Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in achieving successful emergency endotracheal intubations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Intubating a patient in an emergent setting presents significant challenges compared to planned intubation in an operating room. This study aims to compare video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in achieving successful endotracheal intubation on the first attempt in emergency intubations, irrespective of the clinical setting. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until 27 February 2023. We included only randomized controlled trials that included patients who had undergone emergent endotracheal intubation for any indication, regardless of the clinical setting. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool 2 (ROB2) to assess the included studies. We used the mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR), with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), to pool the continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included with a total of 2470 patients. The overall analysis favored video laryngoscopy over direct laryngoscopy in first-attempt success rate (RR = 1.09, 95% CI [1.02, 1.18], P = 0.02), first-attempt intubation time (MD = - 6.92, 95% CI [- 12.86, - 0.99], P = 0.02), intubation difficulty score (MD = - 0.62, 95% CI [- 0.86, - 0.37], P < 0.001), peri-intubation percentage of glottis opening (MD = 24.91, 95% CI [11.18, 38.64], P < 0.001), upper airway injuries (RR = 0.15, 95% CI [0.04, 0.56], P = 0.005), and esophageal intubation (RR = 0.37, 95% CI [0.15, 0.94], P = 0.04). However, no difference between the two groups was found regarding the overall intubation success rate (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In emergency intubations, video laryngoscopy is preferred to direct laryngoscopy in achieving successful intubation on the first attempt and was associated with a lower incidence of complications.

Effect of ondansetron compared to lidocaine and placebo for reducing propofol injection pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: Propofol is the most commonly used intravenous anesthetic medication and is most commonly associated with post-operative pain. Several drugs are investigated to reduce post-operative pain caused by propofol injection. Ondansetron is a potent anti-emetic drug showing promising results as an analgesic. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of ondansetron to placebo and lidocaine in reducing post-operative pain caused by propofol injection. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) till May 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis using RevMan software version 5.4, and we assessed the quality of included RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: In our study, we included 23 RCTs with 2957 participants. Compared to placebo, ondansetron significantly increased the rate of no pain [risk ratio (RR) = 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.39-4.01)], and reduced moderate [RR = 0.39, 95% CI (0.30-0.52)] and severe pain [RR = 0.34, 95% CI (0.24-0.50)]. Furthermore, ondansetron significantly reduced PONV [RR = 0.73, 95% CI (0.58, 0.91)]. On the other hand, ondansetron showed an inferior efficacy to lidocaine regarding the incidence of no, moderate, and severe pain. CONCLUSION: Ondansetron is effective in reducing post-operative propofol-induced pain. However, lidocaine is more effective than it.

Safety and efficacy of total ankle arthroplasty versus ankle arthrodesis for ankle osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Osteoarthritis is the most common joint disease-causing pain and disability, and its management keeps creating a debate. So, we aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of total ankle arthroplasty and ankle arthrodesis for ankle osteoarthritis. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science till August 2021. The outcomes were pooled as Mean difference (MD) or Risk Ratio (RR), and 95% confidence interval. We included 36 studies. The results showed a significantly lower risk of infections in total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) than ankle arthrodesis (AA) (RR= 0.63, 95% CI [0.57, 0.70], p < 0.00001), amputations (RR= 0.40, 95% CI [0.22, 0.72], p = 0.002), postoperative non-union (RR= 0.11, 95% CI [0.03, 0.34], p = 0.0002), and a significant increase of overall range of motion in TAA than AA. Our results preferred total ankle arthroplasty over ankle arthrodesis in terms of lowering the rates of infections, amputations, and postoperative non-union, with better change in the overall range of motion.

Oncoplastic versus conventional breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer: a pooled analysis of 6941 female patients.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women. In the past few years, surgical interventions for breast cancer have experienced massive changes from radical excision to conserving approaches. In this study, we aim to compare the two breast surgery interventions, including conventional breast-conserving surgery (CBCS) versus oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS). METHODS: We searched on PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane till 2 October 2021. All relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included. The data were extracted and pooled using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4). RESULTS: The pooled meta-analysis of the included studies showed that OPBCS was significantly superior to CBCS in most of the outcomes. Re-excision significantly favoured CBCS (RR = 0.49, 95% CI [0.37, 0.63], P < 0.00001). However, local recurrence (RR = 0.55, 95% CI [0.27, 1.09], P = 0.09), close surgical margins (RR = 0.37, 95% CI [0.14, 1.00], P = 0.05) and end up to the risk of mastectomy (RR = 0.73, 95% CI [0.54, 97], P = 0.06) showed no significant difference between both techniques. Notably, while performing a sensitivity analysis, other outcomes as local recurrence, significantly showed favourable results towards OPBCS. In terms of safety outcomes, there was no significant difference between OPBCS and CBCS. CONCLUSION: We recommend the oncoplastic approach rather than the conventional one in females with breast cancer. Re-excision rates showed better results following OPBCS.

Hospital and laboratory outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who received vitamin D supplementation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a wide-ranging spectrum of clinical symptoms, from asymptomatic/mild to severe. Recent research indicates that, among several factors, a low vitamin D level is a modifiable risk factor for COVID-19 patients. This study aims to evaluate the effect of vitamin D on hospital and laboratory outcomes of patients with COVID-19.Five databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and clinicaltrials.gov were searched until July 2022, using relevant keywords/Mesh terms. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that addressed the topic were included. The Cochrane tool was used to assess the studies' risk of bias, and the data were analyzed using the review manager (RevMan 5.4).We included nine RCTs with 1586 confirmed COVID-19 patients. Vitamin D group showed a significant reduction of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (risk ratio = 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.41, 0.84], P = 0.003), and higher change in vitamin D level (standardized mean difference = 2.27, 95% CI [2.08, 2.47], P < 0.00001) compared to the control group. Other studied hospital and laboratory outcomes showed non-significant difference between vitamin D and the control group (P ≥ 0.05).In conclusion, vitamin D reduced the risk of ICU admission and showed superiority in changing vitamin D level compared to the control group. However, other outcomes showed no difference between the two groups. More RCTs are needed to confirm these results.

Dupilumab efficacy and safety in patients with moderate to severe asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Dupilumab is a human monoclonal antibody directed against the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor and inhibits the signaling of IL-4 and IL-13. It is approved for treating asthma and other type-2 inflammatory diseases. There is a conflict in the literature regarding the safety and efficacy of dupilumab. Thus, we aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe asthma. Methods: Six databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and clinicaltrials.gov registry) were searched until January 2022. We included randomized controlled trials that compared dupilumab with the placebo in moderate to severe asthma patients. We extracted the data at 12 and 24 weeks and analyzed them using review manager 5.4. Findings: Thirteen trials were included. Dupilumab significantly improved the forced expiratory volume in 1 s, asthma control questionnaire score, the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide level, and immunoglobulin E level at 12 and 24 weeks (p < 0.05). However, it was associated with increased blood eosinophils at 12 and 24 weeks. Dupilumab was generally a safe agent for asthmatic patients. It showed no significant difference compared with the placebo regarding most adverse events. Conclusion: Dupilumab improves pulmonary function and reduces local and systemic inflammatory markers with minimal adverse events in patients with moderate to severe asthma.

Safety and efficacy of omecamtiv mecarbil for heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To assess the safety and efficacy of omecamtiv mecarbil compared with placebo in heart failure (HF) patients. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS until August 15th, 2021. We included all randomized controlled studies comparing omecamtiv mecarbil with placebo in heart failure patients. The meta-analysis was carried out using Rev Man software V5.4. RESULTS: A total of eight studies were included in our systematic review. Pooled analysis showed that omecamtiv mecarbil is not associated with increased incidence of death, any adverse events, hypotension, heart failure, ventricular tachyarrhythmia, dyspnea, dizziness, and serious adverse events. Regarding the efficacy, omecamtiv mecarbil significantly reduced heart rate with some studies demonstrating its significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction and systolic function. CONCLUSION: Omecamtiv mecarbil is a well-tolerated drug in heart failure patients. The limited data regarding the efficacy suggested that it may improve ejection fraction and systolic function.