Effect of low vs. high vancomycin trough level on the clinical outcomes of adult patients with sepsis or gram-positive bacterial infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: The Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines recommend vancomycin trough levels of 15-20 mg/L for severe methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. However, recent consensus guidelines of four infectious disease organizations no longer recommend vancomycin dosing using minimum serum trough concentrations. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of low (< 15 mg/L) vs. high (≥ 15 mg/L) vancomycin trough levels on clinical outcomes in adult patients with sepsis or gram-positive bacterial infections. METHOD: A systematic literature review from inception to December 2022 was conducted using four online databases, followed by a meta-analysis. The outcomes of interest included clinical response/efficacy, microbial clearance, length of ICU stay, treatment failure, nephrotoxicity, and mortality. RESULTS: Fourteen cohort studies met the inclusion criteria from which vancomycin trough concentration data were available for 5,228 participants. Our analysis found no association between vancomycin trough levels and clinical response [OR = 1.06 (95%CI 0.41-2.72], p = 0.91], microbial clearance [OR = 0.47 (95% CI 0.23-0.96), p = 0.04], ICU length of stay [MD=-1.01 (95%CI -5.73-3.71), p = 0.68], or nephrotoxicity [OR = 0.57 (95% CI 0.31-1.06), p = 0.07]. However, low trough levels were associated with a non-significant trend towards a lower risk of treatment failure [OR = 0.89 (95% CI 0.73-1.10), p = 0.28] and were significantly associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality [OR = 0.74 (95% CI 0.62-0.90), p = 0.002]. CONCLUSION: Except for a lower risk of treatment failure and all-cause mortality at low vancomycin trough levels, this meta-analysis found no significant association between vancomycin trough levels and clinical outcomes in adult patients with sepsis or gram-positive bacterial infections.

Antiarrhythmic drug therapy and catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drug therapy are utilized for rhythm control in atrial fibrillation (AF), but their comparative effectiveness, especially with contemporary treatment modalities, remains undefined. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis contrasting current ablation techniques against antiarrhythmic medications for AF. METHODS: We searched PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science until November 2023 for randomized trials comparing AF catheter ablation with antiarrhythmics, against antiarrhythmic drug therapy alone, reporting outcomes for > 6 months. Four investigators extracted data and appraised risk of bias (ROB) with ROB 2 tool. Meta-analyses estimated pooled efficacy and safety outcomes using R software. RESULTS: Twelve trials (n = 3977) met the inclusion criteria. Catheter ablation was associated with lower AF recurrence (relative risk (RR) = 0.44, 95%CI (0.33, 0.59), P ˂ 0.0001) and hospitalizations (RR = 0.44, 95%CI (0.23, 0.82), P = 0.009) than antiarrhythmic medications. Catheter ablation also improved the physical quality of life component score (assessed by a 36-item Short Form survey) by 7.61 points (95%CI -0.70-15.92, P = 0.07); but, due to high heterogeneity, it was not statistically significant. Ablation was significantly associated with higher procedural-related complications [RR = 15.70, 95%CI (4.53, 54.38), P < 0.0001] and cardiac tamponade [RR = 9.22, 95%CI (2.16, 39.40), P = 0.0027]. All-cause mortality was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: For symptomatic AF, upfront catheter ablation reduces arrhythmia and hospitalizations better than continued medical therapy alone, albeit with moderately more adverse events. Careful patient selection and risk-benefit assessment are warranted regarding the timing of ablation.