No Association Linking Short-Term Proton Pump Inhibitor Use to Dementia: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Long-term use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) has been associated with a wide variety of potentially serious adverse effects including a possible increased risk of dementia. Studies evaluating this association have reached divergent conclusions. We aimed to evaluate this proposed association further and to assess the quality of the evidence in its support. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, and Cochrane databases for studies examining a link between PPI use and dementia, up to February 2019. Studies reporting summary results as hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model for meta-analyses. Methodological quality of individual observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the overall quality of evidence rated as per the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified and included 11 observational studies comprising 642,949 subjects; 64% were women. Most studies were short-term ranging from 5 to 10 years. There were 158,954 PPI users and 483,995 nonusers. For studies summarizing data as adjusted HR, pooled HR for all causes of dementia was 1.10 (0.88-1.37); for Alzheimer dementia only, it was 1.06 (0.72-1.55). For studies summarizing data as adjusted OR, pooled OR for all causes of dementia was 1.03 (0.84-1.25) and for Alzheimer dementia only 0.96 (0.82-1.11). Per Newcastle-Ottawa scale assessment, 10 studies were of high quality and 1 was of moderate quality. By applying GRADE methodology, quality of evidence for both outcomes was very low. DISCUSSION: We found no evidence to support the proposed association between PPI use and an increased risk of dementia. PPI use among patients who have a valid indication for it, should not be curtailed because of concerns about dementia risk.

Time for a Changing of Guard: From Minimally Invasive Surgery to Endoscopic Drainage for Management of Pancreatic Walled-off Necrosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic drainage (ED) with or without necrosectomy, and minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy (MISN) have been increasingly utilized for treatment of symptomatic sterile and infected pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). We conducted this systematic review to compare the safety of ED with MISN for management of WON. METHODS: We searched several databases from inception through November 9, 2017 to identify comparative studies evaluating the safety of ED versus MISN for management of WON. MISN could be performed using video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement or laparoscopy. We evaluated difference in mortality, major organ failure, adverse events, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Six studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies) with 641 patients (326 ED and 315 MISN) were included in this meta-analysis. Rates of mortality for ED and MISN were 8.5% and 14.2%, respectively. Pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval was 0.59 (0.35-0.98), I=0% in favor of ED. On subgroup analysis: no difference in mortality was seen based on randomized controlled trials [OR, 0.65 (0.08-5.11)], while ED had improved survival in observational studies [OR, 0.49 (0.27-0.89)]. Development of new major organ failure rates after interventions were 12% and 54% for ED and MISN, respectively. Pooled OR was 0.12 (0.06-0.31), I=25% in favor of ED. For adverse events, pooled OR was 0.25 (0.10-0.67), I=70% in favor of ED. There was no difference in risk of bleeding [OR, 0.68 (0.44-1.05)], while ED was associated with a significantly lower rate of pancreatic fistula formation [OR, 0.20 (0.11-0.37)], I=0%. Length of stay was also lower with ED, pooled mean difference was -21.07 (-36.97 to -5.18) days. CONCLUSIONS: When expertise is available, ED is the preferred invasive management strategy over MISN for management of WON as it is associated with lower mortality, risk of major organ failure, adverse events, and length of hospital stay.

Radiofrequency ablation combined with biliary stent placement versus stent placement alone for malignant biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Unresectable malignant biliary strictures are generally managed by palliative stent placement for drainage of biliary tree. Recently, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been used to improve the patency of biliary stents in these patients. Several studies have evaluated the effectiveness of biliary stent placement with RFA on stent patency and patient survival with variable results. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biliary stent placement with RFA compared with stent placement alone in patients with malignant biliary strictures. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of electronic databases for all studies comparing RFA with biliary stent placement versus stent placement only. Measured outcomes included patient survival, stent patency, and procedure-related adverse events. An inverse variance method was used to pool data on stent patency into a random-effects model. Cox-regression analysis was used to calculate hazard ratio for survival analysis. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to interpret our findings. RESULTS: Nine studies (including 2 abstracts) with a total of 505 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled weighted mean difference in stent patency was 50.6 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.83-68.48), favoring patients receiving RFA. Pooled survival analysis of the reconstructed Kaplan-Meier data showed improved survival in patients treated with RFA (hazard ratio, 1.395; 95% CI, 1.145-1.7; P < .001). However, RFA was associated with a higher risk of postprocedural abdominal pain (31% vs 20%, P = .003). Our analysis did not show significant difference between the RFA and stent placement-only groups with regard to the risk of cholangitis, acute cholecystitis, pancreatitis, and hemobilia. CONCLUSIONS: In the light of this limited data based on observational studies, RFA was found to be safe and was associated with improved stent patency in patients with malignant biliary strictures. In addition, RFA may be associated with improved survival in these patients.

Role of Cholecystectomy After Endoscopic Sphincterotomy in the Management of Choledocholithiasis in High-risk Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) with subsequent cholecystectomy is the standard of care for the management of patients with choledocholithiasis. There is conflicting evidence in terms of mortality reduction, prevention of complications specifically biliary pancreatitis and cholangitis with the use of early cholecystectomy particularly in high-risk surgical and elderly patients. AIMS: We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the early cholecystectomy versus wait and watch strategy after ES. METHODS: We searched Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane database for randomized controlled trials comparing the 2 strategies in the management of choledocholithiasis after ES. Our primary outcome of interest was difference in mortality. We evaluated several secondary outcomes including difference in development of acute pancreatitis, biliary colic and cholecystitis, cholangitis and recurrent jaundice, nonbiliary adverse events, and length of hospital stay. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for categorical variables and difference in means was calculated for continuous variables. These were pooled using random effects model. RESULTS: Seven studies with 916 patients (455 cholecystectomy group and 461 wait and watch group) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled RR with 95% confidence interval for mortality was 1.43 (0.93-2.18), I=9%. In the high-risk patient group, pooled RR was 1.39 (0.64-3.03) and in low-risk population pooled RR was 1.53 (0.79-2.96). Pooled RR for acute pancreatitis was 1.64 (0.46-5.81) with no heterogeneity. There was no difference in the rate of acute pancreatitis patients based on high-risk versus low-risk patients. Pooled RR for occurrence of biliary colic and cholecystitis during follow-up was 9.82 (4.27-22.59), I=0%. Pooled RR for cholangitis and recurrent jaundice was 2.16 (1.14-4.07), I=0%. However, there was no difference in the rate of cholangitis between the 2 groups in low-risk patients. Length of stay was shorter in the wait and watch group with a pooled mean difference was -2.70 (-4.71, -0.70) with substantial heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Although we found no difference in mortality between the 2 strategies after ES, laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be recommended as it is associated with lower rates of subsequent recurrent cholecystitis, cholangitis, and biliary colic down the road even in high-risk surgical patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents in Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: Are They Better Than Plastic Stents? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage has been increasingly utilized as a first-line therapeutic modality for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC). Recently, lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have been utilized for management of PFCs. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the cumulative efficacy and safety of LAMS in the management of PFC (primary outcome). We also compared the efficacy and safety of LAMS with multiple plastic stents (MPS) in the management of PFC (secondary outcome). METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases from inception to November 5, 2016, to identify studies (with ≥ 10 patients) reporting technical success, clinical success, and adverse events (AE) of EUS-guided transmural drainage of PFC using LAMS. Weighted pooled rates (WPR) were calculated for technical success, clinical success and AE. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated and pooled to compare LAMS with MPS in terms of technical success, clinical success, and AE. Pooled mean difference (MD) was calculated to compare the number of endoscopic sessions required by each type of stent to achieve clinical success. All analyses were done using random effects model. RESULTS: Eleven studies with 688 patients were included in this meta-analysis. WPR for technical success of LAMS in PFC management was 98% (96, 99%), (I 2 = 15%). WPR for clinical success was 93% (89, 96%) with moderate heterogeneity (I 2 = 50%). There was no difference in clinical success for pseudocysts (PP) versus walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON) (P = 0.51). WPR for AE was 13% (9, 20%), (I 2 = 64%). AE were 10% more in WON as compared to PP (P = 0.009). Most common AE requiring intervention was stent migration (4.2%), followed by infection (3.8%), bleeding (2.4%), and stent occlusion (1.9%). Six studies with 504 patients compared the performance of LAMS with MPS. Pooled RR for technical success was 1.71 (0.38, 7.37). Pooled RR for clinical success was 0.37 (0.20, 0.67) in favor of LAMS. Pooled RR for AE was 0.39 (0.18, 0.84), (I 2 = 50%). Pooled MD for number of endoscopic sessions was - 0.84 (- 1.69, 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: LAMS seem to have excellent efficacy and safety in the management of PFCs. They may be preferred over plastic stents as they are associated with better clinical success and lesser adverse events.

Mortality Effect of ICD in Primary Prevention of Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is controversial in view of the recent DANISH trial which suggested no benefit with ICD for primary prevention in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICMP). METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized control trials studying the role of ICD in primary prevention of SCD in patients with NICMP. Only six studies were identified after the application of inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Pooling of these randomized trials showed a statistically significant benefit of using ICDs in patients with NICMP [OR 0.76 (0.64 - 0.91), I2 = 0%]. Sensitivity analysis did not show a statistically significant mortality benefit of ICD in NICMP in trials which had adequate beta blocker, ACE/ARB and aldosterone receptor blocker (ALD-RB) use [OR 0.70 (0.41, 1.19), I2 = 70%]. CONCLUSION: The DANISH trial's failure to show mortality benefit may be due to the significant number of patients who had CRT. Our meta-analysis studied the independent effect of ICDs and showed them to be associated with net mortality benefits in patients who are not on optimal guideline directed medical therapy; especially the patients not on ALD-RB.

Meta-analysis of the performance of ultrathin vs. standard colonoscopes.

Background and study aims Colonoscopy should reliably intubate the cecum with minimal patient discomfort and without complications. Use of thinner endoscopes to overcome pain during the procedure has shown promise. However, the use of thinner scopes could lead to excess looping and difficulty with therapeutic procedures. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the performance of ultrathin colonoscopes (UTC) and standard colonoscopes for routine colonoscopy. Patients and methods We searched several electronic databases for all randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized (prospective) studies that compared the efficacies of UTC (diameter ≤ 9.8 mm) and standard colonoscopes. We used fixed effect or random effects models to compare cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, pain score, and polyp and adenoma detection rates using standard mean differences (SMD) or odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Results Seven studies (2191 patients) met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant heterogeneity among studies except for pain scores. The cecal intubation rate was higher with UTC (OR 2.30; 95 %CI 1.31 to 4.03). There was no difference in the cecal intubation time between UTC and standard colonoscopes. Pain scores were significantly lower with UTC than with standard colonoscopes (SMD - 0.59, 95 %CI - 0.93 to - 0.25). Polyp and adenoma detection rates were similar for both types of colonoscope. Conclusion Use of UTC appears to improve the cecal intubation rate and reduce abdominal pain but does not affect polyp detection. Future trials are needed to evaluate the therapeutic performance of UTC vs. standard colonoscopes.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Variable success and adverse event rates have been reported for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) utilizing either extrahepatic or intrahepatic approach. We aimed to conduct a proportion meta-analysis to evaluate the cumulative efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and to compare the two approaches and transluminal methods of EUS-BD. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus from January 2001 through January 5, 2015, to identify studies reporting technical success and adverse events of EUS-BD. A sample size of more than 20 patients was a further criterion. Weighted pooled rate (WPR) for technical success and post-procedure complications was calculated for overall studies and predefined subgroups. Pooled odds ratios were calculated for technical success and adverse events for two approaches and transluminal methods of EUS-BD for distal common bile duct (CBD) strictures. RESULTS: The WPR with 95% confidence interval (CI) for technical success and post-procedure adverse events was 90% (86, 93%) and 17% (13, 22%), respectively, with considerable heterogeneity (I(2) = 77%). For high-quality studies, the WPR for technical success was 94% (91, 96 %), I(2) = 0% and WPR for post-procedure adverse event was 16% (12, 19%), I(2) = 39%. In meta-regression model, distal CBD stricture and transpapillary drainage were associated with higher technical success and intrahepatic access route was associated with higher adverse event rate. There was no difference in technical success using either approach OR 1.27 (0.52, 3.13), I(2) = 0% or transluminal method OR 1.32 (0.51, 3.38), I(2) = 0%. However, the extrahepatic approach appeared significantly safer as compared to the intrahepatic approach OR 0.35 (0.19, 0.67), I(2) = 27%. Likewise, choledochoduodenostomy was found to have less adverse events as compared to hepaticogastrostomy, OR 0.40 (0.18, 0.87), I (2) = 0%. CONCLUSION: In cases of failure of traditional ERC to achieve biliary drainage, EUS-BD appears to be an emerging therapeutic modality with a cumulative success rate of 90% and cumulative adverse events rate of 17%. Randomized controlled trials are required to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of the procedure along with the comparison to traditional modalities like percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage.

Does endoscopic sphincterotomy reduce the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis after biliary stenting? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (ES) is often carried out prior to placement of a biliary stent apparently to reduce the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, the protective effect of ES prior to biliary stenting is controversial. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the risk of PEP and other complications after the placement of biliary stent with or without ES in patients with biliary obstruction and bile leak. METHODS: We carried out a systematic search in several electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies (OS) comparing the risk of PEP after biliary stenting with or without ES. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to pool data of adverse outcomes into fixed or random effect model meta-analyses. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (five RCT and 12 OS) with a total of 2710 patients met the inclusion criteria. No significant difference was observed in the risk of PEP with biliary stenting with and without ES (RD -0.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.03, 0.01). In a subgroup analysis of stenting for biliary obstruction, no difference in the risk of PEP was observed with or without ES. However, ES was associated with lower risk of PEP in patients undergoing biliary stenting for bile leak (RD -0.05; CI -0.10, -0.01). CONCLUSIONS: ES shows risk reduction in prevention of PEP in patients undergoing endoscopic stenting for bile leak. However, placement of biliary stent without ES is not associated with an increased risk of PEP in patients with distal bile duct obstruction with involvement of pancreatic duct.

Cardioprotective role of ischemic postconditioning in acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that ischemic postconditioning (IPoC) may reduce the extent of reperfusion injury. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, which compared the role of IPoC during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to PCI alone (control group) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS: Several databases were searched, which yielded 19 studies. The outcomes of interest were measures of myocardial damage (serum cardiac enzymes and infarct size by imaging) and left ventricular function (left ventricular ejection fraction and wall motion score index). Mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used to assess the treatment effect. An inverse variance method was used to pool data into a random-effects model. RESULTS: Ischemic postconditioning demonstrated a decrease in serum cardiac enzymes (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.05, I(2) = 92%), reduction in infarct size by imaging (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.01, I(2) = 80%), wall motion score index (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.09, I(2) = 44%), and showed improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (IPoC 52 ± 0.4, control 49.7 ± 0.4) (MD 2.78, 95% CI 0.66-4.91, I(2) = 69%). All included studies were limited by high risk of performance and publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Ischemic postconditioning during PCI in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction appears to be superior to PCI alone in reduction of both myocardial injury or damage and improvement in global and regional left ventricular function. The effect seems to be more pronounced when a greater myocardial area is at risk. Given the limitations of the current available evidence, additional data from large randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Hemorrhagic Ascites Is Associated With Reduced Survival in Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Hemorrhagic ascites is characterized as red blood cell count greater than 10,000/mm3. In cirrhosis, ascites is an event of decompensation, and associated with poor prognosis. However, significance of hemorrhagic ascites is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the significance of hemorrhagic ascites in cirrhotic patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic search in Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry, and Web of Science Core Collection to identify studies till March 2021, which, in patients with cirrhosis, compared outcomes amongst those with hemorrhagic ascites to those with non-hemorrhagic ascites. The primary outcome was 3-year mortality, and secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury (AKI), hepatic encephalopathy (HE), spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) and portal vein thrombosis (PVT). Results: Four studies, with 2,058 cirrhosis patients, were included. Among these, 1,488 patients had non-hemorrhagic ascites and 570 had hemorrhagic ascites. We observed no significant differences in AKI (odds ratio (OR) = 2.55; confidence interval (CI): 0.58 - 11.24), HE (OR = 2.52; CI: 0.70 - 9.05), SBP (OR = 1.66; CI: 0.12 - 22.83) and PVT (OR = 0.99; CI: 0.71 - 1.39). Intensive care unit (ICU) stay was significantly higher in patients with hemorrhagic ascites compared to those with non-hemorrhagic ascites (OR = 1.79; CI: 1.37 - 2.36; I2 = 56%). Pooled 3-year mortality was significantly higher in those with hemorrhagic (72.5% (CI: 68.2-76.4%)) when compared to non-hemorrhagic ascites (57.9% (CI: 55.2-60.6%)) (OR = 2.17; CI: 1.71 - 2.74) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 15%). Conclusions: In patients with cirrhosis, hemorrhagic ascites is a poor prognostic marker, which is associated with increased ICU stay and mortality. Prospective studies are needed to further evaluate significance of hemorrhagic ascites in patients with cirrhosis.

Efficacy of Endoscopic Interventions for the Management of Obesity: a Meta-analysis to Compare Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty, AspireAssist, and Primary Obesity Surgery Endolumenal.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Novel endoscopic procedures (endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG), AspireAssist (AA), and primary obesity surgery endolumenal (POSE)) have been developed for treatment of obesity. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the efficacy of these three endoscopic procedures. METHODS: Main outcomes of interest were percent excess weight loss (%EWL) and percent total body weight loss (%TBWL). Weighted pooled means (WPMs) were calculated and analyzed using random effects model. Mean differences (MDs) were calculated to compare these procedures. RESULTS: Twelve studies with 1149 patients were included. WPMs for %EWL at 6 and 12 months with ESG were 49.67 (45.67, 53.66) and 52.75 (43.52, 61.98), respectively, while %TBWLs at 6 and 12 months with ESG were 16.01 (15.10, 16.92) and 17.41 (17.08, 17.74), respectively. WPMs for %EWL at 6 and 12 months with POSE were 43.79 (40.17, 47.42) and 44.91 (40.90, 48.92), respectively. WPM for %EWL at 12 months with AA was 50.85 (46.03, 55.68). While comparing ESG and POSE, at 6 months and 12 months, MD for %EWL was 6.17 (1.07, 11.26; P = 0.01) and 7.84 (- 2.05, 17.71; P = 0.06) in favor of ESG. No difference in %EWL was observed while comparing ESG with AA (P = 0.29). Likewise, MD for %EWL to compare AA and POSE was not significant (P = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: During a follow-up of 6-12 months, both AA and ESG had excellent efficacy in achieving significant and sustained weight loss; however, ESG was found to be superior in terms of weight loss when compared with POSE.

Update on the Physiologic Effects of Ketamine in General Anesthesia and Spinal Blockade: A Review of the Literature.

Ketamine, a phencyclidine analog and dissociative anesthetic, has been used in anesthesia since the 1960s. Serial subanesthetic administration has been explored for treatment of depression and chronic pain; however, there has been a recent surge in its intraoperative and perioperative use among anesthesia providers. As ketamine becomes an important addition to multimodal acute pain regimens, it important that anesthesia providers review the physiologic underpinnings of ketamine administration. Herein, we review the primary scientific literature and discuss recent studies that have implicated ketamine in inflammation and oxidative stress, inhibition of ion channels in dorsal horn neurons, and in disruption of frontoparietal communication. Also discussed are the potential clinical implications these effects may have for patients.

Endoscopic versus percutaneous management for symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are managed by surgical, percutaneous, or endoscopic drainage. Due to morbidity associated with surgical drainage, percutaneous and/or endoscopic options have increasingly been used as initial management. AIMS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of endoscopic versus percutaneous drainage for management of PFCs. METHODS: We searched several databases from inception through 31 August 2017 to identify comparative studies using endoscopic or percutaneous drainage for PFCs. Our primary outcome was clinical success. Secondary outcomes were technical success, adverse events (AE), rates of recurrence, requirement for subsequent procedures, and length of stay in hospital. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean difference (MD) were calculated for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: Seven studies with 490 patients were included in the final analysis. Pooled RR for clinical success was 0.40 (0.26, 0.61), I2  = 42 % in favor of endoscopic management. On sensitivity analysis, after excluding one study on patients with walled-off necrosis (WON), the clinical success was 0.43 (0.28, 0.66) with no heterogeneity. Pooled RR for technical success was 1.50 (0.52, 4.37) with no heterogeneity. Pooled RR for AE and rate of recurrence were 0.77 (0.46, 1.28) and 0.60 (0.29, 1.24), respectively. Pooled MD for length of stay in hospital and rate of re-intervention were - 8.97 (- 12.88, - 5.07) and - 0.66 (- 0.93, - 0.38), respectively, in favor of endoscopic drainage. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic drainage should be the preferred therapeutic modality for PFCs compared to percutaneous drainage as it is associated with significantly better clinical success, a lower re-intervention rate, and a shorter hospital length of stay.

Rifaximin for the prevention of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and hepatorenal syndrome in cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Prophylactic antibiotics have been recommended in patients with a previous history of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP). Recently, there has been interest in the use of rifaximin for the prevention of SBP and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS). We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate this association of rifaximin. We searched several databases from inception through 24 January 2017, to identify comparative studies evaluating the effect of rifaximin on the occurrence of SBP and HRS. We performed predetermined subgroup analyses based on the type of control group, design of the study, and type of prophylaxis. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using a random effects model. We included 13 studies with 1703 patients in the meta-analysis of SBP prevention. Pooled OR [95% confidence interval (CI)] was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.22-0.73) (I=58%). On sensitivity analysis, adjusted OR was 0.29 (95% CI: 0.20-0.44) (I=0%). The results of the subgroup analysis based on type of control was as follows: in the quinolone group, pooled OR was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.14-1.25) (I=55%), and in the no antibiotic group, pooled OR was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.18-0.86) (I=64%). However, with sensitivity analysis, benefit of rifaximin was demonstrable; pooled ORs were 0.32 (95% CI: 0.17-0.63) (I=0%) and 0.28 (95% CI: 0.17-0.45) (I=0%) for the comparison with quinolones and no antibiotics, respectively. Pooled OR based on randomized controlled trials was 0.41 (95% CI: 0.22-0.75) (I=13%). For the prevention of HRS, the pooled OR was 0.25 (95% CI: 0.13-0.50) (I=0%). Rifaximin has a protective effect against the development of SBP in cirrhosis. However, the quality of the evidence as per the GRADE framework was very low. Rifaximin appeared effective for the prevention of HRS.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the possible association between pharmacological gastric acid suppression and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have presented conflicting results with regard to an association between gastric acid suppression and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP). Our aim was to carry out a meta-analysis investigating the possible association between the use of proton pump inhibitors or H2-receptor antagonists and SBP. METHODS: We searched several databases from inception through 15 December 2014 to identify observational studies that provided data on the association of gastric acid suppression with SBP as their primary outcome, and carried out random effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Fourteen observational studies (six case-control and eight cohort) evaluating the association between proton pump inhibitors and SBP revealed a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 2.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57-3.42, I(2)=82%]. The subgroup analysis based on study design revealed a pooled OR of 2.52 (95% CI 1.71-3.71, I(2)=16%) for case-control studies, and a pooled OR of 2.18 (95% CI 1.24-3.82, I(2)=89%) for cohort studies. Sensitivity analysis including only the peer-reviewed publications in the cohort subgroup revealed a pooled OR of 1.49 (95% CI 1.15-1.95, I(2)=27%). The subgroup analysis for high-quality studies revealed a pooled OR of 1.49 (95% CI 1.19-1.88, I(2)=21%). The pooled OR for H2-receptor antagonists and SBP was 1.93 (95% CI 1.15-3.24, I(2)=0%). CONCLUSIONS: There appear to be statistically significant, but quantitatively small, associations between gastric acid suppression and SBP. However, the magnitude of the possible association diminished when analysis focused on higher quality data that were more robust. Furthermore, the quality evidence in support of the association, as per the GRADE framework, was very low.