RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Outcomes following in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in patients with COVID-19 have been reported by several small single-institutional studies; however, there are no large studies contrasting COVID-19 IHCA with non-COVID-19 IHCA. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes following IHCA between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We searched databases using predefined search terms and appropriate Boolean operators. All the relevant articles published till August 2022 were included in the analyses. The systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. An odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to measure effects. RESULTS: Among 855 studies screened, 6 studies with 27,453 IHCA patients (63.84% male) with COVID-19 and 20,766 (59.7% male) without COVID-19 were included in the analysis. IHCA among patients with COVID-19 has lower odds of achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.62-0.70). Similarly, patients with COVID-19 have higher odds of 30-day mortality following IHCA (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 2.08-2.45) and have 45% lower odds of cardiac arrest because of a shockable rhythm (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.50-0.60) (9.59% vs. 16.39%). COVID-19 patients less commonly underwent targeted temperature management (TTM) or coronary angiography; however, they were more commonly intubated and on vasopressor therapy as compared to patients who did not have a COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that IHCA with COVID-19 has a higher mortality and lower rates of ROSC compared with non-COVID-19 IHCA. COVID-19 is an independent risk factor for poor outcomes in IHCA patients.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers (LP) and transvenous pacemakers (TVP) are two stable pacing platforms currently available in clinical practice. Observational data show mixed results with regards to their comparative safety. This meta-analysis was aimed to evaluate the comparative safety of LP over TVP. METHODS: The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO registry (CRD42022325376). Six databases were searched for published literature from inception to April 12, 2022. RevMan 5.4.1 was used for statistical analysis. Odds ratio (OR) and mean difference were used to estimate the outcome with a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: A total of 879 studies were imported from the databases. Among these, 41 papers were screened for full text and 17 meet the inclusion criteria. Among them, pooled results showed 42% lower odds of occurrence of complications in the LP group (OR 0.58, CI 0.42-0.80) compared to TVP group. Notably, 70% lower odds of device dislodgment (OR 0.30, CI 0.21-0.43), 46% lower odds of re-intervention (OR 0.54, CI 0.45-0.64), 87% lower odds of pneumothorax (OR 0.13, CI 0.03-0.57), albeit, 2.65 times higher odds of pericardial effusion (OR 2.65, CI 1.49-4.70) were observed in the LP group. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed LP to be a significantly safer modality compared to TVP, in terms of re-intervention, device dislodgment, pneumothoraxes, and overall complications. However, there were higher rates of pericardial effusion in the LP group. There was a diverse number of patients included, and all studies were observational. Randomized trials are needed to validate our findings.