Prior Use of Angiotensin-converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers and Clinical Outcomes of Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Sepsis and septic shock are life-threatening conditions that are associated with high mortality and considerable health care costs. The association between prior angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) use and outcomes after sepsis is elusive. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of the prior use of ACEi or ARBs and outcomes after sepsis and septic shock. A relevant literature review was performed in 4 databases from inception until July 2022. Independent reviewers first screened the title, abstract, and full text, and then, data extraction and analysis were performed. One post hoc analysis of a trial and 6 retrospective cohort studies were included in this review. There were 22% lower odds of in-hospital/30-day mortality among patients who have used ACEi/ARBs in the past [23.83% vs. 37.20%; odds ratio (OR), 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.96], and reduced 90-day mortality (OR, 0.80, 95% CI, 0.69-0.92). ACEi/ARBs users were found to have 31% lesser odds of developing acute kidney injury as compared with nonusers (OR, 0.69, 95% CI, 0.63-0.76). There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay (MD 1.26, 95% CI, ‒7.89 to 10.42), need for renal replacement therapy (OR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.13-3.92), mechanical ventilation (OR, 1.10, 95% CI, 0.88-1.37) or use of vasopressors (OR, 1.21, 95% CI, 0.91-1.61). Based on this analysis, prior use of ACEi/ARBs lowers the risk of mortality and adverse renal events in patients with sepsis and septic shock.

Differences in treatment and outcomes among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with and without standard modifiable risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

There are limited data available on outcomes and pathophysiology behind ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in populations without standard modifiable risk factors (SMuRFs). The authors carried out this meta-analysis to understand the differences in treatment and outcomes of STEMI patients with and without SMuRFs. Methods: A systematic database search was performed for relevant studies. Studies reporting desired outcomes among STEMI patients with and without SMuRFs were selected based on predefined criteria in the study protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42022341389). Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts using Covidence. Full texts of the selected studies were independently reviewed to confirm eligibility. Data were extracted from all eligible studies via a full-text review of the primary article for qualitative and quantitative analysis. In-hospital mortality following the first episode of STEMI was the primary outcome, with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), repeat myocardial infarction (MI), cardiogenic shock, heart failure, and stroke as secondary outcomes of interest. Odds ratio (OR) with a 95% CI was used to estimate the effect. Results: A total of 2135 studies were identified from database search, six studies with 521 150 patients with the first STEMI episode were included in the analysis. The authors found higher in-hospital mortality (OR: 1.43; CI: 1.40-1.47) and cardiogenic shock (OR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.55-1.63) in the SMuRF-less group with no differences in MACE, recurrent MI, major bleeding, heart failure, and stroke. There were lower prescriptions of statin (OR: 0.62; CI: 0.42-0.91) and Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor /Angiotensin II receptor blocker (OR: 0.49; CI: 0.28-0.87) at discharge in SMuRF-less patients. There was no difference in procedures like coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention, and thrombolysis. Conclusion: In the SMuRF-less STEMI patients, higher in-hospital mortality and treatment discrepancies were noted at discharge.

Outcome of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest among Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes following in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in patients with COVID-19 have been reported by several small single-institutional studies; however, there are no large studies contrasting COVID-19 IHCA with non-COVID-19 IHCA. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes following IHCA between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We searched databases using predefined search terms and appropriate Boolean operators. All the relevant articles published till August 2022 were included in the analyses. The systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. An odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to measure effects. RESULTS: Among 855 studies screened, 6 studies with 27,453 IHCA patients (63.84% male) with COVID-19 and 20,766 (59.7% male) without COVID-19 were included in the analysis. IHCA among patients with COVID-19 has lower odds of achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.62-0.70). Similarly, patients with COVID-19 have higher odds of 30-day mortality following IHCA (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 2.08-2.45) and have 45% lower odds of cardiac arrest because of a shockable rhythm (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.50-0.60) (9.59% vs. 16.39%). COVID-19 patients less commonly underwent targeted temperature management (TTM) or coronary angiography; however, they were more commonly intubated and on vasopressor therapy as compared to patients who did not have a COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that IHCA with COVID-19 has a higher mortality and lower rates of ROSC compared with non-COVID-19 IHCA. COVID-19 is an independent risk factor for poor outcomes in IHCA patients.

Improvement in knowledge of healthcare professionals attending Neonatal Life Support (NeoLiS) training workshop.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the improvement in knowledge of healthcare professionals after attending Neonatal Life Support training workshop. METHODS: The interventional study with secondary data was conducted in the Neonatology Department of the Children's Hospital and the Institute of Child Health, Lahore, Pakistan, using 2-year data of all the training workshops from 2017 to 2018. The participants were consultants, post-graduate residents, nurses, lady health visitors, lady health workers and rescue workers. Knowledge was tested through a true/false questionnaire regarding resuscitation skills both before and after the hands-on workshop. The score of each candidate was recorded on a results sheet. Baselines scores were compared with respective post-workshop test. Data was analysed using SPSS 20. RESULTS: Of the 52 workshops, 35(%) were conducted in 2017 and 17(%)in 2018, and of the 1350 particpants, 1080(81%) were doctors, 257(18%) were nurses and 13(1%) were paramedics and rescue workers. Mean overall baseline score was 71.96±8.38 compared to 86.60+/-5.48 post-intervention (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Neonatal Life Support training workshop resulted in significant gain in knowledge about neonatal resuscitation by healthcare professionals.

Adherence to Evidence-Base Endotracheal Intubation Practice Patterns by Intensivists and Emergency Department Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation outside the operating room (OR) is mainly performed by intensive care (IC) physicians and emergency department (ED) physicians. We hypothesized that difference in practice patterns exists between these two groups of physicians. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all endotracheal intubations that were performed out of OR over a fi ve year period at our health care facility. Practice patterns of IC and ED physicians were compared regarding use of (a) video laryngoscopy, (b) paralytic agents, (c) waveform capnography, and (d) use of larger size of endotracheal tube (internal diameter ≥ 8 mm). RESULTS: A total of 201 patients underwent out of OR intubations over a 5 year period. IC physicians used more often than ED physicians video laryngoscopy (67% vs. 49%; p = 0.008), waveform capnography (99% vs. 86%; p = 0.001) and larger size endotracheal tubes (95% vs. 60%; p < 0.001). Conversely, paralytic agents were used less frequently by IC than ED physicians (12% vs. 51%; p < 0.001). The success of fi rst intubation attempt was higher by IC than ED physicians (82% vs. 67%; p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: IC physicians more often adhered to currently considered preferable practices for endotracheal intubation than ED physicians in this single center retrospective study. Although larger scale studies are needed to unveil the effects of different practice patterns on short and long term outcomes, the present study identifi es opportunity to bridge practice gaps that could lead to improved outcomes.

Effect of obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome on lipid profile: a meta-regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with obesity, metabolic syndrome, and dyslipidemia, which may be related to decrease androgen levels found in OSA patients. Dyslipidemia may contribute to atherosclerosis leading to increasing risk of heart disease. METHODS: Systematic review was conducted using PubMed and Cochrane library by utilizing different combinations of key words; sleep apnea, obstructive sleep apnea, serum lipids, dyslipidemia, cholesterol, total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein (LDL), high density lipoprotein (HDL), and triglyceride (TG). Inclusion criteria were: English articles, and studies with adult population in 2 groups of patients (patients with OSA and without OSA). A total 96 studies were reviewed for inclusion, with 25 studies pooled for analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies were pooled for analysis; since some studies have more than one dataset, there were 107 datasets with 18,116 patients pooled for meta-analysis. All studies measured serum lipids. Total cholesterol pooled standardized difference in means was 0.267 (p = 0.001). LDL cholesterol pooled standardized difference in means was 0.296 (p = 0.001). HDL cholesterol pooled standardized difference in means was -0.433 (p = 0.001). Triglyceride pooled standardized difference in means was 0.603 (p = 0.001). Meta-regression for age, BMI, and AHI showed that age has significant effect for TC, LDL, and HDL. BMI had significant effect for LDL and HDL, while AHI had significant effect for LDL and TG. CONCLUSION: Patients with OSA appear to have increased dyslipidemia (high total cholesterol, LDL, TG, and low HDL).

Effect of musculoskeletal pain on sleep architecture in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.

RATIONALE: Obstructive sleep apnea and chronic musculoskeletal pain both affect sleep. Sleep architecture of patients suffering from both is largely unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study seeks to define the sleep architecture of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain and obstructive sleep apnea. METHODS: Patients with obstructive sleep apnea diagnosed by sleep study during the past 3 years were included. Patients with clinical documentation of chronic musculoskeletal pain constituted cases, while others were classified as controls. MEASUREMENTS: Demographics, clinical factors affecting sleep, medications affecting sleep, Epworth sleepiness scores, and polysomnographic parameters; total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep stages, rapid eye movement (REM) sleep onset, apnea-hypopnea index, arousal index, and periodic leg movements were recorded. RESULTS: There were 393 subjects: 200 cases (obstructive sleep apnea and chronic musculoskeletal pain) and 193 controls (obstructive sleep apnea alone). There was significant difference in total sleep time (274.5 ± 62.5 vs. 302.2 ± 60.1 min, p = 0.0001), sleep efficiency (73.54 ± 15.8 vs. 78.76 ± 14.3%, p = 0.0003), and REM sleep onset (148.18 ± 80.5 vs. 124.8 ± 70.9 min, p = 0.006). Subgroup analysis within the obstructive sleep apnea with chronic musculoskeletal pain group revealed that subjects had better total sleep time and sleep efficiency if they were on REM sleep affecting medications (suppressants and stimulants). Those on REM sleep suppressants slept 25.7 min longer and had 6.4% more efficient sleep than those not on REM suppressants (p = 0.0034 and p = 0.0037). CONCLUSION: Patients with obstructive sleep apnea and chronic musculoskeletal pain sleep not only significantly less but also with inferior sleep quality. Their REM sleep is also less in duration and its onset is delayed. Despite low TST and SE, these patients may not exhibit sleepiness.