A best-evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'Is a fully heparin bonded cardiopulmonary bypass circuit superior to a standard cardiopulmonary bypass circuit?' Altogether more than 792 papers were found using the reported search, of which 13 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated (Table 1). The studies analysed show that perfusion with heparin-coated and heparin-polymer-coated bypass does not increase the risk of adverse effects but reduces blood loss, re-operation rates, ventilation time, length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay and is also associated with improved biocompatibility, as evidenced by platelet preservation, reduced leucocyte and complement activation, and proinflammatory cytokine production. The various coated circuits have comparable biocompatibility as evaluated by a range of inflammatory markers and clinical outcomes. Three studies documented a significant decrease in post-operative blood loss (P = 0.001-0.54) and a meta-analysis found that perfusion with a heparin-bonded circuit resulted in a reduction in blood transfusion requirements (20%), ventilation time (P < 0.01), length of time in the ICU (P < 0.01) and also hospital stay (P = 0.02). Two studies found reduced levels of polymorphonuclear elastase (P < 0.018-0.001) and two trials concluded that the use of heparin-coated circuits in combination with low-dose systemic heparin (activated clotting time >250) resulted in the greatest clinical benefit and improvement in inflammation. One study documented significant platelet preservation with the use of third-generation heparin-polymer-bonded circuits (P ≤ 0.05). We conclude that despite heparin-bonded and newer third-generation heparin-polymer-bonded cardiopulmonary bypass circuits having a greater cost per person, their improved clinical outcomes and biocompatibility in patients undergoing cardiac surgery make them a preferable option to standard non-heparin-bonded circuits.
A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'is radiofrequency ablation more effective than stereotactic ablative radiotherapy in patients with early stage medically inoperable non-small cell lung cancer?' Altogether, over 219 papers were found, of which 16 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) offer a clear survival benefit compared with conventional radiotherapy in the treatment of early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in medically inoperable patients. Overall survival at 1 year (68.2-95% vs. 81-85.7%) and 3 years (36-87.5% vs. 42.7-56%) was similar between patients treated with RFA and SABR. However, 5-year survival was higher in SABR (47%) than RFA (20.1-27%). Local progression rates were lower in patients treated with SABR (3.5-14.5% vs. 23.7-43%). Both treatments were associated with complications. Pneumothorax (19.1-63%) was the most common complication following RFA. Fatigue (31-32.6%), pneumonitis (2.1-12.5%) and chest wall pain (3.1-12%) were common following SABR. Although tumours ≤ 5 cm in size can be effectively treated with RFA, results are better for tumours ≤ 3 cm. One study documented increased recurrence rates with larger tumours and advanced disease stage following RFA. Another study found increasing age, tumour size, previous systemic chemotherapy, previous external beam radiotherapy and emphysema increased the risk of toxicity following SABR and suggested that risk factors should be used to stratify patients. RFA can be performed in one session, whereas SABR is more effective if larger doses of radiation are given over two to three fractions. RFA is not recommended for centrally based tumours. Patients with small apical tumours, posteriorly positioned tumours, peripheral tumours and tumours close to the scapula where it may be difficult to position an active electrode are more optimally treated with SABR. Treatment for early stage inoperable NSCLC should be tailored to individual patients, and under certain circumstances, a combined approach may be beneficial.
A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'Is stereotactic ablative radiotherapy equivalent to sublobar resection in high-risk surgical patients with Stage I non-small cell lung cancer?'. Altogether over 318 papers were found, of which 18 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) and sublobar resection (SLR) offer clear survival benefit in the treatment of early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in high-risk patients unsuitable for lobectomy and SABR has shown good results in medically operable patients. No randomized data are available comparing SLR and SABR, and therefore, data from prospective studies were compared. Overall survival at 1 year was similar between patients treated with SABR and SLR (81-85.7 vs 92%); however, overall 3-year survival was higher following SLR (87.1 vs 45.1-57.1%). There was no statistically significant difference in local recurrence in patients treated with SABR compared with SLR (3.5-14.5 vs 4.8-20%). Both treatment modalities are associated with complications. Fatigue (31-32.6%), pneumonitis (2.1-12.5%) and chest wall pain (3.1-12%) were common following SABR; however, serious grade 3 and 4 toxicity were rare. Morbidity following SLR was reported between 7.3 and 33.7%. Thirty-day mortality following SABR was 0%, while predicted 30-day mortality following a lung resection, using the thoracoscore predictive model ranges between 1 and 2.6%. Treatment for early-stage NSCLC should be tailored to individual patients. SABR is an acceptable alternative to SLR in high-risk patients but comparative data are required.
A best-evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question of whether the incidence of major pulmonary morbidity after lung resection was associated with the timing of smoking cessation was addressed. Overall 49 papers were found using the reported search outlined below, of which 7 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. In most studies, smoking abstinence was shown to reduce the incidence of post-operative pulmonary complications (PPCs) such as pneumonia, respiratory distress, atelectasis, air leakage, bronchopleural fistula and re-intubation. The timing of cessation is not clearly identified, although there is some evidence showing reduction in risk of PPCs with increasing interval since cessation. Two studies suggested that smoking abstinence for at least 4 weeks prior to surgery was necessary in order to reduce the incidence of major pulmonary events. Furthermore, it was also shown that a pre-operative smoke-free period of >10 weeks produced complication rates similar to those of patients who had never smoked. We conclude that smoking cessation reduces the risk of PPCs. All patients should be advised and counseled to stop smoking before any form of lung resection.
A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: Is it worth packing the head with ice in patients undergoing deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA)? Altogether more than 34 papers were found using the reported search, of which 7 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question, 5 of which were animal studies, 1 was a theoretical laboratory study and 1 study looked at the ability to cool using circulating water 'jackets' in humans. There were no available human studies looking at the neurological outcome with or without topical head cooling with ice without further adjunct methods of cerebral protection. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Four papers studied animals undergoing DHCA for 45 min-2 h depending on the study design, with or without packing the head with ice. The studies all demonstrated improved cerebral cooling when the head was packed with ice during DHCA. They also illustrated an improved neurological outcome, with better behavioural scores (P < 0.05), and in some, survival, when compared with animals whose heads were not packed in ice. One study examined selective head cooling with the use of packing the head with ice during rewarming after DHCA. However, they demonstrated worse neurological outcomes in these animals, possibly due to the loss of cerebral vasoregulation and cerebral oedema. One study involved a laboratory experiment showing improved cooling using circulating cool water in cryotherapy braces than by using packed ice. They extrapolated that newer devices to cool the head may improve cerebral cooling during DHCA. The final study discussed here demonstrated the use of circulating water to the head in humans undergoing pulmonary endarterectomy. They found that tympanic membrane temperatures could be maintained significantly lower than bladder or rectal temperatures when using circulating water to cool the head. We conclude that topical head cooling with ice is of use during DHCA but not during rewarming following DHCA and that it may be possible to advance topical head cooling techniques using circulating water rather than packed ice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.