Systematic review and meta-analysis of linezolid versus daptomycin for treatment of vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bacteremia

Limited therapeutic options exist for the treatment of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) bacteraemia; the most commonly used are daptomycin and linezolid. We attempted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy of those two agents. Studies comparing daptomycin to linezolid treatment for VRE bacteraemia, published until August 2012 were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ISI Web of Science and SCOPUS databases. All comparative studies on patients older than 18 years old that provided mortality data were considered eligible for this systematic review and meta-analysis. Τhe primary outcome of the meta-analysis was 30-day all-cause mortality. Ten retrospective studies including 967 patients were identified. Patients treated with daptomycin had significantly higher 30-day all-cause mortality (OR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.08 to 2.40) and infection-related mortality (OR: 3.61, 95% CI: 1.42 to 9.20) rates compared to those treated with linezolid. When data from all ten studies were combined overall mortality was also significantly increased among patients treated with daptomycin (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.89). These findings were confirmed when odds ratios adjusted for potential confounders were pooled. Relapse rates among patients treated with daptomycin were also higher (OR: 2.51, 95% CI: 0.94 to 6.72), although this difference did not reach statistical significance. Adverse event rates were not significantly different between the two groups. Notwithstanding the absence of randomized prospective data, available evidence suggests that mortality rates may be higher with daptomycin compared with linezolid among patients treated for VRE bacteraemia

The Efficacy of Medical Expulsive Therapy (MET) in Improving Stone-free Rate and Stone Expulsion Time, After Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) for Upper Urinary Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

In this meta-analysis, we included randomized studies on medical expulsive therapy implemented following shock wave lithotripsy for renal and ureteral stones. Pooled results demonstrated the efficacy of alpha-blockers, nifedipine, Rowatinex, and Uriston in increasing stone clearance. In addition, the time to stone elimination, the intensity of pain, the formation of steinstrasse, and the need for auxiliary procedures were reduced mainly with alpha-blockers. Expulsion rate was not correlated with the type of alpha-blocker, the diameter, and the location of stone. Our results show that medical expulsive therapy for residual fragments after shock wave lithotripsy should be implemented in clinical practice. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc

Head and neck cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international, multicenter, observational cohort study

Background: The aims of this study were to provide data on the safety of head and neck cancer surgery currently being undertaken during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: This international, observational cohort study comprised 1137 consecutive patients with head and neck cancer undergoing primary surgery with curative intent in 26 countries. Factors associated with severe pulmonary complications in COVID-19–positive patients and infections in the surgical team were determined by univariate analysis. Results: Among the 1137 patients, the commonest sites were the oral cavity (38%) and the thyroid (21%). For oropharynx and larynx tumors, nonsurgical therapy was favored in most cases. There was evidence of surgical de-escalation of neck management and reconstruction. Overall 30-day mortality was 1.2%. Twenty-nine patients (3%) tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within 30 days of surgery; 13 of these patients (44.8%) developed severe respiratory complications, and 3.51 (10.3%) died. There were significant correlations with an advanced tumor stage and admission to critical care. Members of the surgical team tested positive within 30 days of surgery in 40 cases (3%). There were significant associations with operations in which the patients also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 30 days, with a high community incidence of SARS-CoV-2, with screened patients, with oral tumor sites, and with tracheostomy. Conclusions: Head and neck cancer surgery in the COVID-19 era appears safe even when surgery is prolonged and complex. The overlap in COVID-19 between patients and members of the surgical team raises the suspicion of failures in cross-infection measures or the use of personal protective equipment. Lay Summary: Head and neck surgery is safe for patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic even when it is lengthy and complex. This is significant because concerns over patient safety raised in many guidelines appear not to be reflected by outcomes, even for those who have other serious illnesses or require complex reconstructions. Patients subjected to suboptimal or nonstandard treatments should be carefully followed up to optimize their cancer outcomes. The overlap between patients and surgeons testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is notable and emphasizes the need for fastidious cross-infection controls and effective personal protective equipment

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic : an international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Delaying surgery for patients with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection

Not availabl