Minimally Invasive Treatments for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

PurposeTo review and to compare indirectly the outcomes of minimally invasive therapies for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia.Materials and MethodsA literature search via Medline and Cochrane Central databases was completed for randomized control studies published between January 2000 to April 2020 for the following therapies: Rezum, Urolift, Aquablation, and prostatic artery embolization (PAE). Data on the following variables were included: International prostate symptom score (IPSS), maximum urinary flow rate, quality of life, and postvoid residual (PVR). Standard mean differences between treatments were compared through a meta-analysis using transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) to assess differences in treatment effect.ResultsThere was no significant difference in outcomes between therapies for IPSS at the 3, 6, and 12-month follow ups. Although outcomes for Rezum were only available out to 3 months, there were no consistently significant differences in outcomes when comparing Aquablation versus PAE versus Rezum. TURP PVR was significantly better than Urolift at 3, 6, and 12 months. No significant differences in minor or major adverse events were noted.ConclusionAlthough significant differences in outcomes were limited, Aquablation and PAE were the most durable at 12 months. PAE has been well studied on multiple randomized control trials with minimal adverse events while Aquablation has limited high quality data and has been associated with bleeding-related complications.     

Atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectiveNew-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after cardiac surgery is common, with rates up to 60%. POAF has been associated with early and late stroke, but its association with other cardiovascular outcomes is less known. The objective was to perform a meta-analysis of the studies reporting the association of POAF with perioperative and long-term outcomes in patients with cardiac surgery.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of studies that presented outcomes for cardiac surgery on the basis of the presence or absence of POAF. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were assessed; 57 studies (246,340 patients) were selected. Perioperative mortality was the primary outcome. Inverse variance method and random model were performed. Leave-one-out analysis, subgroup analyses, and metaregression were conducted.ResultsPOAF was associated with perioperative mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58-2.33), perioperative stroke (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.90-2.49), perioperative myocardial infarction (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06-1.54), perioperative acute renal failure (OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 2.42-3.11), hospital (standardized mean difference, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.53-1.07) and intensive care unit stay (standardized mean difference, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.24-0.86), long-term mortality (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.54; 95% CI, 1.40-1.69), long-term stroke (IRR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.21-1.46), and longstanding persistent atrial fibrillation (IRR, 4.73; 95% CI, 3.36-6.66).ConclusionsThe results suggest that POAF after cardiac surgery is associated with an increased occurrence of most short- and long-term cardiovascular adverse events. However, the causality of this association remains to be established.     

SARS-CoV-2 and cancer: the intriguing and informative cross-talk

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has significantly disrupted and burdened the diagnostic workup and delivery of care, including transfusion, to cancer patients across the globe. Furthermore, cancer patients suffering from solid tumors or hematologic malignancies were more prone to the infection and had higher morbidity and mortality than the rest of the population. Major signaling pathways have been identified at the intersection of SARS-CoV-2 and cancer cells, often leading to tumor progression or alteration of the tumor response to therapy. The reactivation of oncogenic viruses has also been alluded to in the context and following COVID-19. Paradoxically, certain tumors responded better following the profound infection-induced immune modulation. Unveiling the mechanisms of the virus-tumor cell interactions will lead to a better understanding of the pathophysiology of both cancer progression and virus propagation. It would be challenging to monitor, through the different cancer registries, retrospectively, the response of patients who have been previously exposed to the virus in contrast to those who have not contracted the infection.