IntroductionThe comparative effectiveness of ProGlide® compared with MANTA® vascular closure devices (VCDs) in large-bore access site management is not entirely certain, and has only been evaluated in underpowered studies. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ProGlide® compared with MANTA® VCDs.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched systematically for relevant articles from the inception of the database until August 27, 2021. The outcomes of interest were all bleeding events, major bleeding, major and minor vascular complications, pseudoaneurysm, stenosis or dissection, and VCD failure. Risk ratios were used as point estimates of endpoints. All statistical analyses were carried out using R version 4.0.3.ResultsFour observational studies and 1 pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) were included in the final analysis. There was no significant difference between the ProGlide® and MANTA® groups in the risk of all bleeding events, major/life-threatening bleeding, major vascular complications, minor vascular complications, pseudoaneurysms, and/or stenosis or dissection of the entry site vessel. However, the incidence of VCD failure was higher in the ProGlide® group compared with the MANTA® group (RR 1.94; 95% CI 1.31–2.84; I2 = 0%).ConclusionIn conclusion, both VCDs (ProGlide® and MANTA®) have comparable outcomes with regard to risk of bleeding, vascular complications, pseudoaneurysms, and/or stenosis or dissection of entry vessel. ProGlide® was however associated with higher device failure. 相似文献
The frequency of primary small intestinal adenocarcinoma is increasing but is still low. Its frequency is approximately 3% of that of colorectal adenocarcinoma. Considering that the small intestine occupies 90% of the surface area of the gastrointestinal tract, small intestinal adenocarcinoma is very rare. The main site of small intestinal adenocarcinoma is the proximal small intestine. Based on this characteristic, dietary animal proteins/lipids and bile concentrations are implicated and reported to be involved in carcinogenesis. Since most nutrients are absorbed in the proximal small intestine, the effect of absorbable intestinal content is a suitable explanation for why small intestinal adenocarcinoma is more common in the proximal small intestine. The proportion of aerobic bacteria is high in the proximal small intestine, but the absolute number of bacteria is low. In addition, the length and density of villi are greater in the proximal small intestine. However, the involvement of villi is considered to be low because the number of small intestinal adenocarcinomas is much smaller than that of colorectal adenocarcinomas. On the other hand, the reason for the low incidence of small intestinal adenocarcinoma in the distal small intestine may be that immune organs reside there. Genetic and disease factors increase the likelihood of small intestinal adenocarcinoma. In carcinogenesis experiments in which the positions of the small and large intestines were exchanged, tumors still occurred in the large intestinal mucosa more often. In other words, the influence of the intestinal contents is small, and there is a large difference in epithelial properties between the small intestine and the large intestine. In conclusion, small intestinal adenocarcinoma is rare compared to large intestinal adenocarcinoma due to the nature of the epithelium. It is reasonable to assume that diet is a trigger for small intestinal adenocarcinoma. 相似文献