A systematic review of failed endoscopic hemostasis for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is a surgical emergency, usually managed via endoscopy. Approximately 2% of patients will have another significant bleed after therapeutic endoscopy and may require either transarterial embolization (TAE) or surgery. In 2011, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines recommended that TAE should be the preferred option offered in this setting. METHODS: This study aimed to conduct an appraisal of guidelines on NVUGIB using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A specific review of their recommendations on the management of adult patients with failed endoscopic hemostasis that required TAE or surgery was conducted. RESULTS: The quality of the guidelines was moderate; most could be recommended with changes. However, their recommendations regarding TAE vs surgery were widely heterogeneous. A closer review of the underpinning evidence showed that most studies were retrospective, with a small sample size and missing data. CONCLUSION: Because of the heterogeneity in evidence, the decision regarding TAE vs surgery requires further research. Deciding between these modalities is primarily based on TAE availability and patient comorbidities. However, surgery should not be dismissed as a key option after failed endoscopic hemostasis.

When Does the Cytokine Storm Begin in COVID-19 Patients? A Quick Score to Recognize It.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that is responsible for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which has rapidly spread across the world, becoming a pandemic. The "cytokine storm" (CS) in COVID-19 leads to the worst stage of illness, and its timely control through immunomodulators, corticosteroids, and cytokine antagonists may be the key to reducing mortality. After reviewing published studies, we proposed a Cytokine Storm Score (CSs) to identify patients who were in this hyperinflammation state, and at risk of progression and poorer outcomes. We retrospectively analyzed 31 patients admitted to Infectious Disease Department in "St. Maria" Hospital in Terni with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, and analyzed the "CS score" (CSs) and the severity of COVID-19. Then we conducted a prospective study of COVID-19 patients admitted after the definition of the CSscore. This is the first study that proposes and applies a new score to quickly identify COVID-19 patients who are in a hyperinflammation stage, to rapidly treat them in order to reduce the risk of intubation. CSs can accurately identify COVID-19 patients in the early stages of a CS, to conduct timely, safe, and effect administration of immunomodulators, corticosteroids, and cytokine antagonists, to prevent progression and reduce mortality.

Routine drain or no drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is considered to be the gold standard in the early management of acute cholecystitis however, recommendations for routine drain insertion in the acute setting are unavailable. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of literature review and metanalysis was conducted. All studies comparing drain versus no drain after LC for acute cholecystitis were included. RESULTS: Seven studies, with 1274 patients, were included. Postoperative wound infection rates (relative risk (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.88; I2 = 0%) and postoperative abdominal collection requiring drainage (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.12; I 2 = 0%) were lower in the no-drain group, but this was only significant for wounded infections on subgroup analysis of RCTs. Length of stay hospital (mean difference (MD) -0.49, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.09; I 2 = 69%) and operative time (MD -8.13, 95% CI -13.87 to -2.38; I 2 = 92%) were significantly shorter in the no drain group however this was in the context of significant heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: The available data suggests that acute cholecystitis is not an indication for routine drain placement after LC. However, these results must be interpreted with caution due to the limitations of the included studies. In effect, the main issue of this meta-analysis lies on the limitations of the included studies themselves, because of a considerable heterogeneity among the included works, particularly for the inclusion criteria of patients and reported severity of acute cholecystitis. Further work is required to produce evidence which will definitively alter clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2a (systematic review of cohort studies). Oxford CEBM levels of evidence.