Safety and Efficacy of the Moderate Sedation During Flexible Bronchoscopic Procedure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Moderate sedatives have been increasingly used to improve patient comfort during flexible bronchoscopy (FB). However, routine use of moderate sedation during FB is controversial because its efficacy and safety are not well established.This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of moderate sedation during FB.A search was made of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to May 2014.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were included.The main analysis was designed to examine the efficacy of moderate sedation during FB in sedation than no-sedation.The willingness to repeat FB was significantly more in sedation than no-sedation (odds ratio [OR] 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–4.73; P = 0.02; I² = 22.5). The duration of FB was shorter in sedation group than no-sedation group (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.21; 95% CI −0.38 to −0.03; P = 0.02; I² = 78.3%). Event of hypoxia was not significantly different between sedation and no-sedation groups (OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.42–1.73; P = 0.67; I² = 0%). The SpO₂ during procedure was not different between sedation and no-sedation groups (SMD −0.14; 95% CI −0.37 to 0.08; P = 0.21; I² = 49.9%). However, in subgroup analysis without supplemental oxygen, the SpO₂ was significantly lower in sedation than no-sedation group (SMD −0.45; 95% CI −0.78 to −0.11; P = 0.01; I² = 0.0%).According to this meta-analysis, moderate sedation in FB would be useful in patients who will require repeated bronchoscopies as well as safe in respiratory depression. To our knowledge, although the various sedative drugs are already used in the real field, this analysis was the first attempt to quantify objective results. We anticipate more definite and studies designed to elucidate standardized outcomes for moderate sedation in FB.     

Utility of Tissue Similarity Maps Based on Relative Cerebral Blood Volume for Grading Gliomas as Validated by Histological Results

@@     

Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Efficacy and Safety of UDCA-Based Therapies in Primary Biliary Cirrhosis

Major ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA)-based therapies for primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) include UDCA only, or combined with either methotrexate (MTX), corticosteroids (COT), colchicine (COC), or bezafibrate (BEF). As the optimum treatment regimen is unclear and warrants exploration, we aimed to compare these therapies in terms of patient mortality or liver transplantation (MOLT) and adverse events (AE).PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched for randomized controlled trials up to August 31, 2014. We estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) for MOLT and odds ratios (ORs) for AE. A sensitivity analysis based on the dose of UDCA was also executed.Thirty-one eligible articles were included. Compared with COT plus UDCA, UDCA (HR 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09–1.39), BEF plus UDCA (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.02–4.83), COC plus UDCA (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.07–2.25), MTX plus UDCA (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.05–1.63), or OBS (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.11–2.01) all provided an increased risk of MOLT. With respect to drug AE profile, although not differing appreciably, BEF plus UDCA was associated with more AEs compared with UDCA (OR 3.16, 95% CI 0.59–20.67), COT plus UDCA (OR 2.27, 95% CI 0.15–33.36), COC plus UDCA (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.09–12.16), MTX plus UDCA (OR 2.03, 95% CI 0.23–17.82), or OBS (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.53–20.75). The results of sensitivity analyses were highly consistent with previous analyses.COT plus UDCA was the optimal UDCA-based regimen for both MOLT and AEs. BEF plus UDCA was most likely to cause AEs, whereas monotherapy with UDCA and coadministriation of COT plus UDCA appeared to be associated with the fewest AEs for PBC treatment.     

Comparison between a new platelet count drop method PL-11, light transmission aggregometry,VerifyNow aspirin system and thromboelastography for monitoring short-term aspirin effects in healthy individuals

Platelet function has been described by many laboratory assays, and PL-11 is a new point-of-care platelet function analyzer based on platelet count drop method, which counts platelet before and after the addition of agonists in the citrated whole blood samples. The present study sought to compare PL-11 with other three major more established assays, light transmission aggregometry (LTA), VerifyNow? aspirin system and thromboelastography (TEG), for monitoring the short-term aspirin responses in healthy individuals. Ten healthy young men took 100?mg/d aspirin for 3-day treatment. Platelet function was measured via PL-11, LTA, VerifyNow and TEG, respectively. The blood samples were collected at baseline, 2 hour, 1 day during the aspirin treatment and 1 day, 5?±?1 days, 8?±?1 days after the aspirin withdrawal. Moreover, 90 additional healthy subjects were recruited to establish a reference range for PL-11. Platelet function of healthy subjects decreased significantly 2 hours after 100?mg/d aspirin intake and began to recover during 4–6 days after the aspirin withdrawal. Correlations between methods were PL-11 vs. LTA (r?=?0.614, p?<?0.01); PL-11 vs. VerifyNow (r?=?0.829, p?<?0.01); PL-11 vs. TEG (r?=?0.697, p?<?0.001). There was no significant bias between PL-11 and LTA at baseline (bias?=?1.94%, p?=?0.804) using Bland-Altman analysis, while the data of PL-11 were significantly higher than LTA (bias?=?24.02%, p?<?0.001) during the aspirin therapy. The reference range for PL-11 in healthy young individuals was from 66.8 to 90.5% (95%CI). When aspirin low-responsiveness was defined as LTA?>?20%, the cut-off values for each method were, respectively: PL-11?>?50%, VerifyNow?>?533 ARU, TEG?>?60.2%. The results of different platelet function assays were uninterchangeable for monitoring aspirin response and correlations among them were also varied. Correlations among PL-11 and other three major assays suggested the ability of PL-11 to assess the treatment effects of aspirin. But a large cohort study is needed to confirm the cut-off value of aspirin response detected by PL-11.     

改进软腭牵拉暴露鼻咽手术治疗腺样体肥大

2013年5月至2014年2月对解放军107医院收治的80例腺样体肥大患者采用吸痰管牵拉软腭暴露鼻咽部,并在70°鼻内镜辅助下行肥大腺样体切除术,效果良好,现报告如下。1资料与方法1.1临床资料本组80例中,男43例,女37例,5~13岁,平均7岁,病程9个月~4年。临床症状均有不同程度夜寐打鼾、张口呼吸,伴有鼻塞。其中     

What to expect when you're expecting a hepatopancreatobiliary surgeon: self-reported experiences of HPB surgeons from different training pathways

BackgroundHepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery fellowship training has multiple paths. Prospective trainees and employers must understand the differences between training pathways. This study examines self-reported fellowship experiences and current scope of practice across three pathways.MethodsAn online survey was disseminated to 654 surgeons. These included active Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA) members and recent graduates of HPB, transplant–HPB and HPB–heavy surgical oncology fellowships.ResultsA total of 416 (64%) surgeons responded. Most respondents were male (89%) and most were practising in an academic setting (83%). 290 (70%) respondents underwent formal fellowship training. Although fellowship experiences varied, current practice was largely similar. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and ultrasound were the most commonly identified areas of training deficiencies and were, respectively, cited as such by 47% and 34% of HPB-, 49% and 50% of transplant-, and 52% and 25% of surgical oncology-trained respondents. Non-HPB cases performed in current practice included gastrointestinal (GI) and general surgery cases (56% and 49%, respectively) for HPB-trained respondents, transplant and general surgery cases (87% and 21%, respectively) for transplant-trained respondents, and GI surgery and non-HPB surgical oncology cases (70% and 28%, respectively) for surgical oncology-trained respondents.ConclusionsFellowship training in HPB surgery varies by training pathway. Training in MIS and ultrasound is deficient in each pathway. The ultimate scope of non-transplant HPB practice appears similar across training pathways. Thus, training pathway choice is best guided by the training experience desired and non-HPB components of anticipated practice.     

Effects of box handle position and carrying range on bi-manual carrying capacity for females

This study utilizes a psychophysical approach to examine the effects on carrying capacity for bi-manual carrying tasks involving different handle positions and carrying ranges. A total of 16 female subjects participated in the experiment in groups of two people, and each group of subjects performed the tasks in a random order with 12 different combinations of carrying task. The independent variables are handle position (upper, middle, lower) and carrying range (F–F: floor height carried to floor height, F–W: floor height carried to waist height, W–W: waist height carried to waist height, W–F: waist height carried to floor height), the dependent variable is the maximum acceptable carried weight (MAWC), heart rate (HR), and the rating of perceived exertion (RPE). The results show that the handle position has a significant effect on MAWC and overall RPE but no significant effect on HR. Carrying range has a significant effect on the MAWC and HR, but no significant effect on overall HR. The handle position and carrying range have a significant interaction on the MAWC and HR. The RPE for different body parts shows significant differences, and the hands feel the most tired. Overall, this study confirms that the lower handle position with the W–W carrying range is the best combination for a two-person carrying task.