Effects of Spherical and Rod-like Gold Nanoparticles on the Reactivity of Human Peripheral Blood Leukocytes.

Gold nanoparticles (GNPs) are widely used in the technological and biomedical industries, which is a major driver of research on these nanoparticles. The main goal of this study was to determine the influence of GNPs (at 20, 100, and 200 µg/mL concentrations) on the reactivity of human peripheral blood leukocytes. Flow cytometry was used to evaluate the respiratory burst activity and pyroptosis in monocytes and granulocytes following incubation with GNPs for 30 and 60 min. Furthermore, the concentration of interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß) in human blood samples was assessed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) after their incubation with GNPs for 24 h. Under the conditions tested in the study, the GNPs did not significantly affect the production of reactive oxygen species in the granulocytes and monocytes that were not stimulated using phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) in comparison to the samples exposed to PMA (p < 0.05). Compared to the control sample, the greatest significant increase in the mean fluorescence intensity of the granulocytes occurred in the samples incubated with CGNPs = 100 and 200 µg/mL for tinc = 30 and 60 min (p < 0.05). From our results, we conclude that the physicochemical properties of the nanoparticles, chemical composition, and the type of nanoparticles used in the unit, along with the unit and incubation time, influence the induced toxicity.

Diagnostic value of lactate dehydrogenase in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis outlines the role of elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels in assessing the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: The current study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Embase, Pub- Med, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify the usefulness of LDH as a marker of COVID-19 severity. All extracted data were analyzed using RevMan V.5.4 or STATA V.14 software. RESULTS: A total of 264 records were selected for this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that LDH levels were statistically significantly lower in the group of survivors compared to patients who died in hospital (standardized mean differences [SMD] = -3.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.40 to -2.79; I2 = 99%; p < 0.001). Lower LDH levels were observed in non-severe groups compared to severe course of COVID-19 (SMD = -2.38; 95% CI: -2.61 to -2.14; I2 = 99%; p < 0.001). The level of LDH was statistically significantly lower in the severe group compared to the critical group (SMD = -1.48; 95% CI: -2.04 to -0.92; I2 = 98%; p < 0.001). Patients who did not require treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) showed significantly lower levels of LDH compared to patients who required treatment in the ICU (SMD = -3.78; 95% CI: -4.48 to -3.08; I2 = 100%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that elevated LDH was associated with a poor outcome in COVID-19.

Effectiveness and safety of hypotension fluid resuscitation in traumatic hemorrhagic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Although the resuscitation of an adult trauma patient has been researched and written about for the past century, the ideal fluid strategy to infuse during the initial resuscitation period remains unresolved. This work was aimed at assessing the effect of hypotensive versus conventional resuscitation strategies in traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients on mortality, and the need for blood transfusions including adverse events. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the effect of hypotension versus conventional fluid resuscitation for traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients. Two reviewers independently performed the screening, data extraction, and bias assessment. The data analysis was completed using the Cochrane Collaboration's software RevMan 5.4. RESULTS: Data from 28 RCTs on 4503 patients were included in the final meta-analysis. Patients receiving hypotension fluid resuscitation compared with conventional fluid resuscitation experienced less mortality (12.5% vs. 21.4%; RR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.51-0.66; p < 0.001), fewer adverse events (10.8% vs. 13.4%; RR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.59-0.83; p < 0.001), including fever acute respiratory distress syndrome (7.8% vs. 16.8%) or multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (8.6% vs. 21.6%). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that hypotensive fluid resuscitation significantly reduced the mortality of hypovolemic shock patients. Findings are low in certainty and should be interpreted with caution. Therefore, there is an urgent need for larger, multicenter, randomized trials to confirm these findings.

Impact of diabetes mellitus on in-hospital mortality in adult patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide since the beginning of 2020, placing the heavy burden on the health systems all over the world. The population that particularly has been affected by the pandemic is the group of patients suffering from diabetes mellitus. Having taken the public health in considerations, we have decided to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus on in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A systematic literature review (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane) including all published clinical trials or observational studies published till December 10, 2020, was performed using following terms "diabetes mellitus" OR "diabetes" OR "DM" AND "survival" OR "mortality" AND "SARS-CoV-2" OR "COVID-19". RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included out of the 7327 initially identified studies. Mortality of DM patients vs non-DM patients was 21.3 versus 6.1%, respectively (OR = 2.39; 95%CI: 1.65, 3.64; P < 0.001), while severe disease in DM and non-DM group varied and amounted to 34.8% versus 22.8% (OR = 1.43; 95%CI: 0.82, 2.50; P = 0.20). In the DM group, the complications were observed far more often when compared with non-DM group, both in acute respiratory distress (31.4 vs. 17.2%; OR = 2.38; 95%CI:1.80, 3.13; P < 0.001), acute cardiac injury (22.0% vs. 12.8%; OR = 2.59; 95%CI: 1.81, 3.73; P < 0.001), and acute kidney injury (19.1 vs. 10.2%; OR = 1.97; 95%CI: 1.36, 2.85; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings, we shall conclude that diabetes is an independent risk factor of the severity of COVID-19 in-hospital settings; therefore, patients with diabetes shall aim to reduce the exposure to the potential infection of COVID-19.

Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 on Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survival Rate: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a challenge for medical staff, especially in the COVID-19 period. The COVID-19 disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is highly infectious, thus requiring additional measures during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Since CPR is a highly aerosol-generating procedure, it carries a substantial risk of viral transmission. We hypothesized that patients with diagnosed or suspected COVID-19 might have worse outcomes following OHCA outcomes compared to non-COVID-19 patients. To raise awareness of this potential problem, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that reported OHCA in the pandemic period, comparing COVID-19 suspected or diagnosed patients vs. COVID-19 not suspected or diagnosed group. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge (SHD). Secondary outcomes were the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission or survival with favorable neurological outcomes. Data including 4210 patients included in five studies were analyzed. SHD in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients were 0.5% and 2.6%, respectively (odds ratio, OR = 0.25; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.12, 0.53; p < 0.001). Bystander CPR rate was comparable in the COVID-19 vs. not COVID-19 group (OR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.22; p = 0.43). Shockable rhythms were observed in 5.7% in COVID-19 patients compared with 37.4% in the non-COVID-19 group (OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.96; p = 0.04; I2 = 95%). ROSC in the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients were 13.3% vs. 26.5%, respectively (OR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.81; p < 0.001). SHD with favorable neurological outcome was observed in 0% in COVID-19 vs. 3.1% in non-COVID-19 patients (OR = 1.35; 95% CI: 0.07, 26.19; p = 0.84). Our meta-analysis suggests that suspected or diagnosed COVID-19 reduces the SHD rate after OHCA, which seems to be due to the lower rate of shockable rhythms in COVID-19 patients, but not due to reluctance to bystander CPR. Future trials are needed to confirm these preliminary results and determine the optimal procedures to increase survival after OHCA in COVID-19 patients.

How should we teach cardiopulmonary resuscitation? Randomized multi-center study.

BACKGROUND: A 2017 update of the resuscitation guideline indicated the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) feedback devices as a resuscitation teaching method. The aim of the study was to compare the influence of two techniques of CPR teaching on the quality of resuscitation performed by medical students. METHODS: The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, simulation study and involved 115 first year students of medicine. The participants underwent a basic life support (BLS) course based on the American Heart Association guidelines, with the first group (experimental group) performing chest compressions to observe, in real-time, chest compression parameters indicated by software included in the simulator, and the second group (control group) performing compressions without this possibility. After a 10-minute resuscitation, the participants had a 30-minute break and then a 2-minute cycle of CPR. One month after the training, study participants performed CPR, without the possibility of observing real-time measurements regarding quality of chest compression. RESULTS: One month after the training, depth of chest compressions in the experimental and control group was 50 mm (IQR 46-54) vs. 39 mm (IQR 35-42; p = 0.001), compression rate 116 CPM (IQR 102-125) vs. 124 CPM (IQR 116-134; p = 0.034), chest relaxation 86% (IQR 68-89) vs. 74% (IQR 47-80; p = 0.031) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Observing real-time chest compression quality parameters during BLS training may improve the quality of chest compression one month after the training including correct hand positioning, compressions depth and rate compliance.

The Influence of COVID-19 on Out-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survival Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is associated with poor prognosis. Because the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted mortality and morbidity, both on an individual level and the health care system as a whole, our purpose was to determine rates of OHCA survival since the onset of the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the influence of COVID-19 on OHCA survival outcomes according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched the literature using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials databases from inception to September 2021 and identified 1775 potentially relevant studies, of which thirty-one articles totaling 88,188 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods was 12.3% vs. 8.9%, respectively (OR = 1.40; 95%CI: 1.06-1.87; p < 0.001). Survival to hospital discharge in pre- vs. intra-COVID-19 periods was 11.5% vs. 8.2% (OR = 1.57; 95%CI: 1.37-1.79; p < 0.001). A similar dependency was observed in the case of survival to hospital discharge with the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1-2 (6.7% vs. 4.0%; OR = 1.71; 95%CI: 1.35-2.15; p < 0.001), as well as in the 30-day survival rate (9.2% vs. 6.4%; OR = 1.63; 95%CI: 1.13-2.36; p = 0.009). In conclusion, prognosis of OHCA is usually poor and even worse during COVID-19.

Effect of amiodarone and lidocaine on shock-refractory cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate pharmacotherapy during advanced resuscitation procedures may affect the return of spontaneous circulation. Current guidelines on cardiopulmonary resuscitation recommend amiodarone for shock­refractory cardiac arrest or when lidocaine is not available. AIMS: The aim of this study was to systematically analyze the available literature and to conduct a meta­­analysis to determine the effect of amiodarone and lidocaine on survival and neurological outcome after shock­refractory cardiac arrest. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Two independent reviewers screened randomized and quasi­randomized controlled trials as well as cohort and cross­sectional trials evaluating amiodarone or lidocaine for the treatment of adults with cardiac arrest. RESULTS: After screening 682 unique references, 8 were selected for this meta­analysis. A higher number of cases with return of spontaneous circulation was observed in the amiodarone group compared with the lidocaine group (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.87-1.21; P = 0.75). A similar relationship was observed for survival to hospital discharge (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.92-1.38; P = 0.26), as well as survival with favorable neurological outcome (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.39; P = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant survival benefit of resuscitation with amiodarone compared with lidocaine. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to identify which antiarrhythmic drug should be use in shock­refractory cardiac arrest.

Resuscitation of the patient with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 when wearing personal protective equipment: A randomized multicenter crossover simulation trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate various methods of chest compressions in patients with suspected/confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection conducted by medical students wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol generating procedures (AGP). METHODS: This was prospective, randomized, multicenter, single-blinded, crossover simulation trial. Thirty-five medical students after an advanced cardiovascular life support course, which included performing 2-min continuous chest compression scenarios using three methods: (A) manual chest compression (CC), (B) compression with CPRMeter, (C) compression with LifeLine ARM device. During resuscitation they are wearing full personal protective equipment for aerosol generating procedures. RESULTS: The median chest compression depth using manual CC, CPRMeter and LifeLine ARM varied and amounted to 40 (38-45) vs. 45 (40-50) vs. 51 (50-52) mm, respectively (p = 0.002). The median chest compression rate was 109 (IQR; 102-131) compressions per minute (CPM) for manual CC, 107 (105-127) CPM for CPRMeter, and 102 (101-102) CPM for LifeLine ARM (p = 0.027). The percentage of correct chest recoil was the highest for LifeLine ARM - 100% (95-100), 80% (60-90) in CPRMeter group, and the lowest for manual CC - 29% (26-48). CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this simulation trial, automated chest compression devices (ACCD) should be used for chest compression of patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19. In the absence of ACCD, it seems reasonable to change the cardiopulmonary resuscitation algorithm (in the context of patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19) by reducing the duration of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation cycle from the current 2-min to 1-min cycles due to a statistically significant reduction in the quality of chest compressions among rescuers wearing PPE AGP.

Comparison of Direct and Video Laryngoscopes during Different Airway Scenarios Performed by Experienced Paramedics: A Randomized Cross-Over Manikin Study.

Introduction. Airway management plays an essential role in anaesthesia practice, during both elective and urgent surgery procedures and emergency medicine. AIM: The aim of the study was to compare Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC), McGrath, and TruView PCD in 5 separate airway management scenarios. METHODS: This prospective cross-over simulation study involved 93 paramedics. All paramedics performed intubation using direct laryngoscope (MAC), McGrath, and TruView PCD video laryngoscopes. The study was performed in 5 different scenarios: (A) normal airway, (B) tongue oedema, (C) pharyngeal obstruction, (D) cervical collar stabilization with tongue oedema, and (E) cervical collar stabilization with pharyngeal obstruction. RESULTS: In scenario A, the success rate was 99% with MAC, 100% with McGrath, and 94% with PCD. Intubation time was 17 s (IQR: 16-21) for MAC, 18 s (IQR: 16-21) for McGrath, and 27 s (IQR: 23-34) for PCD. In scenario B, the success rate was 61% with MAC, 97% with McGrath, and 97% with PCD (p < 0.001). Intubation time was 44 s (IQR: 24-46) for MAC, 22 s (IQR: 20-27) for McGrath, and 39 s (IQR: 30-57) for PCD. In scenario C, the success rate with MAC was 74%, 97% with McGrath, and 72% with PCD (p < 0.001). Intubation time was 44 s (IQR: 24-46) for MAC, 22 s (IQR: 20-27) for McGrath, and 39 s (IQR: 30-57) for PCD. In scenario C, the success rate with MAC was 74%, 97% with McGrath, and 72% with PCD (p < 0.001). Intubation time was 44 s (IQR: 24-46) for MAC, 22 s (IQR: 20-27) for McGrath, and 39 s (IQR: 30-57) for PCD. In scenario C, the success rate with MAC was 74%, 97% with McGrath, and 72% with PCD (p < 0.001). Intubation time was 44 s (IQR: 24-46) for MAC, 22 s (IQR: 20-27) for McGrath, and 39 s (IQR: 30-57) for PCD. In scenario C, the success rate with MAC was 74%, 97% with McGrath, and 72% with PCD (. CONCLUSIONS: The McGrath video laryngoscope proved better than Truview PCD and direct intubation with Macintosh laryngoscope in terms of success rate, duration of first intubation attempt, number of intubation attempts, Cormack-Lehane grade, percentage of glottis opening (POGO score), number of optimization manoeuvres, severity of dental compression, and ease of use.