Days alive and out of hospital for adult female and male cardiac surgery patients: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Research shows women experience higher mortality than men after cardiac surgery but information on sex-differences during postoperative recovery is limited. Days alive and out of hospital (DAH) combines death, readmission and length of stay, and may better quantify sex-differences during recovery. This main objective is to evaluate (i) how DAH at 30-days varies between sex and surgical procedure, (ii) DAH responsiveness to patient and surgical complexity, and (iii) longer-term prognostic value of DAH. METHODS: We evaluated 111,430 patients (26% female) who underwent one of three types of cardiac surgery (isolated coronary artery bypass [CABG], isolated non-CABG, combination procedures) between 2009 - 2019. Primary outcome was DAH at 30 days (DAH30), secondary outcomes were DAH at 90 days (DAH90) and 180 days (DAH180). Data were stratified by sex and surgical group. Unadjusted and risk-adjusted analyses were conducted to determine the association of DAH with patient-, surgery-, and hospital-level characteristics. Patients were divided into two groups (below and above the 10th percentile) based on the number of days at DAH30. Proportion of patients below the 10th percentile at DAH30 that remained in this group at DAH90 and DAH180 were determined. RESULTS: DAH30 were lower for women compared to men (22 vs. 23 days), and seen across all surgical groups (isolated CABG 23 vs. 24, isolated non-CABG 22 vs. 23, combined surgeries 19 vs. 21 days). Clinical risk factors including multimorbidity, socioeconomic status and surgical complexity were associated with lower DAH30 values, but women showed lower values of DAH30 compared to men for many factors. Among patients in the lowest 10th percentile at DAH30, 80% of both females and males remained in the lowest 10th percentile at 90 days, while 72% of females and 76% males remained in that percentile at 180 days. CONCLUSION: DAH is a responsive outcome to differences in patient and surgical risk factors. Further research is needed to identify new care pathways to reduce disparities in outcomes between male and female patients.

Outcomes of Vasopressin-Receptor Agonists Versus Norepinephrine in Adults With Perioperative Hypotension: A Systematic Review.

Consensus statements recommend the use of norepinephrine and/or vasopressin for hypotension in cardiac surgery. However, there is a paucity of data among other surgical subgroups and vasopressin analogs. Therefore, the authors conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare vasopressin-receptor agonists with norepinephrine for hypotension among those undergoing surgery with general anesthesia. This review was registered prospectively (CRD42022316328). Literature searches were conducted by a medical librarian to November 28, 2023, across MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science. The authors included RCTs enrolling adults (≥18 years of age) undergoing any surgery under general anesthesia who developed perioperative hypotension and comparing vasopressin receptor agonists with norepinephrine. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Thirteen (N = 719) RCTs were included, of which 8 (n = 585) enrolled patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Five trials compared norepinephrine with vasopressin, 4 trials with terlipressin, 1 trial with ornipressin, and the other 3 trials used vasopressin as adjuvant therapy. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality. Among patients with vasoplegic shock after cardiac surgery, vasopressin was associated with significantly lower intensive care unit (N = 385; 2 trials; mean 100.8 v 175.2 hours, p < 0.005; median 120 [IQR 96-168] v 144 [96-216] hours, p = 0.007) and hospital lengths of stay, as well as fewer cases of acute kidney injury and atrial fibrillation compared with norepinephrine. One trial also found that terlipressin was associated with a significantly lower incidence of acute kidney injury versus norepinephrine overall. Vasopressin and norepinephrine restored mean arterial blood pressure with no significant differences; however, the use of vasopressin with norepinephrine was associated with significantly higher mean arterial blood pressure versus norepinephrine alone. Further high-quality trials are needed to determine pooled treatment effects, especially among noncardiac surgical patients and those treated with vasopressin analogs.

Outcomes of Acute Respiratory Failure in Patients With Cancer in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the epidemiological effect-magnitude and outcomes of patients with cancer vs those without cancer who are hospitalized with acute respiratory failure (ARF). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed hospitalizations within the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Patients were classified based on a diagnosis of solid-organ cancer, hematologic cancer, or no cancer. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) failure was defined as patients who initially received NIPPV and had progression to invasive mechanical ventilation. Weighted samples were used to derive population estimates. RESULTS: During the study period, there were an estimated 8,837,209 admissions with ARF in the United States, 8.9% (783,625) of which had solid-organ cancer and 2.0% (176,095) had hematologic cancers. Annually, 319,907 patients with cancer are admitted with ARF, with 27.3% (87,302) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation and 10.0% (31,998) requiring NIPPV. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with cancer vs those without cancer (24.0% [76,813] vs 12.3% [322,465]; P<.001), and this proprotion persisted when stratified by the highest method of oxygen delivery. Patients with cancer had longer hospital length of stay (7.0 days [3.0 to 12.0 days] vs 5.0 days [3.0 to 10.0 days]; P<.001) and were more likely to have NIPPV failure (14.9% [3,992] vs 12.8% [41,875]). Compared with those with solid-organ cancer, patients with hematologic cancers experienced worse outcomes. The association between underlying cancer diagnosis and outcomes remained consistent when adjusted for age, sex, and comorbidities. CONCLUSION: In the United States, patients with cancer account for over 10% of ARF hospital admissions (959,720 of 8,837,209). They experience an approximately 2-fold higher mortality versus those without cancer. Those with hematologic cancers appear to experience worse outcomes than patients with solid-organ cancers.

Temporal trends in critical care utilization and outcomes in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients.

Historically, the prognosis of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HCT) recipients who require intensive care unit (ICU) admission has been poor. We aimed to describe the epidemiological trends of ICU utilization and outcomes in allo-HCT patients. We conducted a retrospective cohort study including adults (≥ 18) undergoing allo-HCT between 01/01/2005 and 31/12/2020 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Temporal trends in outcomes were assessed by robust linear regression modelling. Risk factors for hospital mortality were chosen a priori and assessed with multivariable logistic regression modelling. Of 1,249 subjects, there were 486 ICU admissions among 287 individuals. Although older patients underwent allo-HCT (1.64 [95% CI: 1.11 to 2.45] years per year; P = 0.025), there was no change in ICU utilization over time (P = 0.91). The ICU and hospital mortality rates were 19.2% (55/287) and 28.2% (81/287), respectively. There was a decline in ICU mortality (-0.38% [95% CI: -0.70 to -0.06%] per year; P = 0.035). The 1-year post-HCT mortality for those requiring ICU admission was 56.1% (161/287), with no significant difference over time, versus 15.8% (141/891, 71 missing) among those who did not. The frequency and duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) declined. In multivariable analyses, higher serum lactate, higher sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores, acute respiratory distress (ARDS), and need for IMV were associated with greater odds of hospital mortality. Over time, rates of ICU utilization have remained stable, despite increasing patient age. Several trends suggest improvement in outcomes, notably lower ICU mortality and frequency of IMV. However, long-term survival remains unchanged. Further work is needed to improve long-term outcomes in this population.

Surgeon Sex and Health Care Costs for Patients Undergoing Common Surgical Procedures.

Importance: Prior research has shown differences in postoperative outcomes for patients treated by female and male surgeons. It is important to understand, from a health system and payer perspective, whether surgical health care costs differ according to the surgeon's sex. Objective: To examine the association between surgeon sex and health care costs among patients undergoing surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, retrospective cohort study included adult patients undergoing 1 of 25 common elective or emergent surgical procedures between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2019, in Ontario, Canada. Analysis was performed from October 2022 to March 2023. Exposure: Surgeon sex. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was total health care costs assessed 1 year following surgery. Secondarily, total health care costs at 30 and 90 days, as well as specific cost categories, were assessed. Generalized estimating equations were used with procedure-level clustering to compare costs between patients undergoing equivalent surgeries performed by female and male surgeons, with further adjustment for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, hospital-, and procedure-level covariates. Results: Among 1 165 711 included patients, 151 054 were treated by a female surgeon and 1 014 657 were treated by a male surgeon. Analyzed at the procedure-specific level and accounting for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-level covariates, 1-year total health care costs were higher for patients treated by male surgeons ($24 882; 95% CI, $20 780-$29 794) than female surgeons ($18 517; 95% CI, $16 080-$21 324) (adjusted absolute difference, $6365; 95% CI, $3491-9238; adjusted relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.14). Similar patterns were observed at 30 days (adjusted absolute difference, $3115; 95% CI, $1682-$4548) and 90 days (adjusted absolute difference, $4228; 95% CI, $2255-$6202). Conclusions and Relevance: This analysis found lower 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year health care costs for patients treated by female surgeons compared with those treated by male surgeons. These data further underscore the importance of creating inclusive policies and environments supportive of women surgeons to improve recruitment and retention of a more diverse and representative workforce.

Evaluating fluvoxamine for the outpatient treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fluvoxamine for the outpatient management of COVID-19. We conducted this review in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CENTRAL up to 14 September 2023. Outcomes included incidence of hospitalisation, healthcare utilization (emergency room visits and/or hospitalisation), mortality, supplemental oxygen and mechanical ventilation requirements, serious adverse events (SAEs) and non-adherence. Fluvoxamine 100 mg twice a day was associated with reductions in the risk of hospitalisation (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.97; I 2  = 0%) and reductions in the risk of healthcare utilization (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.86; I 2  = 0%). While no increased SAEs were observed, fluvoxamine 100 mg twice a day was associated with higher treatment non-adherence compared to placebo (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.22-2.14; I 2  = 53%). In subgroup analyses, fluvoxamine reduced healthcare utilization in outpatients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 , but not in those with lower BMIs. While fluvoxamine offers potential benefits in reducing healthcare utilization, its efficacy may be most pronounced in high-risk patient populations. The observed non-adherence rates highlight the need for better patient education and counselling. Future investigations should reassess trial endpoints to include outcomes relating to post-COVID sequelaes. Registration: This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023463829).

Appraisal of Postoperative Outcomes of Volatile and Intravenous Anesthetics: A Network Meta-Analysis of Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the relative efficacy of specific regimens used as primary anesthetics, as well as the potential combination of volatile and intravenous anesthetics among patients undergoing cardiac, thoracic, and vascular surgery. DESIGN: This frequentist, random-effects network meta-analysis was registered prospectively (CRD42022316328) and conducted according to the PRISMA-NMA framework. Literature searches were conducted up to April 1, 2022 across relevant databases. Risk of bias (RoB) and confidence of evidence were assessed by RoB-2 and CINeMA, respectively. Pooled treatment effects were compared with propofol monotherapy. SETTING: Fifty-three randomized controlled trials (N = 8,085) were included, of which 46 trials (N = 6,604) enrolled patients undergoing cardiac surgery. PARTICIPANTS: Trials enrolling adults (≥18) undergoing cardiac, thoracic, and vascular surgery, using the same induction regimens, and comparing volatile and/or total intravenous anesthesia for the maintenance of anesthesia. Given that the majority of trials focused on those undergoing cardiac surgery and the heterogeneity, analyses were restricted to this population. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes of interest included intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), myocardial infarction, in-hospital and 30-day mortality, stroke, and delirium. Across 19 trials (N = 1,821; 9 arms; I2 = 64.5%), sevoflurane combined with propofol decreased ICU LOS (mean difference [MD] -18.26 hours; 95% CI -34.78 to -1.73 hours), whereas midazolam with propofol (MD 17.51 hours; 95% CI 2.78-32.25 hours) was associated with a significant increase in ICU LOS, when compared with propofol monotherapy. Among 27 trials (N = 4,080; 10 arms; I2 = 0%), midazolam was associated with significantly greater risk of myocardial infarction versus propofol (risk ratio 1.94; 95% CI 1.01-3.71). There were no significant differences across other outcomes. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, sevoflurane with propofol was associated with decreased ICU LOS compared with propofol monotherapy. Midazolam with propofol increased ICU LOS compared with propofol alone. The combined use of intravenous and volatile anesthetics should be explored further. Future trials in thoracic and vascular surgery are warranted.

Outcomes of critically ill older adults with COVID-19: a multicentre retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Older adults with COVID-19 have a high prevalence of complications and mortality during hospitalization. Given the large proportion of older adults requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), we aimed to describe the management and outcomes of older adults with COVID-19 requiring ICU care and identify predictors of hospital mortality. METHODS: We included consecutive patients ≥ 65 yr of age who were admitted between 11 March 2020 and 30 June 2021 to one of five Toronto (ON, Canada) ICUs with a primary diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a retrospective cohort study. Patient characteristics, ICU treatment, and outcomes were recorded. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of the 273 patients, the median [interquartile range] age was 74 [69-80] yr, 104 (38.1%) were female, and 164 (60.1%) required invasive mechanical ventilation. One hundred and forty-two patients (52.0%) survived their hospital stay. Compared with survivors, nonsurvivors were older (74 [70-82] yr vs 73 [68-78] yr; P = 0.03), and a smaller proportion was female (39/131, 29.8% vs 65/142, 45.8%; P = 0.01). Patients had long hospital (19 [11-35] days) and ICU (9 [5-22] days) stays, with no significant differences in ICU length of stay or duration of invasive mechanical ventilation between the two groups. Higher APACHE II score, increasing age, and the need for organ support were independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality while female sex was associated with lower mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Older critically ill COVID-19 patients had long ICU and hospital stays, and approximately half died in hospital. Further research is needed to identify individuals who will benefit most from an ICU admission and to evaluate posthospitalization outcomes.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les personnes âgées atteintes de la COVID-19 ont une prévalence élevée de complications et de mortalité pendant l'hospitalisation. Compte tenu de la forte proportion de personnes âgées nécessitant une admission dans une unité de soins intensifs (USI), nous avons cherché à décrire la prise en charge et les devenirs des personnes âgées atteintes de COVID-19 nécessitant des soins intensifs et à identifier les prédicteurs de mortalité hospitalière. MéTHODE: Nous avons inclus des patient·es consécutif·ves âgé·es de ≥ 65 ans admis·es entre le 11 mars 2020 et le 30 juin 2021 dans l'une des cinq unités de soins intensifs de Toronto (ON, Canada) avec un diagnostic primaire d'infection par le SRAS-CoV-2 dans une étude de cohorte rétrospective. Les caractéristiques des patient·es, le traitement en USI et les devenirs ont été enregistrés. Nous avons utilisé une régression logistique multivariable pour identifier les prédicteurs de mortalité hospitalière. RéSULTATS: Parmi les 273 patient·es, l'âge médian [écart interquartile] était de 74 [69-80] ans, 104 (38,1 %) étaient des femmes et 164 (60,1 %) ont nécessité une ventilation mécanique invasive. Cent quarante-deux personnes (52,0 %) ont survécu à leur séjour à l'hôpital. Comparativement aux personnes survivantes, les personnes qui n'ont pas survécu étaient plus âgées (74 [70-82] ans vs 73 [68­78] ans; P = 0,03), et une plus faible proportion était de sexe féminin (39/131, 29,8 % vs 65/142, 45,8 %; P = 0,01). Les séjours des patient·es à l'hôpital (19 [11-35] jours) et à l'USI (9 [5-22] jours) étaient longs, sans différence significative dans la durée du séjour en USI ou la durée de la ventilation mécanique invasive entre les deux groupes. Un score APACHE II plus élevé, un âge plus avancé et le besoin de mesures de soutien d'organes étaient indépendamment associés à une mortalité plus élevée à l'hôpital, tandis que le sexe féminin était associé à une mortalité plus faible. CONCLUSION : Les personnes plus âgées gravement malades atteintes de la COVID-19 ont eu de longs séjours en soins intensifs et à l'hôpital, et environ la moitié sont décédées à l'hôpital. D'autres recherches sont nécessaires pour identifier les personnes qui bénéficieraient le plus d'une admission à l'USI et pour évaluer les devenirs post-hospitalisation.

Outcomes of COVID-19 manuscripts submitted to the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia: a retrospective audit of author gender and person of colour status.

PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the representation of women and persons of colour (POC) authors of COVID-19 manuscripts submitted to, accepted in, and rejected from the Journal and to evaluate trends in their representation during the pandemic. METHODS: All COVID-19 manuscripts submitted to the Journal between 1 February 2020 and 30 April 2021 were included. Manuscript data were retrieved from Editorial Manager, and gender and POC status were obtained through: 1) e-mail communication with corresponding authors; 2) e-mail queries to other coauthors; 3) NamSor software, and 4) Internet searches. The data were described using percentages and summary statistics. A two-sample test of proportions was used for comparisons and trends were analyzed with linear regression. RESULTS: We identified 314 manuscripts (1,555 authors), 95 (461 authors) of which were accepted for publication. Of all authors, 515 (33%) were women, and women were the lead and senior authors of 101 (32%) and 69 (23%) manuscripts, respectively. There were no differences in women's representation as authors between accepted and rejected manuscripts. Overall, 923/1,555 (59%) authors were identified as POC, with a significantly lower proportion of POC authors among accepted vs rejected manuscripts (41%, 188/461 vs 67%, 735/1,094; difference, -26%; 95% CI, -32 to -21; P < 0.001). We did not observe significant trends in the proportion of women and POC authors over the study period. CONCLUSION: The proportion of women authors of COVID-19 manuscripts was lower than men's representation. Further research is required to determine the factors that account for the higher proportion of POC authors across rejected manuscripts.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avions pour objectif d'évaluer la représentation des femmes et des personnes de couleur ayant rédigé des manuscrits portant sur la COVID-19 soumis, acceptés et rejetés au Journal et d'évaluer les tendances concernant leur représentation pendant la pandémie. MéTHODE: Tous les manuscrits portant sur la COVID-19 soumis au Journal entre le 1er février 2020 et le 30 avril 2021 ont été inclus. Les données des manuscrits ont été extraites de la plateforme de gestion des manuscrits Editorial Manager, et le sexe et le statut de personne de couleur ont été obtenus par : 1) la communication par courrier électronique avec les auteurs et autrices correspondant·es; 2) des requêtes par courrier électronique envoyées à d'autres coautrices et coauteurs; 3) le logiciel NamSor, et 4) des recherches sur Internet. Les données ont été décrites à l'aide de pourcentages et de statistiques sommaires. Un test de proportions à deux échantillons a été utilisé pour les comparaisons et les tendances ont été analysées par régression linéaire. RéSULTATS: Nous avons identifié 314 manuscrits (1555 auteurs et autrices), dont 95 (461 autrices et auteurs) ont été acceptés pour publication. Parmi tou·tes les auteurs/autrices, 515 (33 %) étaient des femmes, et les femmes étaient les autrices principales et senior de 101 (32 %) et 69 (23 %) manuscrits, respectivement. Il n'y avait aucune différence dans la représentation des femmes en tant qu'autrices entre les manuscrits acceptés et rejetés. Dans l'ensemble, 923/1555 (59 %) auteurs et autrices ont été identifié·es comme étant des personnes de couleur, avec une proportion significativement plus faible d'autrices et d'auteurs de couleur parmi les manuscrits acceptés vs rejetés (41 %, 188/461 vs 67 %, 735/1094; différence, -26 %; IC 95 %, -32 à -21; P < 0,001). Nous n'avons pas observé de tendances significatives dans la proportion d'auteurs et d'autrices femmes et de couleur au cours de la période à l'étude. CONCLUSION: La proportion de femmes autrices de manuscrits sur la COVID-19 était inférieure à celle des hommes. D'autres recherches sont nécessaires pour déterminer les facteurs qui expliquent la plus grande proportion d'autrices et d'auteurs de couleur parmi les manuscrits rejetés.

Comparative Efficacy of Adjuvant Nonopioid Analgesia in Adult Cardiac Surgical Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative efficacy of adjuvant nonopioid analgesic regimens in adult cardiac surgical patients. DESIGN: This frequentist, random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021282913) and conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses for Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA). The risk of bias (RoB) and confidence of evidence were assessed by RoB 2 and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis, respectively. Relevant databases were searched from inception to October 9, 2021. SETTING: A total of 124 (N = 26,257) randomized controlled trials were included, of which 110 were analyzed. PARTICIPANTS: Trials enrolling adults (≥18 years of age) undergoing cardiac surgery that compared nonopioid analgesics against other nonopioid analgesics, placebo, or no additional treatment, as adjuvants to standard analgesic management, and reported at least 1 of the outcomes of interest. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes of interest included resting postoperative pain scores at 24 hours. Compared with standard care and/or placebo, pain scores were reduced significantly by 10 different regimens, including acetaminophen (N = 176; mean difference [MD] -0.66 points, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.15 points; high confidence), magnesium (N = 323; -0.05 points, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02 points; high confidence), gabapentin (N = 96; MD -0.40 points, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.09; moderate confidence), and clonidine (N = 64; MD v0.38 points, 95% CI -0.73 to v0.04 points; moderate confidence). Indomethacin, diclofenac, magnesium, and gabapentin significantly reduced 24-hour opioid consumption. Four regimens significantly decreased the intensive care unit length of stay. Hydrocortisone, dexmedetomidine, and clonidine significantly decreased the duration of mechanical ventilation. Magnesium decreased, while methylprednisolone significantly increased, the risk of myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: Given the increasing emphasis on enhanced recovery after surgery(ERAS) protocols and the eventual goal of limiting opiate prescriptions postoperatively, the authors' data suggested far greater use of nonopioid adjuncts to minimize pain and enhance recovery following cardiac surgery.

Efficacy and safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in COVID-19 management: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of acute COVID-19 is still under investigation, with conflicting results reported from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Different dosing regimens may have contributed to the contradictory findings. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SSRIs and the effect of different dosing regimens on the treatment of acute COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: Seven databases were searched from January 2020 to December 2022. Trial registries, previous reviews, and preprint servers were hand-searched. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs and observational studies with no language restrictions. PARTICIPANTS: COVID-19 inpatients/outpatients. INTERVENTIONS: SSRIs prescribed after diagnosis were compared against a placebo or standard of care. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Risk of bias was rated using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials version 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Outcomes were mortality, hospitalization, composite of hospitalization/emergency room visits, hypoxemia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, ventilator support, and serious adverse events. RCT data were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Observational findings were narratively described. Subgroup analyses were performed on the basis of SSRI dose, and sensitivity analyses were performed excluding studies with a high risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework was used to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Six RCTs (N = 4197) and five observational studies (N = 1156) were included. Meta-analyses associated fluvoxamine with reduced mortality (risk ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82) and hospitalization (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.99) on the basis of moderate quality of evidence. Medium-dose fluvoxamine (100 mg twice a day) was associated with reduced mortality, hospitalization, and composite of hospitalization/emergency room visits, but low-dose fluvoxamine (50 mg twice a day) was not. Fluvoxamine was not associated with increased serious adverse events. Observational studies support the use of fluvoxamine and highlight fluoxetine as a possible alternative to SSRIs for the treatment of COVID-19. DISCUSSION: Fluvoxamine remains a candidate pharmacotherapy for treating COVID-19 in outpatients. Medium-dose fluvoxamine may be preferable over low-dose fluvoxamine.

Prevalence of mental health symptoms in children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic: A meta-analysis.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its accompanying infection control measures introduced sudden and significant disruptions to the lives of children and adolescents around the world. Given the potential for negative impacts on the mental health of youths as a result of these changes, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep disturbances in children and adolescents during the pandemic. We searched major literature databases for relevant cross-sectional or longitudinal studies that included primary and secondary school students or children and adolescents ≤18 years of age. Prevalence values were extracted, logit-transformed, and pooled. Based on 191 included studies with 1,389,447 children and adolescents, we found the pooled prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep disturbances to be 31%, 31%, and 42%, respectively. Age, grade levels, education levels, gender, geographical regions, and electronics use were correlated with the prevalence of mental health symptoms. The prevalence of mental health symptoms also increased with time, although signs of recovery and stabilization were also observed. Overall, the results from this review demonstrate the need for increased mental health research, monitoring, and intervention for children and adolescents during the current and future pandemics.

Differential efficacy and safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody therapies for the management of COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess and compare the relative efficacy and safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody regimens for COVID-19. METHODS: This systematic review and random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA-NMA. Literature searches were conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and CNKI up to February 20th, 2022. Interventions were ranked using P scores. RESULTS: Fifty-five RCTs (N = 45,005) were included in the review. Bamlanivimab + etesevimab (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.77) was associated with a significant reduction in mortality compared to standard of care/placebo. Casirivimab + imdevimab reduced mortality (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.91) in baseline seronegative patients only. Four different regimens led to a significant decrease in the incidence of hospitalization compared to standard of care/placebo with sotrovimab ranking first in terms of efficacy (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.48). No treatment improved incidence of mechanical ventilation, duration of hospital/ICU stay, and time to viral clearance. Convalescent plasma and anti-COVID IVIg both led to a significant increase in adverse events compared to standard of care/placebo, but no treatment increased the odds of serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs are safe, and could be effective in improving mortality and incidence of hospitalization. Convalescent plasma and anti-COVID IVIg were not efficacious and could increase odds of adverse events. Future trials should further examine the effect of baseline seronegativity, disease severity, patient risk factors, and SARS-CoV-2 strain variation on the efficacy of these regimes. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-CRD42021289903.

Catheter management across patients with hematologic malignancies and catheter-related blood stream infections: a systematic review.

Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) can lead to ICU admission in patients with hematologic malignancy (HM). Variability exists in the management of catheters given the need for long-term access and co-existing thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate catheter management in patients with CRBSI. Literature searches were conducted up to December 20, 2021 across MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PubMed. Observational studies and RCTs of adults (> 16) with HM were included. Our primary outcome was mortality and secondary outcomes included infection recurrence and ICU admission. We identified 23 studies (N = 2026 patients), of which 22 were observational. Across the 12 studies (N = 801) that reported on bacterial organisms, 528 (65.9%) were gram positive, and 273 (34.1%) were gram negative. Catheters were removed in 1266 (62%) and retained in 760 (38%) patients. Removal was associated with a mean 30-day mortality of 13.14% (SD 9.12; 90/685) and reinfection rate of 5.49% (SD 2.88; 22/401) compared to 39.23% (SD 14.58; 122/311) and 10.75% (SD 21.07; 10/93), respectively, if retained. Catheter retention may be associated with a higher risk of mortality and infection recurrence. Further prospective research should assess catheter management in this population, including potential harms associated with retention.

Outcomes of dexmedetomidine versus propofol sedation in critically ill adults requiring mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines have recommended the use of dexmedetomidine or propofol for sedation after cardiac surgery, and propofol monotherapy for other patients. Further outcome data are required for these drugs. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was prospectively registered on PROSPERO. The primary outcome was ICU length of stay. Secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU delirium, all-cause mortality, and haemodynamic effects. Intensive care patients were analysed separately as cardiac surgical, medical/noncardiac surgical, those with sepsis, and patients in neurocritical care. Subgroup analyses based on age and dosage were conducted. RESULTS: Forty-one trials (N=3948) were included. Dexmedetomidine did not significantly affect ICU length of stay across any ICU patient subtype when compared with propofol, but it reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -0.67 h; 95% confidence interval: -1.31 to -0.03 h; P=0.041; low certainty) and the risk of ICU delirium (risk ratio 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.29-0.87; P=0.019; high certainty) across cardiac surgical patients. Dexmedetomidine was also associated with a greater risk of bradycardia across a variety of ICU patients. Subgroup analyses revealed that age might affect the incidence of haemodynamic side-effects and mortality among cardiac surgical and medical/other surgical patients. CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine did not significantly impact ICU length of stay compared with propofol, but it significantly reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation and the risk of delirium in cardiac surgical patients. It also significantly increased the risk of bradycardia across ICU patient subsets.