RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the use of telehealthcare in rheumatology before coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), to which future comparisons of newer interventions adapted during the crisis can be made. METHODS: We performed a registered systematic literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PubMed databases. All full-length articles comparing telehealthcare delivery models with standard care (face-to-face consultation) in the management of patients with rheumatic conditions were assessed for inclusion. RESULTS: A total of 4809 studies were identified; 108 studies were suitable for review by full text, and 13 studies were appropriate to be included in this review. Five studies (38%) included patients with RA, four studies (31%) included patients with mixed disease cohorts, two studies (15%) included patients with OA, one study (8%) included patients with JIA, and one study (8%) included patients with FM. Six studies (46%) used telephone consultation, three studies (23%) used mixed method communication, three studies (23%) used videoconferencing, and one study (8%) used website-delivered telecommunication as their method of telehealthcare delivery. Overall, seven studies (54%) identified the telehealthcare intervention to be an effective method of consultation, and six studies (46%) identified the telehealthcare intervention as non-inferior when compared with standard care. CONCLUSION: Current evidence for telehealthcare in rheumatology is lacking, and the evidence for effectiveness is limited by methodological bias and clinical heterogeneity of telehealthcare interventions, preventing definitive inferences. Scrutinous assessment of the current telehealthcare interventions used during COVID-19 is required to accommodate recommendations and guideline reviews directed from international working groups.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in critically ill patients. There is a paucity of data assessing the impact of anticoagulation strategies on clinical outcomes for general critical care patients with AF. Our aim was to assess the existing literature to evaluate the effectiveness of anticoagulation strategies used in critical care for AF. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PubMed databases. Studies reporting anticoagulation strategies for AF in adults admitted to a general critical care setting were assessed for inclusion. RESULTS: Four studies were selected for data extraction. A total of 44,087 patients were identified with AF, of which 17.8 to 49.4% received anticoagulation. The reported incidence of thromboembolic events was 0 to 1.4% for anticoagulated patients, and 0 to 1.3% in nonanticoagulated patients. Major bleeding events were reported in three studies and occurred in 7.2 to 8.6% of the anticoagulated patients and in up to 7.1% of the nonanticoagulated patients. CONCLUSION: There was an increased incidence of major bleeding events in anticoagulated patients with AF in critical care compared with nonanticoagulated patients. There was no significant difference in the incidence of reported thromboembolic events within studies between patients who did and did not receive anticoagulation. However, the outcomes reported within studies were not standardized, therefore, the generalizability of our results to the general critical care population remains unclear. Further data are required to facilitate an evidence-based assessment of the risks and benefits of anticoagulation for critically ill patients with AF.