International treatment outcomes of neonates on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) with persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN): a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: PPHN is a common cause of neonatal respiratory failure and is still a serious condition and associated with high mortality. OBJECTIVES: To compare the demographic variables, clinical characteristics, and treatment outcomes in neonates with PHHN who underwent ECMO and survived compared to neonates with PHHN who underwent ECMO and died. METHODS: We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline and searched ProQuest, Medline, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, Scopus and Nature for studies on the development of PPHN in neonates who underwent ECMO, published from January 1, 2010 to May 31, 2023, with English language restriction. RESULTS: Of the 5689 papers that were identified, 134 articles were included in the systematic review. Studies involving 1814 neonates with PPHN who were placed on ECMO were analyzed (1218 survived and 594 died). Neonates in the PPHN group who died had lower proportion of normal spontaneous vaginal delivery (6.4% vs 1.8%; p value > 0.05) and lower Apgar scores at 1 min and 5 min [i.e., low Apgar score: 1.5% vs 0.5%, moderately abnormal Apgar score: 10.3% vs 1.2% and reassuring Apgar score: 4% vs 2.3%; p value = 0.039] compared to those who survived. Neonates who had PPHN and died had higher proportion of medical comorbidities such as omphalocele (0.7% vs 4.7%), systemic hypotension (1% vs 2.5%), infection with Herpes simplex virus (0.4% vs 2.2%) or Bordetella pertussis (0.7% vs 2%); p = 0.042. Neonates with PPHN in the death group were more likely to present due to congenital diaphragmatic hernia (25.5% vs 47.3%), neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (4.2% vs 13.5%), meconium aspiration syndrome (8% vs 12.1%), pneumonia (1.6% vs 8.4%), sepsis (1.5% vs 8.2%) and alveolar capillary dysplasia with misalignment of pulmonary veins (0.1% vs 4.4%); p = 0.019. Neonates with PPHN who died needed a longer median time of mechanical ventilation (15 days, IQR 10 to 27 vs. 10 days, IQR 7 to 28; p = 0.024) and ECMO use (9.2 days, IQR 3.9 to 13.5 vs. 6 days, IQR 3 to 12.5; p = 0.033), and a shorter median duration of hospital stay (23 days, IQR 12.5 to 46 vs. 58.5 days, IQR 28.2 to 60.7; p = 0.000) compared to the neonates with PPHN who survived. ECMO-related complications such as chylothorax (1% vs 2.7%), intracranial bleeding (1.2% vs 1.7%) and catheter-related infections (0% vs 0.3%) were more frequent in the group of neonates with PPHN who died (p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: ECMO in the neonates with PPHN who failed supportive cardiorespiratory care and conventional therapies has been successfully utilized with a neonatal survival rate of 67.1%. Mortality in neonates with PPHN who underwent ECMO was highest in cases born via the caesarean delivery mode or neonates who had lower Apgar scores at birth. Fatality rate in neonates with PPHN who underwent ECMO was the highest in patients with higher rate of specific medical comorbidities (omphalocele, systemic hypotension and infection with Herpes simplex virus or Bordetella pertussis) or cases who had PPHN due to higher rate of specific etiologies (congenital diaphragmatic hernia, neonatal respiratory distress syndrome and meconium aspiration syndrome). Neonates with PPHN who died may need a longer time of mechanical ventilation and ECMO use and a shorter duration of hospital stay; and may experience higher frequency of ECMO-related complications (chylothorax, intracranial bleeding and catheter-related infections) in comparison with the neonates with PPHN who survived.

Antimicrobial susceptibility of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria: a 5-year retrospective analysis at a multi-hospital healthcare system in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: Studying time-related changes in susceptible pathogens causing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) is vital in improving local antimicrobial and infection control practices. OBJECTIVES: Describe susceptibility patterns to several antimicrobials in gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens isolated from patients causing HAIs at three private tertiary care hospitals in Saudi Arabia over a 5-year period. METHODS: Data on trends of antimicrobial susceptibility among bacteria causing HAIs events in children and adults at three tertiary private hospitals located in Riyadh and Qassim, Saudi Arabia, were collected retrospectively between 2015 and 2019 using the surveillance data datasets. RESULTS: Over a 5-year period, 38,624 pathogens caused 17,539 HAI events in 17,566 patients. About 9450 (53.8%) of patients who suffered HAIs were females and the average age was 41.7 ± 14.3 years (78.1% were adults and 21.9% were children). Gram-negative pathogens were 2.3-times more likely to cause HAIs compared to gram-positive bacteria (71.9% vs. 28.1%). The ranking of causative pathogens in decreasing order was: Escherichia coli (38%), Klebsiella species (15.1%), and Staphylococcus aureus (12.6%). Gram-positive isolates were mostly susceptible to linezolid (91.8%) whereas they were resistant to ampicillin (52.6%), cefoxitin (54.2%), and doxycycline (55.9%). Gram-negative isolates were mostly sensitive to tigecycline (95%) whereas they were resistant to cefotaxime (49.5%) and cefixime (59.6%). During the 5 years, there were relatively stable susceptibility patterns to all tested antimicrobials, except for cefotaxime which shown a susceptibility reduction by 41.4%, among Escherichia coli and Klebsiella species. An increase in the susceptibility of Acinetobacter and Enterobacter and Citrobacter species to all studied antimicrobials was observed except for colistin that had a slight sensitivity reduction in 2019 by 4.3% against Acinetobacter species. However, we noted reduced sensitivity of MRSA, CoNS and Enterococcus species to gentamicin; and increased resistance of MRSA to linezolid and vancomycin. CONCLUSION: The observed increase in susceptibility of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria to studied antimicrobials is important; however, reduced sensitivity of MRSA, CoNS and Enterococcus species to gentamicin; and increased resistance of MRSA to linezolid and vancomycin is a serious threat and calls for effective antimicrobial stewardship programs.

Efficacy and Safety of Lopinavir/Ritonavir for Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

(Background) Lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/RTV) is a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antiviral combination that has been considered for the treatment of COVID-19 disease. (Aim) This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of LPV/RTV in COVID-19 patients in the published research. (Methods) A protocol was developed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Articles were selected for review from 8 electronic databases. This review evaluated the effects of LPV/RTV alone or in combination with standard care ± interferons/antiviral treatments compared to other therapies, regarding duration of hospital stay, risk of progressing to invasive mechanical, time to virological cure and body temperature normalization, cough relief, radiological progression, mortality and safety. (Results) A consensus was reached to select 32 articles for full-text screening; only 14 articles comprising 9036 patients were included in this study; and eight of these were included for meta-analysis. Most of these studies did not report positive clinical outcomes with LPV/RTV treatment. In terms of virological cure, three studies reported less time in days to achieve a virological cure for LPV/RTV arm relative to no antiviral treatment (-0.81 day; 95% confidence interval (CI), -4.44 to 2.81; p = 0.007, I2 = 80%). However, the overall effect was not significant (p = 0.66). When comparing the LPV/RTV arm to umifenovir arm, a favorable affect was observed for umifenovir arm, but not statically significant (p = 0.09). In terms of time to body normalization and cough relief, no favorable effects of LPV/RTV versus umifenovir were observed. The largest trials (RECOVERY and SOLIDARITY) have shown that LPV/RTV failed to reduce mortality, initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation or hospitalization duration. Adverse events were reported most frequently for LPV/RTV (n = 84) relative to other antivirals and no antiviral treatments. (Conclusions) This review did not reveal any significant advantage in efficacy of LPV/RTV for the treatment of COVID-19 over standard care, no antivirals or other antiviral treatments. This result might not reflect the actual evidence.