Background: The effectiveness and side effects between different medical treatments in patients with primary hyperaldosteronism have not been systematically studied. Objective: To analyze the efficacy between different mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) and epithelial sodium channel (ENaC) inhibitors in a network meta-analysis (NMA) framework, while also evaluating adverse events. Design: Systematic review and NMA. Data sources and methods: The systematic review and NMA was reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, and Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adult patients with primary hyperaldosteronism until 23 June 2023. Studies that compared the efficacy and side effects of different medical treatments of primary hyperaldosteronism were included. The primary outcomes included the effect on blood pressure, serum potassium, and major adverse cardiovascular events. The secondary outcomes were adverse events related to MRAs (hyperkalemia and gynecomastia). Frequentist NMA and pairwise meta-analysis were conducted. Results: A total of 5 RCTs comprising 392 participants were included. Eplerenone, esaxerenone, and amiloride were compared to spironolactone and demonstrated comparable effect on the reduction of systolic blood pressure. In comparison to spironolactone, eplerenone exhibited a less pronounced effect on reducing diastolic blood pressure [−4.63 mmHg; 95% confidence interval (CI): −8.87 to −0.40 mmHg] and correcting serum potassium (−0.2 mg/dL; 95% CI: −0.37 to −0.03 mg/dL). Spironolactone presented a higher risk of gynecomastia compared with eplerenone (relative risk: 4.69; 95% CI: 3.58–6.14). Conclusion: The present NMA indicated that the blood pressure reduction and potassium-correcting effects of the three MRAs may demonstrate marginal differences, with confidence levels in the evidence being very low. Therefore, further research is needed to explore the efficacy of these MRAs, especially regarding their impact on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. Trial registration: PROSPERO (CRD: 42023446811).

Background and Objectives: In peritoneal dialysis (PD) therapy, intra-abdominal adhesions (IAAs) can cause catheter insertion failure, poor dialysis function, and decreased PD adequacy. Unfortunately, IAAs are not readily visible to currently available imaging methods. The laparoscopic approach for inserting PD catheters enables direct visualization of IAAs and simultaneously performs adhesiolysis. However, a limited number of studies have investigated the benefit/risk profile of laparoscopic adhesiolysis in patients receiving PD catheter placement. This retrospective study aimed to address this issue. Materials and Methods: This study enrolled 440 patients who received laparoscopic PD catheter insertion at our hospital between January 2013 and May 2020. Adhesiolysis was performed in all cases with IAA identified via laparoscopy. We retrospectively reviewed data, including clinical characteristics, operative details, and PD-related clinical outcomes. Results: These patients were classified into the adhesiolysis group (n = 47) and the non-IAA group (n = 393). The clinical characteristics and operative details had no remarkable between-group differences, except the percentage of prior abdominal operation history was higher and the median operative time was longer in the adhesiolysis group. PD-related clinical outcomes, including incidence rate of mechanical obstruction, PD adequacy (Kt/V urea and weekly creatinine clearance), and overall catheter survival, were all comparable between the adhesiolysis and non-IAA groups. None of the patients in the adhesiolysis group suffered adhesiolysis-related complications. Conclusions: Laparoscopic adhesiolysis in patients with IAA confers clinical benefits in achieving PD-related outcomes comparable to those without IAA. It is a safe and reasonable approach. Our findings provide new evidence to support the benefits of this laparoscopic approach, especially in patients with a risk of IAAs.

Aims: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) undergoing dialysis have extremely high cardiovascular and mortality risks, yet evidence for effective therapies is limited. The benefits of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in this population remain unclear. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, propensity score-matched cohort study using the TriNetX US Collaborative Network (2013–2022). Among 1688 matched pairs of new GLP-1 RA and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) users, the primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), with secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality, heart failure, sepsis, hospitalization, and emergency visits. Results: GLP-1 RA users experienced significantly lower risk of MACE compared with DPP-4i users [hazard ratio (HR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78–0.99]. GLP-1 RAs were also associated with reduced all-cause mortality (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72–0.99), myocardial infarction (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70–0.99), heart failure (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78–0.98), and sepsis (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71–0.92). Healthcare utilization outcomes, such as hospitalization and emergency visits, were also reduced. Findings were consistent across sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Conclusions: In this large real-world dialysis cohort, GLP-1 RAs were associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes, survival, infection risk, and healthcare utilization, supporting their potential role in T2DM patients receiving dialysis.