Strategies for treating acute pain in patients with opioid dependence: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: People who are dependent on opioids experience acute pain similar to other individuals. However, treating acute pain in these patients renders unique challenges such as opioid-induced hyperalgesia, opioid tolerance, withdrawal and stigma from healthcare providers. Thus, it is crucial to identify effective strategies for treating acute pain in this population and to highlight gaps in knowledge to create a high standard of care. The main objective of the proposed scoping review is to identify current strategies for treating the acute pain in individuals with opioid dependence or use disorder. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE via the PubMed interface, Embase and Cochrane Central, Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index and Google Scholar will be searched. Forward and backward citation searching of the final included studies will also be conducted. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts of sources, review and assess relevant full-text studies and extract data. Data will be presented in a diagram and will contribute to a qualitative thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Data will be gathered from publicly accessible sources, so ethics approval is not necessary. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and reported at conferences related to addiction medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/BG6SJ.

The effect of COVID-19 on breast cancer care and treatment in North America: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Breast Cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in women in the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic affected healthcare delivery throughout North America. Breast cancer diagnosis and management was similarly affected. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to determine the impact of COVID-19 on BC care and the impact on patients' well-being. RESULTS: Our review found that the pandemic led to changes in screenings, biopsies, medical therapy, and surgery. Constraints of the pandemic left patients without resources to navigate the emotional toll from social distancing. There was a disparity in patients' perceptions of the impact of the pandemic on BC care. CONCLUSION: Although the pandemic altered medical care in general, we found that the impact on breast cancer care was counterintuitively not as significant as predicted. However, the pandemic did impact breast cancer patients' mental well-being. This highlights the importance of properly communicating, in real-time, guidelines on breast cancer management to allay the fears of the general public.

What to do When Decompressive Gastrostomies and Jejunostomies are not Options? A Scoping Review of Transesophageal Gastrostomy Tubes for Advanced Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: In advanced malignant bowel obstruction, decompressive gastrostomy tubes (GTs) may not be feasible due to ascites, peritoneal carcinomatosis, and altered gastric anatomy. Whereas nasogastric tubes (NGTs) allow temporary decompression, percutaneous transesophageal gastrostomy tubes (PTEGs) are an alternative method for long-term palliative decompression. This study performed a scoping review to determine outcomes with PTEG in advanced malignancies. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to include all studies that reported the clinical results of PTEGs for malignancy. No language, national, or publication status restrictions were used. RESULTS: The analysis included 14 relevant studies with a total of 340 patients. In 11 studies, standard PTEGs were inserted with a rupture-free balloon's placement into the mouth or nose and esophageal puncture under fluoroscopy or ultrasound, followed by a guidewire into the stomach with placement of a single-lumen tube. Of 340 patients, 65 (19.1%) had minor complications, and 5 (2.1%) had significant complications, including bleeding and severe aspiration pneumonia. Of 171 patients, 169 with PTEGs (98.8%) reported relief of nasal discomfort from NGT and alleviation of obstructive symptoms. The one randomized controlled trial reported a significantly higher quality of life with PTEGs than with NGTs. CONCLUSIONS: When decompression for advanced malignancy is technically not feasible with a gastrostomy tube, the PTEG is a viable, safe option for palliation. The PTEG is associated with lower significant complication rates than the gastrostomy tube and significantly higher patient-derived outcomes than the NGT.

Effect of preoperative radiation on free flap outcomes for head and neck reconstruction: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing debate about whether neoadjuvant radiation therapy is associated with higher rates of postoperative complications after head and neck reconstruction. Herle et al. conducted a systematic review in 2014 of 24 studies, finding higher complication rates in irradiated fields. We sought to perform an exhaustive updated systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We conducted an updated systematic review of the literature, as outlined in our protocol, which was registered on PROSPERO. Databases included Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science. There were no limits placed on the date range, place of publication, or origin. Exclusion criteria included patients less than 18 years of age, studies with less than 20 participants (n < 20), case studies, skull base reconstructions, and local tissue rearrangements. The combined results of the studies and relative risks (RR) were calculated. RESULTS: 53 studies were included for analysis, including 5,086 free flaps in an irradiated field, and 9,110 free flaps in a non-irradiated field. Of the 53 studies, 21 studies overlapped with those discussed in Herle et al.'s study, with a total of 32 additional studies. Neoadjuvant radiation was found to be a statistically significant risk factor for postoperative complications (RR 1.579, P < 0.001), total flap failure (RR, 1.565; P < 0.001), and fistula (RR, 1.810; P < 0.001). Our work reaffirmed the findings of the Herle et al. CONCLUSION: Preoperative radiation was associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of total flap failure, fistula, and total complications but not partial flap failure. These high-morbidity complications must be taken into consideration when determining which patients should receive neoadjuvant radiation therapy.

Outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data on the use of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) as an alternative novel pacing strategy to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) remains scarce. We aimed to investigate the outcomes of LBBAP as an alternative to BVP as a method of CRT. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for studies on the use of LBBAP as CRT and studies that compared LBBAP with BVP. The main outcomes examined were changes in New York Heart Association classification, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, left ventricular ejection fraction, and paced QRS duration post CRT device implantation. RESULTS: Our meta-analysis included 8 nonrandomized studies with a total of 527 patients who underwent LBBAP as CRT. In studies with a BVP comparison group, patients with LBBAP had a greater reduction in paced QRS (mean difference [MD], 27.91 msec; 95% confidence interval [CI], 22.33-33.50), and a greater improvement in New York Heart Association class (MD, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.28-0.90) and left ventricular ejection fraction (MD, 6.77%; 95% CI, 3.84-9.71). Patients with underlying left bundle branch block appeared to benefit the most from LBBAP compared with patients without underlying left bundle branch block. CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP might be a reasonable option for patients who meet indications for CRT, particularly in those who have limited anatomy or do not benefit from CRT. Randomized trials are needed to compare LBBAP with BVP for CRT and to identify which populations might benefit the most from LBBAP.

CONTEXTE: On dispose de peu de données obtenues en contexte réel sur l'utilisation de la stimulation de la branche gauche (SBG) comme nouvelle stratégie remplaçant la stimulation biventriculaire (SBV) dans le cadre d'une thérapie de resynchronisation cardiaque (TRC). Nous avons voulu étudier les résultats de la SBG à titre de solution de rechange à la SBV comme méthode de TRC. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Nous avons cherché dans les bases de données électroniques les études examinant l'utilisation de la SBG comme TRC, et les études comparant la SBG à la SBV. Les principaux résultats examinés étaient les changements dans les classes de la New York Heart Association (NYHA), le diamètre télédiastolique du ventricule gauche, la fraction d'éjection du ventricule gauche (FEVG) et la durée du QRS stimulé après l'implantation du dispositif de TRC. RÉSULTATS: Notre méta-analyse portait sur huit études sans répartition aléatoire, portant sur un total de 527 patients ayant subi une SBG comme TRC. Dans les études comportant un groupe témoin ayant subi une SBV, les patients ayant subi une SBG présentaient une réduction plus importante du QRS stimulé (différence moyenne [DM] : 27,91 ms; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % : 22,33-33,50), ainsi qu'une amélioration plus importante des classes de la NYHA (MD : 0,59; IC à 95 % : 0,28-0,90) et de la FEVG (MD : 6,77 %; IC à 95 % : 3,84-9,71). Les patients avec un bloc de la branche gauche (BBG) sous-jacent ont semblé bénéficier davantage de la SBG que les patients sans BBG sous-jacent. CONCLUSIONS: La SBG peut être une option raisonnable pour les patients chez qui la TRC est indiquée, en particulier ceux qui ont des restrictions sur le plan de l'anatomie ou qui ne bénéficient pas de la TRC. Des essais randomisés sont nécessaires pour comparer la SBG à la SBV comme TRC, et pour déterminer les populations qui pourraient bénéficier le plus de la SBG.

Delays in reporting and publishing trial results during pandemics: cross sectional analysis of 2009 H1N1, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Pandemic events often trigger a surge of clinical trial activity aimed at rapidly evaluating therapeutic or preventative interventions. Ensuring rapid public access to the complete and unbiased trial record is particularly critical for pandemic research given the urgent associated public health needs. The World Health Organization (WHO) established standards requiring posting of results to a registry within 12 months of trial completion and publication in a peer reviewed journal within 24 months of completion, though compliance with these requirements among pandemic trials is unknown. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis characterizes availability of results in trial registries and publications among registered trials performed during the 2009 H1N1 influenza, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika pandemics. We searched trial registries to identify clinical trials testing interventions related to these pandemics, and determined the time elapsed between trial completion and availability of results in the registry. We also performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE via PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE to identify corresponding peer reviewed publications. The primary outcome was the compliance with either of the WHO's established standards for sharing clinical trial results. Secondary outcomes included compliance with both standards, and assessing the time elapsed between trial completion and public availability of results. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-three trials met eligibility criteria, including 261 H1N1 influenza trials, 60 Ebola trials, and 12 Zika trials. Of these, 139 (42%) either had results available in the trial registry within 12 months of study completion or had results available in a peer-reviewed publication within 24 months. Five trials (2%) met both standards. No results were available in either a registry or publication for 59 trials (18%). Among trials with registered results, a median of 42 months (IQR 16-76 months) elapsed between trial completion and results posting. For published trials, the median elapsed time between completion and publication was 21 months (IQR 9-34 months). Results were available within 24 months of study completion in either the trial registry or a peer reviewed publication for 166 trials (50%). CONCLUSIONS: Very few trials performed during prior pandemic events met established standards for the timely public dissemination of trial results.

Omental patch versus gastric resection for perforated gastric ulcer: Systematic review and meta-analysis for an unresolved debate.

BACKGROUND: Perforated gastric ulcers are surgical emergencies with paucity of data on the preferred treatment modality of resection versus omental patch. We aim to compare outcomes with ulcer repair and gastric resection surgeries in perforated gastric ulcers after systematic review of literature. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed for publications in PubMed Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included all studies which compared ulcer repair vesus gastric resection surgeries for perforated gastric ulcers. We excluded studies which did not separate outcomes gastric and duodenal ulcer perforations. RESULTS: The search included nine single-institution retrospective reviews comparing ulcer repair (449 patients) versus gastric resection surgeries (212 patients). Meta-analysis was restricted to perforated gastric ulcers and excluded perforated duodenal ulcers. The majority of these studies did not control for baseline characteristics, and surgical strategies were often chosen in a non-randomized manner. All of the studies included were at high risk of bias. The overall odds ratio of mortality in ulcer repair surgery compared to gastric resection surgery was 1.79, with 95% CI 0.72 to 4.43 and p-value 0.209. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, there was no difference in mortality between the two surgical groups. The overall equivalence of clinical outcomes suggests that gastric resection is a potentially viable alternative to ulcer repair surgery and should not be considered a secondary strategy. We would recommend a multicenter randomized control trial to evaluate the surgical approach that yields superior outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.