Evaluating the efficacy of different volume resuscitation strategies in acute pancreatitis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Acute pancreatitis poses a significant health risk due to the potential for pancreatic necrosis and multi-organ failure. Fluid resuscitation has demonstrated positive effects; however, consensus on the ideal intravenous fluid type and infusion rate for optimal patient outcomes remains elusive. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar for studies published between 2005 and January 2023. Reference lists of potential studies were manually searched to identify additional relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies comparing high (≥ 20 ml/kg/h), moderate (≥ 10 to < 20 ml/kg/h), and low (5 to < 10 ml/kg/h) fluid therapy in acute pancreatitis were considered. RESULTS: Twelve studies met our inclusion criteria. Results indicated improved clinical outcomes with low versus moderate fluid therapy (OR = 0.73; 95% CI [0.13, 4.03]; p = 0.71) but higher mortality rates with low compared to moderate (OR = 0.80; 95% CI [0.37, 1.70]; p = 0.55), moderate compared to high (OR = 0.58; 95% CI [0.41, 0.81], p = 0.001), and low compared to high fluids (OR = 0.42; 95% CI [0.16, 1.10]; P = 0.08). Systematic complications improved with moderate versus low fluid therapy (OR = 1.22; 95% CI [0.84, 1.78]; p = 0.29), but no difference was found between moderate and high fluid therapy (OR = 0.59; 95% CI [0.41, 0.86]; p = 0.006). DISCUSSION: This meta-analysis revealed differences in the clinical outcomes of patients with AP receiving low, moderate, and high fluid resuscitation. Low fluid infusion demonstrated better clinical outcomes but higher mortality, systemic complications, and SIRS persistence than moderate or high fluid therapy. Early fluid administration yielded better results than rapid fluid resuscitation.

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.

Mortality, morbidity & clinical outcome with different types of vasopressors in out of hospital cardiac arrest patients- a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Despite their continued use, the effectiveness and safety of vasopressors in post-cardiac arrest patients remain controversial. This study examined the efficacy of various vasopressors in cardiac arrest patients in terms of clinical, morbidity, and mortality outcomes. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed using online databases (MeSH terms: MEDLINE (Ovid), CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, Scopus, and Google Scholar) from 1997 to 2023 for relevant English language studies. The primary outcomes of interest for this study included short-term survival leading to death, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital discharge, neurological outcomes, survival to hospital admission, myocardial infarction, and incidence of arrhythmias. RESULTS: In this meta-analysis, 26 studies, including 16 RCTs and ten non-RCTs, were evaluated. The focus was on the efficacy of epinephrine, vasopressin, methylprednisolone, dopamine, and their combinations in medical emergencies. Epinephrine treatment was associated with better odds of survival to hospital discharge (OR = 1.52, 95%CI [1.20, 1.94]; p < 0.001) and achieving ROSC (OR = 3.60, 95% CI [3.45, 3.76], P < 0.00001)) over placebo but not in other outcomes of interest such as short-term survival/ death at 28-30 days, survival to hospital admission, or neurological function. In addition, our analysis indicates non-superiority of vasopressin or epinephrine vasopressin-plus-epinephrine therapy over epinephrine monotherapy except for survival to hospital admission where the combinatorial therapy was associated with better outcome (0.76, 95%CI [0.64, 0.92]; p = 0.004). Similarly, we noted the non-superiority of vasopressin-plus-methylprednisolone versus placebo. Finally, while higher odds of survival to hospital discharge (OR = 3.35, 95%CI [1.81, 6.2]; p < 0.001) and ROSC (OR = 2.87, 95%CI [1.97, 4.19]; p < 0.001) favoring placebo over VSE therapy were observed, the risk of lethal arrhythmia was not statistically significant. There was insufficient literature to assess the effects of dopamine versus other treatment modalities meta-analytically. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicated that only epinephrine yielded superior outcomes among vasopressors than placebo, albeit limited to survival to hospital discharge and ROSC. Additionally, we demonstrate the non-superiority of vasopressin over epinephrine, although vasopressin could not be compared to placebo due to the paucity of data. The addition of vasopressin to epinephrine treatment only improved survival to hospital admission.

Mortality and mode of dialysis: meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The global use of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) has increased, mirroring the incidence of acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease. Despite its growing clinical usage, patient outcomes with KRT modalities remain controversial. In this meta-analysis, we sought to compare the mortality outcomes of patients with any kidney disease requiring peritoneal dialysis (PD), hemodialysis (HD), or continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). METHODS: The investigation was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were screened for randomized trials and observational studies comparing mortality rates with different KRT modalities in patients with acute or chronic kidney failure. A random-effects model was applied to compute the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) with CRRT vs. HD, CRRT vs. PD, and HD vs. PD. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics, and sensitivity using leave-one-out analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen eligible studies were identified, allowing comparisons of mortality risk with different dialytic modalities. The relative risk was non-significant in CRRT vs. PD [RR = 0.95, (95%CI 0.53, 1.73), p = 0.92 from 4 studies] and HD vs. CRRT [RR = 1.10, (95%CI 0.95, 1.27), p = 0.21 from five studies] comparisons. The findings remained unchanged in the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. Although PD was associated with lower mortality risk than HD [RR = 0.78, (95%CI 0.62, 0.97), p = 0.03], the significance was lost with the exclusion of 4 out of 5 included studies. CONCLUSION: The current evidence indicates that while patients receiving CRRT may have similar mortality risks compared to those receiving HD or PD, PD may be associated with lower mortality risk compared to HD. However, high heterogeneity among the included studies limits the generalizability of our findings. High-quality studies comparing mortality outcomes with different dialytic modalities in CKD are necessary for a more robust safety and efficacy evaluation.