Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in achieving successful emergency endotracheal intubations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Intubating a patient in an emergent setting presents significant challenges compared to planned intubation in an operating room. This study aims to compare video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in achieving successful endotracheal intubation on the first attempt in emergency intubations, irrespective of the clinical setting. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until 27 February 2023. We included only randomized controlled trials that included patients who had undergone emergent endotracheal intubation for any indication, regardless of the clinical setting. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool 2 (ROB2) to assess the included studies. We used the mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR), with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), to pool the continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included with a total of 2470 patients. The overall analysis favored video laryngoscopy over direct laryngoscopy in first-attempt success rate (RR = 1.09, 95% CI [1.02, 1.18], P = 0.02), first-attempt intubation time (MD = - 6.92, 95% CI [- 12.86, - 0.99], P = 0.02), intubation difficulty score (MD = - 0.62, 95% CI [- 0.86, - 0.37], P < 0.001), peri-intubation percentage of glottis opening (MD = 24.91, 95% CI [11.18, 38.64], P < 0.001), upper airway injuries (RR = 0.15, 95% CI [0.04, 0.56], P = 0.005), and esophageal intubation (RR = 0.37, 95% CI [0.15, 0.94], P = 0.04). However, no difference between the two groups was found regarding the overall intubation success rate (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In emergency intubations, video laryngoscopy is preferred to direct laryngoscopy in achieving successful intubation on the first attempt and was associated with a lower incidence of complications.

Association of serum leptin and ghrelin levels with smoking status on body weight: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and aims: Smoking cigarettes is a major global health problem that affects appetite and weight. The aim of this systematic review was to determine how smoking affected plasma leptin and ghrelin levels. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid was conducted using a well-established methodology to gather all related publications. Results: A total of 40 studies were included in the analysis of 11,336 patients. The overall effect showed a with a mean difference (MD) of -1.92[95%CI; -2.63: -1.20] and p = 0.00001. Subgroup analysis by study design revealed significant differences as well, but with high heterogeneity within the subgroups (I2 of 82.3%). Subgroup by sex showed that there was a significant difference in mean difference between the smoking and non-smoking groups for males (MD = -5.75[95% CI; -8.73: -2.77], p = 0.0002) but not for females (MD = -3.04[95% CI; -6.6:0.54], p = 0.10). Healthy, pregnant, diabetic and CVD subgroups found significant differences in the healthy (MD = -1.74[95% CI; -03.13: -0.35], p = 0.01) and diabetic (MD = -7.69[95% CI, -1.64: -0.73], p = 0.03). subgroups, but not in the pregnant or cardiovascular disease subgroups. On the other hand, the meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference in Ghrelin serum concentration between smokers and non-smokers (MD = 0.52[95% CI, -0.60:1.63], p = 0.36) and observed heterogeneity in the studies (I2 = 68%). Conclusion: This study demonstrates a correlation between smoking and serum leptin/ghrelin levels, which explains smoking's effect on body weight. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero/display_record.php, identifier (Record ID=326680).

Characteristics of sudden hearing loss after different COVID-19 vaccinations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 vaccines are essential to prevent complications and reduce the burden of SARS-CoV-2. However, these vaccines showed side effects such as fatigue, pain, fever, and rarely hearing loss. In this review, we aim to summarize studies investigating hearing loss following COVID-19 vaccination and try to find the possible association and risk factors for this hazardous complication. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of five electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, google scholar, Cochrane) from inception until 9 October 2022. We finally included 16 studies after the first and second scans. We used SPSS to analyze the extracted data. RESULTS: A total of 630 patients were identified, with a mean age of 57.3. Of the patients, 328 out of 609 vaccinated patients took the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine, while 242 (40%) took the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. The mean time from vaccination to hearing impairment was 6.2, ranging from a few hours to one month after the last dose. The results found a significant difference between vaccine types in terms of incidence and prognosis of the condition, while they showed that the number of doses prior to the onset had no significance. CONCLUSION: SNHL has been reported in a small number of people who have received the COVID-19 vaccine, but it is unclear at this time whether the vaccine is directly causing this condition. However, the COVID-19 vaccine has been demonstrated to be safe and effective in preventing illness, and the benefits of vaccination are significant compared to any potential risks. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The protocol of this study was registered on Prospero CRD42022367180.

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.