Contextualising the association of socioeconomic deprivation with hospitalisation rates of myocardial infarction in a rural area in eastern Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence on the association of socioeconomic deprivation with occurrence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is available from international studies and urban settings in western Germany. This study aimed to assess this association based on small geographical areas in a rural setting in eastern Germany. METHODS: This study used routine data of all patients with AMI who were treated in the Hospital Brandenburg in the city of Brandenburg, Germany, between May 2019 and May 2020. Hospitalisation rates of AMI were calculated for postal code regions that were located within the catchment area of the Hospital Brandenburg. Poisson regression was used to compare hospitalisation rates in areas with medium socioeconomic deprivation to areas with high deprivation, controlling for age group, sex and period (before or during COVID-19 pandemic). Publicly available social, infrastructure and healthcare-related features were mapped to characterise the study region. RESULTS: In total, 265 cases of AMI were registered in the study area, which comprised 116,126 inhabitants. The city of Brandenburg was characterised by the highest level of socioeconomic deprivation, while neighbouring areas showed a rural settlement structure and medium levels of deprivation. The number of general practitioners per 10 000 inhabitants did not differ between both areas. The adjusted rate ratio comparing hospitalisations due to AMI in areas with medium socioeconomic deprivation to areas with high socioeconomic deprivation was 0.71 (95%CI 0.56-0.91, p=0.01). CONCLUSION: This study adds evidence about the association of socioeconomic deprivation and AMI occurrence from a rural area in eastern Germany. Further research about the relationship of socioeconomic deprivation and cardiovascular health is needed from heterogeneous contexts.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: The removal of the acute appendix is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures. Open surgery associated with therapeutic efficacy has been the treatment of choice for acute appendicitis. However, in consequence of the evolution of endoscopic surgery, the operation can also be performed with minimally invasive surgery. Due to smaller incisions, the laparoscopic approach may be associated with reduced postoperative pain, reduced wound infection rate, and shorter time until return to normal activity.This is an update of the review published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) with regard to benefits and harms. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE and Embase (9 February 2018). We identified proposed and ongoing studies from World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov and EU Clinical Trials Register (9 February 2018). We handsearched reference lists of identified studies and the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LA versus OA in adults or children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the Peto odds ratio (OR) for very rare outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (or standardised mean differences (SMD) if researchers used different scales such as quality of life) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 85 studies involving 9765 participants. Seventy-five trials included 8520 adults and 10 trials included 1245 children. Most studies had risk of bias issues, with attrition bias being the largest source across studies due to incomplete outcome data.In adults, pain intensity on day one was reduced by 0.75 cm on a 10 cm VAS after LA (MD -0.75, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.45; 20 RCTs; 2421 participants; low-quality evidence). Wound infections were less likely after LA (Peto OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.51; 63 RCTs; 7612 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but the incidence of intra-abdominal abscesses was increased following LA (Peto OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.43; 53 RCTs; 6677 participants; moderate-quality evidence).The length of hospital stay was shortened by one day after LA (MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.70; 46 RCTs; 5127 participant; low-quality evidence). The time until return to normal activity occurred five days earlier after LA than after OA (MD -4.97, 95% CI -6.77 to -3.16; 17 RCTs; 1653 participants; low-quality evidence). Two studies showed better quality of life scores following LA, but used different scales, and therefore no pooled estimates were presented. One used the SF-36 questionnaire two weeks after surgery and the other used the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index six weeks and six months after surgery (both low-quality evidence).In children, we found no differences in pain intensity on day one (MD -0.80, 95% CI -1.65 to 0.05; 1 RCT; 61 participants; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal abscesses after LA (Peto OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.22; 9 RCTs; 1185 participants; low-quality evidence) or time until return to normal activity (MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.30; 1 RCT; 383 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, wound infections were less likely after LA (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.42; 10 RCTs; 1245 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and the length of hospital stay was shortened by 0.8 days after LA (MD -0.81, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.62; 6 RCTs; 316 participants; low-quality evidence). Quality of life was not reported in any of the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Except for a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscesses after LA in adults, LA showed advantages over OA in pain intensity on day one, wound infections, length of hospital stay and time until return to normal activity in adults. In contrast, LA showed advantages over OA in wound infections and length of hospital stay in children. Two studies reported better quality of life scores in adults. No study reported this outcome in children. However, the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate and some of the clinical effects of LA were small and of limited clinical relevance. Future studies with low risk of bias should investigate, in particular, the quality of life in children.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis has been proposed to have advantages over conventional surgery. OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic and therapeutic effects of laparoscopic and conventional 'open' surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CNKI, SciSearch, study registries, and the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) in adults or children. Studies comparing immediate OA versus diagnostic laparoscopy (followed by LA or OA if necessary) were separately identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. Missing information or data was requested from the authors. We used odds ratios (OR), relative risks (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 67 studies, of which 56 compared LA (with or without diagnostic laparoscopy) vs. OA in adults. Wound infections were less likely after LA than after OA (OR 0.43; CI 0.34 to 0.54), but the incidence of intraabdominal abscesses was increased (OR 1.87; CI 1.19 to 2.93). The duration of surgery was 10 minutes (CI 6 to 15) longer for LA. Pain on day 1 after surgery was reduced after LA by 8 mm (CI 5 to 11 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Hospital stay was shortened by 1.1 day (CI 0.7 to 1.5). Return to normal activity, work, and sport occurred earlier after LA than after OA. While the operation costs of LA were significantly higher, the costs outside hospital were reduced. Seven studies on children were included, but the results do not seem to be much different when compared to adults. Diagnostic laparoscopy reduced the risk of a negative appendectomy, but this effect was stronger in fertile women (RR 0.20; CI 0.11 to 0.34) as compared to unselected adults (RR 0.37; CI 0.13 to 1.01). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In those clinical settings where surgical expertise and equipment are available and affordable, diagnostic laparoscopy and LA (either in combination or separately) seem to have various advantages over OA. Some of the clinical effects of LA, however, are small and of limited clinical relevance. In spite of the mediocre quality of the available research data, we would generally recommend to use laparoscopy and LA in patients with suspected appendicitis unless laparoscopy itself is contraindicated or not feasible. Especially young female, obese, and employed patients seem to benefit from LA.

Medicina basada en la evidencia y cirugía laparoscópica / Evidence-based medicine and laparoscopic surgery

No disponible