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.     

Direct insertion of an ultra‐slim upper endoscope for cholangioscopy in patients undergoing choledochoduodenostomy

Direct peroral cholangioscopy (POC) using an ultra‐slim upper endoscope is one modality of POC for intraductal endoscopic evaluation and treatment of the bile duct. Choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) is one modality of biliary bypass surgery that provides a new route to the bile duct. We carried out direct POC using an ultra‐slim upper endoscope without the use of accessories in 10 patients (four sump syndromes, three bile duct strictures and three intrahepatic duct stones) previously undergoing surgical CDS. Direct POC was successful in all patients. The use of an intraductal balloon catheter was required in one patient for advancement of the endoscope into the bile duct. Distal bile ducts with sump syndromes were cleared using baskets and water irrigation under direct POC. Cholangiocarcinoma was diagnosed in one patient with hilar bile duct stricture after cholangioscopic evaluation and a targeting forceps biopsy under direct POC. Intrahepatic duct stones were successfully extracted after intraductal fragmentation under direct POC. Oozing bleeding occurred during intraductal lithotripsy but stopped spontaneously. Direct POC using an ultra‐slim upper endoscope without the assistance of accessories can easily be carried out in patients undergoing CDS.     

中国精神分裂症患者不同家庭干预措施效果比较的meta分析

目的对中国精神分裂症患者采取家庭干预的研究文献进行综合回顾和系统评价, 比较不同条件下家庭干预效果的差异。方法在中国知网、维普、万方、中国生物医学文献数据库四大中文数据库及OVID Medline、Science Direct、Web of Science、EBSCO四大英文数据库中, 检索各数据库建库至2015年1月为止使用社会功能缺陷筛选量表(SDSS)、简明精神病(科)量表(BPRS)、阳性与阴性症状量表(PANSS)研究中国精神分裂症患者家庭干预效果的文献, 以标准化加权均数差( SMD)作为效应量, 采用meta分析比较不同干预时间、不同干预类型、对不同病程和不同严重程度的精神分裂症患者的家庭干预效果差异。 结果共纳入57篇符合标准的文献。SDSS、PANSS分析结果显示:① 干预时间越长干预效果越好( P < 0.0001、 P=0.0025);② 单独家庭干预比多个家庭合并单独家庭干预的效果更明显( P < 0.0001、 P=0.0131);③ 干预对于病情较重患者效果较好( P < 0.0001、 P=0.0280)。SDSS量表还显示家庭干预对于病程短的患者效果更好( P < 0.0001)。 结论家庭干预更适合病程较短的精神分裂症患者, 干预应实施较长时间; 单独家庭干预更有利于患者阴性症状的改善和社会功能的康复, 且对于病情较轻患者的阴性症状改善效果更好。     

Comparative outcomes of vascular access in patients older than 70 years with end-stage renal disease

Objective

The advantage of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) in older patients requiring dialysis is controversial. We reviewed our vascular access experience in patients ≥70 years of age (older group) compared with younger patients.