Precision and Accuracy of Radiological Bone Age Assessment in Children among Different Ethnic Groups: A Systematic Review.

AIM: The aim was to identify, evaluate, and summarize the findings of relevant individual studies on the precision and accuracy of radiological BA assessment procedures among children from different ethnic groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A qualitative systematic review was carried out following the MOOSE statement and previously registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023449512). A search was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed) (n = 561), the Cochrane Library (n = 261), CINAHL (n = 103), Web of Science (WOS) (n = 181), and institutional repositories (n = 37) using MeSH and free terms combined with the Booleans "AND" and "OR". NOS and ROBINS-E were used to assess the methodological quality and the risk of bias of the included studies, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 51 articles (n = 20,100) on radiological BA assessment procedures were precise in terms of intra-observer and inter-observer reliability for all ethnic groups. In Caucasian and Hispanic children, the Greulich-Pyle Atlas (GPA) was accurate at all ages, but in youths, Tanner-Whitehouse radius-ulna-short bones 3 (TW3-RUS) could be an alternative. In Asian and Arab subjects, GPA and Tanner-Whitehouse 3 (TW3) overestimated the BA in adolescents near adulthood. In African youths, GPA overestimated the BA while TW3 was more accurate. CONCLUSION: GPA and TW3 radiological BA assessment procedures are both precise but their accuracy in estimating CA among children of different ethnic groups can be altered by racial bias.

Major cardiovascular events at 5 years in surgical versus percutaneous revascularization for left main stem disease: an updated meta-analysis.

The aim of the present study was to analyse the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients undergoing either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for left main stem disease. Five manuscripts publishing 5-year results of 4 trials (SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, NOBLE and EXCEL) were included. Overall meta-analysis with inclusion of the 5-year results from the EXCEL trial using the protocol definition for myocardial infarction showed that CABG is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (risk ratio = 0.74; 95% confidence interval = 0.68-0.80). When the universal definition was used to define myocardial infarction in the EXCEL trial, the analysis demonstrated a larger benefit of coronary surgery in terms of reduction in the risk of MACE (risk ratio = 0.70; 95% confidence interval = 0.63-0.76). Non-significant differences were detected in terms of risk of overall mortality, cardiac mortality or stroke. In conclusion, this meta-analysis shows that CABG significantly reduces the risk of MACE in patients with left main stem disease. The inclusion of the 5-year results of the EXCEL trial using third universal definition amplifies the benefit of CABG over percutaneous coronary intervention.

Implant-based immediate breast reconstruction: failure rate when radiating the tissue expander or the permanent implant-a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based immediate approach remains to be a first line option for reconstruction of mastectomy defects. When combined with post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) two different schemas are possible: radiating the temporary tissue expander (TTE) or the permanent implant (PI). The present article intends to be the biggest cohort meta-analysis to the date comparing reconstructive failure (RF) rate in these two scenarios: PMRT to TE compared with PMRT to PI. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was performed on PUBMED/MEDLINE. The following key words were chosen: Breast Reconstruction AND Implant based AND Immediate. The time limit applied was from January 2008 to January 2019. We selected ten articles (n=1,130) to perform a meta-analysis due to the similarity of their approaches. Secondly, we did a simple literature review in order to identify some variables possibly working as predicting factors for RF. RESULTS: Previous meta-analysis are analysed. Some variables possibly working as risk factors for RF are summarized. We performed a meta-analysis in two scenarios: a fixed-effect model and a random effect model. For the random effect model an OR of 1.85 was obtained (0.96, 3.57; P=0.067). A funnel plot is performed showing no publication bias exists. CONCLUSIONS: There is a tendency towards a higher RF rate when the TTE is irradiated compared with the irradiation of the PI. Further studies trying to elucidate the influence of the suggested risk factors for RF have to be performed to stablish a consensus about the indications and contraindications of this reconstructive modality.

Total arterial revascularization strategies: A meta-analysis of propensity score-matched observational studies.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: We explored the current evidence available on total arterial revascularization (TAR) carrying out a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies comparing TAR versus non-TAR strategy. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched for propensity score-matched studies comparing TAR vs non-TAR. The generic inverse variance method was used to compute the combined hazard ratio (HR) of long-term mortality. The Der-Simonian and Laird method were used to compute the combined risk ratio (RR) of 30-day mortality, deep sternal wound infection, and reoperation for bleeding. RESULTS: Eighteen TAR vs non-TAR matched populations were included. Meta-analysis showed a significant benefit in terms of long-term survival of the TAR group over the non-TAR group (HR: 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-0.78). Better long-term survival over non-TAR strategy was confirmed by both subgroups: TAR with the bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) and TAR without BIMA. Meta-regression suggests that TAR may offer a higher protective survival effect in diabetic patients (coefficient: -0.0063; 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.0006), when carried out with BIMA (coefficient: -0.15; 95% CI: -0.27 to -0.03) or using three arterial conduits (coefficient: -0.12; 95% CI: -0.25 to 0.007). A TAR strategy carried out using BIMA, differently from TAR without BIMA, increases the risk of deep sternal infection (RR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.17-1.77). CONCLUSIONS: TAR provides a long-term survival benefit compared with the non-TAR strategy. Also, compared with TAR without BIMA, TAR with BIMA may offer a higher protective long-term survival effect at the expense of a higher risk of sternal deep wound infection.

Validación pronóstica según los criterios de la GesEPOC 2017 / Prognostic Validation Using GesEPOC 2017 Severity Criteria

Introducción: La Guía española de la EPOC (GesEPOC) ha sido recientemente modificada. El objetivo de este trabajo es valorar la clasificación y el pronóstico de los enfermos según la nueva clasificación de la gravedad. Métodos: Se siguió a 700 enfermos con EPOC (83,9% varones) durante un periodo medio de 5 años en hospitales españoles y de EE. UU. Se midieron datos antropométricos, función pulmonar, disnea medida con la escala mMRC, así como exacerbaciones y los índices de BODE y Charlson. Se clasificaron según el riesgo proporcionado por GesEPOC y se valoró el pronóstico a 5 años. Resultados: Los pacientes tenían una edad media de 66 ± 9,6 años y un FEV1% de 59,7 ± 20,2. El 40,43% de la muestra se encontraba en bajo riesgo. Los sujetos del grupo de alto riesgo presentaban un índice de BODE significativamente mayor que los de bajo riesgo (2,92 ± 0,66 vs. 0,52 ± 1,91, p < 0,001). El índice de Charlson fue similar entre ambos grupos. La mortalidad a 60 meses en el grupo de alto riesgo fue significativamente mayor que en el de bajo riesgo (31,7% vs. 15.5%, p < 0,001). Tanto la disnea como el FEV1% fueron también predictores independientes de mortalidad (p < 0,001), siendo cada uno de ellos no inferior prediciendo mortalidad que el conjunto de los criterios del grupo de alto riesgo de GesEPOC. Conclusiones: La nueva clasificación de la gravedad de GesEPOC predice la mortalidad de forma adecuada. No obstante, tanto el FEV1% como la disnea tienen la misma potencia para predecir mortalidad

Introduction: The Spanish COPD guidelines (GesEPOC) have been recently modified. The aim of this study is to assess this revision and evaluate the prognosis of patients according to the new classification of severity. Methods: A total of 700 COPD patients (83.9% men) were prospectively followed up for a mean period of 5 years in tertiary hospitals in Spain and the USA. Anthropometric data, lung function tests, dyspnea (according to the mMRC scale), BODE and Charlson index were collected. We calculated mortality at 5 years following the risk criteria proposed by the new GesEPOC. Results: Mean age was 66 ± 9.6 years and mean FEV1% was 59.7 ± 20.2. The proportion of patients in the low-risk group was 40.43%. Patients in the high-risk group had a significantly higher BODE index than those in the low-risk group (2.92 ± 0,66 vs. 0.52 ± 1.91, p < 0.001), while the Charlson index score was similar in both groups. Mortality at 60 months was significantly higher in the high-risk group (31.7% vs. 15.5%, p < 0.001). Dyspnea and FEV1% were also independent predictors of mortality (p < 0.001), and neither was inferior to the risk classification proposed by GesEPOC. Conclusions: The new severity index proposed by GesEPOC accurately predicts 5-year mortality. However, dyspnea and FEV1% have the same strength in predicting mortality

Bilateral internal thoracic artery versus single internal thoracic artery: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched observational studies.

The lack of benefit in terms of mid-term survival and the increase in the risk of sternal wound complications published in a recent randomized controlled trial have raised concerns about the use of bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) in myocardial revascularization surgery. For this reason, we decided to explore the current evidence available on the subject by carrying out a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies comparing BITA versus single internal thoracic artery (SITA). PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar were searched for propensity score-matched studies comparing BITA versus SITA. The generic inverse variance method was used to compute the combined hazard ratio (HR) of long-term mortality. The DerSimonian and Laird method was used to compute the combined risk ratio of 30-day mortality, deep sternal wound infection and reoperation for bleeding. Forty-five BITA versus SITA matched populations were included. Meta-analysis showed a significant benefit in terms of long-term survival in favour of the BITA group [HR 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-0.86]. These results were consistent with those obtained by a pooled analysis of the matched populations comprising patients with diabetes (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.43-0.99). When compared with the use of SITA plus radial artery, BITA did not show any significant benefit in terms of long-term survival (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.69-1.07). No differences between BITA and SITA groups were detected in terms of 30-day mortality or in terms of reoperation for bleeding. Compared with the SITA group, patients in the BITA group had a significantly higher risk of deep sternal wound infection (risk ratio 1.66; 95% CI 1.41-1.95) even when the pooled analysis was limited to matched populations in which BITA was harvested according to the skeletonization technique (risk ratio 1.37; 95% CI 1.04-1.79). The use of BITA provided a long-term survival benefit compared with the use of SITA at the expense of a higher risk of sternal deep wound infection. The long-term survival advantage of BITA is undetectable when compared with SITA plus radial artery.

Prognostic Validation Using GesEPOC 2017 Severity Criteria. / Validación pronóstica según los criterios de la GesEPOC 2017.

INTRODUCTION: The Spanish COPD guidelines (GesEPOC) have been recently modified. The aim of this study is to assess this revision and evaluate the prognosis of patients according to the new classification of severity. METHODS: A total of 700 COPD patients (83.9% men) were prospectively followed up for a mean period of 5 years in tertiary hospitals in Spain and the USA. Anthropometric data, lung function tests, dyspnea (according to the mMRC scale), BODE and Charlson index were collected. We calculated mortality at 5 years following the risk criteria proposed by the new GesEPOC. RESULTS: Mean age was 66±9.6 years and mean FEV1% was 59.7±20.2. The proportion of patients in the low-risk group was 40.43%. Patients in the high-risk group had a significantly higher BODE index than those in the low-risk group (2.92±0,66 vs. 0.52±1.91, p<0.001), while the Charlson index score was similar in both groups. Mortality at 60 months was significantly higher in the high-risk group (31.7% vs. 15.5%, p<0.001). Dyspnea and FEV1% were also independent predictors of mortality (p<0.001), and neither was inferior to the risk classification proposed by GesEPOC. CONCLUSIONS: The new severity index proposed by GesEPOC accurately predicts 5-year mortality. However, dyspnea and FEV1% have the same strength in predicting mortality.

Levosimendan versus placebo in cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this meta-analysis was to review all published randomized clinical trials comparing levosimendan versus placebo in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library database of clinical trials were searched for prospective randomized clinical trials investigating the perioperative use of levosimendan versus placebo in patients undergoing adult cardiac surgery from 1 May 2000 to 10 April 2017. Binary outcomes from individual studies were analysed to compute individual and pooled risk ratios (RRs) with pertinent 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Fourteen randomized clinical trials with a total of 2243 patients were included in this review. Overall meta-analysis results demonstrated that levosimendan was associated with a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (RR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.53-0.95; P = 0.023). Subgroup analysis showed that this benefit was confined to the moderate and low ejection fraction studies (RR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.27-0.70; P < 0.001), whereas no benefit was observed in the preserved ejection fraction studies (RR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.72-1.56; P = 0.78). Levosimendan also reduced the risk of renal replacement therapy (RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.47-0.92; P = 0.015) and low cardiac output (RR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.22-0.73; P = 0.003). No significant differences were detected, between the levosimendan group and the placebo group, in terms of risk of myocardial injury (RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.69-1.17; P = 0.44), intensive care unit stay (weighted mean differences = -0.57, 95% CI = -1.15 to 0.01; P = 0.055) and the use of ventricular assist device (RR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.07-2.63; P = 0.35). In conclusion, levosimendan was associated with a reduced risk of mortality, renal replacement therapy and low cardiac output syndrome in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Comparison of the 2017 and 2015 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Reports. Impact on Grouping and Outcomes.

RATIONALE: The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) document has modified the grading system directing pharmacotherapy, but how this relates to the previous one from 2015 and to comorbidities, hospitalizations, and mortality risk is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes in the GOLD groups from 2015 to 2017 and to assess the impact on severity, comorbidities, and mortality within each group. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled and followed, for a mean of 5 years, 819 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (84% male) in clinics in Spain and the United States. We determined anthropometrics, lung function (FEV1%), dyspnea score (modified Medical Research Council scale), ambulatory and hospital exacerbations, and the body mass index, obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity (BODE) and Charlson indexes. We classified patients by the 2015 and 2017 GOLD ABCD system, and compared the differential realignment of the same patients. We related the effect of the reclassification in BODE and Charlson distribution as well as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and all-cause mortality between the two classifications. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Compared with 2015, the 2017 grading decreased by half the proportion of patients in groups C and D (20.5% vs. 11.2% and 24.6% vs. 12.9%; P < 0.001). The distribution of Charlson also changed, whereas group D was higher than B in 2015, they become similar in the 2017 system. In 2017, the BODE index and risk of death were higher in B and D than in A and C. The mortality risk was better predicted by the 2015 than the 2017 system. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with 2015, the GOLD ABCD 2017 classification significantly shifts patients from grades C and D to categories A and B. The new grading system equalizes the Charlson comorbidity score in all groups and minimizes the differences in BODE between groups B and D, making the risk of death similar between them.