Incidence and risk factors of posttraumatic epilepsy following pediatric traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Posttraumatic epilepsy (PTE) is a well-known chronic complication following traumatic brain injury (TBI). Despite some evidence that age at the time of injury may influence the likelihood of PTE, the incidence of PTE in pediatric populations remains unclear. We therefore conducted a systematic review to determine the overall reported incidence of PTE, and explore potential risk factors associated with PTE after pediatric TBI. A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted, including randomized controlled trials and cohort studies assessing the incidence of PTE in TBI pediatric patients. We excluded studies with a sample size of <10 patients and those in which a pediatric cohort was not clearly discernable. The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We found that the overall incidence of PTE following pediatric TBI was 10% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.9%-15%). Subgroup analysis of a small number of studies demonstrated that the occurrence of early seizures (cumulative incidence ratio [CIR] = 7.28, 95% CI = 1.09-48.4, p = .040), severe TBI (CIR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.23-2.67, p < .001), and intracranial hemorrhage (CIR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.06-2.40, p = .024) increased the risk of PTE in this population. Other factors, including male sex and neurosurgical intervention, were nonsignificantly associated with a higher incidence of PTE. In conclusion, PTE is a significant chronic complication following childhood TBI, similar to in the adult population. Further standardized investigation into clinical risk factors and management guidelines is warranted. PROSPERO ID# CRD42021245802.

Mindfulness-based psychological interventions for improving mental well-being in medical students and junior doctors.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness interventions are increasingly popular as an approach to improve mental well-being. To date, no Cochrane Review examines the effectiveness of mindfulness in medical students and junior doctors. Thus, questions remain regarding the efficacy of mindfulness interventions as a preventative mechanism in this population, which is at high risk for poor mental health.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychological interventions with a primary focus on mindfulness on the mental well-being and academic performance of medical students and junior doctors. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases (to October 2021) and conducted grey literature searches.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of mindfulness that involved medical students of any year level and junior doctors in postgraduate years one, two or three. We included any psychological intervention with a primary focus on teaching the fundamentals of mindfulness as a preventative intervention. Our primary outcomes were anxiety and depression, and our secondary outcomes included stress, burnout, academic performance, suicidal ideation and quality of life.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods as recommended by Cochrane, including Cochrane's risk of bias 2 tool (RoB2).  MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies involving 731 participants in quantitative analysis.  Compared with waiting-list control or no intervention, mindfulness interventions did not result in a substantial difference immediately post-intervention for anxiety (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.09, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.52; P = 0.67, I2 = 57%; 4 studies, 255 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Converting the SMD back to the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale 21-item self-report questionnaire (DASS-21) showed an estimated effect size which is unlikely to be clinically important. Similarly, there was no substantial difference immediately post-intervention for depression (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.31; P = 0.62, I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 250 participants; low-certainty evidence). Converting the SMD back to DASS-21 showed an estimated effect size which is unlikely to be clinically important. No studies reported longer-term assessment of the impact of mindfulness interventions on these outcomes.  For the secondary outcomes, the meta-analysis showed a small, substantial difference immediately post-intervention for stress, favouring the mindfulness intervention (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.13; P < 0.05, I2 = 33%; 8 studies, 474 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, this difference is unlikely to be clinically important. The meta-analysis found no substantial difference immediately post-intervention for burnout (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.00; P = 0.05, I² = 0%; 3 studies, 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The meta-analysis found a small, substantial difference immediately post-intervention for academic performance (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.14; P < 0.05, I² = 0%; 2 studies, 79 participants; very low-certainty evidence); however, this difference is unlikely to be clinically important. Lastly, there was no substantial difference immediately post-intervention for quality of life (mean difference (MD) 0.02, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.32; 1 study, 167 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data available for three pre-specified outcomes of this review: deliberate self-harm, suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviour. We assessed the certainty of evidence to range from low to very low across all outcomes. Across most outcomes, we most frequently judged the risk of bias as having 'some concerns'. There were no studies with a low risk of bias across all domains.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of mindfulness in our target population remains unconfirmed. There have been relatively few studies of mindfulness interventions for junior doctors and medical students. The available studies are small, and we have some concerns about their risk of bias. Thus, there is not much evidence on which to draw conclusions on effects of mindfulness interventions in this population. There was no evidence to determine the effects of mindfulness in the long term.

Effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen in apneic oxygenation during intubation in high-risk surgical patients: a systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This review will investigate the effectiveness of high-flow nasal oxygen in apneic oxygenation through safe apnea time and other ventilation parameters in patients at high risk of oxygen desaturation during induction and tracheal intubation for anesthesia management. INTRODUCTION: High-risk surgical patient groups include obese patients, those with suspected or known obstructive sleep apnea, and critically ill patients, who are at risk of rapid oxygen desaturation during intubation. Conventional oxygen administration in induction and intubation of patients undergoing general anesthesia include nasal cannulas, simple face masks, Venturi, buccal oxygenation, bag-valve mask ventilation, and non-invasive ventilation. High-flow nasal oxygen has emerged as a novel technique, and is advantageous because it increases positive end-expiratory pressure and oxygen delivered. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Eligible studies will include high-risk surgical patients aged 18 or above requiring endotracheal intubation in both emergency and elective anesthetic settings. High-risk patients are defined as those with suspected or known obstructive sleep apnea, obesity (BMI > 35), or critically ill patients (scored the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification as 3 or above). METHODS: The review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Databases to be searched include MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus. Reference lists of selected studies will then be hand-searched for additional eligible studies. The primary outcome will be safe apnea time, with secondary outcomes including oxygen and carbon dioxide parameters, and adverse events (eg, gastric distension). Studies will, where possible, be pooled in statistical meta-analyses with data heterogeneity assessed using the standard χ2 and I2 tests. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022312145.

The burden and prognostic significance of suspected sepsis in the prehospital setting: A state-wide population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite high in-hospital mortality, the epidemiology of prehospital suspected sepsis presentations is not well described. This retrospective cohort study aimed to quantify the burden of such presentations, and to determine whether such a diagnosis was independently associated with longer-term mortality. METHODS: Retrospective, observational population-based cohort study examining all adult prehospital presentations in Victoria, between January 2015 and June 2019, who required subsequent in-hospital assessment. Linked data were extracted from clinical and administrative datasets. Demographics, illness severity, prehospital treatment and mortality were compared between prehospital suspected sepsis and non-sepsis patients. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the adjusted association between prehospital assessment (suspected sepsis vs non-sepsis) and 6-month mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1 218 047 patients were included. The age-adjusted incidence rate of prehospital suspected sepsis was 65 cases per 100 000 person-years. Those with prehospital suspected sepsis were older (74 vs 62 years), more frequently male (55% vs 47%), with greater physiological derangement. Intravenous cannulas were more often inserted prehospital (60% vs 29%). Crude in-hospital mortality was 6.5-fold higher in the prehospital suspected sepsis group (11.8% vs 1.8%), and by 6 months, 22.6% had died. After adjustment for demographics, illness severity, comorbidity, treatment and hospital location, a diagnosis of prehospital suspected sepsis was associated with a 35% higher likelihood of 6-month mortality (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.29-1.41). CONCLUSIONS: The burden of prehospital suspected sepsis in the Australian setting is significant, with paramedics identifying patients at high-risk of poor longer-term outcomes. This implies the need to consider improved care pathways for this highly vulnerable group.