Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

A strategy of complete revascularization (CR) is recommended in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). However, the optimal timing of CR remains equivocal. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate CR (ICR) with staged CR in patients with ACS and MVD. Our primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. All outcomes were assessed at 3 time points: in-hospital or at 30 days, at 6 months to 1 year, and at >1 year. Data were pooled in RevMan 5.4 using risk ratios as the effect measure. A total of 9 RCTs (7,506 patients) were included in our review. A total of 7 trials enrolled patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 1 enrolled patients with non-STEMI only, and 1 enrolled patients with all types of ACS. There was no difference between ICR and staged CR regarding all-cause and cardiovascular mortality at any time window. ICR reduced the rate of myocardial infarction and decreased the rate of repeat revascularization at 6 months and beyond. The rates of cerebrovascular events and stent thrombosis were similar between the 2 groups. In conclusion, the present meta-analysis demonstrated a lower rate of myocardial infarction and a reduction in repeat revascularization at and after 6 months with ICR strategy in patients with mainly STEMI and MVD. The 2 groups had no difference in the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Further RCTs are needed to provide more definitive conclusions and investigate CR strategies in other ACS.

Colchicine for the treatment of patients with COVID-19: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of colchicine treatment on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of colchicine treatment in patients with COVID-19 as compared with placebo or standard of care were included. There were no language restrictions. Studies that used colchicine prophylactically were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We extracted all information relating to the study characteristics, such as author names, location, study population, details of intervention and comparator groups, and our outcomes of interest. We conducted our meta-analysis by using RevMan V.5.4 with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference as the effect measures. RESULTS: We included 23 RCTs (28 249 participants) in this systematic review. Colchicine did not decrease the risk of mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I2=0%; 20 RCTs, 25 824 participants), with the results being consistent among both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients. There were no significant differences between the colchicine and control groups in other relevant clinical outcomes, including the incidence of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; p=0.22; I2=40%; 8 RCTs, 13 262 participants), intensive care unit admission (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.22; p=0.27; I2=0%; 6 RCTs, 961 participants) and hospital admission (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; p=0.19; I2=70%; 3 RCTs, 8572 participants). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis do not support the use of colchicine as a treatment for reducing the risk of mortality or improving other relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, RCTs investigating early treatment with colchicine (within 5 days of symptom onset or in patients with early-stage disease) are needed to fully elucidate the potential benefits of colchicine in this patient population. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022369850.

Long-term outcome of microvascular decompression for typical trigeminal neuralgia with autologous muscle: an analysis of 1025 patients from a developing country.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the long-term outcome of microvascular decompression (MVD) utilizing autologous muscle for trigeminal neuralgia (TGN). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all first-time MVD patients for typical classic TGN without prior surgical intervention who were treated between 2000 and 2019 at a tertiary supraregional neurosurgery practice. Demographic characteristics, surgical findings, operative results, complications, and recurrence rates at 1 year, 5 years, and last follow-up were collected. Pain outcome was assessed using the Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI) pain score. The chi-square test with continuity correction was used to compare categorical variables, and Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression were used to identify factors associated with recurrence. RESULTS: In total, 1025 patients were studied with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) (range) follow-up of 8 (5-13) (3-20) years. In the immediate postoperative period, 889 patients (86.7%) had complete pain relief and 106 (10.3%) had partial pain relief; neither group required medication, and 30 patients (2.9%) had no relief. One hundred forty-one recurrences (13.8%) occurred over a median (IQR) of 3 (2-6) years after surgery. The proportion of patients without recurrence was 97% at 1 year, 90% at 5 years, 85% at 10 years, 82% at 15 years, and 81% at 20 years. There was no significant difference in the probability of recurrence between patients with complete (114/907 [12.6%] recurrences) or partial (19/106 [17.9%] recurrences) postoperative pain relief (p = 0.124, log-rank test). Patients with venous compression (n = 322) had a significantly higher rate of MVD failure (n = 16 [5%]) compared to those with arterial compression (14/703 [2%]) (p = 0.015, chi-square test). In the Cox proportional hazards model, venous compression and lack of immediate postoperative pain relief had hazard ratios of 1.62 (95% CI 1.16-2.27) and 2.65 (95% CI 1.45-4.82) for recurrence, respectively. One hundred twenty-four (12.1%) complications were documented, including facial numbness (44 [4.3%]), facial nerve palsy (37 [3.6%]), CSF leak (13 [1.3%]), and diplopia (5 [0.5%]), which resolved in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: MVD with autologous muscle provides long-lasting pain relief in TGN patients with vascular compression with minimum morbidity and is a viable alternative to synthetic materials.

Molnupiravir for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients: An updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The majority of available data on molnupiravir come from an unvaccinated COVID-19 population. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to integrate evidence from recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as well as observational studies stratified by vaccination status to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of molnupiravir in COVID-19 outpatients. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to November 2023. We conducted our meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 with risk ratio (RR) as the effect measure. RESULTS: We included 8 RCTs and 5 observational studies in our meta-analysis. Molnupiravir reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.28; 95% CI: 0.20-0.79, I2 = 0%) but did not decrease the hospitalization rate (RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.45-1.00, I2 = 53%) in the overall population; in the immunized population, no benefits were observed. Molnupiravir lowered the rate of no recovery (RR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.76-0.81, I2 = 0%) and increased virological clearance at day 5 (RR 2.68; 95% CI: 1.94-4.22, I2 = 85%). There was no increase in the incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Molnupiravir does not decrease mortality and hospitalization rates in immunized patients with COVID-19. However, it does shorten the disease course and increases the recovery rate. The use of molnupiravir will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis in the context of the prevailing social circumstances, the resource setting, drug costs, and the healthcare burden.

Nigella sativa for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Nigella sativa is an herbal therapy for various afflictions. It has some potential to be a promising option as an efficacious treatment for COVID-19 patients that can contribute to global healthcare as a relatively cheap therapy but evidence of its use from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is limited. Therefore, to explore the effect of N. sativa in combating COVID-19, we undertook this meta-analysis. We searched several databases to retrieve all RCTs investigating N. sativa for the treatment of COVID-19 as compared to placebo or standard care. We used RevMan 5.4 for all analyses with risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR) as the effect measures. We included a total of seven RCTs in this review. N. sativa significantly reduced the risk of all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 compared to the control group (RR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.72; I 2 = 0%). N. sativa significantly reduced the rate of viral PCR positivity (RR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.97; I 2 = 0%). We did not find any significant difference in the risk of hospitalization (RR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.04 to 1.54; I 2 = 0%) and the rate of no recovery (OR 0.48, 95% CI: 0.20 to 1.15; I 2 = 84%) between the two groups. N. sativa is an easily available herbal medicine that may decrease the risk of mortality and improve virological clearance in COVID-19 patients. However, our results are limited by the small number of RCTs available. Further large-scale RCTs are needed to better understand the anti-inflammatory and antiviral effects of N. sativa in COVID-19 patients.

Outcomes in systemic sclerosis patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Insight from the National Inpatient Sample.

Objective: COVID-19, a respiratory infection caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, can cause varying degrees of illness ranging from mild respiratory illness to severe respiratory failure. Systemic sclerosis is a chronic autoimmune disease, with an increased prevalence of infections as compared to the general population. In this study, we compare the clinical outcomes and resource utilization for COVID-19 hospitalizations in patients with and without systemic sclerosis. Methods: We used the National Inpatient Sample database, 2020, to study the characteristics, morbidity, mortality, cost, and resource utilization among primary COVID-19 hospitalizations with and without systemic sclerosis. Results: There were 1,050,040 patients aged ⩾ 18 years with a diagnosis of COVID-19. Of these, 775 (0.07%) patients had a secondary diagnosis of systemic sclerosis. Although there was no statistically significant difference regarding individual outcomes; in-hospital mortality, vasopressor use, cardiac arrest, acute kidney injury, and disposition to facility were numerically higher in hospitalizations with systemic sclerosis. The composite endpoint of major adverse events was higher in the systemic sclerosis cohort (adjusted odds ratio 1.52, 95% confidence interval: 1.06-2.17, p = 0.022). Conclusion: COVID-19 patients with systemic sclerosis had worse outcomes (i.e. higher composite endpoint of major adverse events) than those without systemic sclerosis. Further studies are needed to establish a better understanding of the relationship between COVID-19 and systemic sclerosis.

Impact of prior cancer history on survival in brain malignancy: A propensity score-adjusted, population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with a Prior Cancer History (PCH) are often excluded from clinical trials. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that prior cancer history does not present adverse outcomes on cancer patients. The evidence on the survival of brain cancer patients in this regard remains widely unknown. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to estimate the prevalence and impact of prior cancer on survival of patients diagnosed with brain cancer. Data of patients who were diagnosed with brain cancer as their first or second primary malignancy between 2000 and 2019 were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Propensity Score Matching (PSM) was used to ensure comparable baseline characteristics among the patients. Survival analysis was conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method, as well as multivariate Cox proportional hazard and multivariate competing risk models. RESULTS: Out of 42 726 patients, 1189 (2.78%) had PCH. Genitourinary (40.4%), Breast (13.6%), Hematologic and Lymphatic (11.4%), and Gastrointestinal malignancies (11.3%) were the most common types of prior cancer. PCH served as a significant risk factor for Overall Survival (OS) (Adjusted Hazard Ratio [AHR] 1.26; 95% CI [1.15-1.39]; p < .001) but did not have a statistically significant impact on Brain Cancer-Specific Survival (BCSS) (AHR 0.97; 95% CI [0.88-1.07]; p = .54). Glioblastoma exhibited the most substantial and statistically significant impact on survival as compared to other histological types. Of all the organs systems, only prior Gastrointestinal and Hematologic and Lymphatic malignancies had a statistically significant impact on OS of patients. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that PCH does not exert a substantial impact on the survival of brain cancer patients, except in cases involving gastrointestinal or hematologic and lymphatic PCH, or when the brain cancer is glioblastoma.

Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The role of corticosteroids in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains uncertain. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to investigate the effectiveness and potential effect modifiers of adjunctive corticosteroids in patients with CAP. METHODS: The protocol of this meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022354920). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and trial registers from inception till March 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating corticosteroids in adult patients with CAP. Our primary outcome was the risk of all-cause mortality within 30 days after randomization (if not reported at day 30, we extracted the outcome closest to 30 days). Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MDs) were pooled under a random-effects model. RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs (n = 3252 patients) were included in this review. Corticosteroids reduced the risk of all-cause mortality in CAP patients (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53-0.89; high certainty). This significant result was restricted to hydrocortisone therapy and patients with severe CAP. Additionally, younger patients demonstrated a greater reduction in mortality. Corticosteroids reduced the incidence of shock and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV), and decreased the length of hospital and ICU stay (moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroids reduce the risk of all-cause mortality, especially in younger patients receiving hydrocortisone, and probably decrease the need for MV, the incidence of shock, and the length of hospital and ICU stay in patients with CAP. Our findings indicate that patients with CAP, especially severe CAP, will benefit from adjunctive corticosteroid therapy.

Efficacy and safety of fezolinetant, a neurokinin-3 antagonist, in treating vasomotor symptoms in postmenopausal women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Menopause causes a variety of symptoms such as hot flashes and night sweats. While menopausal hormonal therapy has been used for managing postmenopausal vasomotor symptoms (VMS) for quite a while, it has a considerably poor safety profile. OBJECTIVE: To review and analyze existing data to evaluate the efficacy of the neurokinin-3 antagonist, fezolinetant, in treating postmenopausal VMS and to assess its safety profile. METHODS: A thorough literature search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar in compliance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis 2020, to find publications on the efficacy of fezolinetant for postmenopausal VMS. Changes in the frequency and severity scores of moderate/severe VMS and changes in the Hot Flash-Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDIS), Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS), and Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQoL) were the efficacy outcomes. Adverse events, drug-related treatment-emergent adverse effects (TEAEs), drug-related dropouts, hepatotoxicity, endometrial hyperplasia or tumor, and uterine bleeding were all safety outcomes. We used Review Manager 5.4 for pooling risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. A P value of < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in mean daily VMS frequency at weeks 4 and 12 (MD, -2.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.85 to -1.87; P < .00001, for week 12) and also a significant decrease in VMS severity scores in the treatment group. Furthermore, improvements in MENQoL, HFRDIS, and GCS scores were observed. There was no significant difference in adverse events while drug-related TEAEs (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.90-1.63; P = .21) showed a slight increase with fezolinetant. Drug-related dropouts were again similar across the 2 groups. Uterine bleeding had a lower incidence while endometrial events and hepatotoxicity showed a statistically insignificant, increasing trend in the fezolinetant group. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Fezolinetant can be a treatment option for postmenopausal VMS but warns of a risk increase in endometrial hyperplasia or tumors. The heterogeneity in the data being analyzed, short follow-up period, and small sample size in most of the included randomized controlled trials were the greatest limitations, which must be considered in further research and safety profile exploration.

Probiotics for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Although numerous modalities are currently in use for the treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19, probiotics are a cost-effective alternative that could be used in diverse clinical settings. Hence, we conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the role of probiotics in preventing and treating COVID-19 infection. Methods: We searched several databases from inception to 30 May 2023 for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies that evaluated probiotics (irrespective of the regimen) for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. We conducted our meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) as the effect measures. Results: A total of 18 studies (11 RCTs and 7 observational studies) were included in our review. Probiotics reduced the risk of mortality (RR 0.40; 95% CI: 0.25-0.65, I2 = 0%). Probiotics also decreased the length of hospital stay, rate of no recovery, and time to recovery. However, probiotics had no effect on the rates of ICU admission. When used prophylactically, probiotics did not decrease the incidence of COVID-19 cases (RR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.37-1.12; I2 = 66%). The results for all outcomes were consistent across the subgroups of RCTs and observational studies (P for interaction >0.05). Conclusion: The results of this meta-analysis support the use of probiotics as an adjunct treatment for reducing the risk of mortality or improving other clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, probiotics are not useful as a prophylactic measure against COVID-19. Large-scale RCTs are still warranted for determining the most efficacious and safe probiotic strains. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42023390275: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=390275).

Prehospital tranexamic acid in trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Prehospital tranexamic acid (TXA) may hold substantial benefits for trauma patients; however, the data underlying its efficacy and safety is scarce. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to July 2023 for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating prehospital TXA in trauma patients as compared to placebo or standard care without TXA. Data were pooled under a random-effects model using RevMan 5.4 with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) as the effect measures. Results: A total of three RCTs were included in this review. Regarding the primary outcomes, prehospital TXA reduced the risk of 1-month mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.97) but did not increase survival with a favorable functional outcome at 6 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93-1.09). Prehospital TXA also reduced the risk of 24-h mortality but did not affect the risk of mortality due to bleeding and traumatic brain injury. There was no significant difference between the TXA and control groups in the incidence of RBC transfusion, and the number of ventilator- and ICU-free days. Prehospital TXA did not increase the risk of adverse events except for a small increase in the incidence of infections. Conclusion: Prehospital TXA is useful in reducing mortality in trauma patients without a notable increase in the risk of adverse events. However, there was no effect on the 6-month favorable functional status. Further large-scale trials are required to validate the aforementioned findings. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (CRD42023451759).

Analysis of risk factors and prognostic factors of brain metastasis in gastric cancer: a surveillance, epidemiology and end-results database study.

Brain metastasis in gastric cancer (GC) patients is a rare phenomenon that is associated with adverse clinical outcomes and poor survival rates. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to investigate the incidence, risk factors and prognostic factors of brain metastasis in GC patients. Data on sociodemographic and tumor characteristics of GC patients from 2010 to 2019 was extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER) database. Descriptive statistics, multivariable logistic and Cox regression were applied on SPSS. Kaplan-Meier-Survival curves and ROC curves were constructed. A total of 59,231 GC patients, aged 66.65 ± 13.410 years were included. Brain metastasis was reported in 368 (0.62%) patients. On logistic regression, the risk of brain metastasis was significantly greater in males, patients aged < 60 years and patients having concurrent bone and lung metastasis. High grade and high N stage were significant risk factors for development of brain metastasis. Patients who had undergone surgery for the primary tumor were at reduced risk for brain metastasis (adjusted odds ratio 0.210, 95% CI 0.131-0.337). The median OS was 3 months in patients with brain metastasis and 17 months in patients without brain metastasis (p < 0.05). On Cox regression, Grade IV tumors and primary antral tumors were significant predictable parameters for poor prognosis. Overall Survival (OS) and Cancer-Specific Survival (CSS) were prolonged in patients who had undergone surgery. Brain metastasis in gastric cancer is associated with significantly worse survival. Employing large-scale screening for high-risk patients holds a promising impact to improve survival rates, but it must be accurately balanced with a comprehensive understanding of clinicopathological aspects for accurate diagnosis and treatment.

Efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors for heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Aims: We sought to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov till March 2023 to retrieve all randomized controlled trials of SGLT2i in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF. Risk ratios (RRs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Results: We included data from 14 RCTs. SGLT2i reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint of first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death (RR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.76, 0.87; I2 = 0%); these results were consistent across the cohorts of HFmrEF and HFpEF patients. There was no significant decrease in the risk of cardiovascular death (RR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.82, 1.13; I2 = 36%) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.89, 1.05; I2 = 0%). There was a significant improvement in the quality of life in the SGLT2i group (SMD 0.13, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.20; I2 = 51%). Conclusion: The use of SGLT2i is associated with a lower risk of the primary composite outcome and a higher quality of life among HFpEF/HFmrEF patients. However, further research involving more extended follow-up periods is required to draw a comprehensive conclusion. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42022364223).

Perioperative prophylactic corticosteroids for cardiac surgery in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Perioperative corticosteroids have been used for pediatric cardiac surgery for decades, but the underlying evidence is conflicting. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of perioperative prophylactic corticosteroids in pediatric heart surgeries. METHODS: We searched electronic databases until March 2023 to retrieve all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that administered perioperative prophylactic corticosteroids to children undergoing heart surgery. We used RevMan 5.4 to pool risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs). RESULTS: A total of 12 RCTs (2,209 patients) were included in our review. Corticosteroids administration was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.62; 95% CI: 0.37-1.02, I2 = 0%; moderate certainty); however, it was associated with a lower duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) (MD -0.63 days; 95% CI: -1.16 to -0.09 days, I2 = 41%; high certainty). Corticosteroids did not affect the length of ICU and hospital stay but significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) (RR 0.76; 95% CI: 0.60-0.96, I2 = 0%; moderate certainty) and reoperation (RR 0.37; 95% CI: 0.19-0.74, I2 = 0%; moderate certainty). There was no increase in adverse events except a higher risk of hyperglycemia and postoperative insulin use. CONCLUSIONS: The use of perioperative corticosteroids in pediatric heart surgeries is associated with a trend toward reduced all-cause mortality without attaining statistical significance. Corticosteroids reduced MV duration, and probably decrease the incidence of LCOS, and reoperations. The choice of corticosteroid agent and dose is highly variable and further larger studies may help determine the ideal agent, dose, and patient population for this prophylactic therapy.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a resuscitation method for patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is lacking. METHODS: We searched several electronic databases until March 2023 for RCTs comparing ECPR with conventional CPR in OHCA patients. RevMan 5.4 was used to pool risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of four RCTs were included. The results of our meta-analysis showed no statistically significant benefit of ECPR regarding mid-term survival (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.64 to 2.28; I2 = 48%; p = .55). We found a significant improvement with ECPR in mid-term favorable neurological outcome (RR 1.59; 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; I2 = 0%; p = .02). There was no significant difference between ECPR and conventional CPR in long-term survival (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.18 to 9.50; I2 = 64%; p = .79), and long-term favorable neurological outcome (RR 1.47; 95% CI 0.89 to 2.43; I2 = 25%; p = .13). There was an increased incidence of adverse events in the ECPR group (RR 3.22; 95% CI 1.18 to 8.80; I2 = 63%; p = .02). CONCLUSION: ECPR in OHCA patients was not associated with improved survival or long-term favorable neurological outcome but did improve favorable neurological outcome in the mid-term. However, these results are likely underpowered due to the small number of available RCTs. Large-scale confirmatory RCTs are needed to provide definitive conclusions.

Expectant management of patent ductus arteriosus for preterm infants: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

We conducted this meta-analysis to compare expectant management of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) with active treatment for PDA closure in preterm infants. Data from 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that all-cause mortality and other clinical adverse outcomes did not differ between expectant management of PDA and active treatment. Future large-scale and double-blinded RCTs with a consistent definition for hemodynamically significant PDA, and focusing on clearly delineated high-risk subgroups or later selective treatment are needed to further evaluate the role of expectant management.