Remimazolam versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy within elderly patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Propofol has become the sedative of choice for endoscopy and colonoscopy. However, it has shown associations with various adverse effects, specifically in the geriatric population. In contrast, remimazolam is a novel benzodiazepine, demonstrating a superior clinical safety profile. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to clarify the efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol in elderly patients (≥ 60 years) undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic and colonoscopy procedures. METHODS: Electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were explored from inception till January 7, 2024. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials (RoB-2) was utilized to evaluate the quality of each included study reported in this meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seven randomized control trials were included, resulting in the pooling of 1,466 patients (remimazolam: 731 patients; propofol: 735 patients). Propofol demonstrated a significantly lower time to loss of consciousness (P < 0.00001, 4 studies, 784 patients) and a greater sedation success after first dose (P = 0.05, 5 studies, 1,271 patients). Remimazolam reported a significantly lower risk of bradycardia (P = 0.02, 5 studies, 1,323 patients), hypoxemia (P < 0.00001, 6 studies, 1,389 patients), and pain on injection site (P < 0.00001, 5 studies, 1,184 patients). No statistically significant differences in sedation time, number of supplemental doses, procedural parameters, and other adverse outcomes were reported. CONCLUSION: As per the results of our analyses, propofol demonstrated comparatively superior efficacy, however, remimazolam demonstrated comparatively superior safety. The debatable evidence generated from this meta-analysis may not currently be powerful enough to advocate for the use of remimazolam in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal procedures; hence, further comprehensive studies are necessary in order to arrive at a robust conclusion.

Acute type A aortic dissection in patients with non-prior cardiac surgery vs. prior cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Patients with prior cardiac surgery undergoing acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) are thought to have worse clinical outcomes as compared to the patients without prior cardiac surgery. Aim: To compare the safety and efficacy of ATAAD in patients with prior cardiac surgery. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar from database inception until April 2024. We included nine studies which consisted of a population of 524 in the prior surgery group and 5,249 in the non-prior surgery group. Our primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included reoperation for bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, sternal wound infection, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time, cross-clamp time, hospital stay, and ICU stay. Results: Our pooled estimate shows a significantly lower rate of mortality in the non-prior cardiac surgery group compared to the prior cardiac surgery group (RR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.48-0.74). Among the secondary outcomes, the rate of reoperation for bleeding was significantly lower in the non-prior cardiac surgery group (RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.50-0.88). Additionally, the non-prior cardiac surgery group had significantly shorter CPB time (MD = -31.06, 95% CI = -52.20 to -9.93) and cross-clamp time (MD = -21.95, 95% CI = -42.65 to -1.24). All other secondary outcomes were statistically insignificant. Conclusion: Patients with prior cardiac surgery have a higher mortality rate as compared to patients who have not undergone cardiac surgery previously. Patients with prior cardiac surgery have higher mortality and longer CPB and cross-clamp times. Tailored strategies are needed to improve outcomes in this high-risk group.

Impact of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease on coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have revealed a link between non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), making understanding the relationship between these two conditions an absolute requirement. AIM: To provide a qualitative synthesis on the currently present data evaluating COVID-19 and NAFLD. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the guidelines provided by preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses and the questionnaire utilized the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome framework. The search strategy was run on three separate databases, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central, which were systematically searched from inception until March 2024 to select all relevant studies. In addition, ClinicalTrials.gov, Medrxiv.org, and Google Scholar were searched to identify grey literature. RESULTS: After retrieval of 11 studies, a total of 39282 patients data were pooled. Mortality was found in 11.5% and 9.4% of people in NAFLD and non-NAFLD groups. In all, 23.2% of NAFLD patients and 22% of non-NAFLD admissions diagnosed with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit, with days of stay varying. Ventilatory support ranged from 5% to 40.5% in the NAFLD cohort and from 3.1% to 20% in the non-NAFLD cohort. The incidence of acute liver injury showed significance. Clinical improvement on days 7 and 14 between the two classifications was significant. Hospitalization stay ranged from 9.6 days to 18.8 days and 7.3 days to 16.4 days in the aforementioned cohorts respectively, with 73.3% and 76.3% of patients being discharged. Readmission rates varied. CONCLUSION: Clinical outcomes except mortality consistently showed a worsening trend in patients with NAFLD and concomitant COVID-19. Further research in conducting prospective longitudinal studies is essential for a more powerful conclusion.

Long-term outcomes of titanium-nitride-oxide coated stents and drug-eluting stents in acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In severe cases of coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention provide promising results. The stent used could be a drug-eluting stent (DES) or a titanium-nitride-oxide coated stent (TiNOS). AIM: To compare the 5-year effectiveness and safety of the two stent types. METHODS: The following systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines, and PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception till August 2023. Primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death or MI, and ischemia-driven total lesion revascularization (ID-TLR). RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials (RCT), which analyzed a sum total of 3045 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after a median follow-up time of 5 years were included. Though statistically insignificant, an increase in the ID-TLR was observed in patients receiving TiNOSs vs DESs. In addition, MI, cardiac death and MI, and definite stent thrombosis (DST) were significantly decreased in the TiNOS arm. Baseline analysis revealed no significant results with meta-regression presenting non-ST elevated MI (NSTEMI) as a statistically significant covariate in the outcome of MACE. CONCLUSION: TiNOS was found to be superior to DES in terms of MI, cardiac death or MI, and DST outcomes, however, the effect of the two stent types on ID-TLR and MACE was not significant. A greater number of studies are required to establish an accurate comparison of patient outcomes in TiNOS and DES.