Cardiovascular Mortality in Ovarian Cancer Patients: An Analysis of Patient Characteristics Using the SEER Database.

Background and Objectives: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major contributor to the high mortality rate among individuals with ovarian cancer. Nevertheless, there is limited understanding regarding the specific patient attributes that might impact the risk of CVD in this group. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the SEER database to analyze primary ovarian cancer cases from 2000 to 2019. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was employed to identify patient characteristics linked to cardiovascular mortality. Results: The cohort included 41,930 cases of patients who were alive, 54,829 cases of cancer-related deaths, 3003 cases of cardiovascular-related deaths, and 10,238 cases with other causes of death. Poorly differentiated cancer cells and distant metastasis were associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular mortality. Logistic regression analysis identified age, year of diagnosis, race, laterality, and staging as significant risk factors for cardiovascular cause of death. The risk of cardiovascular cause of death was lower in patients aged 31-60 and higher in those aged over 60 years old, and the risk also increased with a later year of diagnosis. Patients who were not white were at a higher risk of cardiovascular cause of death. Additionally, bilateral ovarian cancer and distant staging disease were linked to elevated risks of cardiovascular cause of death. Conclusion: Cardiovascular mortality is a significant concern in ovarian cancer patients, and several patient characteristics are associated with an increased risk. Our study suggests that targeted interventions to improve cardiovascular health in high-risk patients, such as those with comorbidities or an advanced stage at diagnosis, may improve survival in this population.

Analgesic Efficacy of Intraoperative Superior Hypogastric Plexus (SHP) Block during Abdominal Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Trials.

Background and Objectives: Abdominal hysterectomy is a major surgery that is often associated with pronounced postsurgical pain. The objective of this research is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized comparative trials (NCTs) that have surveyed the analgesic benefits and morbidity of intraoperative superior hypogastric plexus (SHP) block (intervention) compared with no SHP block (control) during abdominal hysterectomy. Materials and Methods: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched from inception until 8 May 2022. The Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate the risk of bias of RCTs and NCTs, respectively. In a random effects mode, the data were pooled as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Five studies (four RCTs and one NCT) comprising 210 patients (SHP block = 107 and control = 103) were analyzed. The overall postsurgical pain score (n = 5 studies, MD = -1.08, 95% CI [-1.41, -0.75], p < 0.001), postsurgical opioid consumption (n = 4 studies, MD = -18.90 morphine milligram equivalent, 95% CI, [-22.19, -15.61], p < 0.001), and mean time to mobilization (n = 2 studies, MD = -1.33 h, 95% CI [-1.98, -0.68], p < 0.001) were significantly decreased in the SHP block group contrasted with the control arm. Nevertheless, there was no significant variance between both arms regarding operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postsurgical NSAID consumption, and hospital stay. There were no major side effects or sympathetic block-related aftermaths in both groups. Conclusions: During abdominal hysterectomy and receiving perioperative multimodal analgesia, the administration of intraoperative SHP block is largely safe and exhibits better analgesic effects compared to cases without administration of SHP block.

Association between Endometriosis and the Risk of Ovarian, Endometrial, Cervical, and Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Study from the U.S. National Inpatient Sample 2016-2019.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the potential relationship between endometriosis and risk of ovarian, endometrial, cervical, and breast cancers using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. METHODS: We utilized the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) system to identify relevant codes from the NIS database (2016-2019). Univariate and multivariate regression analyses (adjusted for age, race, hospital region, hospital teaching status, income Zip score, smoking, alcohol use, and hormonal replacement therapy) were conducted to evaluate the association between endometriosis and gynecologic cancers and summarized as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: In the examined dataset, there were 1164 and 225,323 gynecologic cancer patients with and without endometriosis, respectively. Univariate analysis showed endometriosis was significantly associated with a higher risk of ovarian (OR = 3.42, 95% CI: 3.05-3.84, p < 0.001) and endometrial (OR = 3.35, 95% CI: 2.97-3.79, p < 0.001) cancers. There was no significant association between endometriosis and cervical cancer (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.85-1.28, p = 0.663). Interestingly, endometriosis was significantly associated with a low risk of breast cancer (OR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.10-0.17, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis after Bonferroni correction (p < 0.006) showed that endometriosis was significantly associated with a high risk of ovarian (adjusted OR = 3.34, 95% CI: 2.97-3.75, p < 0.001) and endometrial (adjusted OR = 3.61, 95% CI: 3.12-4.08, p < 0.001) cancers. Conversely, there was no significant association between endometriosis and cervical cancer (OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65-0.99, p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with endometriosis exhibited unique gynecologic cancer risk profiles, with higher risks for ovarian and endometrial cancers, and no significant risk for cervical cancer. The observed connection between endometriosis and a reduced risk of breast cancer remains a perplexing phenomenon, which cannot be put into context to date.

Prophylactic tranexamic acid to reduce blood loss and related morbidities during hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of prophylactic tranexamic acid (TXA) versus a control (placebo or no treatment) during hysterectomy for benign conditions. Six databases were screened from inception to January 23, 2022. Eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Outcomes were summarized as weighted mean differences and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals in a random-effects model. Five studies, comprising six arms and 911 patients were included in the study. Two and three studies had an overall unclear and low risk of bias, respectively. Estimated intraoperative blood loss, requirement for postoperative blood transfusion, and requirement for intraoperative topical hemostatic agents were significantly reduced in a prophylactic TXA group when compared with a control group. Moreover, postoperative hemoglobin level was significantly higher in the prophylactic TXA group than in the control group. Conversely, the frequency of self-limiting nausea and vomiting was significantly higher in the prophylactic TXA group than in the control group. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of surgery duration, hospital stay, and diarrhea rate. All the RCTs reported no incidence of major adverse events in either group, such as mortality, thromboembolic events, visual disturbances, or seizures. There was no publication bias for any outcome, and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses demonstrated stability of the findings. Among patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign conditions, prophylactic TXA appeared largely safe and correlated with substantial reductions in estimated intraoperative blood loss and related morbidities.

Prophylactic vasopressin to reduce intraoperative blood loss and associated morbidities during myomectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To collate evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (NCTs) on the efficacy and safety of vasopressin versus passive control (placebo/no treatment) during myomectomy. METHODS: Six information sources were screened until 25-June-2022. The Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate the risk of bias. Data were summarized as mean difference or risk ratio with 95% confidence interval in a random-effects model. RESULTS: Eleven studies, comprising 1067 patients (vasopressin=567 and control=500) were analyzed. For RCTs (n = 8), the overall quality included 'high risk' (n = 4), 'low risk' (n = 2), and 'some concerns' (n = 2). For NCTs (n = 3), the overall quality included 'good' (n = 2) and 'fair' (n = 1). The mean intraoperative blood loss, mean difference in hemoglobin level, mean difference in hematocrit level, rate of perioperative blood transfusion, and mean operative time were significantly reduced in favor of the vasopressin group compared with the control group. However, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean hospital stay. Pertaining to safety endpoints, after omission of an outlier study, the rate of drug-related cardiovascular adverse events did not significantly differ between both groups. There was no quantitative evidence of publication bias for the endpoint of intraoperative blood loss. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing myomectomy, prophylactic administration of vasopressin was largely safe and correlated with significant reductions in intraoperative blood loss and associated morbidities compared with a passive control intervention. Nonetheless, the conclusions should be cautiously interpreted owing to the low-evidence quality and the used doses varied greatly between studies.

Prophylactic tranexamic acid among women undergoing vaginal delivery to reduce postpartum blood loss and related morbidities: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that inspected the efficacy and safety of prophylactic TXA compared with control (placebo/no treatment) among women undergoing vaginal delivery on reducing postpartum blood loss and related morbidities. METHODS: Six databases were screened from inception until 06-December-2021. The pooled data were summarized as mean difference or risk ratio, respectively, with 95% confidence interval in a fixed- or random-effects model. RESULTS: Sixteen studies comprising 17 RCT treatment arms were included. There were 7122 patients; 3611 and 3511 patients were allocated to prophylactic TXA and control groups, respectively. Overall, the included RCTs had a low risk of bias. Prophylactic TXA correlated with a significant decrease in mean postpartum blood loss and mean change in hemoglobin/hematocrit. Moreover, prophylactic TXA was linked to decreased incidence rates of postpartum hemorrhage, need for blood transfusion, and need for additional uterotonic agents. Nevertheless, prophylactic TXA culminated in significantly higher incidence rates of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, all of which were well-tolerated. There was no increased risk of thromboembolic events. Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of efficacy endpoints. There was no publication bias for the endpoint of mean postpartum blood loss. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing vaginal delivery, prophylactic TXA during active management of third stage of labor (AMTSL) appeared largely safe and correlated with a significant decrease in postpartum blood loss and related morbidities compared with control intervention. Prophylactic TXA should be integrated as a "formal" component of AMTSL among women undergoing vaginal delivery.