Quantitative myocardial contrast echocardiography during pharmacological stress for diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies

Aims We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of quantitative stress myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) in coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods and results Database search was performed through January 2008. We included studies evaluating accuracy of quantitative stress MCE for detection of CAD compared with coronary angiography or single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and measuring reserve parameters of A, beta, and A beta. Data from studies were verified and supplemented by the authors of each study. Using random effects meta-analysis, we estimated weighted mean difference (WMD), likelihood ratios (LRs), diagnostic odds ratios (DORs), and summary area under curve (AUC), all with 95% confidence interval (0). Of 1443 studies, 13 including 627 patients (age range, 38-75 years) and comparing MCE with angiography (n = 10), SPECT (n = 1), or both (n = 2) were eligible. WMD (95% CI) were significantly less in CAD group than no-CAD group: 0.12 (0.06-0.18) (P < 0.001), 1.38 (1.28-1.52) (P < 0.001), and 1.47 (1.18-1.76) (P < 0.001) for A, beta, and A beta reserves, respectively. Pooled LRs for positive test were 1.33 (1.13-1.57), 3.76 (2.43-5.80), and 3.64 (2.87-4.78) and LRs for negative test were 0.68 (0.55-0.83), 0.30 (0.24-0.38), and 0.27 (0.22-0.34) for A, beta, and A beta reserves, respectively. Pooled DORs were 2.09 (1.42-3.07), 15.11 (7.90-28.91), and 14.73 (9.61-22.57) and AUCs were 0.637 (0.594-0.677), 0.851 (0.828-0.872), and 0.859 (0.842-0.750) for A, beta, and A beta reserves, respectively. Conclusion Evidence supports the use of quantitative MCE as a non-invasive test for detection of CAD. Standardizing MCE quantification analysis and adherence to reporting standards for diagnostic tests could enhance the quality of evidence in this field.

To treat or not to treat? A meta-analysis of the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in mild cognitive impairment for delaying progression to Alzheimer`s disease

Individual randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) aiming to delay the progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer`s disease (AD) have not found significant benefit of their use for this purpose. The objective of this study is to meta-analyze the RCTs conducted with ChEIs in order to assess whether pooled analysis could show the benefit of these drugs in delaying the progression from MCI to AD. We searched for references of published and unpublished studies on electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Clinical Trial Database Registry, particularly the Clinicaltrials.gov-http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). We retrieved 173 references, which yielded three references for data extraction. A total of 3.574 subjects from four RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Among 1,784 subjects allocated in the ChEI-treatment group, 275 (15.4%) progressed to AD/dementia, as opposed to 366 (20.4%) out of 1,790 subjects in the placebo group. The relative risk (RR) for progression to AD/dementia in the ChEI-treated group was 0.75 [CI(95%) 0.66-0.87], z = -3.89, P < 0.001. The patients on the ChEI group had a significantly higher all-cause dropout risk than the patients on the placebo group (RR = 1.36 CI(95%) [1.24-1.49]; z = 6.59, P < 0.001). The RR for serious adverse events (SAE) in the ChEI-treated group showed no significantly statistical difference from the placebo group (RR = 0.95 [CI(95%) 0.83-1.09], z = -0.72, P = 0.47). The subjects in the ChEI-treated group had a marginally, non-significant, higher risk of death due to any cause than those in the placebo-treated group (RR = 1.04, CI(95%) 0.63-1.70, z = 0.16, P = 0.86). The long-term use of ChEIs in subjects with MCI may attenuate the risk of progression to AD/dementia. This finding may have a significant impact on public health and pharmaco-economic policies.

Ten-year Retrospective Study of Treatment of Malignant Colonic Obstructions with Self-expandable Stents

Purpose: To describe the use of self-expandable metallic stents to manage malignant colorectal obstructions and to compare the radiation dose between fluoroscopic guidance of stent placement and combined endoscopic and fluoroscopic guidance. Materials and Methods: From January 1998 to December 2007, 467 oncology patients undergoing colorectal stent placement in a single center were included in the study. Informed consent was obtained in all cases. All procedures were performed with fluoroscopic or combined fluoroscopic and endoscopic guidance. Inclusion criteria were total or partial colorectal obstruction of neoplastic origin. Exclusion criteria were life expectancy shorter than I month, suspicion of perforation, and/or severe colonic neoplastic bleeding. Procedure time and radiation dose were recorded, and technical and clinical success were evaluated. Follow-up was performed by clinical examination and simple abdominal radiographs at 1 day and at I, 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: Of 467 procedures, technical success was achieved in 432 (92.5%). Thirty-five treatments (7.5%) were technical failures, and the patients were advised to undergo surgery. Significant differences in radiation dose and clinical success were found between the fluoroscopy and combined-technique groups (P < .001). Total decompression was achieved in 372 cases, 29 patients showed remarkable improvement, 11 showed slight improvement, and 20 showed clinical failure. Complications were recorded in 89 patients (19%), the most significant were perforation (2.3%) and stent migration (6.9%). Mean interventional time and radiation dose were 67 minutes and 3,378 dGy.cm(2), respectively. Conclusions: Treatment of colonic obstruction with stents requires a long time in the interventional room and considerable radiation dose. Nevertheless, the clinical benefits and improvement in quality of life justify the radiation risk.