ABSTRACT
Thrombosis of the portal vein (PVT) is generally seen in the setting of liver cirrhosis and to a lesser extent in the absence of cirrhosis. There is no clear guidance in relation to approaching treatment with anticoagulation in this condition. The professional societies and guidelines recommend treatment with traditional anticoagulation like low-molecular-weight heparin and vitamin-K antagonists in patients presenting with acute portal vein thrombosis. There is no clarity in relation to treatment in the setting of chronic PVT and in patients with cirrhosis. Also, the role of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that are becoming a preferred choice for anticoagulation for various other indications is not clear in the case of PVT. There are a very few studies in the medical literature that have investigated the role of DOACs in patients with PVT in different settings. Thus, we performed a systematic review of the literature to study the use of DOACs in PVT in patients with and without cirrhosis. The results of the available studies show that DOACS appears to be a promising choice for the treatment of patients with PVT. The availability of more data in the future along with better availability of the approved reversal agents for various DOACs is expected to make DOACS a preferred choice for the clinicians to treat patients with PVT.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Competency-based educational models recommend trainee exposure to research, but the best methods for Graduate Medical Education (GME) programs to accomplish this have not been clarified. The objective of this study was to quantify published interventions to generate resident research and compare effectiveness among those interventions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of English-language articles of studies of GME programs was performed, describing resident research interventions and quantifying the number of publications as an outcome. RESULTS: The search produced 13,688 potentially relevant articles, and included 47 articles in the final synthesis. Publication effectiveness was calculated as publications per year. The top ten programs for publication effectiveness were compared to others for interventions chosen. Interventions were characterized as research director, protected time, research requirement, research mentor, curricula, research assistant, biostatistician, information technology support, research fund, pay-for-performance plans, and celebration of accomplishments. Total number of different interventions was not significantly associated with primary outcome (r = 0.20, p = 0.18). When comparing the top ten programs to the others, appointment of a research director was statistically more prevalent in those programs (70% vs. 30%, p = 0.02), while presence of a defined curriculum was more common (90% vs. 57%, p = 0.052) but not statistically significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Leadership interventions (directors, curricula) are associated with successful GME research efforts.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of prophylactic anticholinergic medications in reducing extrapyramidal symptoms in patients taking acute antiemetics with a dopamine D2 receptor antagonist effect. METHODS: Systematic searches of all published studies through March 2017 were identified from PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus. Only randomised controlled trials of patients receiving dopamine D2 antagonist antiemetic therapy for acute migraine in which an anticholinergic or placebo was compared were included. Pooled ORs were calculated for incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms and sedation. RESULTS: Four placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials consisting of 737 patients met the inclusion criteria for our meta-analysis. The effect of diphenhydramine differed depending on the method of administration of the antiemetic. When the antiemetic was delivered as a 2 min antiemetic bolus, the odds of extrapyramidal symptoms were significantly reduced in the diphenhydramine group compared with placebo (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.81; P=0.01). However, when the antiemetic was given as a 15 min infusion, there was no significant difference in extrapyramidal symptoms with or without diphenhydramine (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.91; P=0.85). The lowest incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms was observed in patients receiving a 15 min antiemetic infusion without diphenhydramine prophylaxis (9.8%). In two trials including 351 patients that dichotomously reported sedation scales, diphenhydramine had significantly higher rates of sedation (31.6%vs19.2%, OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.33; P=0.007). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic diphenhydramine reduces extrapyramidal symptoms in patients receiving bolus antiemetic therapy with a dopamine D2 antagonist effect, but not when it is given as an infusion. Because of significantly greater sedation with diphenhydramine, the most effective strategy is to administer the D2 antagonist antiemetic as a 15 min infusion without prophylaxis.