Effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions on the well-being of healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Growing evidence attests to the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), but their effectiveness for healthcare workers remains uncertain. Aims: To evaluate the evidence for MBIs in improving healthcare workers' psychological well-being. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 31 August 2022 using the keywords 'healthcare worker', 'doctor', 'nurse', 'allied health', 'mindfulness', 'wellness', 'workshop' and 'program'. Randomised controlled trials with a defined MBI focusing on healthcare workers and quantitative outcome measures related to subjective or psychological well-being were eligible for inclusion. R V.4.0.3 was used for data analysis, with the standardised mean difference as the primary outcome, employing DerSimonian and Laird's random effects model. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Results: A total of 27 studies with 2506 participants were included, mostly from the USA, involving various healthcare professions. MBIs such as stress reduction programmes, apps, meditation and training showed small to large effects on anxiety, burnout, stress, depression, psychological distress and job strain outcomes of the participants. Positive effects were also seen in self-compassion, empathy, mindfulness and well-being. However, long-term outcomes (1 month or longer postintervention) varied, and the effects were not consistently sustained. Conclusions: MBIs offer short-term benefits in reducing stress-related symptoms in healthcare workers. The review also highlights limitations such as intervention heterogeneity, reduced power in specific subgroup analyses and variable study quality. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022353340.

Comparing the Impact of Stenting vs. Medical Therapy for Intracranial Arterial Stenosis : A Systematic Review and One-stage and Two-stage Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: In the treatment of intracranial arterial stenosis (ICAS), controversies remain regarding the optimal treatment strategy. Our study aims to conduct an individual patient-level data meta-analysis of existing RCTs comparing PTAS versus best medical therapy and to identify differences in outcomes such as incidence of ischemic stroke or death. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials comparing the outcomes of stenting versus best medical therapy for patients who had symptomatic ICAS of >50%. Excluded studies included case reports, case series, reviews, observational studies,  letters or studies evaluating isolated angioplasty techniques without stenting. Data was extracted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: 7 studies involving 1425 participants were included. There was an increased risk in the incidence of stroke and death within the first 30 days post-procedure for patients treated with PTAS over best medical therapy (RR = 2.22 [1.28-3.86], I²â€¯= 0%). Patients who underwent stenting also had a significantly higher risk of intracranial haemorrhage (RR = 12.66 [2.41-66.45], I²â€¯= 0%) and death (RR = 5.41 [1.20-24.28], I²â€¯= 0%).Under the shared frailty model, stenting when compared to medical therapy has a HR of 1.81 (95% CI:1.25-2.6) of stroke or death across 1 year. Under the parametric Royston-Parmar model, stenting has a significant decrease in the RMST(-0.83 months; 95% CI: -1.30-0.37). Stenting continued to show worse outcomes up to the 3 year mark with a HR of 1.60 (95% CI: 1.11-2.32). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There is an increased risk of peri- and post-procedural stroke and death over best medical therapy in patients with symptomatic ICAS who undergo PTAS. Further work is required to refine patient selection and mitigate peri-procedural risks.

Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants versus Low Molecular Weight Heparin for Cancer-Related Venous Thromboembolic Events: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has been the standard of care but new guidelines have approved the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC). By conducting an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of NOAC versus LMWH in cancer patients, we aim to determine an ideal strategy for the prophylaxis of VTE and prevention of VTE recurrence. Three databases were searched from inception until 19 October 2022. IPD was reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves. Shared frailty, stratified Cox and Royston-Parmar models were fit to compare the outcomes of venous thromboembolism recurrence and major bleeding. For studies without Kaplan-Meier curves, aggregate data meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. Eleven RCTs involving 4844 patients were included. Aggregate data meta-analysis showed that administering NOACs led to a significantly lower risk of recurrent VTE (RR = 0.65; 95%CI: 0.50-0.84) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (RR = 0.60; 95%CI: 0.40-0.90). In the IPD meta-analysis, NOAC when compared with LMWH has an HR of 0.65 (95%CI: 0.49-0.86) for VTE recurrence. Stratified Cox and Royston-Parmar models demonstrated similar results. In reducing risks of recurrent VTE and DVT among cancer patients, NOACs are superior to LMWHs without increased major bleeding.

Trends in Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) Bacteremia during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) is among the most common pathogens associated with healthcare-acquired infections, and is often antibiotic resistant, causing significant morbidity and mortality in cases of P. aeruginosa bacteremia. It remains unclear how the incidence of P. aeruginosa bacteremia changed during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, with studies showing almost contradictory conclusions despite enhanced infection control practices during the pandemic. This systematic review sought to examine published reports with incidence rates for P. aeruginosa bacteremia during (defined as from March 2020 onwards) and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and performed in Cochrane, Embase, and Medline with combinations of the key words (pseudomonas aeruginosa OR PAE) AND (incidence OR surveillance), from database inception until 1 December 2022. Based on the pre-defined inclusion criteria, a total of eight studies were eligible for review. Prior to the pandemic, the prevalence of P. aeruginosa was on an uptrend. Several international reports found a slight increase in the incidence of P. aeruginosa bacteremia during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings collectively highlight the continued importance of good infection prevention and control and antimicrobial stewardship during both pandemic and non-pandemic periods. It is important to implement effective infection prevention and control measures, including ensuring hand hygiene, stepping up environmental cleaning and disinfection efforts, and developing timely guidelines on the appropriate prescription of antibiotics.