scholarly journals Thrombotic risk following video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus open thoracotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-581
Author(s):  
Luca Spiezia ◽  
Aaron Liew ◽  
Elena Campello ◽  
Guido Di Gregorio ◽  
Andrea Zuin ◽  
...  

Abstract OBJECTIVES There is no consensus on the risk of thrombotic events following video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) versus open thoracotomy (OT), despite multiple studies. In fact, the estimates for the overall thrombotic risk for VATS versus OT are inconclusive. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we endeavoured to ascertain the best estimate of thrombotic risk in VATS versus OT. METHODS Relevant studies were searched through PubMed and Cochrane Library database. Outcomes of interests were myocardial infarction (MI), pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Data were pooled using random-effects model. The results were presented as odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS Nineteen studies were meta-analysed: 17 observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials. Using propensity-matched data, in comparison with OT, VATS was associated with a statistically significant, postoperative reduction in MI (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39–0.91; P = 0.017), DVT/PE (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.44–0.61; P < 0.001), PE (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43–0.82; P = 0.001) and DVT (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35–0.64; P < 0.001). Unadjusted data showed no statistical differences for all outcomes. The risk of DVT/PE (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42–0.72; P < 0.001), but not the other outcomes, remained significantly lower following the exclusion of the sole large study. There is no significant statistical heterogeneity between the included studies. CONCLUSIONS Overall, the postoperative thrombotic risk following VATS is significantly lower than OT. Further prospective randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes are warranted to corroborate our findings.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joao Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci

BackgroundHarmful alcohol use leads to a large burden of disease and disability which disportionately impacts LMICs. The World Health Organization and the Lancet have issued calls for this burden to be addressed, but issues remain, primarily due to gaps in information. While a variety of interventions have been shown to be effective at reducing alcohol use in HICs, their efficacy in LMICs have yet to be assessed. This systematic review describes the current published literature on alcohol interventions in LMICs and conducts a meta analysis of clinical trials evaluating interventions to reduce alcohol use and harms in LMICs.MethodsIn accordance with PRISMA guidelines we searched the electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus,Web of Science, Cochrane, and Psych Info. Articles were eligible if they evaluated an intervention targeting alcohol-related harm in LMICs. After a reference and citation analysis, we conducted a quality assessment per PRISMA protocol. A meta-analysis was performed on the 39 randomized controlled trials that evaluated an alcohol-related outcome.ResultsOf the 3,801 articles from the literature search, 87 articles from 25 LMICs fit the eligibility and inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 39 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Nine of these studies focused specifically on medication, while the others focused on brief motivational intervention, brain stimulation, AUDIT-based brief interventions, WHO ASSIST-based interventions, group based education, basic screening and interventions, brief psychological or counseling, dyadic relapse prevention, group counseling, CBT, motivational + PTSD based interview, and health promotion/awareness. Conclusion Issues in determining feasible options specific to LMICs arise from unstandardized interventions, unequal geographic distribution of intervention implementation, and uncertain effectiveness over time. Current research shows that brain stimulation, psychotherapy, and brief motivational interviews have the potential to be effective in LMIC settings, but further feasibility testing and efforts to standardize results are necessary to accurately assess their effectiveness.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document