AIM To analyse the effect of mechanical bowel preparation vs no mechanical bowel preparation on outcome in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.METHODS Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and obse...AIM To analyse the effect of mechanical bowel preparation vs no mechanical bowel preparation on outcome in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.METHODS Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing adult patients receiving mechanical bowel preparation with those receiving no mechanical bowel preparation, subdivided into those receiving a single rectal enema and those who received no preparation at all prior to elective colorectal surgery. RESULTS A total of 36 studies(23 randomised controlled trials and 13 observational studies) including 21568 patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery were included. When all studies were considered, mechanical bowel preparation was not associated with any significant difference in anastomotic leak rates(OR = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.74 to 1.10, P = 0.32), surgical site infection(OR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.24, P = 0.96), intraabdominal collection(OR = 0.86, 95%CI: 0.63 to 1.17, P = 0.34), mortality(OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.57 to 1.27, P = 0.43), reoperation(OR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.75 to 1.12, P = 0.38) or hospital length of stay(overall mean difference 0.11 d, 95%CI:-0.51 to 0.73, P = 0.72), when compared with no mechanical bowel preparation, nor when evidence from just randomized controlledtrials was analysed. A sub-analysis of mechanical bowel preparation vs absolutely no preparation or a single rectal enema similarly revealed no differences in clinical outcome measures. CONCLUSION In the most comprehensive meta-analysis of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery to date, this study has suggested that the use of mechanical bowel preparation does not affect the incidence of postoperative complications when compared with no preparation. Hence, mechanical bowel preparation should not be administered routinely prior to elective colorectal surgery.展开更多
Background:Cardiac rupture (CR) is a major lethal complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI).However,no valid risk score model was found to predict CR after AMI in previous researches.This study aimed to establ...Background:Cardiac rupture (CR) is a major lethal complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI).However,no valid risk score model was found to predict CR after AMI in previous researches.This study aimed to establish a simple model to assess risk of CR after AMI,which could be easily used in a clinical environment.Methods:This was a retrospective case-control study that included 53 consecutive patients with CR after AMI during a period from January 1,2010 to December 31,2017.The controls included 524 patients who were selected randomly from 7932 AMI patients without CR at a 1:10 ratio.Risk factors for CR were identified using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression.Risk score model was developed based on multiple regression coefficients.Performance of risk model was evaluated using receiveroperating characteristic (ROC) curves and internal validity was explored using bootstrap analysis.Results:Among all 7985 AMI patients,53 (0.67%) had CR (free wall rupture,n=39;ventricular septal rupture,n=14).Hospital mortalities were 92.5% and 4.01% in patients with and without CR (P<0.001).Independent variables associated with CR included:older age,female gender,higher heart rate at admission,body mass index (BMI)<25 kg/m^2,lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and no primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) treatment.In ROC analysis,our CR risk assess model demonstrated a very good discriminate power (area under the curve [AUC]= 0.895,95% confidence interval:0.845–0.944,optimism-corrected AUC= 0.821,P<0.001).Conclusion:This study developed a novel risk score model to help predict CR after AMI,which had high accuracy and was very simple to use.展开更多
文摘AIM To analyse the effect of mechanical bowel preparation vs no mechanical bowel preparation on outcome in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.METHODS Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing adult patients receiving mechanical bowel preparation with those receiving no mechanical bowel preparation, subdivided into those receiving a single rectal enema and those who received no preparation at all prior to elective colorectal surgery. RESULTS A total of 36 studies(23 randomised controlled trials and 13 observational studies) including 21568 patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery were included. When all studies were considered, mechanical bowel preparation was not associated with any significant difference in anastomotic leak rates(OR = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.74 to 1.10, P = 0.32), surgical site infection(OR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.24, P = 0.96), intraabdominal collection(OR = 0.86, 95%CI: 0.63 to 1.17, P = 0.34), mortality(OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.57 to 1.27, P = 0.43), reoperation(OR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.75 to 1.12, P = 0.38) or hospital length of stay(overall mean difference 0.11 d, 95%CI:-0.51 to 0.73, P = 0.72), when compared with no mechanical bowel preparation, nor when evidence from just randomized controlledtrials was analysed. A sub-analysis of mechanical bowel preparation vs absolutely no preparation or a single rectal enema similarly revealed no differences in clinical outcome measures. CONCLUSION In the most comprehensive meta-analysis of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery to date, this study has suggested that the use of mechanical bowel preparation does not affect the incidence of postoperative complications when compared with no preparation. Hence, mechanical bowel preparation should not be administered routinely prior to elective colorectal surgery.
文摘Background:Cardiac rupture (CR) is a major lethal complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI).However,no valid risk score model was found to predict CR after AMI in previous researches.This study aimed to establish a simple model to assess risk of CR after AMI,which could be easily used in a clinical environment.Methods:This was a retrospective case-control study that included 53 consecutive patients with CR after AMI during a period from January 1,2010 to December 31,2017.The controls included 524 patients who were selected randomly from 7932 AMI patients without CR at a 1:10 ratio.Risk factors for CR were identified using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression.Risk score model was developed based on multiple regression coefficients.Performance of risk model was evaluated using receiveroperating characteristic (ROC) curves and internal validity was explored using bootstrap analysis.Results:Among all 7985 AMI patients,53 (0.67%) had CR (free wall rupture,n=39;ventricular septal rupture,n=14).Hospital mortalities were 92.5% and 4.01% in patients with and without CR (P<0.001).Independent variables associated with CR included:older age,female gender,higher heart rate at admission,body mass index (BMI)<25 kg/m^2,lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and no primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) treatment.In ROC analysis,our CR risk assess model demonstrated a very good discriminate power (area under the curve [AUC]= 0.895,95% confidence interval:0.845–0.944,optimism-corrected AUC= 0.821,P<0.001).Conclusion:This study developed a novel risk score model to help predict CR after AMI,which had high accuracy and was very simple to use.
