 2 CCTs and 3 retrospective cohort studies. Overall, these trials included 1.086 patients (722 patients treated with primary tumour resection, and 364 patients managed first with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Resection of the primary tumour in asymptomatic patients with unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer who are managed with chemo/radiotherapy is not associated with a consistent improvement in overall survival. In addition, resection does not significantly reduce the risk of complications from the primary tumour (i.e.  obstruction, perforation or bleeding). Yet there is enough doubt with regard to the published literature to justify further clinical trials in this area. The results from an ongoing high quality randomised controlled trial will help to answer this question.

Covering ileo- or colostomy in anterior resection for rectal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage is one of the most important complications that occur after surgical low anterior resection for rectal cancer. There are indications that anastomotic leak is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, frequent re-operation or radiological drainage, and prolonged hospital stay. Defunctioning stoma can be useful for patients undergoing a rectal surgery. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of protective defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were conducted November 2009. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1966) and EMBASE (from 1980). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing the use of stoma versus "no stoma" in patients that received low anterior resection for rectal cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Six randomised controlled trials were identified and included in this review. Five trials were fully published in peer-reviewed journals. An attempt was made to obtain further information from the authors of the trial that was available only in an abstract form. The studies analysed the following outcomes: clinical anastomotic leakage, urgent reoperation, mortality and length of postoperative hospital stay. Review authors extracted the data independently, the risk ratios (RR) were estimated for the dichotomous outcomes and standardised mean difference were estimated for the continuous outcome MAIN RESULTS: All the trials reported results for clinical anastomotic leakage, urgent reoperation and mortality. Only two trials reported the results for length of postoperative hospital stay.With respect to controls, use of covering stoma was significantly associated with less anastomotic leakage (RR 0.33; 95%CI [0.21, 0.53]) and less urgent reoperation (RR 0.23; 95%CI [0.12, 0.42] ). There was no significant difference in terms of mortality (RR 0.58; 95%CI [0.14, 2.33]). There was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity in any of the comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Covering stoma seems to be useful to prevent anastomotic leakage and urgent re-operations in patients receiving low anterior resection for rectal cancer. However, covering stoma does not seems to offer advantage in term of 30 days or long term mortality.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery in small bowel obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Acute intestinal obstruction is one of the most common surgical emergencies. The small bowel obstruction (SBO) is the site of obstruction in most patients (76%) and adhesions are the most common etiology (65%). Laparoscopy in SBO has no clear role yet as it may have a therapeutic and diagnostic function. In some settings laparoscopic or laparoscopy-assisted surgery is considered feasible and convenient more than conventional surgery for SBO; however little is known if laparoscopic or laparoscopy-assisted surgery is more suitable with respect to open surgery for patients with SBO. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review is to assess whether laparoscopic or laparoscopy-assisted surgery is feasible and safe for acute SBO, and whether laparoscopic and laparoscopy-assisted surgery present advantages compared to open surgery in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched for published randomised and prospective controlled clinical trials without language restrictions using the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950 onwards) and EMBASE (1980 onwards). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and non randomised controlled prospective trials evaluating laparoscopic and laparoscopy-assisted surgery versus traditional open surgery for acute SBO were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted the review according to the recommendations of The Cochrane Collaboration and the Cochrane Colorectal Group as well, using Review Manager 5 to conduct the review. MAIN RESULTS: No published or unpublished randomised controlled trials or prospective controlled clinical trials comparing laparoscopy with open surgery for patients with SBO were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although data from retrospective clinical controlled trials suggest that laparoscopy seems feasible and better in terms of hospital stay and mortality reduction, high quality randomised controlled trials assessing all clinically relevant outcomes including overall mortality, morbidity, hospital stay and conversion are needed.

Damage control surgery for abdominal trauma.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is one of the leading causes of death in any age group. The 'lethal triad' of acidosis, hypothermia, and coagulopathy has been recognized as a significant cause of death in patients with traumatic injuries. In order to prevent the lethal triad two factors are essential, early control of bleeding and prevention of further heat loss. In patients with major abdominal trauma, damage control surgery (DCS) avoids extensive procedures on unstable patients, stabilizes potentially fatal problems at initial operation, and applies staged surgery after successful initial resuscitation. It is not currently known whether DCS is superior to immediate surgery for patients with major abdominal trauma. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of DCS compared to traditional immediate definitive surgical treatment for patients with major abdominal trauma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science: Science Citation Index & ISI Proceedings, Current Controlled Trials MetaRegister, Clinicaltrials.gov, Zetoc, and CINAHL for all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. We did not restrict the searches by language, date, or publication status. Searches were conducted in August 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of DCS versus immediate traditional surgical repair were included in this review. We included patients with major abdominal trauma (Abbreviated Injury Scale > 3) who were undergoing surgery. Patient selection was crucial as patients with relatively simple abdominal injuries should not undergo unnecessary procedures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently evaluated the search results. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 1523 studies were identified by our search. No randomised controlled trials comparing DCS with immediate and definitive repair in patients with major abdominal trauma were found. A total of 1521 studies were excluded because they were not relevant to the review topic and two studies were excluded because they were case-control studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence that supports the efficacy of DCS with respect to traditional laparotomy in patients with major abdominal trauma is limited.

Accuracy of ICD-9 codes in identifying patients with peptic ulcer and gastrointestinal hemorrhage in the regional healthcare administrative database of Umbria.

BACKGROUND: Peptic ulcer is a widespread disease, frequently complicated by perforation and bleeding. Administrative databases are useful tool to perform epidemiological and drug utilization studies, but they need a validation process based on a comparison with the original data contained in the medical charts. Our aim was to evaluate the accuracy of the ICD-9 codes in identifying patients with peptic ulcer and gastrointestinal hemorrhage in the regional administrative database of Umbria. METHODS: The index test of our study was the hospital discharge abstract database of the Umbria region (Italy), while the reference standard was the clinical information collected in the medical charts. The study population were adult patients with a hospital discharge for peptic ulcer or gastrointestinal hemorrhage in the period 2012-2014. A random sample of cases and non-cases was selected and the corresponding medical charts were reviewed. Cases of peptic ulcer were confirmed based on endoscopy, radiology, and surgery, while adjudication of gastrointestinal hemorrhage was based on presence of hematemesis, melena, and rectal bleeding. RESULTS: Overall, we reviewed 445 clinical charts of cases and 80 clinical charts of non-cases. The diagnostic accuracy results were: code 531 (gastric ulcer), sensitivity and NPV 98%, specificity 88%, and PPV 91%; code 532 (duodenal ulcer), sensitivity and NPV 100%, specificity and PPV 98%; code 534 (gastrojejunal ulcer), sensitivity and NPV 100%, specificity 70%, and PPV 45%; code 578 (gastrointestinal hemorrhage), sensitivity 96%, specificity 90%, PPV and NPV 94%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed a high level of diagnostic accuracy for most of the codes considered. The ICD-9 code 534 of gastrojejunal ulcer had a lower level of specificity and PPV due to false positives, being mainly misclassifications for coding errors. These validated codes can be used for future epidemiological studies and for health services research.

Surgical wound closure by staples or sutures?: Systematic review.

AIM: To compare the effects of sutures and staples for skin closure of surgical wounds. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomized trials comparing staples with sutures. Patients were adults (aged 18 years or over) who had undergone any type of surgery. The primary outcomes were risk of overall and severe wound infection. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, readmission rate, adverse events, patient satisfaction with cosmetic results, postoperative pain. RESULTS: Forty-two very low to low quality RCTs with a total of 11,067 patients were included. Sutures resulted in slightly fewer overall wound infections (4.90%) compared to staples (6.75%) but it is uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups (risk ratio [RR] 1.20, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.80-1.79; patients = 9864; studies = 34; I = 70%). The evidence was also insufficient to state a difference in terms of severe wound infection (staples 1.4% vs sutures 1.3%; RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.61-1.89; patients = 3036; studies = 17; I = 0%), grade of satisfaction (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91-1.07; patients = 3243; studies = 14; I = 67%) and hospital stay. Staples may increase the risk of adverse events (7.3% for staples vs 3.5% for sutures; RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.44-2.79; patients = 6246; studies = 21; I = 33%), readmission rate (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.18-9.05; patients = 2466; studies = 5; I = 66%) and postoperative pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.41,95%CI -0.35 to 1.16; I = 88%, patients = 390 patients, studies = 5). CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of high quality evidence, we could not state if sutures are better than staples in terms of wound infection, readmission rate, adverse events, and postoperative pain. With a low quality of evidence, sutures reduce postoperative pain and improve grade of satisfaction with the cosmetic outcome.

Validity of cerebrovascular ICD-9-CM codes in healthcare administrative databases. The Umbria Data-Value Project.

BACKGROUND: Validation of administrative databases for cerebrovascular diseases is crucial for epidemiological, outcome, and health services research. The aim of this study was to validate ICD-9 codes for hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke in administrative databases, to use them for a comprehensive assessment of the burden of disease in terms of major outcomes, such as mortality, hospital readmissions, and use of healthcare resources. METHODS: We considered the hospital discharge abstract database of the Umbria Region (890,000 residents). Source population was represented by patients aged >18 discharged from hospital with a diagnosis of hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke between 2012 and 2014 using ICD-9-CM codes in primary position. We randomly selected and reviewed medical charts of cases and non-cases from hospitals. For case ascertainment we considered symptoms and instrumental tests reported in the medical charts. Diagnostic accuracy measures were computed using 2x2 tables. RESULTS: We reviewed 767 medical charts for cases and 78 charts for non-cases. Diagnostic accuracy measures were: subarachnoid hemorrhage: sensitivity (SE) 100% (95% CI: 97%-100%), specificity (SP) 96% (90-99), positive predictive value (PPV) 98% (93-100), negative predictive value (NPV) 100% (95-100); intracerebral hemorrhage: SE 100% (97-100), SP 98% (91-100), PPV 98% (94-100), NPV 100% (95-100); other and unspecified intracranial hemorrhage: SE 100% (97-100), SP 96% (90-99), PPV 98% (93-100), NPV 100% (95-100); ischemic stroke due to occlusion and stenosis of precerebral arteries: SE 99% (94-100), SP 66 (57-75), PPV 70% (61-77), NPV 99% (93-100); occlusion of cerebral arteries: SE 100% (97-100), SP 87% (78-93), PPV 91% (84-95), NPV 100% (95-100); acute, but ill-defined, cerebrovascular disease: SE 100% (97-100), SP 78% (69-86), PPV % 83 (75-89), NPV 100% (95-100). CONCLUSIONS: Case ascertainment for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke showed good or high levels of accuracy within the regional healthcare databases in Umbria. This database can confidently be employed for epidemiological, outcome, and health services research related to any type of stroke.

Thoracic stent graft versus surgery for thoracic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) is an uncommon disease with an incidence of 10.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. It occurs mainly in older individuals and is evenly distributed among both sexes. There are no signs or symptoms indicative of the presence of the disease. Progressive but unpredictable enlargement of the dilated aorta is the natural course of the disease and can lead to rupture. Open chest surgical repair using prosthetic graft interposition has been a conventional treatment for TAAs. Despite improvements in surgical procedures perioperative complications remain significant. The alternative option of thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) is considered a less invasive and potentially safer technique, with lower morbidity and mortality compared with conventional treatment. Evidence is needed to support the use of TEVAR for these patients, rather than open surgery. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to assess the efficacy of TEVAR versus conventional open surgery in patients with TAAs. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their Trials Register (last searched 10 October 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database (CENTRAL) (last searched The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in which patients with TAAs were randomly assigned to TEVAR or open surgical repair. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified and evaluated potential trials for eligibility. Excluded studies were further checked by another author. We did not perform any statistical analyses as no randomised controlled trials were identified. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any published or unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing TEVAR with conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of thoracic aortic aneurysms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Though stent grafting of the thoracic aorta is technically feasible and non-randomised studies suggest reduction of early outcomes such as paraplegia, mortality and hospital stay, high quality randomised controlled trials assessing all clinically relevant outcomes including open-conversion, aneurysm exclusion, endoleaks, and late mortality are needed.

A diagnostic accuracy study validating cardiovascular ICD-9-CM codes in healthcare administrative databases. The Umbria Data-Value Project.

BACKGROUND: Administrative healthcare databases are useful and inexpensive tools that can provide a comprehensive assessment of the burden of diseases in terms of major outcomes, such as mortality, hospital readmissions, and use of healthcare resources. However, a crucial issue is the reliability of information gathered. The aim of this study was to validate ICD-9 codes for several major cardiovascular conditions, i.e., acute myocardial infarction (AMI), atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF), and heart failure (HF), in order to use them for epidemiological, outcome, and health services research. METHODS: Data from the centralised administrative database of the Umbria Region (890,000 residents, located in Central Italy) were considered. Patients with a first hospital discharge for AMI, AF/flutter, and HF, between 2012 and 2014, were identified using ICD-9-CM codes in primary position. A sample of cases and non-cases was randomly selected, and the corresponding medical charts reviewed by specifically trained investigators. For each disease, case ascertainment was based on all clinical, laboratory, and instrumental examinations available in medical charts. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated. RESULTS: We reviewed 458 medical charts, 128 for AMI, 127 for AF/flutter, 127 for HF, and 76 of non-cases for each condition. Diagnostic accuracy measures of the original discharge diagnosis were as follows. AMI: sensitivity 98% (95% CI, 94-100%), specificity 91% (95% CI, 83-97%), positive predictive value (PPV) 95% (95% CI, 89-98%), negative predictive value (NPV) 97% (95% CI, 91-100%). AF/flutter: sensitivity 95% (95% CI, 90-98%), specificity 95% (95% CI, 87-99%), PPV 97% (95% CI, 92-99%), NPV 92% (95% CI, 84-97%). HF: sensitivity 96% (95% CI, 91-99%), specificity 90% (95% CI, 81-96%), PPV 94% (95% CI, 88-97%), NPV 93% (95% CI, 85-98%). CONCLUSION: The case ascertainment for AMI, AF and flutter, and HF, showed a high level of accuracy (≥ 90%). The healthcare administrative database of the Umbria Region can be confidently used for epidemiological, outcome, and health services research.

[Epidemiology of postpartum hemorrhages in the Umbrian population in the years 2006-2017.] / Epidemiologia delle emorragie post partum nella popolazione umbra nel periodo 2006-2017.

INTRODUCTION: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is one of the main causes of mortality and severe maternal morbidity and its incidence is increasing also in Western countries. Aim of this study is to estimate the incidence and the trend of PPH in the Umbrian population using the validated Umbrian health database and to identify possible determinants for the development of PPH. METHODS: The source of the data was the regional Healthcare Database of the Umbria Region. The population of interest was represented by women who gave birth in Umbria between 2006 and 2017. The PPH was identified from the hospital data using the ICD-9-CM 666.x codes. Demographic data, principal and secondary diagnoses and data on maternal morbidity and blood component transfusion were collected. The incidence of PPH was calculated taking into account cases of PPH over the total number of births. The determinants of PPH, the associated morbidity and the variation in the severity of the PPH over time have been identified by logistic regression models. RESULTS: In Umbria, between 2006 and 2017, 93,403 births were registered (69% by vaginal delivery and 31% by caesarean section) and the rate of caesarean sections decreased by about 4%. The incidence of PPH increased three-fold during this period with an increase (p<0.001) of women with PPH who received transfusions. Regarding the caesarean sections, the PPH trend increased by 53% (p=0.3), while in the vaginal deliveries the PPHs increased by 233% (p<0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that possible risk factors for the occurrence of PPH are maternal morbidity (OR 22.8, 95% CI 18.5-30.0), twin birth (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3-3.2) and antepartum haemorrhage (OR 5.7, 95% CI 3.1-10.4). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of PPH has increased in recent years, while the morbidity associated with PPH has remained substantially unchanged. The study identified several risk factors responsible for PPH that can be used in the monitoring of pregnant women and for planning prevention strategies such as Patient Blood Management.