Association of ever use of e-cigarettes with health and lifestyle variables among young adults: a Canadian health measure survey study.

Research suggests that vaping raises oxidative stress levels and has been implicated in poor mental health. The objective of this study is to assess cross-sectional associations between quality of life (QOL) indicators and e-cigarette (EC) use in young Canadian adults. We used data from the 2016-2017 Canadian Health Measures Survey. We compared physical activity (daily steps), physiological measurements (high-density lipoprotein for cholesterol level), self-perceived life stress, mental health, and QOL between ever-use EC users and non-users. Multivariable binary or ordinal logistic regressions were used to calculate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Analyses included 905 participants (15-30 years) with 115 (12.7%) reporting EC use and 790 non-users. After adjusting for confounders, compared to non-users, EC users had significantly higher odds of being physically active (OR = 2.19, 95%CI: 1.14-4.20) but also with self-reported extreme life stress (OR = 2.68, 95%CI: 1.45-4.92). Albeit statistically non-significant, EC users also had higher odds of poorer QOL (OR = 1.12, 95%CI: 0.64-1.95). No statistically significant interactions between EC use, cigarette smoking, cannabis consumption and health outcomes were observed. CONCLUSION: Our study found that EC use was independently and significantly associated with increased odds of life stress and an indication of poorer QOL. Ongoing surveillance on young EC users is important to measure the long-term impact of vaping on their physical, mental health and quality of life to target for interventions. WHAT IS KNOWN: • E-cigarette use has been associated with high-risk behaviours and adverse mental health outcomes, such as depression and anxiety. WHAT IS NEW: • E-cigarette users had significantly higher odds of being physically active and higher amounts of life stress.

Sex differences in outcome after carotid revascularization in symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Sex differences regarding the safety and efficacy of carotid revascularization in carotid artery stenosis have been addressed in several studies with conflicting results. Moreover, women are underrepresented in clinical trials, leading to limited conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of acute stroke treatments. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed by literature search including four databases from January 1985 to December 2021. Sex differences in the efficacy and safety of revascularization procedures, including carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS), for symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenoses were analyzed. RESULTS: Regarding CEA in symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, the stroke risk in men (3.6%) and women (3.9%) based on 99,495 patients (30 studies) did not differ (P = .16). There was also no difference in the stroke risk by different time frames up to 10 years. Compared with men, women treated with CEA had a significantly higher stroke or death rate at 4 months (2 studies, 2565 patients; 7.2% vs 5.0%; odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.12; I2 = 0%; P = .03), and a significantly higher rate of restenosis (1 study, 615; 17.2% vs 6.7%; OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.66-4.75; P = .0001). For CAS in symptomatic artery stenosis, data showed a non-significant tendency toward higher peri-procedural stroke in women, whereas for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, data based on 332,344 patients showed that women (compared with men) after CEA had similar rates of stroke, stroke or death, and the composite outcome stroke/death/myocardial infarction. The rate of restenosis at 1 year was significantly higher in women compared with men (1 study, 372 patients; 10.8% vs 3.2%; OR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.49-9.2; P = .005). Furthermore, CAS in asymptomatic patients was associated with low risk of a postprocedural stroke in both sexes, but a significantly higher risk of in-hospital myocardial infarction in women than men (8445 patients, 1.2% vs 0.6%; OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.23-3.28; I2 = 0%; P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: A few sex-differences in short-term outcomes after carotid revascularization for symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis were found, although there were no significant differences in the overall stroke. This indicates a need for larger multicenter prospective studies to evaluate these sex-specific differences. More women, including those aged over 80 years, need to be enrolled in randomized controlled trials, to better understand if sex differences exist and to tailor carotid revascularization accordingly.

European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines on management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.

Unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA) occur in around 3% of the population. Important management questions concern if and how to perform preventive UIA occlusion; if, how and when to perform follow up imaging and non-interventional means to reduce the risk of rupture. Using the Standard Operational Procedure of ESO we prepared guidelines according to GRADE methodology. Since no completed randomised trials exist, we used interim analyses of trials, and meta-analyses of observational and case-control studies to provide recommendations to guide UIA management. All recommendations were based on very low evidence. We suggest preventive occlusion if the estimated 5-year rupture risk exceeds the risk of preventive treatment. In general, we cannot recommend endovascular over microsurgical treatment, but suggest flow diverting stents as option only when there are no other low-risk options for UIA repair. To detect UIA recurrence we suggest radiological follow up after occlusion. In patients who are initially observed, we suggest radiological monitoring to detect future UIA growth, smoking cessation, treatment of hypertension, but not treatment with statins or acetylsalicylic acid with the indication to reduce the risk of aneurysm rupture. Additionally, we formulated 15 expert-consensus statements. All experts suggest to assess UIA patients within a multidisciplinary setting (neurosurgery, neuroradiology and neurology) at centres consulting >100 UIA patients per year, to use a shared decision-making process based on the team recommendation and patient preferences, and to repair UIA only in centres performing the proposed treatment in >30 patients with (ruptured or unruptured) aneurysms per year per neurosurgeon or neurointerventionalist. These UIA guidelines provide contemporary recommendations and consensus statement on important aspects of UIA management until more robust data come available.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the role of mometasone in adenoid hypertrophy in children.

OBJECTIVES: Mometasone has been reported to improve the symptoms of nasal obstruction in children with adenoidal hypertrophy. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the role of mometasone on different nasal symptoms, otitis media with effusion, adenoid size, and quality of life in children with adenoidal hypertrophy. METHODS: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and COCHRANE Collaboration databases was undertaken. We identified all the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in children with adenoidal hypertrophy that compared the effects of mometasone nasal spray and normal saline nasal spray on different outcomes. The deadline of the search was April 2015. The search was supplemented by hand searching of cross-references in the studies and reviews and by contacting the authors of various studies. Only English language RCTs were considered for the systematic review. The primary outcomes were improvement in symptoms of nasal obstruction, mouth breathing, rhinorrhea, snoring, cough, and total nasal symptoms. The secondary outcomes were improvement in otitis media with effusion, quality of life, and size of adenoid. Quality assessment of RCTs was performed using SIGN 50 and Cochrane risk of bias tools. Risk ratio (RR), weighted mean differences (WMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous data, respectively. Random effects model was used for the analyses. Heterogeneity was measured by using the I(2) statistics and p value <0.05. RESULTS: Our search generated 87 citations, of which eight RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of all the RCTs was poor. There was no significant difference between mometasone and control groups for the patient's characteristic and grades of different nasal symptoms, otitis media with effusion, obstructive sleep apnea, and quality of life at the basal level. There was also no significant difference in the number of patients with different symptoms at the basal level. After the administration of mometasone, there were significant improvements in grades of nasal obstruction, 0.8±0.5 versus 2.0±0.6, WMD -1.16 [-2.09, -0.23], snoring 0.3±0.4 versus 1.6±0.6, WMD -1.07 [-2.09, -0.05], total nasal symptoms 2.9±1.3 versus 6.9±1.5, WMD -4.09 [-6.64, -1.53], obstructive sleep apnea, 0.6±0.3 versus 1.4±0.4, WMD -0.95 [-1.74, -0.16], as well as the percentage of patients with nasal obstruction, snoring, obstructive sleep apnea, compared to control. There was tendency of improvement in rhinorrhea, and cough with mometasone. Compared to control, mometasone nasal spray significantly improved adenoid size or adenoid/choana ratio 50.9±8.8 versus 74.2±12.6, WMD -21.2 [-34.0, -8.4], change in adenoid/choana obstruction from the basal level (p=0.01), and percentage of patients with adenoid hypertrophy, 26% versus 92%, RR 0.29 [0.18, 0.48]. There was improvement in otitis media with effusion, 40% versus 72%, pure tone audiometry 5.2±11 versus 11.6±11dB, WMD -6.40dB [-12.65, -0.15], and quality of life with mometasone. Subgroup analyses showed that RCTs that followed blinding showed significantly less response compared to RCTs that did not follow it for most of the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Mometasone caused improvements in outcomes of nasal obstruction, snoring, total nasal symptoms, pure tune audiometry, otitis media with effusion, adenoid size, and quality of life. The data is based on meta-analysis of RCTs of poor methodological quality. A high methodological quality, placebo controlled RCT of different doses and duration of administration of mometasone is required to evaluate its clear efficacy and safety in children with adenoid hypertrophy.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing surgical-site infection in plastic surgery: an evidence-based consensus conference statement from the American Association of Plastic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing concern for microbial resistance as a result of overuse of antibiotics. Although guidelines have focused on the use of antibiotics for surgery in general, few have addressed plastic surgery specifically. The objective of this expert consensus conference was to evaluate the evidence for efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in plastic surgical procedures. METHODS: THE AUTHORS: searched for existing high-quality systematic reviews for antibiotic prophylaxis in the literature from the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. All synonyms for antibiotics were combined with terms for relevant plastic surgery procedures. The searches were not limited by language, and included all study designs. In addition, supplemental hand searches were performed of bibliographies of relevant articles, and extensive "related articles." Meta-analyses were performed and reviewed by experts selected by the American Association of Plastic Surgeons to reach consensus recommendations. RESULTS: Database searches identified 4300 articles, from which 2042 full-text articles were identified for eligibility. De novo meta-analyses were performed for each plastic surgical category. In total, 67 studies met the inclusion criteria, including nine for breast surgery, 17 for head and neck surgery, 10 for orthognathic surgery, seven for rhinoplasty/septoplasty, 19 for hand surgery, five for skin surgery, and two for abdominoplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for clean breast surgery and for contaminated surgery of the hand or the head and neck. It is not recommended to reduce infection in clean surgical cases of the hand, skin, head and neck, or abdominoplasty.

Minimally invasive versus conventional open mitral valve surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: : This meta-analysis sought to determine whether minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (mini-MVS) improves clinical outcomes and resource utilization compared with conventional open mitral valve surgery (conv-MVS) in patients undergoing mitral valve repair or replacement. METHODS: : A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CTSnet, and databases of abstracts was undertaken to identify all randomized and nonrandomized studies up to March 2010 of mini-MVS through thoracotomy versus conv-MVS through median sternotomy for mitral valve repair or replacement. Outcomes of interest included death, stroke, myocardial infarction, aortic dissection, need for reintervention, and any other reported clinically relevant outcomes or indicator of resource utilization. Relative risk and weighted mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals were analyzed as appropriate using the random effects model. Heterogeneity was measured using the I statistic. RESULTS: : Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria (two randomized controlled trials and 33 nonrandomized studies). The mortality rate after mini-MVS versus conv-MVS was similar at 30 days (1.2% vs 1.5%), 1 year (0.9% vs 1.3%), 3 years (0.5% vs 0.5%), and 9 years (0% vs 3.7%). A number of clinical outcomes were significantly improved with mini-MVS versus conv-MVS including atrial fibrillation (18% vs 22%), chest tube drainage (578 vs 871 mL), transfusions, sternal infection (0.04% vs 0.27%), time to return to normal activity, and patient scar satisfaction. However, the 30-day risk of stroke (2.1% vs 1.2%), aortic dissection/injury (0.2% vs 0%), groin infection (2% vs 0%), and phrenic nerve palsy (3% vs 0%) were significantly increased for mini-MVS versus conv-MVS. Other clinical outcomes were similar between groups. Cross-clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, and procedure time were significantly increased with mini-MVS; however, ventilation time and length of stay in intensive care unit and hospital were reduced. CONCLUSIONS: : Current evidence suggests that mini-MVS maybe associated with decreased bleeding, blood product transfusion, atrial fibrillation, sternal wound infection, scar dissatisfaction, ventilation time, intensive care unit stay, hospital length of stay, and reduced time to return to normal activity, without detected adverse impact on long-term need for valvular reintervention and survival beyond 1 year. However, these potential benefits for mini-MVS may come with an increased risk of stroke, aortic dissection or aortic injury, phrenic nerve palsy, groin infections/complications, and increased cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and procedure time. Available evidence is largely limited to retrospective comparisons of small cohorts comparing mini-MVS versus conv-MVS that provide only short-term outcomes. Given these limitations, randomized controlled trials with adequate power and duration of follow-up to measure clinically relevant outcomes are recommended to determine the balance of benefits and risks.