Uterine artery embolization vs myomectomy for the management of women with uterine leiomyomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether uterine artery embolization offers a better quality of life than myomectomy in premenopausal women diagnosed with leiomyomas of the uterus. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed using the electronic databases of PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to January 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing uterine artery embolization with myomectomy in women of premenopausal age suffering from uterine leiomyomas were considered. METHODS: The primary outcome was quality of life. The secondary outcomes were reintervention rate and timing, successful pregnancy, stillbirth and miscarriage, cesarean delivery on delivery, and perioperative morbidity. Moreover, time-to-event and standard pairwise meta-analyses were performed, as appropriate. The certainty of the evidence was assessed in line with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology. RESULTS: A total of 6 randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis suggested little to no difference in terms of quality of life between uterine artery embolization and myomectomy (standard mean difference, 0.05; 95% confidence interval, -0.38 to 0.48; I2=92%; very low certainty of evidence). Sensitivity analysis, including randomized controlled trials, which included solely myomectomy procedures in the control arm, demonstrated better quality of life for women treated with myomectomy (standard mean difference, -0.32; 95% confidence interval, -0.49 to -0.15; I2=15%). Concerning reintervention, myomectomy was likely associated with a decreased risk of future reintervention (risk ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.69; I2=60%; low certainty of evidence) and a more prolonged time interval since a potential reintervention because of recurrence than uterine artery embolization (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.77; I2=77%; low certainty of evidence). No difference was found between the 2 interventions concerning severe perioperative adverse events (relative risk, 4.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-39.20; I2=0%; low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSION: Uterine artery embolization is likely associated with increased reintervention rates and less time to reintervention compared with myomectomy in premenopausal women diagnosed with uterine leiomyomas. Evidence suggests no difference between the 2 interventions regarding perioperative morbidity. Uterine artery embolization may exert no effect on quality of life and successful pregnancy; however, the evidence is very uncertain.

Autonomic Responses During Acute Anterior Versus Inferior Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Autonomic responses elicited by myocardial infarction vary depending on the site of injury, but accurate assessment using heart rate variability during the acute phase is limited. We systematically searched PubMed without language restrictions throughout July 2023. We reviewed studies reporting autonomic indices separately for anterior and inferior infarcts, followed by a meta-analysis of those reporting the standard deviation of the inter-beat interval between normal sinus beats during the initial 24 hours after the onset of symptoms. Six studies were included, comprising 341 patients (165 anterior, 176 inferior infarcts), all with satisfactory scores on the Newcastle-Ottawa quality scale. The estimated average of the standardized mean difference (based on the random-effects model) was -0.722 (95% confidence intervals: -0.943 to -0.501), which differed from zero (z=-6.416, p<0.0001). This finding indicates sympathetic and vagal dominance during acute anterior and inferior infarcts, respectively, with excessive responses likely contributing to early arrhythmogenesis. Despite the amelioration of autonomic dysfunction by revascularization, infarct location should be considered when commencing ß-adrenergic receptor blockade, especially after delayed procedures.

EAES, SAGES, and ESCP rapid guideline: bowel preparation for minimally invasive colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: Variation exists in practice pertaining to bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery. A survey of EAES members prioritized this topic to be addressed by a clinical practice guideline. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on the use of bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery, through evidence synthesis and a structured evidence-to-decision framework by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. METHODS: This is a collaborative project of EAES, SAGES, and ESCP. We updated a previous systematic review and performed a network meta-analysis of interventions. We appraised the certainty of the evidence for each comparison, using the GRADE and CINeMA methods. A panel of general and colorectal surgeons, infectious diseases specialists, an anesthetist, and a patient representative discussed the evidence in the context of benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, acceptability, feasibility, equity, cost, and use of resources, moderated by a GIN-certified master guideline developer and chair. We developed the recommendations in a consensus meeting, followed by a modified Delphi survey. RESULTS: The panel suggests either oral antibiotics alone prior to minimally invasive right colon resection or mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus oral antibiotics; MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive left colon and sigmoid resection, and prior to minimally invasive right colon resection when there is an intention to perform intracorporeal anastomosis; and MBP plus oral antibiotics plus enema prior to minimally invasive rectal surgery (conditional recommendations); and recommends MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery, when there is an intention to localize the lesion intraoperatively (strong recommendation). The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/LwvKej . CONCLUSION: This guideline provides recommendations on bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery for different procedures, using highest methodological standards, through a structured framework informed by key stakeholders. Guideline registration number PREPARE-2023CN045.

The role of systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the management of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy offers superior survival rates in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), tubal, or peritoneal cancer. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases PubMed (from 1996), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (from 1996), and Scopus (from 2004) to September 2021. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy with no lymphadenectomy in patients with advanced EOC. Primary outcomes were overall survival and progression-free survival. Secondary outcomes were peri-operative morbidity and operative mortality. The revised Cochrane tool for randomised trials (RoB 2 tool) was utilised for the risk of bias assessment in the included studies. We performed time-to-event and standard pairwise meta-analyses, as appropriate. RESULTS: Two RCTs with a total of 1074 patients were included in our review. Meta-analysis demonstrated similar overall survival (HR = 1.03, 95% CI [0.85-1.24]; low certainty) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.63-1.35]; very low certainty). Regarding peri-operative morbidity, systematic lymphadenectomy was associated with higher rates of lymphoedema and lymphocysts formation (RR = 7.31, 95% CI [1.89-28.20]; moderate certainty) and need for blood transfusion (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.06-1.29]; moderate certainty). No statistically significant differences were observed in regard to other peri-operative adverse events between the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy is likely associated with similar overall survival and progression-free survival compared to no lymphadenectomy in optimally debulked patients with advanced EOC. Systematic lymphadenectomy is also associated with an increased risk for certain peri-operative adverse events. Further research needs to be conducted on whether we should abandon systematic lymphadenectomy in completely debulked patients during primary debulking surgery.

EHS Rapid Guideline: Evidence-Informed European Recommendations on Parastomal Hernia Prevention-With ESCP and EAES Participation.

Background: Growing evidence on the use of mesh as a prophylactic measure to prevent parastomal hernia and advances in guideline development methods prompted an update of a previous guideline on parastomal hernia prevention. Objective: To develop evidence-based, trustworthy recommendations, informed by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review on the use of a prophylactic mesh for end colostomy, and we synthesized evidence using pairwise meta-analysis. A European panel of surgeons, stoma care nurses, and patients developed an evidence-to-decision framework in line with GRADE and Guidelines International Network standards, moderated by a certified guideline methodologist. The framework considered benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, patients' preferences and values, cost and resources considerations, acceptability, equity and feasibility. Results: The certainty of the evidence was moderate for parastomal hernia and low for major morbidity, surgery for parastomal hernia, and quality of life. There was unanimous consensus among panel members for a conditional recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy and fair life expectancy, and a strong recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients at high risk to develop a parastomal hernia. Conclusion: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed, interdisciplinary recommendations on the use of prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy. Further, it identifies research gaps, and discusses implications for stakeholders, including overcoming barriers to implementation and specific considerations regarding validity.

Update Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment of the Evidence on Parastomal Hernia Prevention-A EHS, ESCP and EAES Collaborative Project.

Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of prophylactic mesh for the prevention of parastomal hernia in end colostomy, with the ultimate objective to summarize the evidence for an interdisciplinary, European rapid guideline. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review with de novo evidence search of PubMed from inception up to June 2022. Primary outcome was quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were clinical diagnosis of parastomal hernia, surgery for parastomal hernia, and 30 day or in-hospital complications Clavien-Dindo ≥3. We utilised the revised Cochrane Tool for randomised trials (RoB 2 tool) for risk of bias assessment in the included studies. Minimally important differences were set a priori through voting of the panel members. We appraised the evidence using GRADE and we developed GRADE evidence tables. Results: We included 12 randomized trials. Meta-analysis suggested no difference in QoL between prophylactic mesh and no mesh for primary stoma construction (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.14 to 0.2], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). With regard to parastomal hernia, the use of prophylactic synthetic mesh resulted in a significant risk reduction of the incidence of the event, according to data from all available randomized trials, irrespective of the follow-up period (OR = 0.33, 95% CI [0.18-0.62], I2 = 74%, moderate certainty of evidence). Sensitivity analyses according to follow-up period were in line with the primary analysis. Little to no difference in surgery for parastomal hernia was encountered after pooled analysis of 10 randomised trials (OR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.25-1.09], I2 = 14%). Finally, no significant difference was found in Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and 4 adverse events after surgery with or without the use of a prophylactic mesh (OR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.45-1.30], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). Conclusion: Prophylactic synthetic mesh placement at the time of permanent end colostomy construction is likely associated with a reduced risk for parastomal hernia and may confer similar risk of peri-operative major morbidity compared to no mesh placement. There may be no difference in quality of life and surgical repair of parastomal hernia with the use of either approach.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Versus Primary Debulking Surgery in FIGO Stage III and IV Epithelial Ovarian, Tubal or Peritoneal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: To investigate whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) confers superior outcomes compared to primary debulking surgery (PDS) in patients with stage III and IV epithelial ovarian, tubal or peritoneal cancer as well as in patients with high tumour load. Methods: We searched the electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, and Scopus from inception to March 2021. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NACT with PDS for women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) stages III and IV. The primary outcomes were overall survival and progression-free survival. Secondary outcomes were optimal cytoreduction rates, peri-operative adverse events, and quality of life. Results: Six RCTs with a total of 1901 participants were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated similar overall survival (HR = 0.96, 95% CI [0.86-1.07]) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.89-1.08]) between NACT and PDS. Subgroup analyses did not demonstrate higher survival for stage IV patients (HR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.71-1.09]) nor for patients with metastatic lesions >5 cm (HR = 0.86, 95% CI [0.69-1.08]) treated with NACT, albeit with some uncertainty due to imprecision. Similarly, no survival benefit was observed in the subgroup of patients with metastatic lesions >10 cm (HR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.78-1.12]). NACT was associated with significantly higher rates of complete cytoreduction (RR = 2.34, 95% CI [1.48-3.71]). Severe peri-operative adverse events were less frequent in the NACT arm (RR = 0.34, 95% CI [0.16-0.72]. Conclusion: Patients with stage III and IV epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing NACT or PDS have similar overall survival. NACT is likely associated with higher rates of complete cytoreduction and lower risk of severe adverse events and peri-operative death.