ABSTRACT
The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in the management of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with structural heart diseases. Two independent investigators searched electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane, and Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) using keyword combinations (Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and free terms) such as "catheter ablation," "ventricular tachycardia," "escalation," and "antiarrhythmic drugs" from inception to November 30, 2022. The primary efficacy outcomes included recurrence of VT at follow-up, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. The secondary efficacy outcomes assessed in the current meta-analysis included implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock and hospitalization due to cardiac reasons. Safety outcomes included treatment-related adverse events and serious adverse events. A total of three studies were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in the risk of recurrence of VT (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.72-1.24, p-value: 0.67), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.67, 1.46, p-value: 0.98), cardiovascular mortality (risk ratio (RR): 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-1.45, p-value: 0.67), incidence of ICD shocks (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.76-1.29, p-value: 0.93, I-square: 0%), and hospitalization due to cardiac reasons in follow-up (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.55-1.07, p-value: 0.12) between the catheter ablation group and the antiarrhythmic drug group. However, the risk of treatment-related adverse events was lower in the ablation group compared to the antiarrhythmic medicine (AAM) group (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.67, p-value: 0.0001). In this meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among patients with structural heart disease who had ventricular tachycardia, the incidence of the recurrence of VT, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and ICD shock was not significantly different between patients who received catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drugs. However, regarding safety, catheter ablation is a safe procedure with a low risk of treatment-related events compared to antiarrhythmic drugs.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To determine any change in referral patterns and outcomes in children (0-18) referred for child protection medical examination (CPME) during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with previous years. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study, analysing routinely collected clinical data from CPME reports in a rapid response to the pandemic lockdown. SETTING: Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Trust, which provides all routine CPME for Birmingham, England, population 1.1 million including 288 000 children. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged under 18 years attending CPME during an 18-week period from late February to late June during the years 2018-2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers of referrals, source of disclosure and outcomes from CPME. RESULTS: There were 78 CPME referrals in 2018, 75 in 2019 and 47 in 2020, this was a 39.7% (95% CI 12.4% to 59.0%) reduction in referrals from 2018 to 2020, and a 37.3% (95% CI 8.6% to 57.4%) reduction from 2019 to 2020. There were fewer CPME referrals initiated by school staff in 2020, 12 (26%) compared with 36 (47%) and 38 (52%) in 2018 and 2019, respectively. In all years 75.9% of children were known to social care prior to CPME, and 94% of CPME concluded that there were significant safeguarding concerns. CONCLUSIONS: School closure due to COVID-19 may have harmed children as child abuse has remained hidden. There needs to be either mandatory attendance at schools in future or viable alternatives found. There may be a significant increase in safeguarding referrals when schools fully reopen as children disclose the abuse they have experienced at home.
Subject(s)
Child Abuse , Child Protective Services , Child Welfare , Communicable Disease Control , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , School Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Child , Child Abuse/prevention & control , Child Abuse/psychology , Child Abuse/statistics & numerical data , Child Protective Services/methods , Child Protective Services/statistics & numerical data , Child Welfare/statistics & numerical data , Child Welfare/trends , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Communicable Disease Control/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Population , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Isolation , Social Work/methods , Social Work/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom/epidemiologyABSTRACT
This study is a retrospective chart review comparing 195 women who underwent rectocele repair with either a porcine dermal xenograft or human allogenic cadaveric dermal graft augmentation over a two year period. A site-specific defect repair was completed prior to augmentation with the graft. Examinations were performed preoperatively and postoperatively using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. Questionnaires were used to assess constipation and dyspareunia. De novo dyspareunia and cure rates for constipation and dyspareunia were not statistically different between the two groups. Site-specific fascial rectocele repairs with xenograft or allograft augmentation were found to have similar complication rates as well as objective and subjective cure rates.