The efficacy of non-pharmacological and non-pacing therapies in preventing vasovagal syncope: Tilt training, physical counter pressure maneuvers, and yoga - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vasovagal syncope (VVS) is a prevalent condition characterized by a sudden drop in blood pressure and heart rate, leading to a brief loss of consciousness and postural control. Recurrent episodes of VVS significantly impact the quality of life and are a common reason for emergency department visits. Non-pharmacological interventions, such as tilt training, physical counter pressure maneuvers, and yoga, have been proposed as potential treatments for VVS. However, their efficacy in preventing VVS remains uncertain. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to March 2023 for randomized controlled trials comparing non-pharmacological interventions with control in preventing VVS recurrence. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate of VVS episodes. RESULTS: A total of 1130 participants from 18 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The overall mean effect size for non-pharmacological interventions versus control was 0.245 (95 % CI: 0.128-0.471, p-value <0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that yoga had the largest effect size (odds ratio 0.068, 95 % CI: 0.018-0.250), while tilt training had the lowest effect size (odds ratio 0.402, 95 % CI: 0.171-0.946) compared to control. Physical counter pressure maneuvers demonstrated an odds ratio of 0.294 (95 % CI: 0.165-0.524) compared to control. CONCLUSION: Non-pharmacological interventions show promise in preventing recurrent VVS episodes. Yoga, physical counter pressure maneuvers, and tilt training can be considered as viable treatment options. Further research, including randomized studies comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches, is needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of these interventions for VVS treatment.

Endoscopic Versus Conservative Therapy for Bleeding Peptic Ulcer with Adherent Clot: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Peptic ulcers with adherent clots are associated with a high-risk of rebleeding and mortality. However, the optimal management of bleeding ulcers with adherent clots remains unclear. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare endoscopic therapy and conservative therapy to manage bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases through October 2022 to include all studies comparing the endoscopic and conservative therapeutic approaches for bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. Our primary outcome was rebleeding (overall and 30-day). The secondary outcomes were mortality (overall and 30-day), need for surgery, and length of hospital stay (LOS). The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with the corresponding confidence intervals (CI) for proportional and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Eleven studies (9 RCTs) with 833 patients (431 received endoscopic therapy vs. 402 received conservative therapy) were included. Overall, endoscopic therapy was associated with lower overall rebleeding (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.79, P = 0.007), 30-day rebleeding (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, P = 0.002), overall mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23-0.95, P = 0.04), 30-day mortality (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, P = 0.002), need for surgery (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.95, P = 0.04), and LOS (MD - 3.17 days, 95% CI - 4.14, - 2.19, P < 0.00001). However, subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed no significant difference in overall mortality (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.24-2.52, P = 0.68) between the two strategies, with numerically lower but statistically non-significant rates of overall rebleeding (7.2% vs. 18.5%, respectively; OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.17-1.05, P = 0.06), statistically lower rate of need for surgery (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.96, P = 0.04) with endoscopic therapy compared to conservative therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that endoscopic therapy was overall associated with lower rates of rebleeding (overall and 30-day), mortality (overall and 30-day), need for surgery, and LOS, compared to conservative therapy for the management of bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. However, subgroup analysis of RCTs showed that endoscopic therapy was associated with numerically lower but statistically non-significant rates of overall rebleeding and a statistically lower rate of need for surgery compared to conservative therapy with similar overall mortality rates. Combined treatment with thermal therapy and injection therapy was the most effective treatment modality in reducing rebleeding risk. Further large-scale RCTs are needed to validate our findings.

Comparison of Artificial Intelligence With Other Interventions to Improve Adenoma Detection Rate for Colonoscopy: A Network Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analysis have demonstrated improved adenoma detection rate (ADR) for colonoscopy with artificial intelligence (AI) compared with high-definition (HD) colonoscopy without AI. We aimed to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of all RCTs to assess the impact of AI compared with other endoscopic interventions aimed at increasing ADR such as distal attachment devices, dye-based/virtual chromoendoscopy, water-based techniques, and balloon-assisted devices. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane was performed through May 6, 2022, to include RCTs comparing ADR for any endoscopic intervention mentioned above. Network meta-analysis was conducted using a frequentist approach and random effects model. Relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were calculated for proportional outcome. RESULTS: A total of 94 RCTs with 61,172 patients (mean age 59.1±5.2 y, females 45.8%) and 20 discrete study interventions were included. Network meta-analysis demonstrated significantly improved ADR for AI compared with autofluorescence imaging (RR: 1.33, CI: 1.06 to 1.66), dye-based chromoendoscopy (RR: 1.22, CI: 1.06 to 1.40), endocap (RR: 1.32, CI: 1.17 to 1.50), endocuff (RR: 1.19, CI: 1.04 to 1.35), endocuff vision (RR: 1.26, CI: 1.13 to 1.41), endoring (RR: 1.30, CI: 1.10 to 1.52), flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (RR: 1.26, CI: 1.09 to 1.46), full-spectrum endoscopy (RR: 1.40, CI: 1.19 to 1.65), HD (RR: 1.41, CI: 1.28 to 1.54), linked color imaging (RR: 1.21, CI: 1.08 to 1.36), narrow band imaging (RR: 1.33, CI: 1.18 to 1.48), water exchange (RR: 1.22, CI: 1.06 to 1.42), and water immersion (RR: 1.47, CI: 1.19 to 1.82). CONCLUSIONS: AI demonstrated significantly improved ADR when compared with most endoscopic interventions. Future RCTs directly assessing these associations are encouraged.

In-Hospital Mortality and Morbidity in Cancer Patients with COVID-19: A Nationwide Analysis from the United States.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused significant mortality and mortality worldwide. There is limited information describing the outcomes of COVID-19 in cancer patients. Methods: We utilized the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2020 database to collect information on cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in the United States. Using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) coding system, adult (≥18 years) patients with COVID-19 were identified. Adjusted analyses were performed to assess for mortality, morbidity, and resource utilization among cancer patients. Results: A total of 1,050,045 patients were included. Of them, 27,760 had underlying cancer. Cancer patients were older and had more comorbidities. The all-cause in-hospital mortality rate in cancer patients was 17.58% vs. 11% in non-cancer. After adjusted logistic regression, cancer patients had a 21% increase in the odds of all-cause in-hospital mortality compared with those without cancer (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.21, 95%CI 1.12−1.31, p-value < 0.001). Additionally, an increased odds in acute respiratory failure rate was found (aOR 1.14, 95%CI 1.06−1.22, p-value < 0.001). However, no significant differences were found in the odds of septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and mechanical ventilation between the two groups. Additionally, no significant differences in the mean length of hospital stay and the total hospitalization charges between cancer and non-cancer patients. Conclusion: Cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 had increased odds of all-cause in hospital mortality and acute respiratory failure compared with non-cancer patients.