RESUMO
Background and Aim: Norepinephrine is currently the first-line vasopressor for septic shock. We conducted this meta-analysis to examine the outcomes of adult patients with septic shock who received vasopressin instead of norepinephrine. Methods: We selected studies in adults with septic shock that compared the outcomes of patients treated with vasopressin versus norepinephrine. Cochrane ROB 2.0 and the Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tools were used to assess the risk of bias in RCTs and observational studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4. Results: Eight studies were included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in 28-day mortality rates (OR, 1.07; CI, 0.80-1.44) and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (OR, 0.74; CI, 0.21-2.67) between the two groups. Similarly, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, mean arterial pressure at 24 h, urine output at 24 h, and serious adverse events also did not differ significantly. However, the odds of renal replacement therapy (RRT) requirement in the vasopressin group were substantially lower than in the norepinephrine group (OR, 0.68; CI, 0.47-0.98). Conclusion: There were no differences in mortality, duration of hospitalization, and adverse effects in adults with septic shock across the two groups. However, the patients treated with vasopressin had lower chances of requiring RRT. Relevance for Patients: Vasopressin use as the first-line vasopressor in septic shock showed a significant reduction in RRT, though there were no significant differences in terms of mortality and other adverse events. Therefore, vasopressin can be considered as a first-line vasopressor in septic shock patients with other risk factors which may contribute to renal failure requiring RRT.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: An ever-increasing number of studies have reported an increased incidence of spontaneous pulmonary barotrauma such as pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, and subcutaneous emphysema in patients with COVID-19. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the value and significance of the available data. METHODS: A thorough systematic search was conducted to identify studies of barotrauma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Data analysis of case reports was done using a statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) version 22, and meta-analysis was performed using CMA-3. RESULTS: We identified a total of 4488 studies after thorough database searching.118 case reports and series, and 15 observational studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Fifteen studies were included in the quantitative analysis. The observational studies reported barotrauma in 4.2% (2.4-7.3%) among hospitalized patients; 15.6% (11-21.8%) among critically ill patients; and 18.4% (13-25.3%) in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, showing a linear relationship of barotrauma with the severity of the disease. In addition, barotrauma was associated with a longer length of hospital stay, more extended ICU stay, and higher in-hospital mortality. Also, a slightly higher odds of barotrauma was seen in COVID-19 ARDS compared with non-COVID-19 ARDS. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 pneumonia is associated with a higher incidence of barotrauma. It presents unique challenges for invasive and non-invasive ventilation management. Further studies are required to unravel the underlying pathophysiology and develop safer management strategies.
RESUMO
Pneumomediastinum and subcutaneous emphysema have been reported in COVID-19 around the world except for Nepal. We report a case of a 44-year-old male infected with COVID-19 who developed pneumomediastinum and subcutaneous emphysema during his eighth day of intubation at the hospital. He was managed with remdesivir, antibiotics, mechanical ventilation, steroid, and heparin following which he recovered well. Barotrauma-related complications are common in COVID-19 and our case highlights the importance of conservative management for such complications and the rarity of such conditions in Nepal.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 causing coronavirus is an enveloped RNA virus that utilizes an enzyme RNA dependent RNA polymerase for its replication. Favipiravir (FVP) triphosphate, a purine nucleoside analog, inhibits that enzyme. We have conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of the drug FVP as a treatment for COVID-19. METHODS: Databases like Pubmed, Pubmed Central, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar, preprint sites, and clinicaltirals.gov were searched. The studies with the standard of care (SOC) and FVP as a treatment drug were considered as the treatment group and the SOC with other antivirals and supportive care as the control group. Quantitative synthesis was done using RevMan 5.4. Clinical improvement, negative conversion of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), adverse effects, and oxygen requirements were studied. RESULTS: We identified a total of 1798 studies after searching the electronic databases. Nine in the qualitative studies and four studies in the quantitative synthesis met the criteria. There was a significant clinical improvement in the FVP group on the 14th day compared to the control group (RR 1.29, 1.08-1.54). Clinical deterioration rates were less likely in the FVP group though statistically not significant (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.30-1.14) at the endpoint of study (7-15 days). The meta-analysis showed no significant differences between the two groups on viral clearance (day 14: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84-1.33), non-invasive ventilation or oxygen requirement (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.42-1.39), and adverse effects (OR 0.69, 0.13-3.57). There are 31 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) registered in different parts of the world focusing FVP for COVID-19 treatment. CONCLUSION: There is a significant clinical and radiological improvement following treatment with FVP in comparison to the standard of care with no significant differences on viral clearance, oxygen support requirement and side effect profiles.
