Surgery for post-vitrectomy cataract

BACKGROUND: Cataract formation or acceleration can occur after intraocular surgery, especially following vitrectomy, a surgical technique for removing the vitreous which is used in the treatment of disorders that affect the posterior segment of the eye. The underlying problem that led to vitrectomy may limit the benefit from cataract surgery. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgery for post-vitrectomy cataract with respect to visual acuity, quality of life, and other outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE in-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily Update, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to May 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to May 2013, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to May 2013), PubMed (January 1946 to May 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrial.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 22 May 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing cataract surgery with no surgery in adult patients who developed cataract following vitrectomy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors screened the search results independently according to the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We found no randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing cataract surgery with no cataract surgery for patients who developed cataracts following vitrectomy surgery. AUTHORS\u27 CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials on which to base clinical recommendations for surgery for post-vitrectomy cataract. There is a clear need for randomized controlled trials to address this evidence gap. Such trials should stratify participants by their age, the retinal disorder leading to vitrectomy, and the status of the underlying disease process in the contralateral eye. Outcomes assessed in such trials may include gain of vision on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scale, quality of life, and adverse events such as posterior capsular rupture. Both short-term (six-month) and long-term (one-year or two-year) outcomes should be examined

Blood pressure control for diabetic retinopathy

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy is a common complication of diabetes and a leading cause of visual impairment and blindness. Research has established the importance of blood glucose control to prevent development and progression of the ocular complications of diabetes. Simultaneous blood pressure control has been advocated for the same purpose, but findings reported from individual studies have supported varying conclusions regarding the ocular benefit of interventions on blood pressure.OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this review was to summarize the existing evidence regarding the effect of interventions to control or reduce blood pressure levels among diabetics on incidence and progression of diabetic retinopathy, preservation of visual acuity, adverse events, quality of life, and costs. A secondary aim was to compare classes of anti-hypertensive medications with respect to the same outcomes.METHODS:Search methods: We searched a number of electronic databases including CENTRAL as well as ongoing trial registries. We last searched the electronic databases on 25 April 2014. We also reviewed reference lists of review articles and trial reports selected for inclusion. In addition, we contacted investigators of trials with potentially pertinent data. Selection criteria: We included in this review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which either type 1 or type 2 diabetic participants, with or without hypertension, were assigned randomly to intense versus less intense blood pressure control, to blood pressure control versus usual care or no intervention on blood pressure, or to different classes of anti-hypertensive agents versus placebo. Data collection and analysis: Pairs of review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts from electronic and manual searches and the full text of any document that appeared to be relevant. We assessed included trials independently for risk of bias with respect to outcomes reported in this review. We extracted data regarding trial characteristics, incidence and progression of retinopathy, visual acuity, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness at annual intervals after study entry whenever provided in published reports and other documents available from included trials.MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs, conducted primarily in North America and Europe, that had enrolled 4157 type 1 and 9512 type 2 diabetic participants, ranging from 16 to 2130 participants in individual trials. In 10 of the 15 RCTs, one group of participants was assigned to one or more anti-hypertensive agents and the control group received placebo. In three trials, intense blood pressure control was compared to less intense blood pressure control. In the remaining two trials, blood pressure control was compared with usual care. Five of the 15 trials enrolled type 1 diabetics, and 10 trials enrolled type 2 diabetics. Six trials were sponsored entirely by pharmaceutical companies, seven trials received partial support from pharmaceutical companies, and two studies received support from government-sponsored grants and institutional support. Study designs, populations, interventions, and lengths of follow-up (range one to nine years) varied among the included trials. Overall, the quality of the evidence for individual outcomes was low to moderate. For the primary outcomes, incidence and progression of retinopathy, the quality of evidence was downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision of estimates from individual studies and differing characteristics of participants. For primary outcomes among type 1 diabetics, one of the five trials reported incidence of retinopathy and one trial reported progression of retinopathy after 4 to 5 years of treatment and follow-up; four of the five trials reported a combined outcome of incidence and progression over the same time interval. Among type 2 diabetics, 5 of the 10 trials reported incidence of diabetic retinopathy and 3 trials reported progression of retinopathy; one of the 10 trials reported a combined outcome of incidence and progression during a 4- to 5-year follow-up period. One trial in which type 2 diabetics participated had reported no primary (or secondary) outcome targeted for this review. The evidence from these trials supported a benefit of more intensive blood pressure control intervention with respect to 4- to 5-year incidence of diabetic retinopathy (estimated risk ratio (RR) 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.92) and the combined outcome of incidence and progression (estimated RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.97). The available evidence provided less support for a benefit with respect to 4- to 5-year progression of diabetic retinopathy (point estimate was closer to 1 than point estimates for incidence and combined incidence and progression, and the CI overlapped 1; estimated RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05). The available evidence regarding progression to proliferative diabetic retinopathy or clinically significant macular edema or moderate to severe loss of best-corrected visual acuity did not support a benefit of intervention on blood pressure: estimated RRs and 95% CIs 0.95 (0.83 to 1.09) and 1.06 (0.85 to 1.33), respectively, after 4 to 5 years of follow-up. Findings within subgroups of trial participants (type 1 and type 2 diabetics; participants with normal blood pressure levels at baseline and those with elevated levels) were similar to overall findings. The adverse event reported most often (7 of 15 trials) was death, yielding an estimated RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.14). Hypotension was reported from three trials; the estimated RR was 2.08 (95% CI 1.68 to 2.57). Other adverse ocular events were reported from single trials.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension is a well-known risk factor for several chronic conditions in which lowering blood pressure has proven to be beneficial. The available evidence supports a beneficial effect of intervention to reduce blood pressure with respect to preventing diabetic retinopathy for up to 4 to 5 years. However, the lack of evidence to support such intervention to slow progression of diabetic retinopathy or to prevent other outcomes considered in this review, along with the relatively modest support for the beneficial effect on incidence, weakens the conclusion regarding an overall benefit of intervening on blood pressure solely to prevent diabetic retinopathy

Nonelective coronary artery bypass graft outcomes are adversely impacted by Coronavirus disease 2019 infection, but not altered processes of care: A National COVID Cohort Collaborative and National Surgery Quality Improvement Program analysisCentral MessagePerspective

Objective: The effects of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and altered processes of care on nonelective coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) outcomes remain unknown. We hypothesized that patients with COVID-19 infection would have longer hospital lengths of stay and greater mortality compared with COVID-negative patients, but that these outcomes would not differ between COVID-negative and pre-COVID controls. Methods: The National COVID Cohort Collaborative 2020-2022 was queried for adult patients undergoing CABG. Patients were divided into COVID-negative, COVID-active, and COVID-convalescent groups. Pre-COVID control patients were drawn from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Adjusted analysis of the 3 COVID groups was performed via generalized linear models. Results: A total of 17,293 patients underwent nonelective CABG, including 16,252 COVID-negative, 127 COVID-active, 367 COVID-convalescent, and 2254 pre-COVID patients. Compared to pre-COVID patients, COVID-negative patients had no difference in mortality, whereas COVID-active patients experienced increased mortality. Mortality and pneumonia were higher in COVID-active patients compared to COVID-negative and COVID-convalescent patients. Adjusted analysis demonstrated that COVID-active patients had higher in-hospital mortality, 30- and 90-day mortality, and pneumonia compared to COVID-negative patients. COVID-convalescent patients had a shorter length of stay but a higher rate of renal impairment. Conclusions: Traditional care processes were altered during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our data show that nonelective CABG in patients with active COVID-19 is associated with significantly increased rates of mortality and pneumonia. The equivalent mortality in COVID-negative and pre-COVID patients suggests that pandemic-associated changes in processes of care did not impact CABG outcomes. Additional research into optimal timing of CABG after COVID infection is warranted