ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This systematic review investigated the prevalence of orofacial pain in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The search was conducted in five databases (Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, Scopus and LILACS), in three grey literature sources and in included articles' reference lists. Three independent reviewers performed study selection, quality appraisal and data extraction. The risk of bias was assessed with the National Institutes of Health tool. Prevalence was calculated using the random-effects model. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used to explore the heterogeneity of results. RESULTS: The database and grey literature search led to 12 246 results, from which nine studies were included; a further four were selected through citation searching. The total sample comprised 6115 patients with dementia and 84 with MCI. All studies had high risk of bias. The overall estimated pooled prevalence of orofacial pain among dementia participants was 19.0% (95% CI, 11.0%-27.0%; I2 , 97.1%, P < .001). Only one study included MCI participants, among which the prevalence of orofacial pain was 20.5%. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the different sources of diagnosis might explain the heterogeneity. A higher prevalence of orofacial pain was observed in dementia participants aged over 80 years or living in nursing homes. Meta-regression analysis showed a nonlinear relationship between age and the prevalence of orofacial pain. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled data from the primary studies revealed that 2 out of 10 patients with dementia have orofacial pain. Further research is needed to clarify the magnitude in individuals with MCI.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Pericardial window, in addition to promoting pericardial drainage, can also provide samples of the pericardium for anatomopathological examination. However, such biopsies' contribution to clarifying the etiology of pericardial effusion has been debated. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the diagnostic value of non-targeted pericardial biopsy obtained from pericardial window procedures. METHODS: Data from 80 patients who had undergone parietal pericardial biopsies from 2011 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Statistical significance was considered if p < 0.05. RESULTS: Fifty patients were male (62.5%,) and 30 were female (37.5%). The median age was 52 years (interquartile range: 29 to 59) and 49 years (interquartile range: 38 to 65), respectively (p = 0.724). The suspected etiology of pericardial effusion was neoplastic in 31.3%, unclear in 25%, tuberculosis in 15%, autoimmune in 12.5%, edemagenic syndrome in 7.5%, and other miscellaneous conditions in 8.8%. The most frequent approach for pericardial drainage and biopsy was subxiphoid (74%), followed by video-assisted thoracoscopy (22%). Overall, in 78.8% of the biopsies, the histopathologic findings were compatible with nonspecific inflammation, and only 13.7% of all biopsies yielded a conclusive histopathological diagnostic. Those suffering from cancer and pericardial effusion had a higher proportion of conclusive histopathologic findings (32% had pericardial neoplastic infiltration). The hospital mortality rate was 27.5%, and 54.5% of the patients who died in the hospital had cancer. No deaths were attributed to cardiac tamponade or the drainage procedure. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that pericardial window is a safe procedure, but it had little value to clarify the pericardial effusion etiology and no impact on the planned therapy for the primary diagnosis besides the cardiac decompression.
FUNDAMENTO: A janela pericárdica, além de promover a drenagem pericárdica, também pode fornecer amostras do pericárdio para exame anatomopatológico. No entanto, a contribuição dessas biópsias para a elucidação da etiologia do derrame pericárdico tem sido debatida. OBJETIVO: Analisar o valor diagnóstico da biópsia pericárdica não guiada obtida de procedimentos de janela pericárdica. MÉTODOS: Foram revisados retrospectivamente dados de 80 pacientes submetidos a biópsia pericárdica parietal de 2011 a 2020. A significância estatística foi considerada quando p < 0,05. RESULTADOS: Cinquenta pacientes eram do sexo masculino (62,5%) e 30 do sexo feminino (37,5%). A mediana de idade foi de 52 anos (intervalo interquartil: 29 a 59) e 49 anos (intervalo interquartil: 38 a 65), respectivamente (p = 0,724). A etiologia suspeita do derrame pericárdico foi neoplásica em 31,3%, incerta em 25%, tuberculose em 15%, autoimune em 12,5%, síndrome edemigênica em 7,5% e outras condições diversas em 8,8%. A abordagem mais frequente para drenagem pericárdica e biópsia foi a subxifoide (74%), seguida pela videotoracoscopia (22%). Em 78,8% das biópsias, os achados histopatológicos foram compatíveis com inflamação inespecífica, e apenas 13,7% de todas as biópsias produziram um diagnóstico histopatológico conclusivo. Aqueles que sofriam de câncer e derrame pericárdico apresentaram maior proporção de achados histopatológicos conclusivos (32% apresentavam infiltração neoplásica pericárdica). A taxa de mortalidade hospitalar foi de 27,5% e 54,5% dos pacientes que morreram no hospital tinham câncer. Nenhuma morte foi atribuída ao tamponamento cardíaco ou ao procedimento de drenagem. CONCLUSÃO: Nossos resultados mostraram que a janela pericárdica é um procedimento seguro, mas teve pouco valor para esclarecer a etiologia do derrame pericárdico e nenhum impacto na terapia planejada para o diagnóstico primário além da descompressão cardíaca.
Subject(s)
Cardiac Tamponade , Heart Neoplasms , Pericardial Effusion , Humans , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Pericardial Effusion/diagnosis , Pericardial Effusion/etiology , Pericardial Effusion/surgery , Retrospective Studies , Pericardium , Biopsy/adverse effects , Heart Neoplasms/complicationsABSTRACT
Resumo Fundamento A janela pericárdica, além de promover a drenagem pericárdica, também pode fornecer amostras do pericárdio para exame anatomopatológico. No entanto, a contribuição dessas biópsias para a elucidação da etiologia do derrame pericárdico tem sido debatida. Objetivo Analisar o valor diagnóstico da biópsia pericárdica não guiada obtida de procedimentos de janela pericárdica. Métodos Foram revisados retrospectivamente dados de 80 pacientes submetidos a biópsia pericárdica parietal de 2011 a 2020. A significância estatística foi considerada quando p < 0,05. Resultados Cinquenta pacientes eram do sexo masculino (62,5%) e 30 do sexo feminino (37,5%). A mediana de idade foi de 52 anos (intervalo interquartil: 29 a 59) e 49 anos (intervalo interquartil: 38 a 65), respectivamente (p = 0,724). A etiologia suspeita do derrame pericárdico foi neoplásica em 31,3%, incerta em 25%, tuberculose em 15%, autoimune em 12,5%, síndrome edemigênica em 7,5% e outras condições diversas em 8,8%. A abordagem mais frequente para drenagem pericárdica e biópsia foi a subxifoide (74%), seguida pela videotoracoscopia (22%). Em 78,8% das biópsias, os achados histopatológicos foram compatíveis com inflamação inespecífica, e apenas 13,7% de todas as biópsias produziram um diagnóstico histopatológico conclusivo. Aqueles que sofriam de câncer e derrame pericárdico apresentaram maior proporção de achados histopatológicos conclusivos (32% apresentavam infiltração neoplásica pericárdica). A taxa de mortalidade hospitalar foi de 27,5% e 54,5% dos pacientes que morreram no hospital tinham câncer. Nenhuma morte foi atribuída ao tamponamento cardíaco ou ao procedimento de drenagem. Conclusão Nossos resultados mostraram que a janela pericárdica é um procedimento seguro, mas teve pouco valor para esclarecer a etiologia do derrame pericárdico e nenhum impacto na terapia planejada para o diagnóstico primário além da descompressão cardíaca.
Abstract Background Pericardial window, in addition to promoting pericardial drainage, can also provide samples of the pericardium for anatomopathological examination. However, such biopsies' contribution to clarifying the etiology of pericardial effusion has been debated. Objective To analyze the diagnostic value of non-targeted pericardial biopsy obtained from pericardial window procedures. Methods Data from 80 patients who had undergone parietal pericardial biopsies from 2011 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Statistical significance was considered if p < 0.05. Results Fifty patients were male (62.5%,) and 30 were female (37.5%). The median age was 52 years (interquartile range: 29 to 59) and 49 years (interquartile range: 38 to 65), respectively (p = 0.724). The suspected etiology of pericardial effusion was neoplastic in 31.3%, unclear in 25%, tuberculosis in 15%, autoimmune in 12.5%, edemagenic syndrome in 7.5%, and other miscellaneous conditions in 8.8%. The most frequent approach for pericardial drainage and biopsy was subxiphoid (74%), followed by video-assisted thoracoscopy (22%). Overall, in 78.8% of the biopsies, the histopathologic findings were compatible with nonspecific inflammation, and only 13.7% of all biopsies yielded a conclusive histopathological diagnostic. Those suffering from cancer and pericardial effusion had a higher proportion of conclusive histopathologic findings (32% had pericardial neoplastic infiltration). The hospital mortality rate was 27.5%, and 54.5% of the patients who died in the hospital had cancer. No deaths were attributed to cardiac tamponade or the drainage procedure. Conclusion Our results showed that pericardial window is a safe procedure, but it had little value to clarify the pericardial effusion etiology and no impact on the planned therapy for the primary diagnosis besides the cardiac decompression.
