Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contraste hidrosoluble oral para la obstrucción intestinal maligna

Collapse all Expand all

References

Referencias de los estudios incluidos en esta revisión

Lee 2013 {published data only}

Lee C, Vather, R, O’Callaghan A, Robinson J, McLeod B, Findlay M, et al. Validation of the phase II feasibility study in a palliative care setting: gastrografin in malignant bowel obstruction. American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine 2013;30(8):752-8. CENTRAL

Referencias de los estudios excluidos de esta revisión

Goussous 2013 {published data only}

Goussous N, Eiken PW, Bannon MP, Zielinski MD. Enhancement of a small bowel obstruction model using the gastrografin challenge test. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 2013;17(1):110-6; discussion p.116-7. CENTRAL [DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11605-012-2011-6]

Kao 1967 {published data only}

Kao M-C, Chen K-M, Hsu S-C. Water soluble contrast medium used as an aid in the therapeutic diagnosis of intestinal obstruction. International Surgery 1967;48(4):376-84. CENTRAL

Khasawneh 2013 {published data only}

Khasawneh MA, Eiken PW, Srvantstyan B, Bannon MP, Zielinski MD. Use of the Gastrografin challenge in patients with a history of abdominal or pelvic malignancy. Surgery 2013;154(4):769-75. CENTRAL [DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2013.07.002]

Mercadante 2004 {published data only}

Mercadante S, Ferrera P, Villari P, Marrazzo A. Aggressive pharmacological treatment for reversing malignant bowel obstruction. Journal of Pain & Symptom Management 2004;28(4):412-6. CENTRAL [DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2004.01.007]

Abbas 2007

Abbas S, Bissett IP, Parry BR. Oral water soluble contrast for the management of adhesive small bowel obstruction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004651.pub3]

Anthony 2007

Anthony T, Baron T, Mercadante S, Green S, Chi D, Cunningham J, et al. Report of the Clinical Protocol Committee: development of randomized trials for malignant bowel obstruction. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management July 2007;34(1s):s49-s59.

Branco 2010

Branco B, Barmparas G, Schnüriger B, Inaba K, Chan L, Demetriades D. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic and therapeutic role of water-soluble contrast agent in adhesive small bowel obstruction. British Journal of Surgery 2010;97(4):470-8.

Ceresoli 2016

Ceresoli M, Coccolini F, Catena F, Montori G, Di Saverio S, Sartelli M, et al. Water-soluble contrast agent in adhesive small bowel obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic and therapeutic value.. American Journal of Surgery 2016;211(6):1114-25.

GRADEpro GDT 2015 [Computer program]

GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [Software]. Brozek J, Oxman A, Schünemann H, Version 3.2 for Windows. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.), 2015.Available from www.gradepro.org.

Higgins 2011

Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011] The Cochrane Collaboration2011;Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.

Joyce 1992

Joyce WP, Delaney PV, Gorey TF, Fitzpatrick JM. The value of water-soluble contrast radiology in the management of acute small bowel obstruction. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 1992;74:422-5.

Lefebvre 2011

Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collobaration, 2011:Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.

Liberati 2009

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 2009;6(7):1-28.

RevMan 2014 [Computer program]

Review Manager (RevMan). The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

Riccabona 2014

Riccabona M. Contrast media use in pediatrics: safety issues. In: Thomsen H, Webb J, editors(s). Contrast Media Safety Issues and ESUR Guidelines. 3rd edition. Springer, 2014:246.

Ripamonti 2001

Ripamonti C, Twycross R, Baines M, Bozzetti F, Capri S, De Conno F, et al. Clinical-practice recommendations for the management of bowel obstruction in patients with end-stage cancer. Supportive Care in Cancer June 2001;9(4):223-33.

Ripamonti 2002

Ripamonti C, Bruera E. Palliative management of malignant bowel obstruction. International Journal of Gynaecological Cancer 2002;12:135-43.

Ripamonti 2008

Ripamonti C, Easson A, Gerdes H. Management of malignant bowel obstruction. European Journal of Cancer 2008;44:1105-15.

Tuca 2012

Tuca A, Guell E, Martinez-Losada E, Codorniu N. Malignant bowel obstruction in advanced cancer patients: epidemiology, management, and factors influencing spontaneous resolution. Cancer Management and Research 2012;4:159-69.

Vather 2015

Vather R, Josephson R, Jaung R, Kahokehr A, Sammour T, Bissett I. Gastrografin in prolonged postoperative ileus: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Annals of Surgery July 2015;262(1):23-30.

Referencias de otras versiones publicadas de esta revisión

Syrmis 2015

Syrmis W, Richard R, Jenkins-Marsh S, Chia SC, Good P. Oral water soluble contrast for malignant bowel obstruction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012014]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Jump to:

Lee 2013

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised controlled trial. Parallel group.

Participants

Inclusion Criteria; Adults 18 yrs and over admitted to the Auckland Medical Hospital, diagnosed with malignant bowel obstruction as defined by the International Conference on MBO, with no indication for other treatments e.g. surgery, endoscopy, etc.

Exclusion Criteria; Pregnancy. Inability to give informed consent. Allergy to gastrografin or iodine. Evidence of gross gastric distension on radiologic examination. Prescence of a venting or feeding gastrostomy or jejunostomy.

Due to the limited number of participants (2), who completed assessment in the intervention arm a comparison of group differences cannot be made.

Interventions

The trial ran from February 2011 to October 2011.

All participants were treated using a standardised protocol for management of MBO which included parenteral hydration, dexamethasone 8 mg iv/sc mane + midi, anti‐emetics and/or antimuscarinics according to symptoms and analgesia.

The intervention arm also received 100 mL of gastrografin administered orally by a nurse not associated with the study. (n = 4)

The control arm received 100 mL of distilled water flavoured with aniseed oil in order to mimic the taste and smell of gastrografin, administered orally by a nurse not associated with the study. (n = 5)

No specific time restrictions were instituted from enrolment to study drug administration (this was reported to occur in most cases within 6 hours).

Outcomes

Outcomes of interest to this Cochrane review

‐Efficacy of gastrografin in MBO, measured in days from administration to resolution of bowel obstruction (signified by passage of flatus or stool), length of stay and 30‐day readmission rates

‐ Tolerability and safety of gastrografin in MBO. Assessed using patient‐reported symptom and quality of life scores using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. Measurements were taken prior to the intervention and then at 30 minutes, 6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours post intervention and then daily until day 14 or discharge.

Outcomes not of interest to this Cochrane review

‐ Feasibility of a Phase III study using this protocol. Measured by the number of participants screened, enrolled and completing assessments over the 8‐month trial period.

Notes

The authors reported that they received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of the article.

The authors also declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of the article.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method used to generate sequence was not clearly stated

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Central randomisation was performed by the pharmacy who had no contact with the participants in the trial

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

The study adequately described the blinding of both participants and personnel

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

The study reports that it was blinded and described the use of identical 100 mL bottles with attempts to match the smell and taste of the placebo to that ofgastrografin by using aniseed oil

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

50% attrition rate for the intervention arm

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

Did not report data of their assessments of the tolerability and safety of gastrografin

Size of Study

High risk

Fewer than 50 participants in the intervention arm

Other bias

Low risk

No other bias suspected

MBO: malignant bowel obstruction; n: number of participants; iv: intravenous route of administration; sc: signifies subcutaneous route of administration

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Jump to:

Study

Reason for exclusion

Goussous 2013

Wrong study design

Kao 1967

Wrong study design

Khasawneh 2013

Wrong study design

Mercadante 2004

Wrong study design

Study flow diagram.

Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Summary of findings 1. Summary of findings

Oral Water Soluble Contrast compared with Placebo for Malignant Bowel Obstruction

Patient or population: Adults 18 yrs and over with malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) as defined by the International Conference on MBO, with no indication for other treatments e.g. surgery, endoscopy, etc

Settings: Hospital inpatients

Intervention: 100 mL of gastrografin administered orally

Comparison: Placebo (100m L of distilled water flavoured with aniseed oil in order to mimic the taste and smell of gastrografin)

Outcomes

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

1. The ability of OWSC, when seen to reach the colon on follow‐up imaging, to predict the likelihood of malignant small bowel obstruction resolving with conservative treatment alone (diagnostic).

no data

no data

no data

2. The rate of resolution of MBO with medical management only in patients receiving OWSC compared with those not receiving it (therapeutic).

no data

no data

no data

3. Gastrointestinal adverse effects (increased abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting).

9

(1)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1

Although they reported that "no issues regarding safety or tolerability of either gastrografin or placebo were identified", no data were actually reported.

4. Extra‐abdominal complications (aspiration pneumonia, hypersensitivity reactions).

9

(1)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1

Although they reported that "no issues regarding safety or tolerability of either gastrografin or placebo were identified", no data were actually reported.

5. Length of hospital stay.

no data

no data

no data

6. Time from administration of OWSC to resolution of MBO.

no data

no data

no data

7. Survival time from onset of inoperable MBO until death.

no data

no data

no data

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different;
Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect;
Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1 Downgraded twice for serious limitations to study quality (high risk of selective reporting and of attrition bias) and downgraded once for imprecision (sparse data).

OWSC = oral water soluble contrast

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 1. Summary of findings