Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of the Procedure-specific Risks of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General Abdominal, Colorectal, Upper Gastrointestinal, and Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To provide procedure-specific estimates of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding after abdominal surgery. BACKGROUND: The use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis represents a trade-off that depends on VTE and bleeding risks that vary between procedures; their magnitude remains uncertain. METHODS: We identified observational studies reporting procedure-specific risks of symptomatic VTE or major bleeding after abdominal surgery, adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up, and estimated cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery, stratified by VTE risk groups, and rated evidence certainty. RESULTS: After eligibility screening, 285 studies (8,048,635 patients) reporting on 40 general abdominal, 36 colorectal, 15 upper gastrointestinal, and 24 hepatopancreatobiliary surgery procedures proved eligible. Evidence certainty proved generally moderate or low for VTE and low or very low for bleeding requiring reintervention. The risk of VTE varied substantially among procedures: in general abdominal surgery from a median of <0.1% in laparoscopic cholecystectomy to a median of 3.7% in open small bowel resection, in colorectal from 0.3% in minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy to 10.0% in emergency open total proctocolectomy, and in upper gastrointestinal/hepatopancreatobiliary from 0.2% in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to 6.8% in open distal pancreatectomy for cancer. CONCLUSIONS: VTE thromboprophylaxis provides net benefit through VTE reduction with a small increase in bleeding in some procedures (eg, open colectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy), whereas the opposite is true in others (eg, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and elective groin hernia repairs). In many procedures, thromboembolism and bleeding risks are similar, and decisions depend on individual risk prediction and values and preferences regarding VTE and bleeding.

Posterior urethral valves, pressure pop-offs, and kidney function: systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To determine the role of pressure pop-off mechanisms, including vesicoureteral reflux and renal dysplasia (VURD) syndrome, in determining long-term kidney outcomes in boys with posterior urethral valves (PUV). METHODS: A systematic search was performed in December 2022. Descriptive and comparative studies with a defined pressure pop-off group were included. Assessed outcomes included end-stage renal disease (ESRD), kidney insufficiency (defined as chronic kidney disease [CKD] stage 3 + or SCr > 1.5 mg/dL), and kidney function. Pooled proportions and relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extrapolated from available data for quantitative synthesis. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed according to the study design and techniques. The risk of bias was assessed with the QUIPS tool and GRADE quality of evidence. The systematic review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022372352). RESULTS: A total of 15 studies describing 185 patients with a median follow-up of 6.8 years were included. By the last follow-up, overall effect estimates demonstrate the prevalence of CKD and ESRD to be 15.2% and 4.1%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the risk of ESRD in patients with pop-off compared to no pop-off patients [RR 0.34, 95%CI 0.12, 1.10; p = 0.07]. There was a significantly reduced risk for kidney insufficiency in boys with pop-off [RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.97; p = 0.04], but this protective effect was not re-demonstrated after excluding studies with inadequate reporting of CKD outcomes [RR 0.63, 95%CI 0.36, 1.10; p = 0.10]. Included study quality was low, with 6 studies having moderate risk and 9 having a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Pop-off mechanisms may be associated with reducing the risk of kidney insufficiency, but current certainty in the evidence is low. Further research is warranted to investigate sources of heterogeneity and long-term sequelae in pressure pop-offs.

Systematic reviews of observational studies of Risk of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General and Gynecologic Surgery (ROTBIGGS): introduction and methodology.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding are serious and potentially fatal complications of surgical procedures. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis decreases the risk of VTE but increases the risk of major post-operative bleeding. The decision to use pharmacologic prophylaxis therefore represents a trade-off that critically depends on the incidence of VTE and bleeding in the absence of prophylaxis. These baseline risks vary widely between procedures, but their magnitude is uncertain. Systematic reviews addressing baseline risks are scarce, needed, and require innovations in methodology. Indeed, systematic summaries of these baseline risk estimates exist neither in general nor gynecologic surgery. We will fill this knowledge gap by performing a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the procedure-specific and patient risk factor stratified risk estimates in general and gynecologic surgeries. METHODS: We will perform comprehensive literature searches for observational studies in general and gynecologic surgery reporting symptomatic VTE or bleeding estimates. Pairs of methodologically trained reviewers will independently assess the studies for eligibility, evaluate the risk of bias by using an instrument developed for this review, and extract data. We will perform meta-analyses and modeling studies to adjust the reported risk estimates for the use of thromboprophylaxis and length of follow up. We will derive the estimates of risk from the median estimates of studies rated at the lowest risk of bias. The primary outcomes are the risk estimates of symptomatic VTE and major bleeding at 4 weeks post-operatively for each procedure stratified by patient risk factors. We will apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate evidence certainty. DISCUSSION: This series of systematic reviews, modeling studies, and meta-analyses will inform clinicians and patients regarding the trade-off between VTE prevention and bleeding in general and gynecologic surgeries. Our work advances the standards in systematic reviews of surgical complications, including assessment of risk of bias, criteria for arriving at the best estimates of risk (including modeling of the timing of events and dealing with suboptimal data reporting), dealing with subgroups at higher and lower risk of bias, and use of the GRADE approach. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021234119.

Canadian Urological Association guideline: Erectile dysfunction.

Erectile dysfunction (ED) impacts the wellness and quality of life of millions of Canadians. An evaluation focused on the identification of reversible and irreversible underlying factors is recommended for patients presenting with ED. Through a shared decision-making model framework, the goal of ED treatment is to improve functional outcomes and enhance sexual satisfaction while minimizing adverse effects associated with treatment. Given that ED is assessed and treated by multiple different types of health practitioners, the purpose of this guideline is to provide the best available evidence to facilitate care delivery through a Canadian lens. After a narrative review of ED assessment and treatment for general readership, five key clinical questions relating to priority areas of ED are assessed using the GRADE and evidence-to-decision-making frameworks.

Comparing Renal Replacement Therapy Modalities in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Kidney Injury: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare different modalities of renal replacement therapy in critically ill adults with acute kidney injury. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 25 May, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different renal replacement therapy modalities in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. STUDY SELECTION: Ten reviewers (working in pairs) independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. DATA EXTRACTION: We performed random-effects frequentist network meta-analyses and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess certainty of evidence. The primary analysis was a four-node analysis: continuous renal replacement therapy, intermittent hemodialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis, and peritoneal dialysis. The secondary analysis subdivided these four nodes into nine nodes including continuous veno-venous hemofiltration, continuous veno-venous hemodialysis, continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration, continuous arterio-venous hemodiafiltration, intermittent hemodialysis, intermittent hemodialysis with hemofiltration, slow efficiency extended dialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis with hemofiltration, and peritoneal dialysis. We set the minimal important difference threshold for mortality as 2.5% (relative difference, 0.04). DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty randomized controlled trials (n = 3,774 patients) proved eligible. There may be no difference in mortality between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93-1.18; low certainty), whereas continuous renal replacement therapy demonstrated a possible increase in mortality compared with slow efficiency extended dialysis (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.33; low certainty) and peritoneal dialysis (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.92-1.49; low certainty). Continuous renal replacement therapy may increase renal recovery compared with intermittent hemodialysis (relative risk, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.91-1.45; low certainty), whereas both continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis may be worse for renal recovery compared with slow efficiency extended dialysis and peritoneal dialysis (low certainty). Peritoneal dialysis was probably associated with the shortest duration of renal support and length of ICU stay compared with other interventions (low certainty for most comparisons). Slow efficiency extended dialysis may be associated with shortest length of hospital stay (low or moderate certainty for all comparisons) and days of mechanical ventilation (low certainty for all comparisons) compared with other interventions. There was no difference between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis in terms of hypotension (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.16; moderate certainty) or other complications of therapy, but an increased risk of hypotension and bleeding was seen with both modalities compared with peritoneal dialysis (low or moderate certainty). Complications of slow efficiency extended dialysis were not sufficiently reported to inform comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest there is no difference in mortality between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis although continuous renal replacement therapy may increases renal recovery compared with intermittent hemodialysis. Slow efficiency extended dialysis with hemofiltration may be the most effective intervention at reducing mortality. Peritoneal dialysis is associated with good efficacy, and the least number of complications however may not be practical in all settings. Importantly, all conclusions are based on very low to moderate certainty evidence, limited by imprecision. At the very least, ICU clinicians should feel comfortable that the differences between continuous renal replacement therapy, intermittent hemodialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis, and, where clinically appropriate, peritoneal dialysis are likely small, and any of these modalities is a reasonable option to employ in critically ill patients.

Efficacité et innocuité du plasma de convalescent en cas de forme grave de COVID-19, extrapolée de données relatives à d'autres formes graves d'infections respiratoires virales : revue systématique et méta-analyse.

CONTEXTE: On ne connaît pas encore avec certitude l'innocuité et l'efficacité du plasma de convalescent comme traitement de la forme grave de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-2019). Afin d'appuyer la conception de lignes directrices sur la prise en charge de la COVID-19, nous avons effectué une revue systématique et une méta-analyse sur l'utilisation du plasma de convalescent pour le traitement de cette maladie et d'autres formes graves d'infections respiratoires virales. MÉTHODES: En mars 2020, nous avons effectué des recherches dans des bases de données biomédicales internationales et chinoises, des registres d'essais cliniques et des sources prépubliées afin de recenser des essais randomisés et contrôlés (ERC) et des études non randomisées comparant les issues de patients ayant reçu du plasma de convalescent à celles de patients n'en ayant pas reçu. Ont été inclus les patients ayant une infection aiguë attribuable à un coronavirus, au virus de l'influenza ou au virus Ebola. Nous avons également réalisé une méta-analyse à l'aide d'un modèle à effets aléatoires et évalué la qualité des données probantes au moyen de l'approche GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). RÉSULTATS: Sur les 1099 études uniques initialement repérées, 6 étaient admissibles, et aucune d'entre elles ne portait sur des patients atteints de la COVID-19. Une étude non randomisée (n = 40) sur l'administration de plasma de convalescent à des patients atteints du coronavirus du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SRAS-CoV) a fourni des données peu concluantes sur le taux de mortalité (risque relatif [RR] 0,10; intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95 % 0,01 à 1,70). Des estimations regroupées provenant de 4 ERC sur l'influenza (n = 572) n'ont pas montré d'effet manifeste sur le taux de mortalité (4 ERC; RR 0,94; IC de 95 % 0,49 à 1,81), le rétablissement complet (2 ERC; rapports de cotes [RC] 1,04; IC de 95 % 0,69 à 1,64) et la durée d'hospitalisation (3 ERC; différence moyenne [DM] −1,62; IC de 95 % −3,82 à 0,58 jours). La qualité des données était très faible pour tous les paramètres relatifs à l'efficacité. Dans les ERC sur l'influenza, aucun ou peu d'événements indésirables graves ont été associés au plasma de convalescent (RR 0,85; IC de 95 % 0,56 à 1,29; données de faible qualité). INTERPRÉTATION: Les études portant sur des formes graves d'infections respiratoires virales autres que la COVID-19 ont fourni des données indirectes de très faible qualité semblant indiquer que le plasma de convalescent n'offre aucun bénéfice ou offre des bénéfices minimes pour le traitement de la COVID-19, de même que des données de faible qualité montrant qu'il n'entraîne pas d'événements indésirables graves.

Efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma for severe COVID-19 based on evidence in other severe respiratory viral infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. To support a guideline on COVID-19 management, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 and other severe respiratory viral infections. METHODS: In March 2020, we searched international and Chinese biomedical literature databases, clinical trial registries and prepublication sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies comparing patients receiving and not receiving convalescent plasma. We included patients with acute coronavirus, influenza and Ebola virus infections. We conducted a meta-analysis using random-effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Of 1099 unique records, 6 studies were eligible, and none of these included patients with COVID-19. One nonrandomized study (n = 40) on convalescent plasma in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) provided uninformative results regarding mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] CI 0.01 to 1.70). Pooled estimates from 4 RCTs on influenza (n = 572) showed no convincing effects on deaths (4 RCTs, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.81), complete recovery (2 RCTs, odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.64) or length of stay (3 RCTs, mean difference -1.62, 95% CI -3.82 to 0.58, d). The quality of evidence was very low for all efficacy outcomes. Convalescent plasma caused few or no serious adverse events in influenza RCTs (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.29, low-quality evidence). INTERPRETATION: Studies of non-COVID-19 severe respiratory viral infections provide indirect, very low-quality evidence that raises the possibility that convalescent plasma has minimal or no benefit in the treatment of COVID-19 and low-quality evidence that it does not cause serious adverse events.