ABSTRACT
Background: Improvements in liver transplant (LT) outcomes are attributed to advances in surgical techniques, use of potent immunosuppressants, and rigorous pre-LT testing. Despite these improvements, post-LT infections remain the most common complication in this population. Bacteria constitute the most common infectious agents, while fungal and viral infections are also frequently encountered. Multi-drug-resistant bacterial infections develop because of polymicrobial overuse and prolonged hospital stays. Immediate post-LT infections are commonly caused by viruses. Conclusions: Appropriate vaccination, screening of both donor and recipients before LT and antiviral prophylaxis in high-risk individuals are recommended. Antimicrobial drug resistance is common in high-risk LT and associated with poor outcomes; epidemiology and management of these cases is discussed. Additionally, we also discuss the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and monkeypox in the LT population.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Liver Transplantation , Transplant Recipients , Humans , Liver Transplantation/adverse effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , Bacterial Infections/epidemiology , Bacterial Infections/drug therapy , Bacterial Infections/prevention & control , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Mycoses/epidemiology , Mycoses/drug therapy , Virus Diseases/epidemiology , Virus Diseases/prevention & controlABSTRACT
Background: Esophageal food bolus and/or foreign body (FB) impaction is a common gastrointestinal emergency. This meta-analysis reports on the pooled outcomes of cap-assisted endoscopic removal of esophageal FB. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases (inception to February 2022) to identify studies reporting on the use of a cap in the endoscopic treatment of esophageal FB ingestion. A random effects model was used to calculate the pooled odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD), and I2 values were used to assess the heterogeneity. Results: Six studies were analyzed that included 677 patients treated with cap-assisted and 694 with conventional endoscopy. The cap-assisted method demonstrated statistically significant superiority regarding technical success (pooled OR 7.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-26.9; P=0.004), en bloc removal (pooled OR 26.6, 95%CI 17.6-40.2; P<0.001), as well as a significantly shorter procedure time (4.6 min, 95%CI -6.5 to -2.8; P<0.001), compared to conventional methods. Better technical success was achieved with the cap-assisted method performed under anesthesia (OR 8.7, 95%CI 1.6-47.7; P=0.01); however, a shorter procedure time was noted for the cap-assisted method without anesthesia (MD -1.5, 95%CI -2.7 to -0.4; P=0.01). Pooled adverse events were comparable. Pooled OR for mucosal tear was significantly lower with cap in food bolus impaction (OR 0.07, 95%CI 0.01-0.38; P=0.02). Conclusion: Cap-assisted endoscopic removal of esophageal FB is associated with better technical success and en bloc removal, and a shorter procedure time compared to conventional methods, with comparable adverse events.
