Diagnosis and Management of Infantile Hemangioma

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 26. Key resolution outcomes in studies comparing PDL modalities Author, Age, Methods and Year Months Location Measures of Resolution Outcomes Groups (n) Resolution/Response Quality Type Kono et al. 2005 211 G1: Longpulse dye laser (26) G2: Traditional pulsed dye laser(26) Quality: Fair Age, mean±SD, weeks G1: 11.2 G2: 10.7 Type, % Superficial G1+G2: 100 G1+G2: multiple • Serial photographs assessed by blinded medical observer using: Excellent: 76- 100% Moderate: 51-75% Mild: 26-50% None or worse (0- 25%) Complete clearance or minimal residual signs at 1 year, n (%) G1: 17 (65) G2: 14 (54) G1 vs.G2 p=0.397 Excellent G1: 17 G2: 14 Moderate G1: 7 G2: 5 Mild G1: 2 G2: 4 Tay et al. 2012 213 G1: Short pulse 595- nm Pulsed dye laser (15) G2: Longer pulse 595- nm PDL (8) Quality: Fair Age mean (range) G1+G2: 6.5 (2.5-19) Type, n Superficial G1: 7 G2: 3 Mixed G1: 8 G2: 5 G1+G2: multiple • Photographs evaluated by unblinded dermatologist None or worse G1: 0 G2: 3 Number of treatments needed for resolution G1: 3-14 mean=8 median=7 G2: 4-14 mean=9 median=7 G1 vs.G2: p=ns Average number of treatments needed for the clearance of mixed IH= 4 to 5 treatments more in both groups 69
Table 26. Key resolution outcomes in studies comparing PDL modalities (continued) Author, Year Groups (n) Quality Age, Months Type Location Methods and Measures of Resolution/Response Resolution Outcomes Chang et al. 2001 216 G1: Non cooled flash lamppumped pulsed dye laser (82) G2: Cryogen spray cooling plus flash lamppumped pulse dyed laser (82) Age, mean, years G1: 2.5 G2: 3.4 Type, % Cutaneous G1+G2: 100 G1+G2: multiple • Photographs assessed by blinded plastic surgeons • Volume reduction, texture, color • Excellent: 76-100% improvement Good: 51-75% Fair: 26-50% Poor:0-25% Volume reduction, mean score G1: 3.84 G2: 3.96 G1 vs.G2 p=0.008 Texture G1: 3.57 G2: 3.90 G1 vs.G2 p=0.001 Color G1: 3.98 G2: 4.00 G1 vs.G2 p=0.155 Quality: Poor G = group; n = number; nm = nanometer; PDL = pulsed dye laser; SD = standard deviation Nd:YAG Laser Compared With Other Lasers or Observation Three poor quality cohort studies compared Nd:YAG laser to either argon laser, 217 traditional PDL, 215 or CO2 laser or observation. 214 One study included 55 children with sequelae from hemangioma and reported similar rates of excellent clearance (defined as 90-100% clearance) between Nd:YAG and Argon groups and a higher rate of children attaining 50 percent or greater clearance in the Nd:YAG group (72% vs. 52%). 217 Lesions were also scored for size length and width, which showed little difference between groups. Heights of lesions were sub-analyzed, which showed a greater ability of Nd:YAG to treat thicker lesions, with no excellent results in the argon group for lesions 0.5 cm in height and greater. In a study comparing Nd:YAG and PDL and including 50 children, 41 percent of children receiving PDL and 30 percent receiving Nd:YAG had complete clearance of IH (p=NR). 215 Similar numbers in each group had 70 to 99 percent or
Page 1 and 2:
Comparative Effectiveness Review Nu
Page 3 and 4:
This report is based on research co
Page 5 and 6:
Acknowledgments The authors gratefu
Page 7 and 8:
Peer Reviewers Prior to publication
Page 9 and 10:
BCI; moderate SOE for effects of pr
Page 11 and 12:
Overview of the Literature ........
Page 13 and 14:
Executive Summary Introduction Infa
Page 15 and 16:
for contextual questions as few eff
Page 17 and 18:
Figure B. Analytic framework for KQ
Page 19 and 20:
Table A. Inclusion criteria (contin
Page 21 and 22:
precision (precise, imprecise), and
Page 23 and 24:
Figure D. Estimates of expected IH
Page 25 and 26:
majority of studies to date have in
Page 27 and 28:
effectiveness outcomes. The evidenc
Page 29 and 30:
changes. We considered the strength
Page 31 and 32:
Table C. Summary of evidence in stu
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Table D. Summary of evidence in stu
Page 39 and 40:
Applicability We set inclusion crit
Page 41 and 42:
quantitative meta-analyses. Researc
Page 43 and 44:
surgically. Lesion characteristics
Page 45 and 46:
References 1. Wassef M, Blei F, Ada
Page 47 and 48:
39. Yu L, Li S, Su B, et al. Treatm
Page 49 and 50:
modalities. The questions of imagin
Page 51 and 52:
KQ2. Among newborns, infants, and c
Page 53 and 54:
of data, and compiling evidence. We
Page 55 and 56:
We only included studies published
Page 57 and 58:
a standardized form (Appendix B) th
Page 59 and 60:
Determining Quality Ratings • We
Page 61 and 62:
Results We present results for Cont
Page 63 and 64:
defects, urogenital anomalies, ulce
Page 65 and 66: Results of Literature Searches for
Page 67 and 68: Table 3. Characteristics of include
Page 69 and 70: scans, had a sensitivity of 20 perc
Page 71 and 72: of the model fit to all studies, bu
Page 73 and 74: Detailed Analysis Effectiveness of
Page 75 and 76: Table 6. Key resolution outcomes in
Page 77 and 78: with prednisolone included endocrin
Page 79 and 80: children in 8 studies), skin atroph
Page 81 and 82: hypopigmentation, impaired wound he
Page 83 and 84: fair quality for effectiveness outc
Page 85 and 86: studies of nadolol and atenolol. No
Page 87 and 88: Table 10. Key resolution outcomes i
Page 89 and 90: old. 100 Thirty percent of children
Page 91 and 92: Table 11. Resolution outcomes in st
Page 97 and 98: Table 15. Key outcomes in studies c
Page 107 and 108: Table 22. Harms/adverse effects in
Page 109 and 110: Table 24. Adverse effects in case s
Page 111 and 112: Table 24. Adverse effects in case s
Page 113 and 114: • In two RCTs reporting level of
Page 115: Table 25. Key resolution outcomes i
Page 119 and 120: Nd:YAG Laser With Cooling Compared
Page 123 and 124: long term follow information was av
Page 125 and 126: Discussion State of the Literature
Page 127 and 128: Table 34. Strength of evidence for
Page 131 and 132: Effectiveness and Harms of Beta-Blo
Page 149 and 150: older children. One comparative stu
Page 151 and 152: case series reporting on rarer pres
Page 153 and 154: agents is critical, especially as u
Page 155 and 156: References 1. Wassef M, Blei F, Ada
Page 157 and 158: 39. Chen TS, Eichenfield LF, Friedl
Page 159 and 160: 80. Mai HM, Zheng JW, Wang YA, et a
Page 161 and 162: 119. Sharma LK, Dalal SS. Corticost
Page 163 and 164: 162. Snir M, Reich U, Siegel R, et
Page 165 and 166: 198. Chen ZG, Zheng JW, Yuan ML, et
Page 167 and 168:
237. Healy G, McGill T, Friedman EM
Page 169 and 170:
Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in
Page 171 and 172:
Appendix A. Search Strategies Searc
Page 173 and 174:
Searches for Comparative Effectiven
Page 175 and 176:
Appendix B. Screening and Quality A
Page 177 and 178:
Harms Risk of Bias Assessment Form
Page 179 and 180:
QUADAS Diagnostic Accuracy Rating T
Page 181 and 182:
Infantile Hemangioma CER: Risk of B
Page 183 and 184:
20. Grundfest-Broniatowski S, Carey
Page 185 and 186:
65. Dachman AH, Lichtenstein JE, Fr
Page 187 and 188:
111. Yoshida T, Kuratomi K, Mitsuma
Page 189 and 190:
160. Newman SL, Goodwin CD. Colonic
Page 191 and 192:
204. Crockett DM, Healy GB, McGill
Page 193 and 194:
253. Wright GL, Smith RJ, Katz CD,
Page 195 and 196:
301. Paley D, Jackson RW. Synovial
Page 197 and 198:
346. Dombrowski MP, Budev H, Wolfe
Page 199 and 200:
390. Stringel G. Giant hemangioma:
Page 201 and 202:
436. Liu HC, Chang MH, Lue HC, et a
Page 203 and 204:
480. Casale AJ, Menashe DS. Massive
Page 205 and 206:
526. Taylor RS, Joseph DB, Kohaut E
Page 207 and 208:
571. Goldstein MH. The elastic flap
Page 209 and 210:
614. Salloum E, Flamant F, Caillaud
Page 211 and 212:
659. Fellows KE, Hoffer FA, Markowi
Page 213 and 214:
706. Weatherford DA, Abrams RS, Wal
Page 215 and 216:
749. Keleti D, Flickinger JC, Hobso
Page 217 and 218:
793. Van Campenhout I, Patriquin H.
Page 219 and 220:
836. Goldman MP, Fitzpatrick RE, Ru
Page 221 and 222:
880. Schulman SR, Jones BR, Slotnic
Page 223 and 224:
924. Egawa H, Berquist W, Garcia-Ke
Page 225 and 226:
968. Thompson DN, Taylor WF, Haywar
Page 227 and 228:
1013. Gregg CM, Wiatrak BJ, Koopman
Page 229 and 230:
1056. Rozylo TK, Krupski W, Galkows
Page 231 and 232:
1099. Fremont S, Kanny G, Bieber S,
Page 233 and 234:
1142. Sreeram N, Miller P, John P.
Page 235 and 236:
1185. Enjolras O, Wassef M, Mazoyer
Page 237 and 238:
1228. Paley MR, Farrant P, Kane P,
Page 239 and 240:
1271. Burrows PE, Robertson RL, Mul
Page 241 and 242:
1312. Lezama-del Valle P, Gerald WL
Page 243 and 244:
1352. Altunay IK, Gokdemir G, Koken
Page 245 and 246:
1394. Kiristioglu I, Kilic N, Gurpi
Page 247 and 248:
1437. Yoshida D, Sugisaki Y, Shimur
Page 249 and 250:
1480. Kreusel KM, Bechrakis NE, Hei
Page 251 and 252:
1523. Wilken JJ, Meier FA, Kornstei
Page 253 and 254:
1568. Garmendia G, Miranda N, Borro
Page 255 and 256:
1610. Park EA, Seo JW, Lee SW, et a
Page 257 and 258:
1652. Chatrath P, Black M, Jani P,
Page 259 and 260:
1694. Hopf M, Hopf JUG, Rohde E, et
Page 261 and 262:
1737. Rozylo-Kalinowska I, Brodzisz
Page 263 and 264:
1782. Coras B, Hohenleutner U, Land
Page 265 and 266:
1826. McQueen CT, Cullen RD. Endosc
Page 267 and 268:
1866. Tsao MN, Schwartz ML, Bernste
Page 269 and 270:
1909. Denier C, Labauge P, Brunerea
Page 271 and 272:
1950. Mounayer C, Benndorf G, Bisdo
Page 273 and 274:
1992. Woo SJ, Kim CJ, Yu YS. Cavern
Page 275 and 276:
2036. Ersoy S, Mancini AJ. Hemifaci
Page 277 and 278:
2077. Kronenberg A, Blei F, Ceisler
Page 279 and 280:
2117. Sabharwal GK, Strouse PJ. Pos
Page 281 and 282:
2159. Cannady SB, Kahn TA, Trabouls
Page 283 and 284:
2200. Karikari IO, Selznick LA, Cum
Page 285 and 286:
2241. Pienaar C, Graham R, Geldenhu
Page 287 and 288:
2283. Wananukul S, Voramethkul W, N
Page 289 and 290:
2327. Czernik A, Bystryn JC. Does i
Page 291 and 292:
2368. Kamida T, Takeda Y, Fujiki M,
Page 293 and 294:
2410. Rodgers B, Zeim S, Crawford B
Page 295 and 296:
2453. Zolkipli Z, Aylett S, Rankin
Page 297 and 298:
2495. Egberts F, Mentzel T, Leuschn
Page 299 and 300:
2537. Kutluhan A, Bozdemir K, Ugras
Page 301 and 302:
2580. Saetti R, Silvestrini M, Cutr
Page 303 and 304:
2620. Yun TJ, Na DG, Kwon BJ, et al
Page 305 and 306:
2661. Demirci H, Shields CL, Eagle
Page 307 and 308:
2700. Iriz A, Durmaz E, Akmansu SH,
Page 309 and 310:
2744. Ooi KG, Wenderoth JD, Francis
Page 311 and 312:
2786. Tyzio R, Khalilov I, Represa
Page 313 and 314:
2827. Bayliss SJ, Berk DR, Van Hare
Page 315 and 316:
2869. Fernandez-Pineda I, Lopez-Gut
Page 317 and 318:
2910. Kazim SF, Bhatti, Enam SA. In
Page 319 and 320:
2953. Nonogaki S, Campos HGA, Butug
Page 321 and 322:
2995. Storch CH, Hoeger PH. Propran
Page 323 and 324:
3038. Al Dhaybi R, Superstein R, Mi
Page 325 and 326:
3080. del Pozo J, Lopez-Gutierrez J
Page 327 and 328:
3120. Guye E, Chollet-Rivier M, Sch
Page 329 and 330:
3159. Kolokythas A, Al-Ghamian H, M
Page 331 and 332:
3201. Nale P. Propranolol treatment
Page 333 and 334:
3243. Soltani AM, Reinisch JF. Algo
Page 335 and 336:
3286. . Derm Dx. Clinical Advisor.
Page 337 and 338:
3326. Chang YT, Lin JY, Lee JY, et
Page 339 and 340:
3367. Gross BC, Janus JR, Orvidas L
Page 341 and 342:
3407. Kupeli S. Use of propranolol
Page 343 and 344:
3448. Raches D, Hiscock M, Chapiesk
Page 345 and 346:
3490. Traivaree C, Lumkul R, Torcha
Page 347 and 348:
3532. Ammerman RT, Putnam FW, Altay
Page 349 and 350:
3573. Chou S, Subramanian V, Lau HM
Page 351 and 352:
3614. Hyland RM, Komlosi K, Alleman
Page 353 and 354:
3655. Masetti R, Colecchia A, Ronde
Page 355 and 356:
3693. Parikh SR, Darrow DH, Grimmer
Page 357 and 358:
3732. Stiles JM, Amaya C, Rains S,
Page 359 and 360:
3772. Zou HX, Jia J, Zhang WF, et a
Page 361 and 362:
3813. Deng X, Wang K, Wu L, et al.
Page 363 and 364:
3851. Khorsand K, Backus S, Sidbury
Page 365 and 366:
3890. Phillips RJ, Lokmic Z, Crock
Page 367 and 368:
3930. Weil AG, Bhatia S. Resection
Page 369 and 370:
3969. Ravenscroft J. Management of
Page 371 and 372:
where ΦΦ(xx) is the cumulative di
Page 373 and 374:
Figure D-1. Estimates of expected I
Page 375 and 376:
Figure D-3. Posterior SUCRA estimat
Page 377 and 378:
Figure D-5. Network diagram of comp
Page 379 and 380:
Appendix E. Study Design Classifica
Page 381 and 382:
Author, Year Hogeling 2011 10 Alloc
Page 383 and 384:
Author, Year Representativeness of
Page 385 and 386:
Author, Year Were the harms predefi
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
25. Qiu Y, Ma G, Yang J, et al. Imi
Page 399 and 400:
56. Hassan BA, Shreef KS. Propranol
Page 401 and 402:
88. Chakkittakandiyil A, Phillips R
Page 403 and 404:
120. Pandey A, Gangopadhyay AN, Gop
Page 405 and 406:
Appendix G. Applicability Tables Ta
Page 407 and 408:
Appendix H. Harms Reported in Packa
Page 409 and 410:
o Acquired (autoimmune) hemolytic a
Page 411 and 412:
o Ankylosing spondylitis o Dermatom
Page 413 and 414:
H-7 • Increased dosage of rapidly
Page 415 and 416:
Elocon® (mometason e furoate) 11 T
Page 417 and 418:
Timoptic® (timolol maleate) 15 Tim
Page 419 and 420:
Harms Data for Medications Included
Page 421 and 422:
Table H-3: Adverse Events from Flo-
Page 423 and 424:
(
Page 425 and 426:
thromboembolism, thrombophlebitis,
Page 427 and 428:
grades): 103 (48%), erosion/ulcerat
Page 429 and 430:
acute myocardial infarction: 3 (Rat
Page 431 and 432:
Discontinuations Patients utilizing
Page 433 and 434:
ocular irritation including blephar
show all

Diagnosis and Management of Infantile Hemangioma

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?