Search

ObjectivePostpartum depression (PPD) is a major mental health issue affecting 10%-15% of women globally. This meta-analysis synthesized updated evidence on sub-anesthetic ketamine/esketamine's efficacy in preventing PPD.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ketamine/esketamine to a placebo for PPD prevention were searched without language restriction. Primary outcomes were PPD risk at 1- and 4-6-week postpartum. Secondary outcomes included the difference in depression scores and risk of adverse events. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to validate the reliability.ResultsA meta-analysis of 22 RCTs (n = 3,463) showed that ketamine/esketamine significantly decreased PPD risk at 1- (risk ratio [RR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-0.57) and 4-6-week (RR, 0.47; 95%CI, 0.35-0.63) follow-ups. Consistently, participants receiving ketamine/esketamine had lower depression-related scores at 1- (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.94; 95%CI, -1.26 to -0.62) and 4-6-week (SMD, -0.89; 95%CI, -1.25 to -0.53) follow-ups. Despite potential publication bias, TSA confirmed the evidence's reliability. Subgroup analysis showed that ketamine/esketamine's preventive effect on 1-week PPD was consistent, regardless of administration timing, type of agents, or total dosage (ConclusionOur findings advocate for the postoperative administration of low-dose ketamine/esketamine to avert PPD, which needed additional research for confirmation.

ObjectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to compare videolaryngoscope (VL)-assisted transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) probe insertion with conventional methods in terms of efficacy and safety.MethodsSeveral major databases such as Medline and Embase were systematically searched to identified relevant studies from inception to June 2024. The primary outcome was complication rate, defined as the proportion of patients experiencing complications related to TEE probe insertion. Injuries at specific sites (e.g., posterior hypopharyngeal wall) from both groups were also analyzed. The secondary outcomes included the first-attempt success rate and total insertion time of VL and conventional methods.ResultsSeven trials involving 716 participants were identified. The use of VL was found to significantly reduce the complication rate (risk ratio[RR]:0.28, 95% confidence interval[CI]:0.17-0.46, P < 0.00001) and increased the first-attempt success rate [FASR] (RR:1.33, 95%CI: 1.10-1.60, P = 0.003) compared with conventional methods. These findings were confirmed by trial sequential analysis. No significant difference was found in the TEE insertion time among the two techniques (mean difference: -2.94s, 95%CI: -10.28-4.4, P = 0.43). VL significantly reduced the risk of trauma to the hypopharyngeal wall but showed no significant benefits in other areas (e.g., pyriform sinus). The certainty of evidence was moderate for the complication rate, very low for the FAS rate, and low for the TEE insertion time.ConclusionThe use of VL for TEE probe insertion is associated with a significantly lower complication rate and higher FAS rate than conventional methods. These findings suggest that VL enhances patient safety and improves the efficiency of TEE probe insertion.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of herbal medicine and acupuncture combination for pediatric epilepsy treatment.MethodsDatabases were searched from their interception until October 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials focusing on the therapeutic efficacy of herbal medicine-acupuncture combination (intervention group) for pediatric epilepsy. The primary outcome was the risk of treatment failure, whereas the secondary outcomes included the risk of post-treatment electroencephalogram (EEG) abnormalities and adverse events. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the type of herbal compound formulas. Meta-regression analysis was conducted to examine the influence of patient demographics and clinical history on the therapeutic efficacy of herbal medicine-acupuncture combination for pediatric epilepsy. To assess the cumulative evidence, trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed.ResultsThe analysis included 10 trials involving a total of 882 pediatric patients. Meta-analysis revealed that the intervention group had a lower risk of treatment failure than the control group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19-0.47, PConclusionThe meta-analysis suggested that combined use of herbal medicine and acupuncture is a promising and safe clinical approach for pediatric epilepsy treatment. Further large-scale studies are necessary to conclusively determine the efficacy and safety of herbal medicine and acupuncture in pediatric epilepsy treatment.

BackgroundBeta-blockers has been reported to improve all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in patients receiving dialysis, but type of beta-blockers (i.e., high vs. low dialyzable) on patient outcomes remains unknown. This study aimed at assessing the outcomes of patients receiving dialyzable beta-blockers (DBBs) compared to those receiving non-dialyzable beta-blockers (NDBBs).MethodsWe searched the databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov until 28 February 2022 to identify articles investigating the impact of DBBs/NDBBs among patients with renal failure receiving hemodialysis/peritoneal dialysis (HD/PD). The primary outcome was risks of all-cause mortality, while the secondary outcomes included risk of overall major adverse cardiac event (MACE), acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF). We rated the certainty of evidence (COE) by Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach.ResultsAnalysis of four observational studies including 75,193 individuals undergoing dialysis in hospital and community settings after a follow-up from 180 days to six years showed an overall all-cause mortality rate of 11.56% (DBBs and NDBBs: 12.32% and 10.7%, respectively) without significant differences in risks of mortality between the two groups [random effect, aHR 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.02), p = 0.11], overall MACE [OR 1.03 (95% CI, 0.78-1.38), p = 0.82], and AMI [OR 1.02 (95% CI, 0.94-1.1), p = 0.66]. Nevertheless, the pooled odds ratio of HF among patients receiving DBBs was lower than those receiving NDBB [random effect, OR 0.87 (95% CI, 0.82-0.93), pConclusionsThe use of dialyzable and non-dialyzable beta-blockers had no impact on the risk of all-cause mortality, overall MACE, and AMI among dialysis patients. However, DBBs were associated with significant reduction in risk of HF compared with NDBBs. The limited number of available studies warranted further large-scale clinical investigations to support our findings.

BACKGROUND:Previous researches have shown that anesthetic techniques may influence the patients' outcomes after cancer surgery. Here, we studied the relationship between the type of anesthetic techniques and patients' outcomes following elective robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who received elective, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy between January 2008 and December 2018. Patients were grouped according to the anesthesia they received, namely desflurane or propofol. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted, and survival curves were presented from the date of surgery to death. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare hazard ratios for death after propensity matching. Subgroup analyses were performed for tumor-node-metastasis stage and disease progression. The primary outcome was overall survival, and the secondary outcome was postoperative biochemical recurrence. RESULTS:A total of 365 patients (24 deaths, 7.0%) under desflurane anesthesia, and 266 patients (2 deaths, 1.0%) under propofol anesthesia were included. The all-cause mortality rate was significantly lower in the propofol anesthesia than in the desflurane anesthesia during follow-up (P = 0.001). Two hundred sixty-four patients remained in each group after propensity matching. The propofol anesthesia was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.48; P = 0.003) in the matched analysis. Subgroup analyses showed that patients under propofol anesthesia had less postoperative biochemical recurrence than those under desflurane (hazard ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.91; P = 0.038) in the matched analysis. CONCLUSIONS:Propofol anesthesia was associated with improved overall survival in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with desflurane anesthesia. In addition, patients under propofol anesthesia had less postoperative biochemical recurrence.

BACKGROUND:Previous researches have shown that anesthetic techniques can influence the patient outcomes of cancer surgery. Here, we studied the relationship between type of anesthetic and patient outcomes following elective, open pancreatic cancer surgery. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who received elective, open pancreatic cancer surgery between January 2005 and July 2018. Patients were grouped according to the anesthesia they received, namely desflurane or propofol. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted, and survival curves were presented from the date of surgery to death. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare hazard ratios for death after propensity matching. Subgroup analyses were performed for all-cause mortality, cancer-specific mortality, and disease progression. RESULTS:A total of 68 patients (56 deaths, 82.0%) under desflurane anesthesia, and 72 patients (43 deaths, 60.0%) under propofol anesthesia were included. Fifty-eight patients remained in each group after propensity matching. The propofol anesthesia was associated with improved survival (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.99; P = 0.047) in the matched analysis. Subgroup analyses showed significantly better cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.97; P = 0.037) in the propofol group. Additionally, patients under propofol had less postoperative recurrence, but not fewer postoperative metastases formation, than those under desflurane (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.90; P = 0.028) in the matched analysis. CONCLUSIONS:In a limited sample size, we observed that propofol anesthesia was associated with improved survival in open pancreatic cancer surgery compared with desflurane anesthesia. Further investigations are needed to inspect the influences of propofol anesthesia on patient outcomes of pancreatic cancer surgery.