Saphenous vein harvesting techniques for coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The great saphenous vein (GSV) graft remains a frequently used conduit for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. The optimal technique for GSV harvesting has been the subject of on-going controversy. We therefore sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available GSV harvesting techniques in CABG. A systematic search of 12 electronic databases was performed to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any GSV harvesting technique, including conventional vein harvesting (CVH), no-touch, standard bridging technique (SBT) and endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) techniques. We investigated safety and long-term efficacy outcomes. All outcomes were analyzed using the frequentist network meta-analysis. A total of 6480 patients from 34 RCTs were included. For safety outcomes, EVH reduced 91% and 77% risk of wound infection compared to no-touch and CVH, respectively. EVH and SBT also significantly reduced the risk of sensibility disorder and postoperative pain. The techniques were not significantly different regarding long-term efficacy outcomes, including mortality, myocardial infarction and graft patency. For GSV harvesting for CABG, EVH techniques are the most favorable, but in case of using an open technique, no-touch is more recommended than CVH. More effective and safer procedures should be investigated for GSV harvesting in CABG.

Voice Rehabilitation by Voice Prostheses After Total Laryngectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis for 11,918 Patients.

Purpose Our aim was to assess the different voice prostheses (VPs) to identify the most efficient, safest, patient-tailored, longest lifetime, and inexpensive VPs and assess the different factors affecting their quality. Method In September 2017, 15 databases were searched to include all randomized controlled trials. A new search was done in May 2019 to include all other study design articles, which include all the new-era VPs subtypes. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was applied to all 27 outcomes, besides NMA overall and partial order setting was done by using Hasse scatter plots. p values were used in NMA, where the best VPs are approaching one and the least approaches zero. Meta-analysis was done for the rest of the outcomes. Results Two hundred one articles were eligible for inclusion in our study (N = 11,918). Provox-2 was significantly the most efficient and safest device concerning the most patient preference (odds ratio [OR] = 33.88 [0.65, 1762.24]; p = .92), the least dislodgement (risk ratio [RR] = 0.27 [0.13, 0.57]; p = .79), the least airflow resistance (RR = 0.42 [0.08, 2.11]; p = .84), the least granulation formation (RR = 0.73 [0.02, 26.32]; p = .60), and the least VPs' inaccurate size (RR = 0.77 (0.23, 2.61); p = .66). Heat and moisture exchanger addition showed a significant increase in maximum phonation time and breathing experience, with p values (1 and .59), respectively. While heat and moisture exchanger addition showed a significant decline in stoma cleaning frequency, coughing frequency, forced expectoration, sputum production, sleeping problems, and loosening of adhesive, with p values (.99, .72, .69, .96, 1, and 0.96), respectively, Groningen low resistance and Nijdam were considered the worst devices with both overall mean p value of .44. Conclusions Provox-2 is considered the best choice as being the most preferable for patients, with the least airflow resistance, dislodgment, granulation formation, and prosthesis inaccurate size. Groningen low resistance and Nijdam were considered the worst devices according to our analysis. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14802903.

Comparative effects of furosemide and other diuretics in the treatment of heart failure: a systematic review and combined meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Diuretics have an essential role in the management of heart failure (HF). However, each drug has its own benefit and side effect. Side effects include fluid, electrolyte abnormalities, and acid-base disturbance. These adverse effects of diuretics predispose patients to serious cardiac arrhythmias and may increase the risk of arrhythmic mortality. Herein, we aim to summarize the relative efficacy and safety of all available diuretics used in the treatment of patients with HF. In June 2017, a systematic electronic database search was conducted in nine databases. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the different diuretics used in HF were included for meta-analysis. The protocol was registered in Prospero with CRD42018084819. Among the included 54 studies (10,740 patients), 34 RCTs were eligible for quantitative network meta-analysis (NMA) and traditional meta-analysis while the other 20 studies were qualitatively analyzed. Our results showed that azosemide and torasemide caused a significant reduction in brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) level. Torasemide also caused a significant decrease in collagen volume fraction (CVF) and edema. No significant difference between the agents concerning glomerular filtration rate (GFR), water extraction, and sodium excretion was demonstrated. Regarding side effects, no significant difference among diuretics was observed in terms of hospital readmission and mortality rates. Diuretics are the main treatment of hypervolemia in HF patients. The choice of appropriate diuretic is essential for successful management and is mainly guided by patient clinical situations and the presence of other co-morbidities.

Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers.

BACKGROUND: Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, it is highly recommended that authors publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. our aim was to assess the awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study included the authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016, and they were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. An online questionnaire was sent to each participant via e-mail after receiving their approval to join the study. We have sent 6650 emails and received 275 responses. RESULTS: A total of 270 authors responses were complete and included in the final analysis. Our results has shown that PROSPERO was the most common database used for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance time interval in PROSPERO was less than 1 month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and according to their opinion that the other authors lack knowledge of protocol importance and mandance to be registered, was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant percenatge of respondents (37.4%) believed that people would steal their ideas from protocol databases, while only 5.3% reported that their SR/MA had been stolen. However, the majority (72.9%) of participants have agreed that protocol registries play a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agree that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory. CONCLUSION: About half of the participants believes that the main reason for not registering protocols, is that the other authors lack knowledge concerning obligation and importance to register the SR/MA protocols in advance. Therefore, tools should be available to mandate protocol registration of any SRs beforehand and increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers.

Effect of nitazoxanide on diarrhea: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

We aimed to systematically review evidence pertaining to the safety and efficacy of nitazoxanide in treating infectious diarrhea. On September 21, 2017, we identified relevant studies using 12 databases. The estimates of the included studies were pooled as a risk ratio (RR). We conducted a network and pairwise random-effects meta-analysis for both direct and indirect comparisons of different organisms that are known to cause diarrhea. The primary and secondary analysis outcomes were clinical response until cessation of illness, parasitological response and adverse events. We included 18 studies in our analysis. In cryptosporidiosis, the overall estimate favored nitazoxanide in its clinical response in comparison with placebo RR 1.46 [95% CI 1.22-1.74; P-value <0.0001]. Network meta-analysis among patients with Giardia intestinalis showed an increase in the probability of diarrheal cessation and parasitological responses in comparison with placebo, RR 1.69 [95% CI 1.08-2.64, P-score 0.27] and RR 2.91 [95% CI 1.72-4.91, P-score 0.55] respectively. In Clostridium difficile infection, the network meta-analysis revealed a non-significantly superior clinical response effect of nitazoxanide to metronidazole 31 days after treatment RR 1.21 [95% CI 0.87-1.69, P-score 0.26]. In Entamoeba histolytica, the overall estimate significantly favored nitazoxanide in parasitological response with placebo RR 1.80 [95% CI 1.35-2.40, P-value < 0.001]. We highlighted the effectiveness of nitazoxanide in the cessation of diarrhea caused by Cryptosporidium, Giardia intestinalis and Entamoeba histolytica infection. We also found significant superiority of NTZ to metronidazole in improving the clinical response to G. intestinalis, thus it may be a suitable candidate for treating infection-induced diarrhea. To prove the superiority of NTZ during a C. difficile infection may warrant a larger-scale clinical trial since its superiority was deemed insignificant. We recommend nitazoxanide as an appropriate option for treating infectious diarrhea.

Torasemide versus furosemide in treatment of heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: Diuretics are a cornerstone in treatment of heart failure (HF). Torasemide is a loop diuretic with a potential advantage over other diuretics. We aim to meta-analyse and compare the effect of torasemide with furosemide in HF patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search using 12 databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing furosemide and torasemide in HF patients were included and meta-analysed. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016046112). RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs with 1598 patients were included. There was a significant difference between torasemide 20 mg and furosemide 40 mg in increasing the urine volume (standard difference of the mean (SDM) [95% confidence interval] = -0.78 [-1.52 to -0.053], P = .036). Torasemide 10 mg and 10 to 20 mg have a significant effect on potassium excretion in comparison with furosemide 25 to 40 mg (P = .018 and .023, respectively). In general, torasemide and furosemide have no significant difference in mortality, edema improvement, weight loss, heart rate, and reducing systolic/diastolic blood pressure. However, oral torasemide has a significant lower hospital stay P < .001 and superior effect in improving ejection fraction P = .029. CONCLUSION: Although not all results are statistically significant, torasemide has potential advantages on multiple aspects of HF management when compared with furosemide. More studies are needed to clarify these effects.

Therapeutic efficacy of hepatitis B virus vaccine in treatment of chronic HBV infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

There is a need for improved treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We reviewed the literature to explore the efficacy of HB vaccines alone or in combination therapy (CT) with antiviral drugs in CHB patients and to meta-analyze data from randomized controlled trials. We conducted a systematic search in ten databases. All studies investigating the efficacy of HBV vaccine in HBV infected patients were included with no restrictions. Among 1359 studies initially identified, 23 studies (n = 1956 patients) were included for the final analysis. CT showed a significant reduction of HBV DNA compared with analogue monotherapy (AM) at the 12-month follow-up period (odds ratio (OR) = 2.835, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.275, 6.306], p = .011). Additionally, CT also remarkably induce HbsAg loss in comparison with AM (OR = 11.736, 95% CI [1.841, 74.794], p = .009). Our pooled data revealed no difference between treatment and control regarding alanine aminotransferase normalization, HBeAg seroconversion, and HBeAg disappearance. In addition, CT using vaccine and NAs resulted in a statistically significant higher incidence of adverse effects than AM. The therapeutic effects of combination therapy for patients with CHB were encouraging, but future studies need to investigate all possible treatment combinations and assess their cost-effectiveness.