Chest pain in pediatric patients in the emergency department- Presentation, risk factors and outcomes-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess and determine the presentation, risk factors, and outcomes of pediatric patients who were admitted for cardiac-related chest pain. BACKGROUND: Although chest pain is common in children, most cases are due to non-cardiac etiology. The risk of misdiagnosis and the pressure of potentially adverse outcomes can lead to unnecessary diagnostic testing and overall poorer patient experiences. Additionally, this can lead to a depletion of resources that could be better allocated towards patients who are truly suffering from cardiac-related pathology. METHODS: This review was conducted per PRISMA guidelines. This systematic review used several databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science to obtain its articles for review. RESULTS: A total of 6,520 articles were identified, and 11 articles were included in the study. 2.5% of our study population was found to have cardiac-related chest pain (prevalence = 0.025, 95% CI [0.013, 0.038]). The most commonly reported location of pain was retrosternal chest pain. 97.5% of the study population had a non-cardiac cause of chest pain, with musculoskeletal pain being identified as the most common cause (prevalence = 0.357, 95% CI [0.202, 0.512]), followed by idiopathic (prevalence = 0.352, 95% CI [0.258, 0.446]) and then gastrointestinal causes (prevalence = 0.053, 95% CI [0.039, 0.067]). CONCLUSIONS: The overwhelming majority of pediatric chest pain cases stem from benign origins. This comprehensive analysis found musculoskeletal pain as the predominant culprit behind chest discomfort in children. Scrutinizing our study cohort revealed that retrosternal chest pain stands as the unequivocal epicenter of this affliction. Thorough evaluation of pediatric patients manifesting with chest pain is paramount for the delivery of unparalleled care, especially in the context of potential cardiac risks in the emergency department.

Inhaled corticosteroids' effect on COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: More than six million people died due to COVID-19, and 10-15% of infected individuals suffer from post-covid syndrome. Corticosteroids are widely used in the management of severe COVID-19 and post-acute COVID-19 symptoms. This study synthesizes current evidence of the effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on mortality, hospital length-of-stay (LOS), and improvement of smell scores in patients with COVID-19. Methods: We searched Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus until Aug 2022. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of studies. We evaluated the effectiveness of ICS in COVID-19 patients through measures of mortality, LOS, alleviation of post-acute COVID-19 symptoms, time to sustained self-reported cure, and sense of smell (visual analog scale (VAS)). Results: Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. Our study showed a significant decrease in the LOS in ICS patients over placebo (MD = -1.52, 95% CI [-2.77 to -0.28], p-value = 0.02). Patients treated with intranasal corticosteroids (INC) showed a significant improvement in VAS smell scores from week three to week four (MD =1.52, 95% CI [0.27 to 2.78], p-value = 0.02), and alleviation of COVID-related symptoms after 14 days (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.09 to 1.26], p-value < 0.0001). No significant differences were detected in mortality (RR= 0.69, 95% CI [0.36 to 1.35], p-value = 0.28) and time to sustained self-reported cure (MD = -1.28, 95% CI [-6.77 to 4.20], p-value = 0.65). Conclusion: We concluded that the use of ICS decreased patient LOS and improved COVID-19-related symptoms. INC may have a role in improving the smell score. Therefore, using INC and ICS for two weeks or more may prove beneficial. Current data do not demonstrate an effect on mortality or time to sustained self-reported cure. However, the evidence is inconclusive, and more studies are needed for more precise data.

Efficacy and Safety of Therapeutic Hypothermia as an Adjuvant Therapy for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The study aims to compare the use of hypothermia in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with control. We systematically searched four electronic databases until March 2022. The inclusion criteria were any study design that compared hypothermia in patients with MI undergoing PCI with control. The risk of bias assessment of the included randomized controlled trials was conducted through Cochrane Tool, while the quality of the included cohort studies was assessed by the NIH tool. The meta-analysis was performed on RevMan. A total of 19 studies were entered. Regarding the mortality, there were nonsignificant differences between hypothermia and control (odds ratio [OR] = 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75 to 1.50, p = 0.73). There was also no significant difference between the control and hypothermia in recurrent MI (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.30, p = 0.56). On the other hand, the analysis showed a significant favor for hypothermia over the control infarct size (mean difference = -1.76, 95% CI -3.04 to -0.47, p = 0.007), but a significant favor for the control over hypothermia in the overall bleeding complications (OR = 1.88, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.18, p = 0.02). Compared with the control, hypothermia reduced the infarct size of the heart, but this finding was not consistent across studies. However, the control had lower rates of bleeding problems. The other outcomes, such as death and the incidence of recurrent MI, were similar between the two groups.

Safety and efficacy of edaravone in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: The study aims to increase understanding of edaravone's efficacy and safety as an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) treatment and provide significant insights regarding this field's future research. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies up until September 2022. We evaluated the studies' quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the National Institutes of Health tool. RESULTS: We included 11 studies with 2845 ALS patients. We found that edaravone improved the survival rate at 18, 24, and 30 months (risk ratio (RR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.02 to 1.24], P = 0.02), (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.06 to 1.41], P = 0.007), and (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.01 to 1.34], P = 0.03), respectively. However, the administration of edaravone did not result in any significant difference in adverse effects or efficacy outcomes between the two groups, as indicated by a P value greater than 0.05. CONCLUSION: Edaravone improves survival rates of ALS patients at 18, 24, and 30 months with no adverse effects. However, edaravone does not affect functional outcomes. In order to ensure the validity of our findings and assess the results in accordance with the disease stage, it is essential to carry out additional prospective, rigorous, and high-quality clinical trials. The current study offers preliminary indications regarding the effectiveness and safety of edaravone. However, further comprehensive research is required to establish the generalizability and sustainability of the findings.

Safety and efficacy of total ankle arthroplasty versus ankle arthrodesis for ankle osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Osteoarthritis is the most common joint disease-causing pain and disability, and its management keeps creating a debate. So, we aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of total ankle arthroplasty and ankle arthrodesis for ankle osteoarthritis. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science till August 2021. The outcomes were pooled as Mean difference (MD) or Risk Ratio (RR), and 95% confidence interval. We included 36 studies. The results showed a significantly lower risk of infections in total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) than ankle arthrodesis (AA) (RR= 0.63, 95% CI [0.57, 0.70], p < 0.00001), amputations (RR= 0.40, 95% CI [0.22, 0.72], p = 0.002), postoperative non-union (RR= 0.11, 95% CI [0.03, 0.34], p = 0.0002), and a significant increase of overall range of motion in TAA than AA. Our results preferred total ankle arthroplasty over ankle arthrodesis in terms of lowering the rates of infections, amputations, and postoperative non-union, with better change in the overall range of motion.

Efficacy and safety of cardioprotective drugs in chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity: an updated systematic review & network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients receiving chemotherapy have an increased risk of cardiovascular complications. This limits the widespread use of lifesaving therapies, often necessitating alternate lower efficacy regimens, or precluding chemotherapy entirely. Prior studies have suggested that using common cardioprotective agents may attenuate chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity. However, small sample sizes and conflicting outcomes have limited the clinical significance of these results. HYPOTHESIS: A comprehensive network meta-analysis using updated and high-quality data can provide more conclusive information to assess which drug or drug class has the most significant effect in the management of chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity. METHODS: We performed a literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of cardioprotective agents in patients with chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity. We used established analytical tools (netmeta package in RStudio) and data extraction formats to analyze the outcome data. To obviate systematic bias in the selection and interpretation of RCTs, we employed the validated Cochrane risk-of-bias tools. Agents included were statins, aldosterone receptor antagonists (MRAs), ACEIs, ARBs, and beta-blockers. Outcomes examined were improvement in clinical and laboratory parameters of cardiac function including a decreased reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), clinical HF, troponin-I, and B-natriuretic peptide levels. RESULTS: Our study included 33 RCTs including a total of 3,285 patients. Compared to control groups, spironolactone therapy was associated with the greatest LVEF improvement (Mean difference (MD) = 12.80, [7.90; 17.70]), followed by enalapril (MD = 7.62, [5.31; 9.94]), nebivolol (MD = 7.30, [2.39; 12.21]), and statins (MD = 6.72, [3.58; 9.85]). Spironolactone was also associated with a significant reduction in troponin elevation (MD = - 0.01, [- 0.02; - 0.01]). Enalapril demonstrated the greatest BNP reduction (MD = - 49.00, [- 68.89; - 29.11]), which was followed by spironolactone (MD = - 16.00, [- 23.9; - 8.10]). Additionally, patients on enalapril had the lowest risk of developing clinical HF compared to the control population (RR = 0.05, [0.00; 0.75]). CONCLUSION: Our analysis reaffirmed that statins, MRAs, ACEIs, and beta-blockers can significantly attenuate chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity, while ARBs showed no significant effects. Spironolactone showed the most robust improvement of LVEF, which best supports its use among this population. Our analysis warrants future clinical studies examining the cardioprotective effects of cardiac remodeling therapy in cancer patients treated with chemotherapeutic agents.

Maternal and neonatal safety outcomes after SAR-CoV-2 vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: More than five million individuals died because of problems connected to COVID-19. SARS-Cov-2 poses a particular challenge to expectant mothers, who comprise one of the most vulnerable segments of the population. Our aim is to demonstrate the maternal and neonatal safety of the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), Embase, Ovid, MedRxiv, and BioRxiv databases from inception till December 2021 and then updated it in April 2022. Additionally, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Research Square and grey literature. Cohort, case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials detecting the safety of the Covid-19 vaccine during pregnancy were included. We used the Cochrane tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the risk of bias of the included studies and the GRADE scale to assess the quality of evidence. A meta-analysis was conducted using review manager 5.4. RESULTS: We included 13 studies with a total number of 56,428 patients. Our analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the following outcomes: miscarriage (1.56% vs 0.3%. RR 1.23; 95%CI 0.54 to 2.78); length of maternal hospitalization (MD 0.00; 95%CI -0.08 to 0.08); puerperal fever (1.71% vs 1.1%. RR 1.04; 95%CI 0.67 to 1.61); postpartum hemorrhage (4.27% vs 3.52%. RR 0.84; 95%CI 0.65 to 1.09); instrumental or vacuum-assisted delivery (4.16% vs 4.54%. RR 0.94; 95%CI 0.57 to 1.56); incidence of Apgar score ≤ 7 at 5 min (1.47% vs 1.48%. RR 0.86; 95%CI 0.54 to 1.37); and birthweight (MD -7.14; 95%CI -34.26 to 19.99). CONCLUSION: In pregnancy, the current meta-analysis shows no effect of SAR-CoV-2 vaccination on the risk of miscarriage, length of stay in the hospital, puerperal fever, postpartum hemorrhage, birth weight, or the incidence of an Apgar score of ≤ 7 at 5 min.