BACKGROUNDBilateral vs unilateral biliary stenting is used for palliation in malignant biliary obstruction. No clear data is available to compare the efficacy and safety of bilateral biliary stenting over unilateral stenting.AIMTo assess the efficacy and safety of bilateral vs unilateral biliary drainage in inoperable malignant hilar obstruction.METHODSPubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases, as well as secondary sources (bibliographic review of selected articles and major GI proceedings), were searched through January 2019. The primary outcome was the re-intervention rate. Secondary outcomes were a technical success, early and late complications, and stent malfunction rate. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each outcome.RESULTSA total of 9 studies were included (2 prospective Randomized Controlled Study, 5 retrospective studies, and 2 abstracts), involving 782 patients with malignant hilar obstruction. Bilateral stenting had significantly lower re-intervention rate compared with unilateral drainage (OR = 0.59, 95%CI: 0.40-0.87, P = 0.009). There was no difference in the technical success rate (OR = 0.7, CI: 0.42-1.17, P = 0.17), early complication rate (OR = 1.56, CI: 0.31-7.75, P = 0.59), late complication rate (OR = 0.91, CI: 0.58-1.41, P = 0.56) and stent malfunction (OR = 0.69, CI: 0.42-1.12, P = 0.14) between bilateral and unilateral stenting for malignant hilar biliary strictures.CONCLUSIONBilateral biliary drainage had a lower re-intervention rate as compared to unilateral drainage for high grade inoperable malignant biliary strictures, with no significant difference in technical success, and early or late complication rates.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of chlorhexidine (CHG) dressings to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs). Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies (randomized controlled and quasi-experimental trials) with the following criteria: patients with short- or long-term catheters; CHG dressings were used in the intervention group and nonantimicrobial dressings in the control group; CRBSI was an outcome. Random-effects models were used to obtain pooled risk ratios (pRRs). Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 test and the Cochran Q statistic. Results: In total, 20 studies (18 randomized controlled trials; 15,590 catheters) without evidence of publication bias and mainly performed in intensive care units (ICUs) were included. CHG dressings significantly reduced CRBSIs (pRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58–0.87), independent of the CHG dressing type used. Benefits were limited to adults with short-term central venous catheters (CVCs), including onco-hematological patients. For long-term CVCs, CHG dressings decreased exit-site/tunnel infections (pRR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22–0.64). Contact dermatitis was associated with CHG dressing use (pRR, 5.16; 95% CI, 2.09–12.70); especially in neonates and pediatric populations in whom severe reactions occurred. Also, 2 studies evaluated and did not find CHG-acquired resistance. Conclusions: CHG dressings prevent CRBSIs in adults with short-term CVCs, including patients with an onco-hematological disease. CHG dressings might reduce exit-site and tunnel infections in long-term CVCs. In neonates and pediatric populations, proof of CHG dressing effectiveness is lacking and there is an increased risk of serious adverse events. Future studies should investigate CHG effectiveness in non-ICU settings and monitor for CHG resistance.

No abstract

No abstract