Incidence rate and histology of appendiceal neoplasms in complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Studies evaluating the rate and histology of appendiceal neoplasms between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis include a small number of patients. Therefore, we sought a meta-analysis and systematic review comparing the rates and types of appendiceal neoplasm between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis. METHODS: We included articles published from the time of inception of the datasets to September 30, 2022. The electronic databases included English publications in Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and Scopus. RESULTS: A total of 4962 patients with appendicitis enrolled in 4 comparative studies were included. The mean age was 43.55 years (16- 94), and half were male (51%). Based on intra-operative findings, 1394 (38%) had complicated appendicitis, and 3558 (62%) had uncomplicated appendicitis. The overall incidence rate of neoplasm was 1.98%. No significant difference was found in the incidence rate of appendiceal neoplasm between complicated (3.29%) and uncomplicated (1.49%) appendicitis (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.16- 1.23; p < 0.087; I2 = 54.9%). The most common appendiceal neoplasms were Neuroendocrine Tumors (NET) (49.21%), Nonmucinous Adenocarcinoma (24.24%), Mixed Adeno-Neuroendocrine Tumor (MANEC) (11.40%), Mucinous Adenocarcinoma (4.44%). There was a significant difference between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis in rates of adenocarcinoma (50% vs. 13%), NET (31% vs. 74%), MANEC (19% vs. 13%) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While there was no significant difference in the overall neoplasm rate between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis, the NET rate was significantly higher in uncomplicated appendicitis. In comparison, the Adenocarcinoma rate was considerably higher in Complicated appendicitis. These findings emphasize the importance of evaluating risk factors for neoplasm when considering appendectomy in patients with appendicitis.

Robotic right versus left colectomy for colorectal neoplasia: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Previous studies comparing right and left colectomies have shown variable short-term outcomes. Despite the rapid adoption of robotics in colorectal operations, few studies have addressed outcome differences between robotic right (RRC) and left (RLC) colectomies. Therefore, we sought to compare the short-term outcomes of RRC and RLC for neoplasia. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles published from the time of inception of the datasets to May 1, 2022. The electronic databases included English publications in Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and Scopus. A total of 13,514 patients with colon neoplasia enrolled in 9 comparative studies were included. The overall mean age was 64.1 years (standard deviation [SD] ± 9.8), and there was a minor female predominance (52% female vs. 48% male). 8656 (64.0%) underwent RRC and 4858 (36.0%) underwent RLC. The ASA score 1 of - 2 in the LRC group was 37% vs. 21% in the R. Whereas the ASA score 3-4 was 62% in the LRC vs. 76% in RRC. Moreover, the mean of the Charlson Comorbidity Score in the LRC was 4.3 (SD 1.9) vs. 3.1 (SD 2.3) in the RRC. Meta-analysis revealed a significantly higher rate of ileus in RRC (10%) compared to RLC (7%) (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.27-1.67). Additionally, operative time was significantly shorter by 22.6 min in RRC versus LRC (95% CI - 37.4-7.8; p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between RRC and RLC in conversion to open operation, estimated blood loss, wound infection, anastomotic leak, reoperation, readmission, and hospital length of stay. In this only meta-analysis comparing RRC and LRC for colon neoplasia, we found that RRC was independently associated with a shorter operative time but increased risk of ileus.

Major Global Coronary Artery Calcium Guidelines.

This review summarizes the framework behind global guidelines of coronary artery calcium (CAC) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk assessment, for applications in both the clinical setting and preventive therapy. By comparing similarities and differences in recommendations, this review identifies most notable common features for the application of CAC presented by different cardiovascular societies across the world. Guidelines included from North America are as follows: 1) the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease; and 2) the 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidemia for Prevention of Adult Cardiovascular Disease. The authors also included European guidelines: 1) the 2019 European Society for Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidemias; and 2) the 2016 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Clinical Guidelines. In this comparison, the authors also discuss: 1) the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand Guidelines on CAC; 2) the Chinese Society of Cardiology Guidelines; and 3) the Japanese Atherosclerosis Society Guidelines for Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Diseases. Last, they include statements made by specialty societies including the National Lipid Association, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Utilizing an in-depth review of clinical evidence, these guidelines emphasize the importance of CAC in the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. International guidelines all empower a dynamic clinician-patient relationship and advocate for individualized discussions regarding disease management and pharmacotherapy treatment. Some differences in precise coronary artery calcium score intervals, risk cut points, treatment thresholds, and stratifiers of specific patient subgroups do exist. However, international guidelines employ more similarities than differences from both a clinical and functional perspective. Understanding the parallels among international coronary artery calcium guidelines is essential for clinicians to correctly adjudicate personalized statin and aspirin therapy and further medical management.

Alarming Trends: Mortality from Alcoholic Cirrhosis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Alcoholic cirrhosis is an advanced form of alcohol-related liver disease. In the United States, between 2010 and 2016, alcohol-related liver disease was the primary cause of nearly 1 in 3 liver transplants, surpassing hepatitis C. METHODS: We utilized the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database to compare trends in mortality from alcoholic cirrhosis in the United States in 1999 and 2019. We defined mortality from alcoholic cirrhosis as International Classification of Diseases code K70.3 (alcoholic cirrhosis of liver). We calculated mortality rates and mortality rate ratios (MRRs) per 100,000 from alcoholic cirrhosis in 10-year age groups from 25 to 85+ as measures of effect and 95% confidence intervals to test for significance. RESULTS: In 1999, there were 6007 deaths from alcoholic cirrhosis among 180,408,769 aged 25-85+ years, yielding a mortality rate of 3.3 per 100,000. In 2019, there were 23,780 deaths from alcoholic cirrhosis among 224,981,167 aged 25-85+ years, yielding a mortality rate of 10.6 per 100,000. The overall MRR of 3.2 was statistically significant. (P < .001), and was apparent in each 10-year age group. CONCLUSIONS: These alarming trends in mortality from alcoholic cirrhosis in the United States contribute to the formulation of many hypotheses. These require testing in analytic studies designed a priori to do so. Meanwhile, clinical and public health efforts are necessary to curb the epidemics of heavy alcohol consumption and overweight and obesity in the United States that may be contributing to these alarming trends.