How to update a living systematic review and keep it alive during a pandemic: a practical guide.

BACKGROUND: The covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the role of living systematic reviews. The speed of evidence generated during the covid-19 pandemic accentuated the challenges of managing high volumes of research literature. METHODS: In this article, we summarise the characteristics of ongoing living systematic reviews on covid-19, and we follow a life cycle approach to describe key steps in a living systematic review. RESULTS: We identified 97 living systematic reviews on covid-19, published up to 7th November 2022, which focused mostly on the effects of pharmacological interventions (n = 46, 47%) or the prevalence of associated conditions or risk factors (n = 30, 31%). The scopes of several reviews overlapped considerably. Most living systematic reviews included both observational and randomised study designs (n = 45, 46%). Only one-third of the reviews has been updated at least once (n = 34, 35%). We address practical aspects of living systematic reviews including how to judge whether to start a living systematic review, methods for study identification and selection, data extraction and evaluation, and give recommendations at each step, drawing from our own experience. We also discuss when it is time to stop and how to publish updates. CONCLUSIONS: Methods to improve the efficiency of searching, study selection, and data extraction using machine learning technologies are being developed, their performance and applicability, particularly for reviews based on observational study designs should improve, and ways of publishing living systematic reviews and their updates will continue to evolve. Finally, knowing when to end a living systematic review is as important as knowing when to start.

Hyperoxia-induced deterioration of diastolic function in anaesthetised patients with coronary artery disease - Randomised crossover trial.

Background: There are no current recommendations for oxygen titration in patients with stable coronary artery disease. This study investigates the effect of iatrogenic hyperoxia on cardiac function in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing general anaesthesia. Methods: Patients scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery were prospectively recruited into this randomised crossover clinical trial. All patients were exposed to inspired oxygen fractions of 0.3 (normoxaemia) and 0.8 (hyperoxia) in randomised order. A transoesophageal echocardiographic imaging protocol was performed during each exposure. Primary analysis investigated changes in 3D peak strain, whereas secondary analyses investigated other systolic and diastolic responses. Results: There was no statistical difference in systolic function between normoxaemia and hyperoxia. However, the response in systolic function to hyperoxia was dependent on ventricular function at normoxaemia. Patients with a normoxaemic left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) poorer than the derived cut-off (>-15.4%) improved with hyperoxia (P<0.01), whereas in patients with normoxaemic LV-GLS <-15.4%, LV-GLS worsened with transition to hyperoxia (P<0.01). The same was seen for right ventricular GLS with a cut-off at -24.1%. Diastolic function worsened during hyperoxia indicated by a significant increase of averaged E/e' (8.6 [2.6]. vs 8.2 [2.4], P=0.01) and E/A ratio (1.4 (0.4) vs 1.3 (0.4), P=0.01). Conclusions: Although the response of biventricular systolic variables is dependent on systolic function at normoxaemia, diastolic function consistently worsens under hyperoxia. In coronary artery disease, intraoperative strain analysis may offer guidance for oxygen titration. Clinical trial registration: NCT04424433.

Study design for a randomized crossover study investigating myocardial strain analysis in patients with coronary artery disease at hyperoxia and normoxemia prior to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (StrECHO-O2).

BACKGROUND: Supplemental oxygen (O2) is used routinely during anesthesia. In the treatment of acute myocardial infarction, it has been established that hyperoxia is to be avoided, whereas information on benefit and risk of hyperoxia in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) remain scarce, especially in the setting of general anesthesia. This study will compare the immediate effects of normoxemia and hyperoxia on cardiac function, with a primary focus on changes in peak longitudinal left-ventricular strain, in anesthetized stable chronic CAD patients using peri-operative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). METHODS: A single-center randomized cross-over clinical trial will be conducted, enrolling 106 patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery. After the induction of anesthesia and prior to the start of surgery, cardiac function will be assessed by 2D and 3D TEE. Images will be acquired at two different oxygen states for each patient in randomized order. The fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) will be titrated to a normoxemic state (oxygen saturation of 95-98%) and adjusted to a hyperoxic state (FIO2 = 0.8). TEE images will be analyzed in a blinded manner for standard cardiac function and strain parameters. CONCLUSION: By using myocardial strain assessed by TEE, early and subtle signs of biventricular systolic and diastolic dysfunction can be promptly measured intraoperatively prior to the onset of severe signs of ischemia. The results may help anesthesiologists to better understand the effects of FIO2 on cardiac function and potentially tailor oxygen therapy to patients with CAD undergoing general anesthesia.