Role of copeptin in diagnosis and outcome prediction in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/CONTEXT: Heart failure (HF) is a heterogeneous condition characterized by increased morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies was conducted to evaluate the role of copeptin in diagnosis and outcome prediction in HF patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search for clinical trials reporting copeptin levels in HF patients was performed using EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar. Articles from databases published by 2 January 2022, that met the selection criteria were retrieved and reviewed. The random effects model was used for analyses. RESULTS: Pooled analysis found higher mean copeptin levels in HF vs. non-HF populations (43.6 ± 46.4 vs. 21.4 ± 21.4; MD= 20.48; 95% CI: 9.22 to 31.74; p < 0.001). Pooled analysis of copeptin concentrations stratified by ejection fraction showed higher concentrations in HFrEF vs. HFpEF (17.4 ± 7.1 vs. 10.1 ± 5.5; MD= -4.69; 95% CI: -7.58 to -1.81; p = 0.001). Copeptin level was higher in patients with mortality/acute HF-related hospitalization vs. stable patients (31.3 ± 23.7 vs. 20.4 ± 12.8; MD= -13.06; 95% CI: -25.28 to -0.84; p = 0.04). Higher copeptin concentrations were associated with mortality and observed in all follow-up periods (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis showed that elevated copeptin plasma concentrations observed in HF patients are associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, thus copeptin may serve as predictor of outcome in HF.

Comparison of Vie Scope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for intubation during resuscitation by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for endotracheal intubation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cardiac arrest patients than the conventional laryngoscope with Macintosh blade when operators are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). METHODS: Study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed by Emergency Medical Services in Poland. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital setting were included. Patients under 18 years old or with criteria predictive of impossible intubation under direct laryngoscopy, were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to Vie Scope® versus direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade. Study groups were compared on success of intubation attempts, time to intubation, glottis visualization and number of optimization maneuvers. RESULTS: We enrolled 90 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, aged 43-92 years. Compared to the VieScope® laryngoscope, use of the Macintosh laryngoscope required longer times for tracheal intubation with an estimated mean difference of -48 s (95%CI confidence interval [CI], -60.23, -35.77; p < 0.001). Moreover VieScope® improved first attempt success rate, 93.3% vs. 51.1% respectively (odds ratio [OR] = 13.39; 95%CI: 3.62, 49.58; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Vie Scope® laryngoscope in OHCA patients improved the first attempt success rate, and reduced intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in paramedics wearing PPE for against aerosol generating procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials registration number NCT04365608.

Opinion paper on utility of point-of-care biomarkers in the emergency department pathways decision making.

Overcrowding of the emergency department (ED) is rapidly becoming a global challenge and a major source of concern for emergency physicians. The evaluation of cardiac biomarkers is critical for confirming diagnoses and expediting treatment decisions to reduce overcrowding, however, physicians currently face the dilemma of choosing between slow and accurate central-based laboratory tests, or faster but imprecise assays. With improvements in technology, point-of-care testing (POCT) systems facilitate the efficient and high-throughput evaluation of biomarkers, such as troponin (cTn), brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL). In this context, POCT may help ED physicians to confirm a diagnosis of conditions, such as acute coronary syndrome, heart failure or kidney damage. Compared with classic laboratory methods, the use of cTn, BNP, and NGAL POCT has shown comparable sensitivity, specificity and failure rate, but with the potential to provide prompt and accurate diagnosis, shorten hospital stay, and alleviate the burden on the ED. Despite this potential, the full advantages of rapid delivery results will only be reached if POCT is implemented within hospital standardized procedures and ED staff receive appropriate training.

Meta-analysis of postoperative myocardial injury as a predictor of mortality after living donor liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate postoperative myocardial injury, as expressed by the postoperative concentration of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) as a predictor of mortality among living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) patients. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched through to September 1st 2022. The primary endpoint included in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints were 1-year mortality and re-transplantation occurrence. Estimates are expressed as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed with the I² test. RESULTS: During the search, 2 studies were found that fit the criteria and had a total of 527 patients. Pooled analysis showed that in-hospital mortality in patients with myocardial injury was 9.9%, compared to 5.0% for patients without myocardial injury (RR = 3.01; 95% CI: 0.97-9.36; p = 0.06). Mortality among 1-year follow-up was 5.0% vs. 2.4%, respectively (RR = 1.90; 95% CI: 0.41-8.81; p = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS: In recipients with normal preoperative cTnI, myocardial injury LDLT may be associated with adverse clinical outcomes during a hospital stay, but the results were inconsistent at 1-year follow-up. Although routine follow-up of postoperative hs-cTnI, even in patients with normal preoperative levels, might still help predict the clinical outcome of LDLT. In future large and more representative studies are needed to establish the potential role of cTns in perioperative cardiac risk stratification.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Pediatric Cardiac Arrest Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused a global pandemic, required the donning of personal protective equipment during clinical contact, and continues to be a significant worldwide public health concern. Pediatric cardiac arrest is a rare but critical condition with a high mortality rate, the outcomes of which may be negatively affected by donning personal protective equipment. The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric cardiac arrest outcomes. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from their inception to 1 October 2022. We included studies published in English on pediatric patients with cardiac arrest, dichotomized by the pre- and during-COVID-19 periods and then stratified by COVID-19 positive or negative status, to evaluate clinical outcomes associated with cardiac arrest. Six studies were included in the meta-analysis. In witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, there were no differences between the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods for witnessed cardiac arrest (28.5% vs. 28.7%; odds ratio (OR) = 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87 to 1.14; p = 0.93), administration of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (61.5 vs. 63.6%; OR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.98 to 1.26; p = 0.11), bystander automated external defibrillator use (both 2.8%; OR = 1.00; 95%CI: 0.69 to 1.45; p = 0.99), return of spontaneous circulation(8.4 vs. 8.9%; OR = 0.93; 95%CI: 0.47 to 1.88; p = 0.85), survival to hospital admission (9.0 vs. 10.2%, OR = 0.81; 95%CI: 0.45 to 1.44; p = 0.47), or survival to hospital discharge (13.4 vs. 12.4%; OR = 0.62; 95%CI: 0.22 to 1.72; p = 0.35). COVID-19 did not change pediatric cardiac arrest bystander interventions or outcomes.

Meta-analysis of chest compression-only versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for adult with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: According to the guidelines of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) conducted by bystanders, two methods of CPR are feasible: standard CPR (sCPR) with mouth-to-mouth ventilations and continuous chest compression-only CPR (CCC) without rescue breathing. The goal herein, was to evaluate the effect of sCPR (30:2) and CCC on resuscitation outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. METHODS: This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis. Using standardized criteria, Pub- Med, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE and Cochrane Collaboration were searched for trials assessing the effect of sCPR vs. CCC on resuscitation outcomes after adult OHCA. Random-effects model meta-analysis was applied to calculate the mean deviation (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Overall, 3 randomized controlled trials and 12 non-randomized trials met the inclusion criteria. Survival to hospital discharge with sCPR was 10.2% compared to 9.3% in the CCC group (OR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.93-1.16; p = 0.46). Survival to hospital discharge with good neurological outcome measured with the cerebral performance category (CPC 1 or 2) was 6.5% for sCPR vs. 5.8% for CCC (OR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.84-1.20; p = 0.98). Prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in sCPR and CCC groups was 15.9% and 14.8%, respectively (OR = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.91-1.39; p = 0.26). Survival to hospital admission with ROSC occurred in 29.5% of the sCPR group compared to 28.4% in CCC group (OR = 1.20; 95% CI: 0.89-1.63; p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that there were no significant differences in the resuscitation outcomes between the use of standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation and chest compression only.

Diagnostic performance of point-of-use ultrasound of resuscitation outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 3265 patients.

BACKGROUND: Echocardiography in the setting of resuscitation can provide information as to the cause of the cardiac arrest, as well as indicators of futility. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the value of point-of-care ultrasonography (PoCUS) in the assessment of survival for adult patients with cardiac arrest. METHODS: This meta-analysis was performed in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane have been searched from databases inception until March 2nd 2021. The search was limited to adult patients with cardiac arrest and without publication dates or country restrictions. Papers were chosen if they met the required criteria relating to the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of this diagnostic technique concerning resuscitation outcomes. RESULTS: This systematic review identified 20 studies. Overall, for survival to hospital discharge, PoCUS was 6.2% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.7-8.0%) and 2.1% specific (95% CI 0.8-4.2%). PoCUS sensitivity and specificity for return of spontaneous circulation were 23.8% (95% CI 21.4-26.4%) and 50.7% (95% CI 45.8-55.7%) respectively, and for survival to admission 13.8% (95% CI 12.2-15.5%) and 20.1% (95% CI 16.2-24.3%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results do not allow unambiguous recommendation of PoCUS as a predictor of resuscitation outcomes and further studies based on a large number of patients with full standardization of operators, their training and procedures performed were necessary.

Diagnostic value of lactate dehydrogenase in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis outlines the role of elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels in assessing the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: The current study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Embase, Pub- Med, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify the usefulness of LDH as a marker of COVID-19 severity. All extracted data were analyzed using RevMan V.5.4 or STATA V.14 software. RESULTS: A total of 264 records were selected for this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that LDH levels were statistically significantly lower in the group of survivors compared to patients who died in hospital (standardized mean differences [SMD] = -3.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.40 to -2.79; I2 = 99%; p < 0.001). Lower LDH levels were observed in non-severe groups compared to severe course of COVID-19 (SMD = -2.38; 95% CI: -2.61 to -2.14; I2 = 99%; p < 0.001). The level of LDH was statistically significantly lower in the severe group compared to the critical group (SMD = -1.48; 95% CI: -2.04 to -0.92; I2 = 98%; p < 0.001). Patients who did not require treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) showed significantly lower levels of LDH compared to patients who required treatment in the ICU (SMD = -3.78; 95% CI: -4.48 to -3.08; I2 = 100%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that elevated LDH was associated with a poor outcome in COVID-19.

Prognostic Performance of Cystatin C in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Cystatin C is a specific biomarker of kidney function. We perform this meta-analysis to determine the association of Cystatin C with the COVID-19 severity. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science for studies published until 2nd September 2022 that reported associations between Cystatin C levels and COVID-19 severity. The analysis was performed using a random-effects model to calculate pooled standard mean difference (SMD). Twenty-five studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed statistically significant differences of Cystatin C levels among survive vs. decreased patients (0.998 ± 0.225 vs. 1.328 ± 0.475 mg/dL, respectively; SMD = -2.14; 95%CI: -3.28 to -1.01; p < 0.001). Cystatin C levels in COVID-19 severe vs. non-severe groups varied and amounted to 1.485 ± 1.191 vs. 1.014 ± 0.601 mg/dL, respectively (SMD = 1.81; 95%CI: 1.29 to 2.32; p < 0.001). Additionally, pooled analysis showed that Cystatin C levels in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) was 1.562 ± 0.885 mg/dL, compared to 0.811 ± 0.108 mg/dL for patients without AKI (SMD = 4.56; 95%CI: 0.27 to 8.85; p = 0.04). Summing up, Cystatin C is a potentially very good marker to be used in the context of COVID-19 disease due to the prognosis of patients' serious condition, risk of AKI and mortality. In addition, Cystatin C could be used as a marker of renal complications in COVID-19 other than AKI due to the need to monitor patients even longer after leaving the hospital.

Vitamin C Supplementation for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), millions of people have died, and the medical system has faced significant difficulties. Our purpose was to perform a meta-analysis to estimate the effect of vitamin C on in-hospital mortality and the ICU or hospital length of stay for patients diagnosed with COVID-19. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included studies that evaluated the effect of vitamin C supplementation, compared with standard treatment in COVID-19 patients who are ≥18 y of age. Nineteen trials were included in the meta-analysis. In-hospital mortality with and without vitamin C supplementation was 24.1% vs. 33.9% (OR = 0.59; 95%CI: 0.37 to 0.95; p = 0.03), respectively. Sub-analysis showed that, in randomized clinical trials, in-hospital mortality varied and amounted to 23.9% vs. 35.8% (OR = 0.44; 95%CI: 0.25 to 0.76; p = 0.003), respectively. In the non-randomized trials, in-hospital mortality was 24.2% vs. 33.5% (OR = 0.72; 95%CI: 0.38 to 1.39; p = 0.33), respectively. The ICU length of stay was longer in patients treated with vitamin C vs. standard therapy, 11.1 (7.3) vs. 8.3 (4.7) days (MD = 1.91; 95%CI: 0.89 to 2.93; p < 0.001), respectively. Acute kidney injury in patients treated with and without vitamin C varied and amounted to 27.8% vs. 45.0% (OR = 0.56; 95%CI: 0.40 to 0.78; p < 0.001), respectively. There were no differences in the frequency of other adverse events among patients' treatment with and without vitamin C (all p > 0.05). The use of vitamin C reduces hospital mortality. The length of stay in the ICU is longer among patients treated with vitamin C. In terms of patient safety, vitamin C has an acceptable profile. Low doses of vitamin C are effective and safe. Despite some evidence of the usefulness of vitamin C in modifying the course of COVID-19, it is too early to modify guidelines and recommendations. Further studies, in particular randomized clinical trials, are necessary.

Hyperkalemia and Electrocardiogram Manifestations in End-Stage Renal Disease.

Hyperkalemia is one of the more common acute life-threatening metabolic emergencies. The aim of our study is to determine the correlation and accuracy of abnormal ECG parameters as a function of serum potassium concentration in the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) population. We performed a retrospective chart review of emergency department patients presenting with ESRD and receiving emergent hemodialysis treatment. A total of 96 patients, each with five independent ED visits, provided 480 sets of ECGs and electrolytes. Of these, four ECGs were excluded for inability to interpret, leaving a total of 476 patient encounters that met all inclusion criteria. Linear regression analysis on the limited data set for serum potassium versus T/R in V2, V3, and V4, PR, and QRS found weak correlations (r2 = 0.02 to 0.12) with statistical significance <0.05 level for T/R in V2, V3, and V4. In summary, we found that a QRS duration of 120 ms or greater is most predictive of hyperkalemia in the ESRD population. On the other hand, T/R ratio, PR interval and QRS duration have poor correlations with serum potassium and are not predictive of hyperkalemia in patients with ESRD.

Prediction Value of KREBS Von Den Lungen-6 (KL-6) Biomarker in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic is a major issue that necessitates the use of cutting-edge disease prediction models. The aim of the study was to assess the existing evidence regarding association between Krebs von den Lungen-6 levels and COVID-19 severity. A literature search was performed on Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from 1 January 2020 up to 2 August 2022. The electronic database search was supplemented by searching Google Scholar. In addition, reference lists of relative articles were also reviewed. KL-6 levels among COVID-19 positive vs. negative patients varied and amounted to 443.37 ± 249.33 vs. 205.73 ± 86.8 U/mL (MD = 275.33; 95%CI: 144.57 to 406.09; p < 0.001). The KL-6 level was 402.82 ± 261.16 U/mL in the severe group and was statistically significantly higher than in the non-severe group (297.38 ± 90.46 U/mL; MD = 192.45; 95%CI: 118.19 to 266.72; p < 0.001). The KL-6 level in the mild group was 272.28 ± 95.42 U/mL, compared to 268.04 ± 55.04 U/mL in the moderate COVID-19 group (MD = −12.58; 95%CI: −21.59 to −3.57; p = 0.006). Our meta-analysis indicates a significant association between increased KL-6 levels and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Moreover, KL-6 levels are significantly higher in patients with a more severe course of COVID-19, indicating that KL-6 may be a useful predictor to identify patients at risk for severe COVID-19.

Outcomes of audio-instructed and video-instructed dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The present meta-analysis of clinical and simulation trials aimed to compare video-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (V-DACPR) with conventional audio-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (C-DACPR). METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Collaboration databases and Scopus from inception until June 10, 2021. The primary outcomes were the prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital discharge, and survival to hospital discharge with a good neurological outcome for clinical trials, and chest compression quality for simulation trials. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) indicated the pooled effect. The analyses were performed with the RevMan 5.4 and STATA 14 software. RESULTS: Overall, 2 clinical and 8 simulation trials were included in this meta-analysis. In clinical trials, C-DACPR and V-DACPR were characterised by, respectively, 11.8% vs. 24.3% of prehospital ROSC (OR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.69; I2 = 66%; p < .001), 10.7% vs. 22.3% of survival to hospital discharge (OR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.70; I2 = 69%; p < .001), and 6.3% vs. 16.0% of survival to hospital discharge with a good neurological outcome (OR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.67; I2 = 73%; p < .001). In simulation trials, chest compression rate per minute equalled 91.3 ± 22.6 for C-DACPR and 107.8 ± 12.6 for V-DACPR (MD = -13.40; 95% CI: -21.86, -4.95; I2 = 97%; p = .002). The respective values for chest compression depth were 38.7 ± 14.3 and 41.8 ± 12.5 mm (MD = -2.67; 95% CI: -8.35, 3.01; I2 = 98%; p = .36). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with C-DACPR, V-DACPR significantly increased prehospital ROSC and survival to hospital discharge. Under simulated resuscitation conditions, V-DACPR exhibited a higher rate of adequate chest compressions than C-DACPR.Key messagesBystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation parameters significantly depend on the dispatcher's support and the manner of the support provided.Video-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation can increase the rate of prehospital return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital discharge.Video-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation improves the quality of chest compressions compared with dispatcher-assisted resuscitation without video instruction.

Optimizing fluid management in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF): the emerging role of combined measurement of body hydration status and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels.

The study tests the hypothesis that in patients admitted with acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF), achievement of adequate body hydration status with intensive medical therapy, modulated by combined bioelectrical vectorial impedance analysis (BIVA) and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) measurement, may contribute to optimize the timing of patient's discharge and to improve clinical outcomes. Three hundred patients admitted for ADHF underwent serial BIVA and BNP measurement. Therapy was titrated to reach a BNP value of <250 pg/ml, whenever possible. Patients were categorized as early responders (rapid BNP fall below 250 pg/ml); late responders (slow BNP fall below 250 pg/ml, after aggressive therapy); and non-responders (BNP persistently >250 pg/ml). Worsening of renal function (WRF) was evaluated during hospitalization. Death and rehospitalization were monitored with a 6-month follow-up. BNP value on discharge of ≤250 pg/ml led to a 25% event rate within 6 months (Group A: 17.4%; Group B: 21%, Chi2; n.s.), whereas a value >250 pg/ml (Group C) was associated with a far higher percentage (37%). At discharge, body hydration was 73.8 ± 3.2% in the total population and 73.2 ± 2.1, 73.5 ± 2.8, 74.1 ± 3.6% in the three groups, respectively. WRF was observed in 22.3% of the total. WRF occurred in 22% in Group A, 32% in Group B, and 20% in Group C (P = n.s.). Our study confirms the hypothesis that combined BNP/BIVA sequential measurements help to achieve adequate fluid balance status in patients with ADHF and can be used to drive a "tailored therapy," allowing clinicians to identify high-risk patients and possibly to reduce the incidence of complications secondary to fluid management strategies.

Should we supplement zinc in COVID-19 patients? Evidence from a meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Preliminary retrospective reports showed that zinc supplementation may decrease mortality in patients with COVID-19, postulating the potential therapeutic efficacy of zinc in the management of the disease. OBJECTIVES: We sought to summarize the studies published to date regarding the antiviral activity of zinc in patients with COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed to compare the outcomes of hospitalized patients receiving zinc supplementation and those treated with standard care. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and length of stay in hospital or intensive care unit (ICU). RESULTS: Data relating to 1474 patients included in 4 studies were analyzed. Survival to hospital discharge was 56.8% in the zinc group compared with 75.9% in the nonzinc group (P = 0.88). In-hospital mortality was 22.3% in the zinc group compared with 13.6% in the standard care group (P = 0.16). The mean (SD) length of hospital stay was 7.7 (3.7) days in the zinc group and 7.2 (3.9) days in the standard treatment group (P <⁠0.001). The mean (SD) length of ICU stay was 4.9 (1.7) days in the zinc group and 5.8 (1.9) days in the standard care group (P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Zinc supplementation did not have any beneficial impact on the course of COVID-19 evaluated as survival to hospital discharge and in-hospital mortality. The zinc-supplemented group had longer hospital stay despite shorter ICU stay. At present, there are no evidence-based data to support routine zinc supplementation in patients with COVID-19.

Impact of COVID-19 on in-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes: An updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The main purposes of this meta-analysis are to update the information about the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and to investigate the impact of being infected by by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on IHCA outcomes. METHODS: The current meta-analysis is an update and follows the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: In analyses, pre- and intra-COVID-19 periods were observed for: shockable rhythms in 17.6% vs. 16.2% (odds ratio [OR]: 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.72; p = 0.65), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in 47.4% vs. 44.0% (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 0.90-2.07; p = 0.15), 30-day mortality in 59.8% vs. 60.9% (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.75-1.22; p = 0.69) and overall mortality 75.8% vs. 74.7% (OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.49-1.28; p = 0.35), respectively. In analyses, SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients were observed for: shockable rhythms in 9.6% vs. 19.8% (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.35-0.73; p < 0.001), ROSC in 33.9% vs. 52.1% (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.30-0.73; p < 0.001), 30-day mortality in 77.2% vs. 59.7% (OR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.28-3.38; p = 0.003) and overall mortality in 94.9% vs. 76.7% (OR: 3.20; 95% CI: 0.98-10.49; p = 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite ROSC, 30-day and overall mortality rate were not statistically different in pre- vs. intra-COVID-19 periods, a lower incidence of ROSC and higher 20-day mortality rate were observed in SARS-CoV-2 (+) compared to SARS-CoV-2 (-) patients.

Performance of Copeptin for Early Diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 14,139 Patients.

Diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) based on copeptin level may enable one to confirm or rule-out acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with higher sensitivity and specificity, which may in turn further reduce mortality rate and decrease the economic costs of ACS treatment. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the relationship between copeptin levels and type of ACS. We searched Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane to locate all articles published up to 10 October 2021. We evaluated a meta-analysis with random-effects models to evaluate differences in copeptin levels. A total of 14,139 patients (4565 with ACS) were included from twenty-seven studies. Copeptin levels in AMI and non-AMI groups varied and amounted to 68.7 ± 74.7 versus 14.8 ± 19.9 pmol/L (SMD = 2.63; 95% CI: 2.02 to 3.24; p < 0.001). Copeptin levels in the AMI group was higher than in the unstable angina (UAP) group, at 51.9 ± 52.5 versus 12.8 ± 19.7 pmol/L (SMD = 1.53; 95% CI: 0.86 to 2.20; p < 0.001). Copeptin levels in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) versus non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patient groups were 54.8 ± 53.0 versus 28.7 ± 46.8 pmol/L, respectively (SMD = 1.69; 95% CI: = 0.70 to 4.09; p = 0.17). In summary, elevated copeptin levels were observed in patients with ACS compared with patients without ACS. Given its clinical value, copeptin levels may be included in the assessment of patients with ACS as well as for the initial differentiation of ACS.

Characteristics and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in COVID-19. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose herein, was to perform a systematic review of interventional outcome studies in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed of publications meeting the following PICOS criteria: (1) participants, patients > 18 years of age with cardiac arrest due to any causes; (2) intervention, cardiac arrest in COVID-19 period; (3) comparison, cardiac arrest in pre-COVID-19 period; (4) outcomes, detailed information for survival; (5) study design, randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized or observational studies comparing cardiac arrest in COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 period for their effects in patients with cardiac arrest. RESULTS: Survival to hospital discharge for the pre-pandemic and pandemic period was reported in 3 studies (n =1432 patients) and was similar in the pre-pandemic vs. the pandemic period, 35.6% vs. 32.1%, respectively (odds ratio [OR] 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-3.65; p = 0.16; I2 = 72%). Return of spontaneous circulation was reported by all 4 studies and were also similar in the pre and during COVID-19 periods, 51.9% vs. 48.7% (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.78-2.07; p = 0.33; I2 = 71%), respectively. Pooled analysis of cardiac arrest recurrence was also similar, 24.9% and 17.9% (OR 1.60; 95% CI 0.99-2.57; p = 0.06; I2 = 32%) in the pre and during COVID-19 cohorts. Survival with Cerebral Performance Category 1 or 2 was higher in pre vs. during pandemic groups (27.3 vs. 9.1%; OR 3.75; 95% CI 1.26-11.20; p = 0.02). Finally, overall mortality was similar in the pre vs. pandemic groups, 65.9% and 67.2%, respectively (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.33-1.34; p = 0.25; I2 = 76%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the pre-pandemic period, in hospital cardiac arrest in COVID-19 patients was numerically higher but had statistically similar outcomes.