Efficacy of intravenous vitamin C intervention for septic patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The role of vitamin C in sepsis is still controversial, we aimed to systematically review the efficacy of intravenous vitamin C supplementation in the treatment of sepsis. METHODS: MEDLINE, EmBase, Web of Science, WanFang Data and CNKI were comprehensively searched to collect randomized controlled trails (RCTs) of vitamin C supplementation for patients with sepsis or sepsis shock from January 2000 to March 2021. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data and accessed the risk of bias in the included studies; meta-analysis was then performed by using Revman 5.4 software. RESULTS: A total of 10 RCTs involving 1400 participants were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that intravenous vitamin C supplementation can improve SOFA (ΔSOFA) within 72 h [RR = 1.32,95% CI(0.80,1.85), P < 0.0001] of septic patients. There were no difference on short term mortality (28-30d)[RR = 0.83,95% CI(0.65,1.05), P = 0.11], long term mortality (90d) [RR = 1.16,95% CI(0.82,1.66), P = 0.40], hospital LOS[RR = 0.15,95% CI(-0.73,1.03), P = 0.55], ventilator-free days[RR = 0.09,95% CI(-0.24,0.42), P = 0.60], ICU-LOS[RR = 0.22,95% CI(-0.13,0.57), P = 0.22], between two groups. The results of Subgroup analysis showed that intravenous vitamin C alone can reduce the risk of short term mortality (28-30d) [RR = 0.61,95% CI(0.47,0.79), P = 0.0002]of sepsis patients. CONCLUSION: Based on current RCTs, our work indicated that mono-intravenous vitamin C therapy may reduce short-term mortality of sepsis patients, and it may protect organ functions. Due to the limitation of the quantity and quality of included studies, the above conclusions need to be verified by more large scale and high quality randomized control trials.

Is bivalirudin an alternative anticoagulant for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation is important for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Heparin is widely used; however, in some cases, it is not suitable for patients. Bivalirudin has been recently proposed for ECMO patients, and there is no evidence regarding its effectiveness and safety. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review the effectiveness and safety of bivalirudin in ECMO patients. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched to find relevant research on the use of bivalirudin versus heparin for anticoagulation in ECMO patients. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, ECMO duration, major bleeding events, thrombosis events and circuit intervention events. Types of studies included randomized control trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies. Case reports, studies lacking comparison with heparin, and where patients transitioned between heparin and bivalirudin, were excluded. Publication bias was evaluated when the number of included studies was more than ten. Sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the stability of the results. RESULTS: Ten articles were selected, and nine articles were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed hospital mortality [OR = 0.65, 95%CI (0.44, 0.95), P = 0.03] and thrombosis events decreased (OR = 0.55, 95%CI [0.37, 0.83], P = 0.004) in bivalirudin group compared with heparin in adult patients. Major bleeding events (OR = 0.66, 95%CI [0.17, 2.55], P = 0.55), ECMO duration (MD = 18.92, 95%CI [-29.33, 67.17], P = 0.44) and circuit intervention events (OR = 1.67, 95%CI [0.54, 5.18], P = 0.37) in the bivalirudin group was not statistically significant compared with the heparin group. CONCLUSION: Bivalirudin may provide survival benefits and reduce thrombosis in adult patients on ECMO compared with heparin. There is no difference in treating major bleeding events between bivalirudin and heparin group. However, because all included studies were retrospective observational studies, the evidence level of this systematic review is low and heterogeneity could not be avoided. More high-quality clinical studies are urgently needed to confirm these benefits.

Evaluating machine learning models for sepsis prediction: A systematic review of methodologies.

Studies for sepsis prediction using machine learning are developing rapidly in medical science recently. In this review, we propose a set of new evaluation criteria and reporting standards to assess 21 qualified machine learning models for quality analysis based on PRISMA. Our assessment shows that (1.) the definition of sepsis is not consistent among the studies; (2.) data sources and data preprocessing methods, machine learning models, feature engineering, and inclusion types vary widely among the studies; (3.) the closer to the onset of sepsis, the higher the value of AUROC is; (4.) the improvement in AUROC is primarily due to using machine learning as a feature engineering tool; (5.) deep neural networks coupled with Sepsis-3 diagnostic criteria tend to yield better results on the time series data collected from patients with sepsis. The new evaluation criteria and reporting standards will facilitate the development of improved machine learning models for clinical applications.