Ballooning Your Way in Altered Anatomy ERCP: Ready for Deductive Learning

Digestive Diseases and Sciences -     

Line it up—Inadvertent placement of nasogastric tube in pleural space resulting in iatrogenic empyema

Dobhoff tubes, used for post‐pyloric feedings, have a weighted metal end with a small diameter that enhances their flexibility to traverse the gastrointestinal tract. Unfortunately, the metal stylet can iatrogenically perforate surrounding structures in patients with diminished cough and gag (1), and extreme caution should be considered before its utilization.     

Management of stable coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation with anti-thrombotic therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction:Long term management of patients with stable coronary artery disease of >1 year after myocardial infarction (MI) or percutaneous coronary intervention and atrial fibrillation is unclear. Current guidelines recommend using oral anti-coagulation (OAC) alone although the recommendation is weak and there is low quality evidence. Two new randomized control trials (RCTs) were published recently. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of these studies on patient outcomesObjective:To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of published RCTs and observational studies to compare OAC alone versus OAC plus single anti-platelet therapy.Methods:Electronic searches were conducted using appropriate terms from 3 databases. Relevant studies included. Data extracted and analysis were performed using STATA.Measurements:Summary statistics were pooled and measured for primary and secondary outcomes of both treatment arms.Main results:Eight studies involving 10,120 patients were included for the analysis. Five thousand two hundred thirty-seven patients were on combination therapy while 4883 were on OAC alone. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio [HR] 1.067; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.912–1.249; P value .417). There was no statistically significant difference even in the measured secondary outcomes namely all cause mortality (HR 1.048; 95% CI 0.830–1.323; P value .695), cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.863; 95% CI 0.593–1.254; P value .439). However, we found statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in the incidence of MI with higher incidence in mono therapy group (HR 1.229; 95% CI 1.011–1.495; P value .039) and higher incidence of major bleeding in the combination therapy group in the subgroup analysis (HR 0.649; 95% CI 0.464–0.907; P value .011).Conclusion:We found no reduction of major adverse cardiac event between combination therapy and mono therapy. Although mono therapy showed increased risk of major bleeding overall, subgroup analysis of the RCTs showed increased risk of major bleeding in the combination therapy group. MI was higher in the mono therapy group compared to the combination therapy group, however this outcome was not reproducible in the subgroup analysis of the RCTs.