Self-warming blankets versus active warming by forced-air devices for preventing hypothermia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Unintended perioperative hypothermia is a significant complication for patients undergoing anesthesia. Different measures are routinely undertaken to prevent hypothermia and its consequences. The evidence comparing the impact of self-warming blankets and forced-air warming is scarce. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of self-warming blankets compared to forced-air devices regarding the incidence of perioperative hypothermia. METHODS: We searched the Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Scopus for relevant studies from inception until December 2022. We included comparative studies with patients allocated to undergo warming using a self-warming blanket or forced air warming. All concerned outcomes were pooled as odds ratios or mean differences (MDs) in the meta-analysis models using Review Manager (RevMan version 5.4). RESULTS: Our results from 8 studies (597 patients) favored self-warming blankets over forced-air devices in terms of core temperature at 120 and 180 minutes after induction of general anesthesia (MD = 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.14-0.51], P = .0006), (MD = 0.62, 95% CI [0.09-1.14], P = .02), respectively. However, the overall effect did not favor either of the 2 groups for the incidence of hypothermia (odds ratio = 0.69, 95% CI [0.18-2.62]). CONCLUSION: Ultimately, self-warming blankets have a more significant effect than forced-air warming systems in terms of maintaining normothermia of core temperature after induction anesthesia. However, the present evidence is not enough to verify the efficacy of the 2 warming techniques in the incidence of hypothermia. Further studies with large sample sizes are recommended.

Efficacy of therapeutic plasma exchange in patients with severe COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the existing evidence and to quantitatively synthesise evidence on the impact of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) on severe COVID-19 patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022316331). We systemically searched six electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, clinicaltrial.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from inception until 1 June 2022. We included studies comparing patients who received TPE versus those who received the standard treatment. For risk of bias assessment, we used the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, the ROBINS1 tool, and the Newcastle Ottawa scale for RCTs, non-RCTs, and observational studies, respectively. Continuous data were pooled as standardized mean difference (SMD), and dichotomous data were pooled as risk ratio in the random effect model with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Thirteen studies (one randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 12 non-RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 829 patients. There is a moderate-quality evidence from one RCT that TPE reduces the lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (SMD -1.09, 95% CI [-1.59 to -0.60]), D-dimer (SMD -0.86, 95% CI [-1.34 to -0.37]), and ferritin (SMD -0.70, 95% CI [-1.18 to -0.23]), and increases the absolute lymphocyte count (SMD 0.54, 95% CI [0.07-1.01]), There is low-quality evidence from mixed-design studies that TPE was associated with lower mortality (relative risk 0.51, 95% CI [0.35-0.74]), lower IL-6 (SMD -0.91, 95% CI [-1.19 to -0.63]), and lower ferritin (SMD -0.51, 95% CI [-0.80 to -0.22]) compared to the standard control. Among severely affected COVID-19 patients, TPE might provide benefits such as decreasing the mortality rate, LDH, D-dimer, IL-6, and ferritin, in addition to increasing the higher absolute lymphocyte count. Further well-designed RCTs are needed.