Effect of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in combination with cytoreductive surgery on the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal metastasis often occurs in patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastasis, and the prognosis is poor. A large body of evidence highlights the beneficial effects of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) on survival, but to date, there is little consensus on the optimal treatment strategy for patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastasis. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of CRS + HIPEC on survival and provide reference for the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastasis. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Knowledge, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were screened from inception of the review to March 11, 2022. Ten studies were included in qualitative and quantitative analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3200 patients were enrolled in the study, including 788 patients in the CRS and HIPEC groups and 2412 patients in the control group, of which 3 were randomized controlled trials and 7 were cohort studies. The 3 randomized controlled studies were of high quality, and the quality scores of the 7 cohort studies were all 7 or above, indicating high quality. The results showed that the OS of CRS + HIPEC group was higher than that of control group (HR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.38-0.73; P < 0.00001, I2 = 82.9%); the heterogeneity of the studies was large. The subgroup analysis showed that the OS of CRS and HIPEC group was higher than that of PC group (HR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.30-0.47; P = 0.215, I2 = 31%) and higher than that in CRS group (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.49-1.07; P = 0.163, I2 = 44.8%); the heterogeneity of the studies was low. In the OPEN group, the OS of THE CRS and HIPEC groups was higher than that in the control group (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.38-0.70; P = 0.353, I2 = 3.9%); OPEN group showed lower heterogeneity. The OS of 60-100-min group was higher than that in the control group (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.49-0.88; P = 0.172, I2 = 37.4%); the heterogeneity of the studies was low. Sensitivity analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the results of the combined analysis after each study was deleted. The results of publication bias showed that the P-value of Egger and Begg tests was 0.078 > 0.05, indicating that there is no publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: CRS + HIPEC can improve the survival rate of patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastasis.

Safety and efficacy of anisodamine on prevention of contrast induced nephropathy in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have proved the renal protective effects of anisodamine in patients with septic shock. The aim of this study was to investigate anisodamine for the prevention of contrast induced nephropathy (CIN) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: Consecutive ACS patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were randomly assigned to one of two groups: patients in the anisodamine group (ANI group) were assigned to receive intravenous infusions of anisodamine by an adjusted-dose (0.1 - 0.2 µg × kg(-1)× min(-1)) from the PCI procedure to 24 hours after PCI, and the control group (CON group) received 0.9% isotonic saline of the same volume. All patients were hydrated for 6 to 12 hours before and 12 hours after PCI. Blood samples were taken on the day of PCI and at 24, 48 and 72 hours after PCI to measure the serum creatinine (SCr). RESULTS: A total of 177 patients were involved in the study, 88 in the ANI group and 89 in the CON group. In both groups, the SCr concentrations significantly increased after PCI, with the peak value occurring at 48 hours. At 72 hours, the SCr concentration in the ANI group retuned to the baseline level (P > 0.05), but the SCr concentration in CON group was still higher than baseline level (P < 0.01). The SCr concentrations at 48 and 72 hours after PCI were much lower in the ANI group than those in the CON group (both P < 0.01). The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) significantly decreased after PCI, the lowest value occurred at 48 hours. In the ANI group, the eGFR at 72 hours was similar to the baseline level. In the CON group, the eGFR failed to return to baseline at 72 hours (P < 0.01). The eGFR at 24, 48 and 72 hours after PCI were higher in the ANI group (all P < 0.05). The incidence of CIN in the ANI group was lower than that in the CON group within 72 hours after PCI (P < 0.05). The results of multiple Logistic regression proved that both diabetes and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were independent predictors of CIN, and treatment with anisodamine was an independent preventive factor of CIN (OR 0.369 and 95%CI 0.171 to 0.794, P = 0.011). No serious side effects were found in the ANI group. CONCLUSION: Intravenous infusion of anisodamine during and after elective PCI may safely prevent the occurrence of CIN in ACS patients.