ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of levosimendan on acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction≤40.0%) undergoing cardiac surgery.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on a comprehensive search of the randomized controlled trial (RCT) from PubMed, EMbase and The Cochrane Library (up to Jan 2018). The clinical endpoints included the incidence of AKI and need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), mortality, mechanic ventilation (MV) duration and intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Random-effect model was used for the potential clinical inconsistency. All analyses were performed by RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0.ResultsThirteen trials with a total of 2 046 patients were selected. Compared with controls, levosimendan significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative AKI (OR=0.44, P=0.000 1, I2=0%), the risk of RRT (OR=0.63, P=0.02, I2=0%) and the mortality (OR=0.49, P<0.000 1, I2=0%). Levosimendan also shortened the postoperative MV duration (WMD=–5.62, P=0.07, I2=93%) and ICU stay (WMD=–1.50, P=0.005, I2=98%).ConclusionThe present meta-analysis suggests that perioperative levosimendan for patients with left ventricular ejection fraction≤40.0% undergoing cardiac surgery reduces the incidence of AKI, RRT and death, as well as shortens MV duration and ICU stay.
Objective To compare the safety of manual anastomosis and mechanical anastomosis after esophagectomy by meta-analysis. MethodsThe randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about manual anastomosis and mechanical anastomosis after esophagectomy were searched from PubMed, EMbase and The Cochrane Library from inception to January 2018 by computer, without language restrictions. Two authors according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria independently researched literature, extracted data, evaluated bias risk and used R software meta package for meta-analysis. Results Seventeen RCTs were enrolled, including 2 159 patients (1 230 by manual anastomosis and 1 289 by mechanical anastomosis). The results of meta-analysis showed that: (1) there was no significant difference in the incidence of anastomotic leakage between mechanical and manual anastomosis (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.67–1.48, P=0.181); (2) no significant difference was found in the 30-day mortality (RR=0.95, 95%CI 0.61–1.49, P=0.631); (3) compared with manual anastomosis, the mechanical anastomosis group may increase the risk of anastomotic stenosis (RR=0.74, 95%CI 0.48-1.14, P<0.001). Conclusion Esophageal cancer surgery using a linear or circular stapler can increase the incidence of anastomotic stenosis after surgery. There is no significant difference in the anastomotic leakage and 30-day mortality between manual anastomosis, linear stapler and circular stapler.
Objective To compare the efficacy of the single tube (ST) and double tube (DT) for closed thoracic drainage after lobectomy. Methods The PubMed, Medline, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Database, VIP database and CBMdisc from inception to March 30, 2018 were searched by computer to identify randomized controlled trial (RCT) about ST and DT drainage after lobectomy. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria the literature was screened. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results Twelve RCTs were enrolled in this meta-analysis, including 1 442 patients. Compared with the patients using DT after lobectomy, the patients using ST had significantly less postoperative pain (MD=–0.64, 95%CI –0.71 to –0.56, P<0.000 01) and shorter duration of drainage (MD=–0.62, 95%CI –0.78 to –0.46, P<0.000 01) and hospital stay (MD=–0.55, 95%CI –0.80 to –0.29, P<0.000 1). Besides, there was no significant difference in postoperative complications (RR=1.11, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.49, P=0.49), air leaks (RD=0.03, 95%CI –0.02 to 0.08, P=0.19) and the redrainage rate (RR=0.89, 95%CI 0.51 to 1.54, P=0.67). ConclusionST drainage after lobectomy is effective, which reduces postoperative pain and duration of hospital stay and drainage, and moreover, does not increase the postoperative complications and redrainage rate.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of the interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and surgery on the clinical outcome of esophageal cancer.MethodsPubMed and EMbase databases from inception to March 2018 were retrieved by computer. A random-effect model was used for all meta-analyses irrespective of heterogeneity. The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan5.3 software. The primary outcomes were operative mortality, incidence of anastomotic leakage, and overall survival; secondary outcomes were pathologic complete remission rate, R0 resection rate, and positive resection margin rate.ResultsA total of 17 studies with 18 173 patients were included. Among them, 13 were original studies with 2 950 patients, and 4 were database-based studies with a total of 15 223 patients. The results showed a significant positive correlation between the interval and operative mortality (Spearman coefficient=0.360, P=0.027). Dose-response meta-analysis revealed that there was a relatively better time window for surgery after nCRT. Further analysis for primary outcomes at different time cut-offs found the following results: (1) when the time cut-off point within 30-70 days, the shorter interval was associated with a reduced operative mortality (7-8 weeks: RR=0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.81, P<0.05; 30-46 days: RR=0.63, 95%CI 0.47-0.85, P<0.05; 60-70 days: RR=0.64, 95%CI 0.48-0.85, P<0.05); (2) when the time cut-off point within 30-46 days, the shorter interval correlated with a reduced incidence of anastomotic leakage (RR=0.39, 95%CI 0.21-0.72, P<0.05); when the time cut-off point within 7-8 weeks, the shorter interval could achieve a critical-level effect of reducing the incidence of anastomotic leakage (RR=0.73, 95%CI 0.52-1.03, P>0.05); (3) when the time cut-off point within 7-8 weeks, increased interval significantly was associated with the poor overall survival (HR=1.17, 95% CI 1.00-1.36, P<0.05). Secondary outcomes found that the shorter interval could significantly reduce the positive resection margin rate (RR=0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.75, P<0.05) when time cut-off point within 56-60 days.ConclusionShortening the interval between nCRT and surgery can reduce the operative mortality, the incidence of anastomotic leakage, long-term mortality risk, and positive resection margin rate. It is recommended that surgery should be performed as soon as possible after the patient's physical recovery, preferably no more than 7-8 weeks, which supports the current study recommendation (within 3-8 weeks after nCRT).