BackgroundNowadays, the total number of couples visiting an infertility clinic is on the rise. Tobacco smoking is considered one of the major factors leading to male infertility. In this study, we aimed to systematically investigate the impact of tobacco smoking on semen quality in infertile male participants.MethodsOnline databases (Cochrane Central database of Randomized Controlled Trials and the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE respectively) were searched for relevant English publications that satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria of this analysis. The clinical endpoints which were assessed included semen parameters (oligozoospermia, asthenozoospermia, teratozoospermia, and azoospermia), morphological defects of spermatozoa and the hormones involved in reproduction. RevMan 5.3 software was used to analyze the data whereby mean difference (MD) and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were generated to represent the results.ResultsSixteen studies with a total number of 10,823 infertile male participants (5257 smokers and 5566 non-smokers) were included. Results of this analysis showed oligozoospermia to be significantly higher in smokers (RR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.05–1.59; P = 0.02). Morphological defect of spermatozoa (MD: 2.44, 95% CI: 0.99–3.89; P = 0.001) was also significantly higher in smokers whereby significant head (MD: 1.76, 95% CI: 0.32–3.20; P = 0.02), neck (MD: 1.97, 95% CI: 0.75–3.18; P = 0.002) and tail (MD: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.35–2.22; P = 0.007) defects were observed. However, smoking did not affected the pH (MD: 0.04, 95% CI: [− 0.03–0.11]; P = 0.30) and motility (RR: 1.42, 95% CI: 0.97–2.09; P = 0.07) of spermatozoa. Additionally, tobacco smoking did not cause any dis-balance in hormones which were involved in reproduction.ConclusionsIn conclusion, with reference to the clinical endpoints which were studied in this analysis, tobacco smoking was associated with a lower sperm count and an increase in the number of morphological defects of spermatozoa. However, the pH and motility of spermatozoa as well as the production of hormones which were involved in reproduction were not affected in this population of infertile males.

BackgroundControversies were previously observed with the concomitant use of clopidogrel and Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs), especially omeprazole, following coronary angioplasty. Even though several studies showed no interaction between clopidogrel and PPIs, questions have been raised about the decrease in antiplatelet effects of clopidogrel with PPIs. A previously published meta-analysis showed concomitant use of clopidogrel and PPIs to be associated with higher adverse cardiovascular outcomes. However, data which were used were extracted from studies published before the year 2012. Whether these controversies still exist in this new era is not clear. Therefore, we aim to show if the concomitant use of clopidogrel and PPIs is still associated with higher adverse outcomes following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) using data obtained from recently published studies (2012 to 2016).MethodsElectronic databases were searched for recent publications (2012–2016) comparing (clopidogrel plus PPIs) versus clopidogrel alone following PCI. Adverse cardiovascular outcomes were considered as the clinical endpoints. Odds Ratios (OR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used as the statistical parameters and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsEleven studies with a total number of 84,729 patients (29,235 patients from the PPIs group versus 55,494 patients from the non-PPIs group) were included. Results of this analysis showed that short term mortality and Target Vessel Revascularization (TVR) significantly favored the non-PPIs group with OR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.43–1.68, P < 0.00001 and OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.06–1.49, P = 0.009 respectively. Long-term Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACEs), Myocardial Infarction (MI), Stent Thrombosis (ST) and TVR significantly favored patients who did not use PPIs with OR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.23–1.53, P < 0.00001, OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.26–1.57, P < 0.00001 and OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.13–1.70, P = 0.002 and OR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.01–1.61, P = 0.04 respectively. However, the result for long term mortality was not statistically significant.ConclusionThe combined use of clopidogrel with PPIs is still associated with significantly higher adverse cardiovascular events such as MACEs, ST and MI following PCI supporting results of the previously published meta-analysis. However, long-term mortality is not statistically significant warranting further analysis with randomized patients.

This study aimed to compare the mid-term adverse cardiovascular outcomes associated with Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (CABG) and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) with Everolimus Eluting Stents (EES). Electronic databases were searched for studies comparing the mid-term (>1 year) adverse cardiovascular outcomes between CABG and PCI with EES. Odd Ratios (OR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were calculated and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software. A total number of 5207 patients were involved in this analysis. No significant difference was observed in mortality between CABG and EES with OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.73–1.10; P = 0.30. Moreover, CABG was associated with a high stroke rate, with OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.45–1.17; P = 0.19, without any statistical significant. CABG was associated with significantly lower Major Adverse Cardiac Events and Myocardial Infarction with OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.05–2.04; P = 0.03 and OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.01–2.12; P = 0.05 respectively whereas PCI was associated with a significantly higher repeated revascularization with OR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.76–2.77; P = 0.00001. In conclusion, significant differences were noted in several subgroups analyzing the mid-term cardiovascular outcomes between CABG and EES.

Controversies still exist with the use of Everolimus-Eluting Stents (EES) compared to other Drug-Eluting Stents (DES) in patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Therefore, in order to solve this issue, we aim to compare the 1-year adverse clinical outcomes between EES and non-EE DES with a larger number of patients with T2DM.Medline, EMBASE, PubMed databases, as well as the Cochrane library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OS) comparing EES and non-EE DES in patients with T2DM. One-year adverse outcomes were considered as the clinical endpoints in this study. Odd ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to express the pooled effect on discontinuous variables and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3.Ten studies consisting of a total of 11,981 patients with T2DM (6800 patients in the EES group and 5181 in the non-EE DES group) were included in this meta-analysis. EES were associated with a significantly lower major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) with OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70–0.98, P = 0.03. Revascularization including target vessel revascularization (TVR) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were also significantly lower in the EES group with OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.40–0.94, P = 0.03 and OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57–0.95, P = 0.02, respectively. Also, a significantly lower rate of stent thrombosis with OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.46–0.86, P = 0.003 was observed in the EES group. However, a similar mortality rate was reported between the EES and non-EE DES groups.During this 1-year follow-up period, EES were associated with significantly better clinical outcomes compared to non-EE DES in patients suffering from T2DM. However, further research comparing EES with non-EE DES in insulin-treated and noninsulin-treated patients with T2DM are recommended.

BackgroundWarfarin is commonly used as a secondary prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, limitations have been observed even with the use of this medication. Recently, several newer direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been approved for use by the food and drug administrations. Unfortunately, these newer drugs have seldom been compared directly with each other. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the bleeding events associated with rivaroxaban and dabigatran in patients treated for non-valvular AF.MethodsEMBASE, Medline (National Library of Medicine) and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were searched for studies comparing rivaroxaban with dabigatran using the terms ‘rivaroxaban, dabigatran and atrial fibrillation’. Primary endpoints were: any bleeding outcomes, intracranial bleeding and gastro-intestinal (GI) bleeding. Secondary outcomes included stroke/systemic embolism (SE)/transient ischemic attack (TIA), venous thromboembolism and mortality. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The pooled analyses were carried out with RevMan 5.3 software. All the authors had full access to the data and approved the manuscript as written.ResultsA total number of 4895 patients were included. This analysis showed that rivaroxaban was not associated with a significantly higher bleeding event when compared to dabigatran (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.95–1.72; P = 0.11). GI bleeding was similarly manifested between these two DOACs (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.43–2.25; P = 0.97). Even if intracranial bleeding was higher with the use of rivaroxaban, (OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 0.51–9.25; P = 0.29), the result was not statistically significant. Moreover, stroke/SE/TIA and venous thromboembolism were also not significantly different (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.53–1.23; P = 0.32) and (OR: 2.06, 95% CI: 0.73–5.82; P = 0.17) respectively. However, even if mortality favored dabigatran (OR: 1.42, 95% CI: 0.99–2.06; P = 0.06), this result only approached statistical significance.ConclusionHead to head comparison showed that rivaroxaban was not associated with significantly higher bleeding events compared to dabigatran. Intracranial bleeding, GI bleeding, stroke/SE/TIA, venous thromboembolism and mortality were also not significantly different between these two DOACs. However, due to the limited number of patients analyzed, and which were mainly obtained from observational studies, this hypothesis might only be confirmed in future randomized trials. Furthermore, the CHADS2-VASC and HAS-BLED score which might play an important role in predicting bleeding risks should also not be ignored.