Lauromacrogol 400 60mg/2ml solution for injection ampoules

Background The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to introduce the relatively novel method of ultrasound-guided local lauromacrogol injection (USG-LLI) followed by dilatation and curettage for caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) and to investigate the clinical safety and efficacy between uterine artery embolization (UAE) and USG-LLI in the treatment of CSP. Methods The relevant literature and articles about USG-LLI, UAE and CSP published in eight electronic databases were searched to extract the primary outcomes for the selected articles. Review Manager Software(RevMan) V.5.2 was used for quantitative data synthesis and data analysis. Forest plots, sensitivity analysis and bias analysis were also performed on the included articles. Results Of 10 studies included in our search, 623 patients were in the USG-LLI group and 627 patients were in the UAE groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of success rate, blood loss and time to human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) normalization. However, USG-LLI group patients than UAE group patients had a shorter duration of hospital stay (mean difference [MD] = -1.97; 95% confidence intervals [ CI ] -2.63 to -1.31; P  < 0.05; I ^2 = 95%), shorter restored menses (MD = -4.84; 95% CI -5.78 to -3.90; P  < 0.05; I ^2 = 95%), and lower complication rates [odds ratio(OR) = 0.21; 95% CI :0.15 to 0.30; P  < 0.05]; and cheaper on expenses of hospitalization (MD = -8028.29; 95% CI -10,311.18 to -5745.40; P  < 0.05; I ^2 = 100%). Conclusions The results demonstrate that USG-LLI is comparable in curative effect and success rates with UAE in the therapy of CSP, but patients in the USG-LLI group seem to have fewer complications rates, shorter duration of hospital stays and lower costs.

Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0

Abstract Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of the modified sandwich method with lauromacrogol in the treatment of gastric variceal bleeding (GVB) caused by liver cirrhosis with the traditional sandwich method no accompanied by lauromacrogol via a meta-analysis. Methods: The Cochrane Library, Pubmed, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, the Chinese Wanfang database, and the Chongqing VIP database were searched to identify cohort studies comparing modified to traditional sandwich method in the treatment of GVB with liver cirrhosis. The relative risk for hemostasis rate, gastric varices (GV) remission rate, re-bleeding rate, the incidence of post-operative complications (pain, fever, ulcer or erosion, ectopic embolism), and all-cause mortality were calculated. The mean difference for average tissue adhesive dosage per case was calculated. Relevant data were analyzed with the Reviewer Manager 5.3.5. Results: Four cohort studies with a total of 587 patients were included in this meta-analysis. In the treatment of GVB with liver cirrhosis, compared with the traditional sandwich method, the modified sandwich method was associated with a higher GV remission rate (RR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09–1.42; P = .001) according to the pooled results. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 methods in the rate of hemostasis, re-bleeding, pain, fever, ulcer or erosion, ectopic embolism, and all-cause mortality (P ≧ .05). Conclusions: This meta-analysis indicated that the modified sandwich method with lauromacrogol is more effective than the traditional sandwich method without lauromacrogol. Due to the limited number of studies and samples, more RCT studies are needed to further validate the efficacy and safety of the modified sandwich method with lauromacrogol in the treatment of GVB with liver cirrhosis.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC 4.0

Aims and objectives The purpose of this study was to compare efficacy and side effects between oral propranolol combined with and without intralesional injection of lauromacrogol for infantile hemangioma (IH). Material and methods This was a single center randomized controlled prospective study, all participants were firstly diagnosed with IH between August 2022 and January 2023 in our hospital and without any treatment before. Patients were randomized into two groups. PRO group: oral propranolol (2 mg/kg/day) continued for 6 months; PRO + LAU group: oral propranolol (2 mg/kg/day) for 6 months and intralesional injection of lauromacrogol for 2–4 times within 6 months. The dimensions, color, consistency, photographic documentation were well recorded based on Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) before and after starting treatment. According to the treatment response after 6 months, the results were classified into four levels: Grade 1, complete resolution achieved; Grade 2, with ≥50% reduction in size of IH; Grade 3, with <50% reduction in size of IH; Grade 4, no response or worsening of IH. Results A total of 67 patients were involved in the study (17 boys, 50 girls; mean age, 3.6 months, range, 1.1–7.2 months) and randomized to receive oral propranolol combined with or without intralesional injection of lauromacrogol (29 in PRO group, 38 in PRO + LAU group). All patients completed treatment. Eleven patients (37.9%) in PRO group were in Grade 1, 14 patients (48.3%) in Grade 2, 4 patients (13.8%) in Grade 3, compared with these in PRO + LAU group, 11 patients (28.9%) in Grade 1, 24 patients (63.2%) in Grade 2, and 3 patients (7.9%) in Grade 3. No patient was in Grade 4, and no severe side effects were observed in both group. In PRO group, it takes an average of 17.1 ± 5.4 weeks from the start of treatment to cure, and in PRO + LAU group, the average time is 13.7 ± 4.9 weeks. Conclusion Oral propranolol with intralesional injection of lauromacrogol was a safety treatment strategy for IH. But it was not superior to oral propranolol in final cure rates (P = 0.45), moreover, it cannot certainly offer the benefits of shortening the duration of oral drug treatment (P = 0.24).

Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0

ABSTRACT Objectives To explore the safety and efficacy of injections of 1%, 2%, or 3% lauromacrogol during EUS–guided lauromacrogol ablation (EUS-LA) for the treatment of pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) and to determine the optimal concentration of lauromacrogol for use in EUS-LA therapeutic regimens. Methods From May 2021 to January 2023, patients who met the indications for EUS-LA were randomly divided into 3 groups: A, B, and C; the patients in these groups were injected with 1%, 2%, and 3% lauromacrogol during EUS-LA, respectively. Safety was evaluated based on the incidence of postoperative complications. Efficacy was comprehensively evaluated by assessing the ablation rate and ablation effect. Results Forty-two patients underwent EUS-LA, and 31 patients completed at least 1 postoperative re-examination. No acute pancreatitis was observed in the 1% and 2% lauromacrogol groups, and 1 case of acute pancreatitis occurred in the 3% lauromacrogol group. The total complication rate was 2.4%. The median ablation rates of the groups were 94.1%, 82.0%, and 100.0%, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in the EUS-LA ablation rate between the 1% and 3% lauromacrogol groups and between the 2% and 3% lauromacrogol groups. There was a statistically significant difference in complete disappearance between the 1% and 3% lauromacrogol groups as well as between the 2% and 3% lauromacrogol groups. Conclusion The short-term outcomes showed that injections of 1%, 2%, and 3% lauromacrogol were safe for use in EUS-LA, and injection of 3% lauromacrogol was the most effective for EUS-LA.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0