Cochrane Db Syst Rev
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jun 2021
Review Meta AnalysisSingle versus combination intravenous anti-pseudomonal antibiotic therapy for people with cystic fibrosis.
The choice of antibiotic, and the use of single or combined therapy are controversial areas in the treatment of respiratory infection due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis (CF). Advantages of combination therapy include wider range of modes of action, possible synergy and reduction of resistant organisms; advantages of monotherapy include lower cost, ease of administration and reduction of drug-related toxicity. Current evidence does not provide a clear answer and the use of intravenous antibiotic therapy in CF requires further evaluation. This is an update of a previously published review. ⋯ The results of this review are inconclusive. The review raises important methodological issues. There is a need for an RCT which needs to be well-designed in terms of adequate randomisation allocation, blinding, power and long-term follow-up. Results need to be standardised to a consistent method of reporting, in order to validate the pooling of results from multiple trials.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jun 2021
Review Meta AnalysisLow-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour.
Misoprostol given orally is a commonly used labour induction method. Our Cochrane Review is restricted to studies with low-dose misoprostol (initially ≤ 50 µg), as higher doses pose unacceptably high risks of uterine hyperstimulation. ⋯ Low-dose oral misoprostol is probably associated with fewer caesarean sections (and therefore more vaginal births) than vaginal dinoprostone, and lower rates of hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes. However, time to birth may be increased, as seen by a reduced number of vaginal births within 24 hours. Compared to transcervical Foley catheter, low-dose oral misoprostol is associated with fewer caesarean sections, but equivalent rates of hyperstimulation. Low-dose misoprostol given orally rather than vaginally is probably associated with similar rates of vaginal birth, although rates may be lower within the first 24 hours. However, there is likely less hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes, and fewer caesarean sections performed due to foetal distress. The best available evidence suggests that low-dose oral misoprostol probably has many benefits over other methods for labour induction. This review supports the use of low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour, and demonstrates the lower risks of hyperstimulation than when misoprostol is given vaginally. More trials are needed to establish the optimum oral misoprostol regimen, but these findings suggest that a starting dose of 25 µg may offer a good balance of efficacy and safety.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jun 2021
Review Meta AnalysisEslicarbazepine acetate add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
This is an update of a review first published in 2011, and last updated in 2017. Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis, but up to 30% of people continue to have seizures despite several regimens of antiepileptic drugs. In this review, we summarized the current evidence regarding eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. ⋯ ESL reduces seizure frequency when used as an add-on treatment for adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The trials included in this review were of short-term duration. In addition, this update found that ESL may reduce seizure frequency in children from 6 to 18 years of age; however the results are inconclusive.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jun 2021
Review Meta AnalysisRetroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.
There has been extensive debate in the surgical literature regarding the optimum surgical access approach to the infrarenal abdominal aorta during an operation to repair an abdominal aortic aneurysm. The published trials comparing retroperitoneal (RP) and transperitoneal (TP) aortic surgery show conflicting results. This is an update of the review first published in 2016. ⋯ Very low-certainty evidence from five small RCTs showed no clear evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach for elective open AAA repair in terms of mortality, or for rates of complications including hematoma (very low-certainty evidence), abdominal wall hernia (very low-certainty evidence), or chronic wound pain (very low-certainty evidence). However, a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay and shorter hospital stay was probably indicated following the RP approach compared to the TP approach (both low-certainty evidence). A possible reduction in blood loss was also shown after the RP approach (very low-certainty evidence). There is no clear difference between the RP approach and TP approach in aortic cross-clamp time or operating time. Further well-designed, large-scale RCTs assessing the RP approach versus TP approach for elective open AAA repair are required.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jun 2021
Review Meta AnalysisTracheal suction at birth in non-vigorous neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid.
Neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) are at risk of developing meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). Neonates who are non-vigorous due to intrapartum asphyxia are at higher risk of developing MAS. Clearance of meconium from the airways below the vocal cords by tracheal suction before initiating other steps of resuscitation may reduce the risk of development of MAS. However, conducting tracheal suction may not only be ineffective, it may also delay effective resuscitation, thus prolonging and worsening the hypoxic-ischaemic insult. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of tracheal suctioning at birth in preventing meconium aspiration syndrome and other complications among non-vigorous neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid. ⋯ We are uncertain about the effect of tracheal suction on the incidence of MAS and its complications among non-vigorous neonates born through MSAF. One study awaits classification and could not be included in the review. More research from well-conducted large trials is needed to conclusively answer the review question.