Stauffer syndrome: a comprehensive review of the disease and diagnostic plan proposal

Stauffer syndrome, first described by Herbert Stauffer in 1961, is a hepatic paraneoplastic syndrome characterized by multiple extrahepatic malignancies, most commonly renal cell carcinoma. The syndrome manifests a wide range of symptoms caused by various pathophysiological mechanisms and presents with abnormalities in liver function tests in either cholestatic or non-cholestatic patterns. Stauffer’s syndrome is classified into two types: classical and jaundice variants. Some crossovers continue to occur, complicating the diagnosis of such a rare and frequently missed syndrome, which can be the only diagnostic clue for the retrograde detection of a hidden malignancy. To bridge the gap regarding such an important, but still unrecognized, syndrome, not only did we thoroughly cover what had previously been proposed in the literature, but we also proposed a diagnostic protocol based on multicenter experience with such a rare disease

Copeptin plus troponin in the rapid rule out of acute myocardial infarction and prognostic value on post-myocardial infarction outcomes: a systematic review and diagnostic accuracy study

BACKGROUND: A critical and unmet therapeutic need is the prompt and reliable exclusion of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), which would allow for prompt discharge from the emergency department. High-sensitivity troponin (HS-TnT) combined with copeptin has been proposed to expedite the diagnostic exclusion of AMI in addition to its predictive usefulness in the intermediate and long-term outcomes of AMI. The European Society of Cardiology recommends the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) as a prognostic score to manage acute coronary syndrome (ACS) without ST segment elevation. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of HS-TnT combined with copeptin in ruling out AMI compared to HS-TnT alone. By combining a low GRACE score (108) with negative HS-TnT (14 ng/L) and copeptin (14 pmol/L), non-ST and ACS were reliably ruled out, including non-ST segment elevation MI and unstable angina. RESULTS: The present research included nine studies with a total of 13,232 participants. The negative predictive value (NPV) for copeptin and HS-TnT was found to be slightly higher in combination (62-99%) than for HS-TnT alone (60-99%). The sensitivity of copeptin ranged from 0% to 100%, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.79 (CI 95% 0.76, 0.82). The specificity of copeptin ranged from 13% to 100%, with a pooled specificity of 0.89 (CI 95% 0.85, 0.91), a pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR) of 9.86 (CI 95% 4.42, 22.02), and a pooled negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of 0.08. (95% CI 0.01, 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: The use of combined negative copeptin and highly sensitive troponin testing in low-to-intermediate risk patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome resulted in a quick discharge with a safe and rapid rule out of non-ST + ACS

The Use of Midodrine as an Adjunctive Therapy to Liberate Patients from Intravenous Vasopressors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies

Background: Studies evaluating the role of midodrine as an adjunctive therapy to liberate patients with shock from intravenous (IV) vasopressors have yielded mixed results. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of midodrine as an adjunctive therapy to liberate patients with shock from IV vasopressors. Methods: Electronic searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases through April 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the use of midodrine versus control in patients with shock and a low dose of IV vasopressors. The primary outcome was total IV vasopressor time, while the secondary outcomes included time-to-IV vasopressor discontinuation, IV vasopressor restart, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and incidence of bradycardia. Results: The final analysis included four RCTs with a total of 314 patients: 158 in the midodrine group and 156 in the control group, with a weighted mean age of 64 years (54.2% men). There was no significant difference in the total IV vasopressor time between the midodrine and control groups (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 1.38 to 0.32, p = 0.22; I2 = 92%). Also, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the time-to-IV vasopressor discontinuation (SMD - 0.05; 95% CI - 0.57 to 0.47, p = 0.09), IV vasopressor restart (19.3 vs. 28.3%; risk ratio [RR] 0.74; 95% 0.25-2.20, p = 0.59), ICU LOS (SMD - 0.49; 95% CI - 1.30 to 0.33, p = 0.24), and hospital LOS (SMD 0.01; 95% CI - 0.27 to 0.29, p = 0.92). However, compared with the control group, the midodrine group had a higher risk of bradycardia (15.3 vs. 2.1% RR 5.56; 95% CI 1.54-20.05, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Among patients with vasopressor-dependent shock, midodrine was not associated with early liberation of vasopressor support or shorter ICU or hospital length of stay. Adding midodrine increased the risk of bradycardia. Further large RCTs are needed to better evaluate the efficacy and safety of midodrine in liberating patients from IV vasopressors

PPI efficacy in the reduction of variceal bleeding incidence and mortality, a meta-analysis

Objective: To review the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in gastroesophageal varices (GEVs). Methods: We searched PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies that measured the effect of PPI for prophylaxis and treatment of post-band ligation ulcers up to July 20, 2021. We included studies that measured the effect of PPI as treatment or prophylaxis for post-band ligation ulcers; articles that were published in peer-reviewed international journals and had enough data for qualitative and quantitative analysis were included with no language restriction. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the inconsistency (I2) and chi-squared (χ2) test. I2 \u3e 50% was considered substantial heterogeneity in the studies, and a P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The data was continuous, and we used the standardized mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval to assess the estimated effect measure. Results: A total of 7 studies with 2030 patients were included in our study of which 1480 participants were males (72%) and 550 females (18%). Mean age was 59.7 years old. Rebleeding post-band ligation was compared between PPI and placebo with significant favor for PPI (p = 0.00001). The pooled risk ratio was 0.53 (95% CI of 0.41, 0.68); furthermore, bleeding-related death at a 1-month period was compared between PPI and placebo with significant favor for PPI (p = 0.00001). The pooled risk ratio was significant at 0.33 (95% CI of 0.20, 0.53). The length of hospital stay postoperative was compared between PPI and placebo with cumulative mean difference of 0.13 (95% CI of −1.13, 1.39), yet without significance. Conclusions: The study suggests a twofold reduction in the risk of bleeding and a threefold reduction in the risk of bleeding-related death with the use of PPI following EVL

Intravenous iron therapy among patients with heart failure and iron deficiency: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of intravenous (IV) iron administration in patients with heart failure (HF) and iron deficiency (ID) have yielded inconsistent results. METHODS: Electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and OVID databases was performed until November 2022 for RCTs that evaluated the role of IV iron administration in patients with HF and ID. The main study outcomes were the composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality, and individual outcome of HF hospitalization. Summary estimates were evaluated using random effects model. RESULTS: The final analysis included 12 RCTs with 3,492 patients (1,831 patients in the IV iron group and 1,661 patients in the control group). The mean follow-up was 8.3 months. IV iron was associated with a lower incidence in the composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality (31.9% vs. 45.3%; relative risk [RR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.88) and individual outcome of HF hospitalization (28.4% vs. 42.2; RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.57-0.85). There was no significant difference between both groups in cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.75-1.04) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.83-1.09). IV iron was associated with lower New York Heart Association class and higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Meta-regression analyses showed no effect modification for the main outcomes based on age, hemoglobin level, ferritin level or LVEF. CONCLUSION: Among patients with HF and ID, IV iron administration was associated with reduction in the composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality and driven by a reduction in HF hospitalization