A Systematic Review of Short-Term Outcomes of Leadless Pacemaker Implantation After Transvenous Lead Removal of Infected Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device.

The outcomes of leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation after transvenous lead removal (TLR) of infected cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are not well-established. This study sought to describe the outcomes of LP implantation after TLR of infected CIED. We conducted a literature search using PubMed and Embase for a combination of terms including LP implantation, transvenous lead extraction, TLR, transvenous lead explant, infected CIED, infected pacemaker, and infected implantable cardioverter defibrillator. The inclusion criterion was LP implantation after TLR of infected CIED. The exclusion criterion was TLR for noninfectious reasons. Study end points included procedural complications and LP infection during follow-up. Of 132 publications reviewed, 13 studies with a total of 253 patients (74 ± 14 years of age, 174 [69%] males) were included. The most common indication of the initial device implantations was a high-degree atrioventricular block (n = 100 of 253, 39.5%). Of the 253 patients included, 105 patients (41.5%) underwent concomitant LP implantation during the TLR procedure, and 36 patients (14.2%) had temporary transvenous pacing as a bridge from TLR to LP implantation. Of the 148 patients with data on the type of CIED infection, 56.8% had systemic CIED infection and 43.2% had isolated pocket infection. Staphylococcus aureus was the most common causative organism in 33% of the reported patients. The LP was implanted an average of 5.4 ± 10.7 days after TLR of infected CIED. During the LP implantation, 1 patient (0.4%) had unsuccessful implantation because of an intraprocedural complication requiring sternotomy. After LP implantation, 2 patients (0.8%) developed groin hematoma, 2 patients (0.8%) developed femoral arteriovenous fistula, and 1 patient (0.4%) developed pericardial effusion requiring pericardiocentesis. During a mean follow-up of 11.3 ± 10.6 months, 3 patients (1.2%) developed pacemaker syndrome, 1 patient (0.4%) developed acute on chronic heart failure exacerbation, and only 1 patient (0.4%) developed LP-related infection requiring LP retrieval. This study suggests that LP implant is feasible and safe after removal of infected CIED with cumulative adverse events at 4% and a reinfection rate of 0.4%. Large prospective studies are needed to better evaluate the best timing of LP implantation after TLR of an infected CIED.

Suprapatellar vs infrapatellar approaches for intramedullary nailing of distal tibial fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This review was conducted to compare the efficacy of suprapatellar (SP) and infrapatellar (IP) approaches for treating distal tibial fractures with intramedullary nailing. METHOD: This systematic review included studies comparing the outcomes of patients receiving nailing for distal tibial fractures using the SP and IP approaches. We searched the Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase databases for relevant studies till 18th Sep. 2022. We used the Newcastle Ottawa Scale to assess study quality and a random-effects meta-analysis to synthesize the outcomes. We used the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous data and the odds ratio (OR) with the 95% CI for dichotomous data. RESULTS: Four studies with 586 patients (302 in the SP group and 284 in the IP group) were included in this systematic review. The SP group may have had little or no difference in pain and slightly better knee function (MD 3.90 points, 95% CI 0.83 to 5.36) and better ankle function (MD: 8.25 points, 95% CI 3.35 to 13.15) than the IP group 12 months after surgery. Furthermore, compared to the IP group, the SP group had a lower risk of malalignment (OR: 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.75; number needed to treat (NNT): 6), a lower risk for open reduction (OR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.97; NNT: 16) and a shorter surgical time (MD: - 15.14 min, 95% CI - 21.28 to - 9.00). CONCLUSIONS: With more advantages, the suprapatellar approach may be the preferred nailing technique over the infrapatellar approach when treating distal tibial fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of non-randomized studies.

Vedolizumab for acute gastrointestinal graft-versus-host disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: To determine the safety and efficacy of vedolizumab for the prophylaxis and treatment of gastrointestinal involvement of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) (GI-aGVHD). Methods: Literature search within PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for observational studies and clinical trials that evaluated the effect of vedolizumab on GI-aGVHD was done through 17 May 2022. A bivariate and random-effect meta-analysis derived the pooled observational percentages and pooled risk ratios (RRs) from baseline of primary endpoints including overall response, complete response, mortality, and adverse events. Results: There was a total of 122 participants in eight eligible studies, including one study on the prophylactic use of vedolizumab and seven studies on vedolizumab for the treatment of GI-aGVHD. Of seven studies that reported details on baseline grades of GI-aGVHD, a total of 47 patients (47.95%) were of stage 4, 31 patients (31.63%) were of stage 3, 10 patients (10.2%) were of stage 2, and 10 patients (10.2%) were of stage 1. The use of vedolizumab for the treatment of GI-aGVHD yielded a significantly improved objective response rate (ORR) at 14 days (pooled ORR = 60.53%, pooled RR = 14.14, 95% CI: 2.95-67.71), 28 days (pooled ORR = 50%, RR = 7.36, 95% CI = 2.14-25.37), and 12 months (pooled ORR = 76.92%, RR = 13.66, 95% CI = 3.5-53.35) from baseline. Likewise, the use of vedolizumab was followed by a significantly improved complete response (CR) at 12 months (pooled CR = 27.27%, RR = 5.50, 95% CI = 1.01-29.95), yet the CR at 14 days and 28 days did not reach statistical significance. Fifty-seven out of 87 (pooled overall survival, OS = 34.5%) and 46 out of 65 (pooled OS = 29.2%) patients expired at 6 and 12 months after the use of vedolizumab, respectively. Prophylactic use of vedolizumab was not associated with any specific type of reported adverse events, while patients with GI-aGVHD on vedolizumab presented with significantly increased risks of adverse events including infections (RR = 7.55) and impaired metabolism or nutritional complications (RR = 9.00). All analyses were of a low heterogeneity (all I-squares = 0%). Conclusion: Vedolizumab was safe and effective for the prophylaxis and management of early grade GI-aGVHD. More clinical evidence is warranted to validate these findings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=345584, identifier CRD42022345584.

Efficacy of cationic amphiphilic antihistamines on outcomes of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Cationic amphiphilic antihistamines have been shown to improve patient outcomes in immunogenic tumours, but whether they can augment and improve response to immunotherapy is unknown. We aim to evaluate the effect of cationic amphiphilic antihistamines in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study at two tertiary referral centres in Taiwan between January 2015 and December 2021. Patients who received desloratadine, cyproheptadine, and ebastine were classified as cationic amphiphilic antihistamine users. The primary outcome was overall survival, and the secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and clinical benefit rate. Patients treated with cationic amphiphilic antihistamines were matched to patients who received non-cationic amphiphilic antihistamines based on variables including age, cancer type, stage, and history of allergic diseases. RESULTS: A total of 734 ICI-treated patients were included. After matching, 68 cationic amphiphilic antihistamine and non-cationic amphiphilic antihistamine users remained for analysis. Compared with non-cationic amphiphilic antihistamine users, patients who received cationic amphiphilic antihistamines had a significantly longer median overall survival (24.8 versus 10.4 months; Log-rank, p = 0.018) and progression-free survival (10.6 versus 4.93 months; Log-rank, p = 0.004). The use of cationic amphiphilic antihistamines was associated with an approximately 50% lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.55 [95% CI: 0.34-0.91]). Survival benefits were not seen in patients who received cationic amphiphilic antihistamines before immune checkpoint blockade. These survival benefits were observed regardless of the generation of cationic amphiphilic antihistamines. CONCLUSION: The use of cationic amphiphilic antihistamines was associated with improved survival among patients treated with immunotherapy.