Development and Evaluation of An In-House Lumbar Puncture Simulator for First-Year Resident Lumbar Puncture Procedure Learning.

INTRODUCTION: Lumbar puncture (LP) is a common invasive technique considered an essential learning milestone for anesthesiologists due to its application in spinal anesthesia. We aimed to develop an in-house LP simulator, test its effectiveness in learning the steps to perform an LP and analyze its impact on the first-year residents' self-confidence at our hospital. METHODS:  We used 3D printing and silicone casting to create an LP simulator based on a lumbar spine computed tomography (CT). We divided 12 first-year anesthesiology residents into control and experimental groups. The control group received traditional training, while the experimental group practiced with the simulator for three months. We used a procedure checklist and a Likert scale survey to evaluate their procedural knowledge and self-confidence at baseline, three, and six months. Eighteen months later, we evaluated their LP performance skills. RESULTS: Both groups showed a significant improvement in their knowledge scores over time. After three months, the experimental group had a higher median knowledge score (10 (10 - 10) median (min-max)) than the control group (9 (8 - 9.5) median (min-max)) (p = 0.03). While there were no apparent differences in median self-confidence scores between the groups at any time point, the experimental group had a significant increase in their self-confidence for performing an unassisted LP, with a median score of 1/5 (1 - 2.3) at baseline and 5/5 (4.8 - 5) after six months (p = 0.006). In contrast, the control group's self-confidence scores decreased from 4/5 (3 - 4) after three months to 3/5 (2 - 5) after six months. The evaluation of performance skills did not yield statistically significant results. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that an in-house LP simulator is an effective and practical approach for first-year anesthesiology residents to learn the LP procedure. This approach could be particularly useful in settings with limited resources and a lack of sufficient patients to practice on, as it provides an opportunity for faster learning and increased self-confidence.

Harms of third- and fourth-generation combined oral contraceptives in premenopausal women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

We assessed the available evidence regarding adverse effects on surrogate and patient-important health outcomes of third- and fourth-generation combined oral contraceptives among premenopausal women. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis including randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing third- and fourth-generation combined oral contraceptives with other generation contraceptives or placebo. Studies that enrolled women aged 15 to 50 years, with at least three cycles of intervention and 6 months of follow-up were included. A total of 33 studies comprising 629,783 women were included. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were significantly lower in fourth-generation oral contraceptives (mean differences (MD): -0.24 mmol/L; [95% CI -0.39 to -0.08]), while total cholesterol was significantly increased in levonorgestrel users when compared to third-generation oral contraceptives (MD: 0.27 mmol/L; [95% CI 0.04 to 0.50]). A decreased arterial thrombosis incidence was shown in fourth-generation oral contraceptive users, as compared to levonorgestrel (incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.41; [95% CI 0.19 to 0.86]). No difference was found in the occurrence of deep venous thrombosis between fourth-generation oral contraceptives and levonorgestrel users (IRR: 0.91; [95% CI 0.66 to 1.27]; p = 0.60; I2 = 0%). Regarding the remaining outcomes, data were heterogeneous and showed no clear difference. In premenopausal women, the use of third- and fourth-generation oral contraceptives is associated with an improved lipid profile and lower risk of arterial thrombosis. Data were inconclusive regarding the rest of outcomes assessed. This review was registered in PROSPERO with CRD42020211133.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes at varying cardiovascular and renal risk. DESIGN: Network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to 11 August 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists with placebo, standard care, or other glucose lowering treatment in adults with type 2 diabetes with follow up of 24 weeks or longer. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequentist random effects network meta-analysis was carried out and GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) used to assess evidence certainty. Results included estimated absolute effects of treatment per 1000 patients treated for five years for patients at very low risk (no cardiovascular risk factors), low risk (three or more cardiovascular risk factors), moderate risk (cardiovascular disease), high risk (chronic kidney disease), and very high risk (cardiovascular disease and kidney disease). A guideline panel provided oversight of the systematic review. RESULTS: 764 trials including 421 346 patients proved eligible. All results refer to the addition of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists to existing diabetes treatment. Both classes of drugs lowered all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and kidney failure (high certainty evidence). Notable differences were found between the two agents: SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced admission to hospital for heart failure more than GLP-1 receptor agonists, and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced non-fatal stroke more than SGLT-2 inhibitors (which appeared to have no effect). SGLT-2 inhibitors caused genital infection (high certainty), whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists might cause severe gastrointestinal events (low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggested that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists might lower body weight. Little or no evidence was found for the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists on limb amputation, blindness, eye disease, neuropathic pain, or health related quality of life. The absolute benefits of these drugs vary substantially across patients from low to very high risk of cardiovascular and renal outcomes (eg, SGLT-2 inhibitors resulted in 3 to 40 fewer deaths in 1000 patients over five years; see interactive decision support tool (https://magicevidence.org/match-it/200820dist/#!/) for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, with some differences in benefits and harms. Absolute benefits are determined by individual risk profiles of patients, with clear implications for clinical practice, as reflected in the BMJ Rapid Recommendations directly informed by this systematic review. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019153180.