The role of tranexamic acid in reducing post-operative bleeding and seroma formation in breast surgery: A meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Tranexamic acid (TXA) reduces blood loss and blood transfusion requirements in surgery. Seroma and haematoma formation occur as complications of breast surgery. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis evaluating TXA in reducing post-operative haematoma and seroma formation for breast surgery. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results were expressed as dichotomous variables pooled as odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. RESULTS: Seven studies including 1446 patients were included. There were 1830 breast surgery procedures performed with TXA administered in 797 cases (43.6%). There was a significant reduction in haematoma rates in the TXA group (TXA: 3.184% (22/691) vs Control: 6.787% (64/943), OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.20-0.86, P = 0.020). Based on surgical procedure, haematoma rates were similar for TXA and control groups in cancer surgery (P = 0.230). Haematoma rates reduced following TXA use in cosmetic procedures (TXA: 3.807% (15/394) vs. Control: 9.091% (34/374), OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.22-0.75, P = 0.004). Haematoma rates were also reduced in procedures where axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) was not performed; in the TXA group, 3.379% (22/651) developed a haematoma versus 6.623% (60/906) in the control group (OR: 0.45, 95% CI 0.27-0.77, P = 0.003). TXA administration did not impact seroma formation or infection rates. CONCLUSION: Perioperative administration of TXA may impact the incidence of haematoma in breast surgery, particularly in cosmetic procedures and procedures without ALND. Well-designed randomised studies are required to determine its true efficacy. TXA has no effect on seroma formation or infection in breast surgery.

The impact of liver resection on survival for patients with metastatic breast cancer - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: There is uncertainty surrounding the role of resection as an option for curative treatment of breast cancer with liver metastases (BCLM). AIM: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the role of liver resection for BCLM. METHODS: A systematic review was performed as per PRISMA guidelines. Hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) and standard error was obtained from each study and expressed using the generic inverse variance method, with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). OS outcomes at 1- 3- and 5-years were expressed as dichotomous variables and pooled as odds ratios (OR) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. RESULTS: Nine studies with 1732 patients were included. Of these, 24.5% underwent surgical resection of BCLM (424/1732) and 75.5% did not (1308/1732). Overall, OS was significantly better among those who underwent surgery versus controls (HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59-0.80, P < 0.00001). Mortality rates were significantly reduced at 1-year (7.5% (10/134) vs 20.3% (79/390), OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08-0.74, P = 0.010) and 5-years (54.0% (190/352) vs 75.3% (940/1249), OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.25-0.87, P = 0.020) respectively for those undergoing surgery versus controls. Mortality rates at 3 years after surgery were lower than the control group (19.1% (29/152) vs 53.0% (222/419)), however this failed to achieve statistical significance at meta-analysis (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.09-1.12, P = 0.070). CONCLUSION: Liver resection may be considered at multidisciplinary meetings for those with BCLM and offers a potentially curative option. However, judicious patient selection is crucial prior to making decisions in relation to resection of BCLM.

The CHARTER-Ireland trial: can nebulised heparin reduce acute lung injury in patients with SARS-CoV-2 requiring advanced respiratory support in Ireland: a study protocol and statistical analysis plan for a randomised control trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pneumonia is associated with the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) displaying some typical histological features. These include diffuse alveolar damage with extensive pulmonary coagulation activation. This results in fibrin deposition in the microvasculature, leading to the formation of hyaline membranes in the air sacs. Well-conducted clinical trials have found that nebulised heparin limits pulmonary fibrin deposition, attenuates progression of ARDS, hastens recovery and is safe in non-COVID ARDS. Unfractionated heparin also inactivates the SARS-CoV-2 virus and prevents entry into mammalian cells. Nebulisation of heparin may therefore limit fibrin-mediated lung injury and inhibit pulmonary infection by SARS-CoV-2. Based on these findings, we designed the CHARTER-Ireland Study, a phase 1b/2a randomised controlled study of nebulised heparin in patients requiring advanced respiratory support for COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This is a multi-centre, phase 1b/IIa, randomised, parallel-group, open-label study. The study will randomise 40 SARs-CoV-2-positive patients receiving advanced respiratory support in a critical care area. Randomisation will be via 1:1 allocation to usual care plus nebulised unfractionated heparin 6 hourly to day 10 while receiving advanced respiratory support or usual care only. The study aims to evaluate whether unfractionated heparin will decrease the procoagulant response associated with ARDS up to day 10. The study will also assess safety and tolerability of nebulised heparin as defined by number of severe adverse events; oxygen index and respiratory oxygenation index of intubated and unintubated, respectively; ventilatory ratio; and plasma concentration of interleukin (IL)-1ß, IL6, IL-8, IL-10 and soluble tumour necrosis factor receptor 1, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, ferritin, fibrinogen and lactate dehydrogenase as well as the ratios of IL-1ß/IL-10 and IL-6/IL-10. These parameters will be assessed on days 1, 3, 5 and 10; time to separation from advanced respiratory support, time to discharge from the intensive care unit and number tracheostomised to day 28; and survival to days 28 and 60 and to hospital discharge, censored at day 60. Some clinical outcome data from our study will be included in the international meta-trials, CHARTER and INHALE-HEP. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to provide evidence of potential therapeutic benefit while establishing safety of nebulised heparin in the management of ARDS associated with SARs-CoV-2 infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04511923 . Registered on 13 August 2020. Protocol version 8, 22/12/2021 Protocol identifier: NUIG-2020-003 EudraCT registration number: 2020-003349-12 9 October 2020.

A Comparison of Expectations of Physicians and Patients with Chronic Pain for Pain Clinic Visits.

BACKGROUND: The patient-physician encounter forms the cornerstone of every health service. However, optimal medical outcomes are often confounded by inadequate patient-physician communication. Chronic pain is estimated to affect over 25% of the population. Its effects are multifaceted with patients at increased risk of experiencing emotional and functional disturbances. Therefore, it is crucial to address all components of the patient's pain experience, including beliefs and expectations. It is our understanding that no other study to date has evaluated the expectations of physicians and compared them to those of patients for pain clinic visits. We sought to describe and compare expectations of chronic pain patients and their physicians during a clinic consultation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review on patients attending the pain clinic for the first time who were enrolled and completed a questionnaire asking their expectations for their clinic visit as well as outcomes that would satisfy and disappoint them. Pain physicians were also included. We compared physicians' to patients' responses and evaluated relationships between patient responses and age, gender, pain location, Pain Self-Efficacy, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. RESULTS: One hundred chronic pain patients and 10 pain physicians were surveyed. Patients' clinical expectations for visits focused primarily on some pain relief (34%), education on the cause of pain (24%), and a definitive diagnosis (18%). Physician's expectations included formulation and communication of a management plan (70%), patient assessment for cause of pain (50%), and the education of patients on the cause of pain (40%) as important aims. Pain relief would satisfy the majority of patients (74%) and physicians (70%). No improvement would cause greatest dissatisfaction for patients (52%), but causing more harm would be disappointing to physicians (50%). Gender, age, pain location, and sleep quality all significantly influenced patients' expectations and affective pain comorbidities. CONCLUSION: We found some agreement and some discordance of clinical expectations between pain patients and physicians. Patient factors may also impact on expectations and comorbidities. Findings from this study will help doctors consider patients' expectations in planning pain clinic visits, improve patient-doctor communication and pain management, and may lead to further hypothesis-driven studies.