降低坏死性胰腺炎死亡率的最佳时机和干预:系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Yang Yang, Yu Zhang, Shuaiyong Wen, Yunfeng Cui
{"title":"降低坏死性胰腺炎死亡率的最佳时机和干预:系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Yang Yang,&nbsp;Yu Zhang,&nbsp;Shuaiyong Wen,&nbsp;Yunfeng Cui","doi":"10.1186/s13017-023-00479-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A series of randomized controlled trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of different timings of interventions and methods of intervention. However, the optimal treatment strategy is not yet clear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library until November 30, 2022. A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Trials comparing different treatment strategies for necrotizing pancreatitis were included. This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022364409) to ensure transparency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed a total of 10 studies involving 570 patients and 8 treatment strategies. Although no statistically significant differences were identified comparing odds ratios, trends were confirmed by the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) scores. The interventions with a low rate of mortality were delayed surgery (DS), delayed surgical step-up approach (DSU) and delayed endoscopic step-up approach (DEU), while the interventions with a low rate of major complications were DSU, DEU and DS. According to the clustered ranking plot, DSU performed the best overall in reducing mortality and major complications, while DD performed the worst. Analysis of the secondary endpoints confirmed the superiority of DEU and DSU in terms of individual components of major complications (organ failure, pancreatic fistula, bleeding, and visceral organ or enterocutaneous fistula), exocrine insufficiency, endocrine insufficiency and length of stay. Overall, DSU was superior to other interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DSU was the optimal treatment strategy for necrotizing pancreatitis. Drainage alone should be avoided in clinical practice. Any interventions should be postponed for at least 4 weeks if possible. The step-up approach was preferred.</p>","PeriodicalId":48867,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Emergency Surgery","volume":"18 1","pages":"9"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9883927/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The optimal timing and intervention to reduce mortality for necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yang Yang,&nbsp;Yu Zhang,&nbsp;Shuaiyong Wen,&nbsp;Yunfeng Cui\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13017-023-00479-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A series of randomized controlled trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of different timings of interventions and methods of intervention. However, the optimal treatment strategy is not yet clear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library until November 30, 2022. A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Trials comparing different treatment strategies for necrotizing pancreatitis were included. This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022364409) to ensure transparency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed a total of 10 studies involving 570 patients and 8 treatment strategies. Although no statistically significant differences were identified comparing odds ratios, trends were confirmed by the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) scores. The interventions with a low rate of mortality were delayed surgery (DS), delayed surgical step-up approach (DSU) and delayed endoscopic step-up approach (DEU), while the interventions with a low rate of major complications were DSU, DEU and DS. According to the clustered ranking plot, DSU performed the best overall in reducing mortality and major complications, while DD performed the worst. Analysis of the secondary endpoints confirmed the superiority of DEU and DSU in terms of individual components of major complications (organ failure, pancreatic fistula, bleeding, and visceral organ or enterocutaneous fistula), exocrine insufficiency, endocrine insufficiency and length of stay. Overall, DSU was superior to other interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DSU was the optimal treatment strategy for necrotizing pancreatitis. Drainage alone should be avoided in clinical practice. Any interventions should be postponed for at least 4 weeks if possible. The step-up approach was preferred.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48867,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Emergency Surgery\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9883927/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Emergency Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-023-00479-7\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Emergency Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-023-00479-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

背景:一系列随机对照试验研究了不同干预时间和干预方法的有效性和安全性。然而,最佳的治疗策略尚不清楚。方法:我们检索PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov和Cochrane Library,直到2022年11月30日。按照系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)指南的首选报告项目进行系统评价和贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。包括比较坏死性胰腺炎不同治疗策略的试验。为了确保透明度,本研究已在前瞻性系统评价注册(CRD42022364409)中注册。结果:我们共分析了10项研究,涉及570名患者和8种治疗策略。虽然比较优势比没有发现统计学上的显著差异,但在累积排名(SUCRA)分数下的表面证实了趋势。死亡率较低的干预措施为延迟手术(DS)、延迟手术升级入路(DSU)和延迟内镜升级入路(DEU),而主要并发症发生率较低的干预措施为DSU、DEU和DS。根据聚类排序图,DSU在降低死亡率和主要并发症方面表现最好,而DD表现最差。次要终点的分析证实了DEU和DSU在主要并发症(器官衰竭、胰瘘、出血、内脏器官或肠皮瘘)、外分泌功能不全、内分泌功能不全和住院时间方面的优势。总体而言,DSU优于其他干预措施。结论:DSU是治疗坏死性胰腺炎的最佳方案。临床应避免单独引流。如果可能,任何干预措施应推迟至少4周。更倾向于采取逐步提高的办法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The optimal timing and intervention to reduce mortality for necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

The optimal timing and intervention to reduce mortality for necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

The optimal timing and intervention to reduce mortality for necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

The optimal timing and intervention to reduce mortality for necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: A series of randomized controlled trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of different timings of interventions and methods of intervention. However, the optimal treatment strategy is not yet clear.

Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library until November 30, 2022. A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Trials comparing different treatment strategies for necrotizing pancreatitis were included. This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022364409) to ensure transparency.

Results: We analyzed a total of 10 studies involving 570 patients and 8 treatment strategies. Although no statistically significant differences were identified comparing odds ratios, trends were confirmed by the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) scores. The interventions with a low rate of mortality were delayed surgery (DS), delayed surgical step-up approach (DSU) and delayed endoscopic step-up approach (DEU), while the interventions with a low rate of major complications were DSU, DEU and DS. According to the clustered ranking plot, DSU performed the best overall in reducing mortality and major complications, while DD performed the worst. Analysis of the secondary endpoints confirmed the superiority of DEU and DSU in terms of individual components of major complications (organ failure, pancreatic fistula, bleeding, and visceral organ or enterocutaneous fistula), exocrine insufficiency, endocrine insufficiency and length of stay. Overall, DSU was superior to other interventions.

Conclusion: DSU was the optimal treatment strategy for necrotizing pancreatitis. Drainage alone should be avoided in clinical practice. Any interventions should be postponed for at least 4 weeks if possible. The step-up approach was preferred.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
World Journal of Emergency Surgery
World Journal of Emergency Surgery EMERGENCY MEDICINE-SURGERY
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
60
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The World Journal of Emergency Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal covering all facets of clinical and basic research in traumatic and non-traumatic emergency surgery and related fields. Topics include emergency surgery, acute care surgery, trauma surgery, intensive care, trauma management, and resuscitation, among others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信