Suppr超能文献

肝包虫病(包虫病)的单纯性肝囊肿的治疗。

Treatment of uncomplicated hepatic cystic echinococcosis (hydatid disease).

机构信息

Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.

Control Program of Cystic Echinococcosis, Ministry of Health, Río Negro Province, Viedma, Argentina.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jul 12;7(7):CD015573. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015573.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Cystic echinococcosis is a parasitic infection mainly impacting people living in low- and middle-income countries. Infection may lead to cyst development within organs, pain, non-specific symptoms or complications including abscesses and cyst rupture. Treatment can be difficult and varies by country. Treatments include oral medication, percutaneous techniques and surgery. One Cochrane review previously assessed the benefits and harms of percutaneous treatment compared with other treatments. However, evidence for oral medication, percutaneous techniques and surgery in specific cyst stages has not been systematically investigated and the optimal choice remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of medication, percutaneous and surgical interventions for treating uncomplicated hepatic cystic echinococcosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, two other databases and two trial registries to 4 May 2023. We searched the reference lists of included studies, and contacted experts and researchers in the field for relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with a diagnosis of uncomplicated hepatic cystic echinococcosis of World Health Organization (WHO) cyst stage CE1, CE2, CE3a or CE3b comparing either oral medication (albendazole) to albendazole plus percutaneous interventions, or to surgery plus albendazole. Studies comparing praziquantel plus albendazole to albendazole alone prior to or following an invasive intervention (surgery or percutaneous treatment) were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were symptom improvement, recurrence, inactive cyst at 12 months and all-cause mortality at 30 days. Our secondary outcomes were development of secondary echinococcosis, complications of treatment and duration of hospital stay. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs with 180 adults and children with hepatic cystic echinococcosis. Two studies enrolled people aged 5 to 72 years, and one study enrolled children aged 6 to 14 years. One study compared standard catheterization plus albendazole with puncture, aspiration, injection and re-aspiration (PAIR) plus albendazole, and two studies compared laparoscopic surgery plus albendazole with open surgery plus albendazole. The three RCTs were published between 2020 and 2022 and conducted in India, Pakistan and Turkey. There were no other comparisons. Standard catheterization plus albendazole versus PAIR plus albendazole The cyst stages were CE1 and CE3a. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of standard catheterization plus albendazole compared with PAIR plus albendazole on cyst recurrence (risk ratio (RR) 3.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 84.66; 1 study, 38 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of standard catheterization plus albendazole on 30-day all-cause mortality and development of secondary echinococcosis compared to open surgery plus albendazole. There were no cases of mortality at 30 days or secondary echinococcosis (1 study, 38 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Major complications were reported by cyst and not by participant. Standard catheterization plus albendazole may increase major cyst complications compared with PAIR plus albendazole, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 10.74, 95% CI 1.39 to 82.67; 1 study, 53 cysts; very low-certainty evidence). Standard catheterization plus albendazole may make little to no difference on minor complications compared with PAIR plus albendazole, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.77; 1 study, 38 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Standard catheterization plus albendazole may increase the median duration of hospital stay compared with PAIR plus albendazole, but the evidence is very uncertain (4 (range 1 to 52) days versus 1 (range 1 to 15) days; 1 study, 38 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Symptom improvement and inactive cysts at 12 months were not reported. Laparoscopic surgery plus albendazole versus open surgery plus albendazole The cyst stages were CE1, CE2, CE3a and CE3b. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of laparoscopic surgery plus albendazole on cyst recurrence in participants with CE2 and CE3b cysts compared to open surgery plus albendazole (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 71.56; 1 study, 82 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The second study involving 60 participants with CE1, CE2 or CE3a cysts reported no recurrence in either group. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of laparoscopic surgery plus albendazole on 30-day all-cause mortality in participants with CE1, CE2, CE3a or CE3b cysts compared to open surgery plus albendazole. There was no mortality in either group (2 studies, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of laparoscopic surgery plus albendazole on major complications in participants with CE1, CE2, CE3a or CE3b cysts compared to open surgery plus albendazole (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.92; 2 studies, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Laparoscopic surgery plus albendazole may lead to slightly fewer minor complications in participants with CE1, CE2, CE3a or CE3b cysts compared to open surgery plus albendazole (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; 2 studies, 142 participants; low-certainty evidence). Laparoscopic surgery plus albendazole may reduce the duration of hospital stay compared with open surgery plus albendazole (mean difference (MD) -1.90 days, 95% CI -2.99 to -0.82; 2 studies, 142 participants; low-certainty evidence). Symptom improvement, inactive cyst at 12 months and development of secondary echinococcosis were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous and surgical interventions combined with albendazole can be used to treat uncomplicated hepatic cystic echinococcosis; however, there is a scarcity of randomised evidence directly comparing these interventions. There is very low-certainty evidence to indicate that standard catheterization plus albendazole may lead to fewer cases of recurrence, more major complications and similar complication rates compared to PAIR plus albendazole in adults and children with CE1 and CE3a cysts. There is very low-certainty evidence to indicate that laparoscopic surgery plus albendazole may result in fewer cases of recurrence or fewer major complications compared to open surgery plus albendazole in adults and children with CE1, CE2, CE3a and CE3b cysts. Laparoscopic surgery plus albendazole may lead to slightly fewer minor complications. Firm conclusions cannot be drawn due to the limited number of studies, small sample size and lack of events for some outcomes.

摘要

背景

包虫病是一种主要影响中低收入国家人群的寄生虫感染。感染可能导致器官内囊肿的发展、疼痛、非特异性症状或并发症,包括脓肿和囊肿破裂。治疗可能很困难,且因国家而异。治疗方法包括口服药物、经皮技术和手术。一项 Cochrane 综述此前评估了与其他治疗方法相比,经皮治疗的益处和危害。然而,特定囊肿阶段的口服药物、经皮技术和手术的证据尚未系统调查,最佳选择仍不确定。

目的

评估药物、经皮和手术干预治疗未合并肝包虫病的益处和危害。

检索策略

我们检索了 Cochrane 中心对照试验数据库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、另外两个数据库和两个试验注册库,检索时间截至 2023 年 5 月 4 日。我们检索了纳入研究的参考文献列表,并联系了该领域的专家和研究人员,以获取相关研究。

纳入排除标准

我们纳入了诊断为世界卫生组织(WHO)囊型包虫病 1 型(CE1)、2 型(CE2)、3a 型(CE3a)或 3b 型的未经合并的肝包虫病患者的随机对照试验(RCT)。这些研究比较了口服药物(阿苯达唑)与阿苯达唑联合经皮介入,或与阿苯达唑联合手术的疗效。纳入了比较在侵袭性干预(手术或经皮治疗)前后使用吡喹酮加阿苯达唑与阿苯达唑单独使用的研究。

数据收集与分析

我们使用了标准的 Cochrane 方法。我们的主要结局是症状改善、复发、12 个月时无活性囊肿和 30 天内全因死亡率。我们的次要结局是继发包虫病的发展、治疗相关并发症和住院时间。我们使用 GRADE 评估证据的确定性。

主要结果

我们纳入了三项 RCT,涉及 180 名患有肝包虫病的成年人和儿童。两项研究纳入了 5 至 72 岁的患者,一项研究纳入了 6 至 14 岁的儿童。一项研究比较了标准导管化加阿苯达唑与穿刺抽吸注药再抽吸(PAIR)加阿苯达唑,两项研究比较了腹腔镜手术加阿苯达唑与开腹手术加阿苯达唑。这三项 RCT 发表于 2020 年至 2022 年,在印度、巴基斯坦和土耳其进行。没有其他比较。标准导管化加阿苯达唑与 PAIR 加阿苯达唑比较 囊型为 CE1 和 CE3a。关于标准导管化加阿苯达唑与 PAIR 加阿苯达唑相比对囊肿复发的影响的证据是非常不确定的(风险比(RR)3.67,95%置信区间(CI)0.16 至 84.66;1 项研究,38 名参与者;极低确定性证据)。关于标准导管化加阿苯达唑与开腹手术加阿苯达唑相比,30 天内全因死亡率和继发包虫病的发展的影响的证据是非常不确定的。(1 项研究,38 名参与者;极低确定性证据)没有死亡病例或继发包虫病(极低确定性证据)。主要并发症是由囊肿而不是由参与者报告的。与 PAIR 加阿苯达唑相比,标准导管化加阿苯达唑可能会增加主要囊肿并发症,但证据是非常不确定的(RR 10.74,95%CI 1.39 至 82.67;1 项研究,53 个囊肿;极低确定性证据)。与 PAIR 加阿苯达唑相比,标准导管化加阿苯达唑可能对轻微并发症没有差异或差异较小,但证据是非常不确定的(RR 1.03,95%CI 0.60 至 1.77;1 项研究,38 名参与者;极低确定性证据)。与 PAIR 加阿苯达唑相比,标准导管化加阿苯达唑可能会增加中位住院时间,但证据是非常不确定的(4(范围 1 至 52)天与 1(范围 1 至 15)天;1 项研究,38 名参与者;极低确定性证据)。症状改善和 12 个月时的无活性囊肿未报告。腹腔镜手术加阿苯达唑与开腹手术加阿苯达唑比较 囊型为 CE1、CE2、CE3a 和 CE3b。关于腹腔镜手术加阿苯达唑与开腹手术加阿苯达唑相比,在患有 CE2 和 CE3b 囊肿的参与者中,对囊肿复发的影响的证据是非常不确定的(RR 3.00,95%CI 0.13 至 71.56;1 项研究,82 名参与者;极低确定性证据)。第二项涉及 60 名患有 CE1、CE2 或 CE3a 囊肿的参与者的研究报告两组均无复发。关于腹腔镜手术加阿苯达唑与开腹手术加阿苯达唑相比,在患有 CE1、CE2、CE3a 或 CE3b 囊肿的参与者中,30 天内全因死亡率的影响的证据是非常不确定的。两组均无死亡病例(2 项研究,142 名参与者;极低确定性证据)。关于腹腔镜手术加阿苯达唑与开腹手术加阿苯达唑相比,在患有 CE1、CE2、CE3a 或 CE3b 囊肿的参与者中,主要并发症的影响的证据是非常不确定的(RR 0.50,95%CI 0.13 至 1.92;2 项研究,142 名参与者;极低确定性证据)。与开腹手术加阿苯达唑相比,腹腔镜手术加阿苯达唑可能会导致患有 CE1、CE2、CE3a 或 CE3b 囊肿的参与者中轻微并发症的发生率略有降低(RR 0.13,95%CI 0.02 至 0.98;2 项研究,142 名参与者;低确定性证据)。与开腹手术加阿苯达唑相比,腹腔镜手术加阿苯达唑可能会缩短住院时间(平均差值(MD)-1.90 天,95%CI -2.99 至 -0.82;2 项研究,142 名参与者;低确定性证据)。症状改善、12 个月时无活性囊肿和继发包虫病的发展均未报告。

作者结论

经皮和手术干预联合阿苯达唑可用于治疗未合并肝包虫病;然而,直接比较这些干预措施的随机证据很少。有非常低确定性证据表明,与 PAIR 加阿苯达唑相比,在患有 CE1 和 CE3a 囊肿的成年人和儿童中,标准导管化加阿苯达唑可能导致更少的病例复发、更多的主要并发症和相似的并发症发生率。有非常低确定性证据表明,与开腹手术加阿苯达唑相比,在患有 CE1、CE2、CE3a 和 CE3b 囊肿的成年人和儿童中,腹腔镜手术加阿苯达唑可能导致较少的病例复发或较少的主要并发症。腹腔镜手术加阿苯达唑可能会导致较少的轻微并发症。由于研究数量有限、样本量小以及某些结局缺乏事件,因此无法得出确定的结论。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6861/11240857/b5c97a329e3e/tCD015573-FIG-01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验