Effect of antiplatelet treatment on aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients after endovascular treatment: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Antiplatelet treatment (APT) has been reported to be used in some patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) after endovascular treatment, but there is controversy among different studies regarding its clinical effects. This study intends to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of APT on aSAH patients after endovascular treatment. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to January 2022 for eligible English publications. Quality assessment was conducted for the included studies. Publication bias and heterogeneity were assessed by Egger's test and the I2 statistic, respectively. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by meta-analysis. Robustness was checked by subgroup and sensitivity analyses. In total, 597 and 522 patients with and without APT, respectively, in 5 retrospective studies were retained for the meta-analysis. Pooled analyses showed that the APT group had a lower mortality (41/499 [8%] versus 56/402 [14%]; OR = 0.533; 95% CI, 0.347-0.820; P = 0.004) and a higher proportion of favorable clinical outcomes (400/532 [75%] versus 266/421 [63%]; OR = 1.801; 95% CI, 1.359-2.414; P = 0.000) than the control group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of hemorrhagic complications (39/564 [7%] versus 26/503 [5%]; OR = 1.386; 95% CI, 0.825-2.329; P = 0.218) between groups. Although the incidence of delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) was significantly lower in the APT group (65/512 [13%] versus 105/447 [23%]; OR = 0.325; 95% CI, 0.107-0.988; P = 0.048), it showed substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 64.7%). Subsequent sensitivity analysis suggested that the meta-analysis was robust. Subgroup analyses revealed that long-term (> 2 weeks) APT (60/479 [13%] versus 103/428 [24%]; OR = 0.212; 95% CI, 0.056-0.806; P = 0.023) significantly reduced the DCI rate and that different grouping methods in the included studies may be a source of heterogeneity. In the absence of randomized controlled trials, a meta-analysis of retrospective studies suggested that APT was associated with reduced mortality and better functional outcomes in aSAH patients after endovascular treatment without an increased incidence of hemorrhagic complications. Long-term APT was also associated with a decrease in the incidence of DCI. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are warranted and updated meta-analyses are needed to verify our findings.

Utilization of echocardiography during septic shock was associated with a decreased 28-day mortality: a propensity score-matched analysis of the MIMIC-III database.

BACKGROUND: Hemodynamic management is of paramount importance in patients with septic shock. Echocardiography has been increasingly used in assessing volume status and cardiac function. However, whether the utilization of echocardiography has an impact on prognosis is unknown. Thus, we intended to explore its effect on the outcomes of patients with septic shock. METHODS: The study was based on the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) III database. Septic shock patients were divided into two groups according to the usage of echocardiography during the onset of septic shock. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included the usage of inotropes, ventilation-free and norepinephrine-free time, and fluids input. Propensity-score matching was used to reduce the imbalance. RESULTS: Among 3,291 eligible patients, 1,289 patients who underwent echocardiography (Echo), and 1,289 who did not receive the Echo, had similar propensity scores and were included in the analyses. After matching, the Echo group had a significantly lower 28-day mortality (33.2% vs. 37.7%, P=0.019). More patients in the Echo group received pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) (4.2% vs. 0.2%, P<0.001) and inotropes (17.8% vs. 7.1%, P<0.001). In the survival analysis, Echo utilization was associated with improved 28-day mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73-0.95, P=0.005]. A reduced likelihood of 28-day mortality in patients with Echo vs. those without Echo was maintained either when excluding patients receiving multiple echocardiography scans (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94; P=0.004) or when excluding patients undergoing PAC or pulse index continuous cardiac output (PiCCO) (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99; P=0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of echocardiography was associated with improved 28-day outcomes in patients with septic shock.

Diaphragmatic dysfunction in sepsis due to severe acute pancreatitis complicated by intra-abdominal hypertension.

Objective This study aimed to examine the mechanism of diaphragmatic dysfunction in sepsis due to severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) with intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) in a rat model. Methods The rats were assigned at random to four groups: (1) control (n = 5), (2) SAP (n = 5), (3) SAP+IAH (n = 5), and (4) SAP+IAH+SS-31 (n = 5). Length and force output of the diaphragm were analysed in vivo. Histopathological examinations were performed by haematoxylin-eosin. Oxidative stress levels related to protease in diaphragmatic mitochondria were detected with a colorimetric technique. Results In the septic rat model due to SAP complicated by IAH, myofibres were increased. Muscle contractile function was significantly lower in the SAP+IAH group compared with the SAP and control groups. Glutathione peroxidase and superoxide dismutase levels were significantly lower and malondialdehyde levels were higher in the SAP and SAP+IAH groups compared with the control group. Notably, SS-31 could reverse atrophy of myofibres in SAP+IAH rats, as well as contractile dysfunction and mitochondrial dysfunction in the diaphragm. Conclusions Diaphragmatic structure and biomechanics are altered in septic rats due to SAP and IAH. This finding is mainly due to an increase in release of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species.

Intensive blood pressure control in patients with acute type B aortic dissection (RAID): study protocol for randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure control is an essential therapy for patients with acute type B aortic dissection (ABAD) and should be maintained throughout the entire treatment. Thus, vast majority current guidelines recommend control the blood pressure to lower than 140/90 mmHg. Theoretically, a much lower target may further decrease the risk of propagation of dissection. However, some argued that too lower blood pressure would compromise the organ perfusion. Thus, there is no unanimous optimal target for blood pressure in patients with ABAD so far. The present study aimed to investigate the optimal blood pressure target for patients with ABAD, in the hope that the result would optimize the treatment of aortic dissection (AD). METHODS: The study is a multi-center randomized controlled clinical trial. Study population will include patients with new diagnosed ABAD and hypertension. Blocked randomization was performed where intensive blood pressure control (<120 mmHg) with conventional blood pressure control (<140 mmHg) were allocated at random in a ratio of 1:1 in blocks of sizes 4, 6, 8, and 10 to 360 subjects. Interim analysis will be performed. The primary outcome is a composite in-hospital adverse outcome, including death, permanent paraplegia or semi- paralysis during the hospitalization, and renal failure requiring hemodialysis at discharge. While the secondary outcomes include the aortic size, lower extremity or visceral ischemia, retrograde propagation into aortic arch or ascending aorta, mortality in 6 months and 1 year, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, total length of hospital stay, creatinine level, and surgical or endovascular intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the institutional review board of Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital (approval number: 20160920-9). Informed consent will be obtained from participants or their next-of-kin. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and shared with the worldwide medical community. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03001739 (https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/).

Antihypertensive therapy with nicardipine for patients with aortic disease is associated with more esmolol usage than urapidil.

BACKGROUND: Acute aortic disease is a common but challenging entity in clinical practice. Titration the blood pressure and heart rate to a target level is of paramount importance in the acute phase regardless of whether the patient will undergo a surgery or not eventually. In addition to the initially intravenous ß-blockers, parenteral infusion of nicardipine and urapidil are the most common used antihypertensive therapy currently in mainland China. However, few empirical data was available with respect to the different effect on patients' outcome of the two antihypertensive strategies. Specifically given the deleterious reflex tachycardia of vasodilators which may increase force of ventricular contraction and potentially worsen aortic disease. Therefore, this study was aimed to evaluate the difference of the abovementioned two antihypertensive strategies on the outcome of patients with aortic disease. METHODS: All patients with new diagnosed aortic diseases presented to our hospitals from January 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. The antihypertensive strategies and their association with patients' outcomes were evaluated with logistics regression. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients with new diagnosed aortic disease were included in the study. Of them, 47 patients received urapidil while 73 patients received nicardipine antihypertensive therapy. Patients with nicardipine were more quickly to reach the target blood pressure level than those treated with urapidil (median, 18 vs. 35 min, P=0.024). After adjustment for patient demographics, co-morbidity, involved extend of aorta, interventional strategies, antihypertensive therapy with nicardipine (with urapidil as reference) for patients with aortic disease was significantly associated with high esmolol cost [odds ratio (OR): 6.2, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.8-21.6, P=0.004] and longer ICU length of stay (LOS) (OR: 3.9, 95% CI, 1.5-10.3, P=0.006). However, there was no significant correlation between nicardipine use and ICU mortality (OR: 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-1.4, P=0.123). CONCLUSIONS: Although nicardipine achieved the target blood pressure level more quickly than urapidil for patients with aortic disease, it was associated with more esmolol use and longer ICU LOS.