A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Safety and effectiveness of endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure for esophageal defects: Systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Esophageal defects (leaks, fistulas, and perforations) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC) is a novel intervention that entails the use of sponges in the defect along with negative pressure to achieve granulation tissue formation and healing and has been gaining popularity. We performed a systematic review and pooled analysis of available literature to assess the safety and effectiveness of EVAC for esophageal defects. We queried PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science through September 25, 2020 to include all pertinent articles highlighting the safety and effectiveness profile of EVAC for esophageal defects. Pooled rates, 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and heterogeneity ( ) were assessed for each outcome. A total of 18 studies with 423 patients were included (mean age 64.3 years and males 74.4 %). The technical success for EVAC was 97.1 % (CI: 95.4 %-98.7 %,  = 0 %). The clinical success was 89.4 % (CI: 85.6 %-93.1 %,  = 36.8 %). The overall all-cause mortality and adverse events (AEs) noted were 7.1 % (CI: 4.7 %-9.5 %,  = 0 %) and 13.6 % (CI: 8.0 %-19.1 %,  = 68.9 %), respectively. The pooled need for adjuvant therapy was 15.7 % (CI: 9.8 %-21.6 %,  = 71.1 %). This systematic review and meta-analysis showed high rates of technical success, clinical success, and low all-cause mortality and AEs using EVAC. Although the technique is a promising alternative, the lack of comparative studies poses a challenge in making definite conclusions regarding use of EVAC compared to other endoscopic modalities, such as clips and stents.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8367451PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1508-5947DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

esophageal defects
16
safety effectiveness
12
systematic review
12
endoluminal vacuum-assisted
8
vacuum-assisted closure
8
review meta-analysis
8
evac esophageal
8
technical success
8
clinical success
8
all-cause mortality
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!