Saphenous vein harvesting techniques for coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The great saphenous vein (GSV) graft remains a frequently used conduit for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. The optimal technique for GSV harvesting has been the subject of on-going controversy. We therefore sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available GSV harvesting techniques in CABG. A systematic search of 12 electronic databases was performed to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any GSV harvesting technique, including conventional vein harvesting (CVH), no-touch, standard bridging technique (SBT) and endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) techniques. We investigated safety and long-term efficacy outcomes. All outcomes were analyzed using the frequentist network meta-analysis. A total of 6480 patients from 34 RCTs were included. For safety outcomes, EVH reduced 91% and 77% risk of wound infection compared to no-touch and CVH, respectively. EVH and SBT also significantly reduced the risk of sensibility disorder and postoperative pain. The techniques were not significantly different regarding long-term efficacy outcomes, including mortality, myocardial infarction and graft patency. For GSV harvesting for CABG, EVH techniques are the most favorable, but in case of using an open technique, no-touch is more recommended than CVH. More effective and safer procedures should be investigated for GSV harvesting in CABG.

Early centralized isolation strategy for all confirmed cases of COVID-19 remains a core intervention to disrupt the pandemic spreading significantly.

BACKGROUND: In response to the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), plenty of control measures were proposed. To assess the impact of current control measures on the number of new case indices 14 countries with the highest confirmed cases, highest mortality rate, and having a close relationship with the outbreak's origin; were selected and analyzed. METHODS: In the study, we analyzed the impact of five control measures, including centralized isolation of all confirmed cases, closure of schools, closure of public areas, closure of cities, and closure of borders of the 14 targeted countries according to their timing; by comparing its absolute effect average, its absolute effect cumulative, and its relative effect average. RESULTS: Our analysis determined that early centralized isolation of all confirmed cases was represented as a core intervention in significantly disrupting the pandemic's spread. This strategy helped in successfully controlling the early stage of the outbreak when the total number of cases were under 100, without the requirement of the closure of cities and public areas, which would impose a negative impact on the society and its economy. However, when the number of cases increased with the apparition of new clusters, coordination between centralized isolation and non-pharmaceutical interventions facilitated control of the crisis efficiently. CONCLUSION: Early centralized isolation of all confirmed cases should be implemented at the time of the first detected infectious case.

Efficacy and Safety of Valproic Acid for Spinal Muscular Atrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a neuromuscular disorder classified into four types based on the age of onset of the disease. Early onset is correlated with a higher mortality rate, mainly due to respiratory complications. Valproic acid (VPA) is a histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor that has shown positive results on SMA both in experimental and cohort studies. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of VPA in patients with SMA. METHODS: Eleven databases were systematically searched on 30 May 2017 for clinical trials that reported the efficacy and safety of VPA in SMA patients. The primary outcome was the efficacy of VPA in terms of gross motor function and expression of both full-length spinal motor neuron (SMN) gene (FL-SMN) and exon 7-lacking SMN. The secondary outcome was the safety of VPA in terms of reported adverse effects. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42017067203). RESULTS: Five of the ten included studies were used in the meta-analysis (n = 126). The overall effect estimate, comparing pre- and post-VPA treatment, regardless of carnitine co-administration and design of the studies, showed significant improvement in gross motor function (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.302, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.048-0.556, P = 0.02) using the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (HFMS), Modified Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (MHFMS), and MHFMS-Extend, with no significant heterogeneity. Similarly, in non-randomized controlled studies, the results indicated that there was a significant improvement detected (SMD = 0.335, 95% CI 0.041-0.628, P = 0.025), with no significant heterogeneity. Meanwhile, our results suggest that there was no significant improvement in treatment with co-administered carnitine (SMD = 0.28, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.581, P = 0.067). No significant differences were found between pre- and post-VPA treatment co-administered with carnitine, in terms of the change in FL-SMN and exon 7-lacking SMN. Qualitative synthesis showed that other motor functions were not improved, while respiratory function test results were contradictory. Regarding the safety of the treatment, a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial reported no statistically significant differences for adverse events (AEs) between groups. Moreover, most of the included studies reported no serious AEs related to VPA use, although weight gain, gastrointestinal symptoms and respiratory symptoms were notable problems. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that VPA treatment results in an improvement in gross motor functions for SMA patients, but not in other assessments of motor function or, possibly, in respiratory function. Furthermore, VPA appears to be a relatively safe drug, although treatment may be associated with a wide range of AEs (including body weight increase, fatigue, fever, flu-like symptoms, irritability, and pain). Double-blind, randomized, controlled trials are required to confirm these findings.