No abstract

No abstract

Background and study aims  TC-325 is a novel mineral hemostatic powder that creates a mechanical barrier by absorbing blood components and promoting clotting. Recently approved for use in humans, it has shown promise for treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). However, because there have been no large studies of TC-325, its true efficacy and safety profile remain unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of TC-325 in treating UGIB, based on rates of initial hemostasis, rebleeding, and adverse events (AEs). Methods  We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Latin-American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases, as well as the gray literature, to identify articles describing use of TC-325 up to October 2018. Primary outcomes were initial hemostasis and rebleeding. AEs were described as a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with international scores. Results  We identified 2077 records after removal of duplicates. We included 50 studies, involving a collective total of 1445 patients, in the quantitative synthesis. Primary hemostasis and rebleeding rates were 90.7 % and 26.1 %, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed similar results. Only eight AEs were reported. Conclusions  TC-325 appears to be a safe, effective treatment for UGIB. The overall rate of initial hemostasis after TC-325 use is high, regardless of etiology of bleeding or whether TC-325 is used as a primary or rescue therapy. Although it is also associated with high rebleeding rates, rates of AEs and equipment failure after TC-325 use are extremely low.

Belatedly, the inflammatory reaction decreased in PP mesh group and increased in PP + PG mesh group. The PP mesh induced early great elevations in VEGF, COX2 and collagen levels, whereas the PP + PG mesh caused severe tissue inflammation with small elevation in these levels. PP + TI mesh induced inflammatory response levels between the others. In conclusion, the inflammatory response depends on the mesh density and also the mesh material with clinical implications.

Background and study aims Achalasia can be classified as either primary (idiopathic) achalasia or secondary achalasia, which is a consequence of another systemic disease. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is an effective and safe treatment for achalasia. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of POEM in patients with Chagasic achalasia compared to idiopathic achalasia. Patients and methods We evaluated POEM procedures performed at a single institution from November 2016 to January 2018. Demographic data, Eckardt score, lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure, body mass index, post-operative erosive esophagitis, adverse events, length of hospital stay, and procedure-related parameters were analyzed. Results Fifty-one patients underwent POEM as a treatment for achalasia in this period (20 patients with Chagasic and 31 with Idiopathic etiology). The overall clinical success rate was 92.1 %, with no statistical difference between groups (90 % in the Chagasic group vs. 93.5 % in the Idiopathic group, P = 0.640). Both groups had significant reduction in Eckardt score and in LES pressure, and increase in bodey mass index (BMI) at 1-year follow-up. There was no statistical difference between groups regarding Eckardt score (P = 0.439), LES pressure (p = 0.507), BMI (P = 0.254), post erosive esophagitis (35 % vs. 38.7 %, P = 0.789), adverse events (30 % vs. 12 %, P = 0.163,) length of hospital stay (3.75 days vs. 3.58 days, P = 0.622), and operative time (101.3 min vs. 99.1 min, P = 0.840). Conclusion POEM is an effective and safe treatment for patients with achalasia. There is no difference in POEM outcomes for those patients with Chagasic or Idiopathic achalasia.