Pulse versus nonpulse steroid regimens in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Systemic steroids are associated with reduced mortality in hypoxic patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there is no consensus on the doses of steroid therapy in these patients. Several studies showed that pulse dose steroids (PDS) could reduce the progression of COVID-19 pneumonia. However, data regarding the role of PDS in COVID-19 is still unclear. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the role of PDS in COVID-19 patients compared to nonpulse steroids (NPDS). Comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception through February 10, 2022 was performed for all published studies comparing PDS to NPDS therapy to manage hypoxic patients with COVID-19. Primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were the need for endotracheal intubation, hospital length of stay (LOS), and adverse events in the form of superimposed infections. A total of 10 observational studies involving 3065 patients (1289 patients received PDS and 1776 received NPDS) were included. The mortality rate was similar between PDS and NPDS groups (risk ratio [RR]: 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.65, p = 0.16). There were no differences in the need for endotracheal intubation (RR: 0.71, 95%: CI 0.37-1.137, p = 0.31), LOS (mean difference: 1.93 days; 95% CI: -1.46-5.33; p = 0.26), or adverse events (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.56-1.57, p = 0.80) between the two groups. Compared to NPDS, PDS was associated with similar mortality rates, need for endotracheal intubation, LOS, and adverse events. Given the observational nature of the included studies, randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our findings.

Inhaled Pulmonary Vasodilators in COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: Inhaled pulmonary vasodilators (IPVD) have been previously studied in patients with non-coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The use of IPVD has been shown to improve the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2), reduce fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) requirements, and ultimately increase PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratios in ARDS patients. However, the role of IPVD in COVID-19 ARDS is still unclear. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the role of IPVD in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from inception through April 22, 2022 was performed for all published studies that utilized IPVD in COVID-19 ARDS patients. The single arm studies and case series were combined for a 1-arm meta-analysis, and the 2-arm studies were combined for a 2-arm meta-analysis. Primary outcomes for the 1-arm and 2-arm meta-analyzes were change in pre- and post-IPVD P/F ratios and mortality, respectively. Secondary outcomes for the 1-arm meta-analysis were change in pre- and post-IPVD positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and lung compliance, and for the 2-arm meta-analysis the secondary outcomes were need for endotracheal intubation and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results: 13 single arm retrospective studies and 5 case series involving 613 patients were included in the 1-arm meta-analysis. 3 studies involving 640 patients were included in the 2-arm meta-analysis. The pre-IPVD P/F ratios were significantly lower compared to post-IPVD, but there was no significant difference between pre- and post-IPVD PEEP and lung compliance. The mortality rates, need for endotracheal intubation, and hospital LOS were similar between the IPVD and standard therapy groups. Conclusion: Although IPVD may improve oxygenation, our investigation showed no benefits in terms of mortality compared to standard therapy alone. However, randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our findings.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Noninvasive Ventilation in Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) have been widely used in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to COVID-19. However, the impact of HFNC versus NIV on clinical outcomes of COVID-19 is uncertain. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of HFNC versus NIV in COVID-19-related AHRF. METHODS: Several electronic databases were searched through February 10, 2022, for eligible studies comparing HFNC and NIV in COVID-19-related AHRF. Our primary outcome was intubation. The secondary outcomes were mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and PaO2 /FIO2 changes. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% CI were obtained using a random-effect model. Prediction intervals were calculated to indicate the variance in outcomes that would be expected if new studies were conducted in the future. RESULTS: Nineteen studies involving 3,606 subjects (1,880 received HFNC and 1,726 received NIV) were included. There were no differences in intubation (RR 1.01 [95% CI 0.85-1.20], P = .89) or LOS (MD 0.38 d [95% CI -0.61 to 1.37], P = .45) between groups, with consistent results on the subgroup of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Mortality was lower in NIV (RR 0.81 [95% CI 0.66-0.98], P = .03). However, the prediction interval was 0.41-1.59, and subgroup analysis of RCTs showed no difference in mortality between groups. There was a greater improvement in PaO2 /FIO2 with NIV (MD 22.80 [95% CI 5.30-40.31], P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that despite the greater improvement in PaO2 /FIO2 with NIV, intubation rates and LOS were similar between HFNC and NIV. Although mortality was lower with HFNC than NIV, the prediction interval included the null value, and there was no difference in mortality between HFNC and NIV on a subgroup of RCTs. Future large-scale RCTs are necessary to support our findings.

Triglyceride Glucose Index for the Prediction of Subclinical Atherosclerosis and Arterial Stiffness: A Meta-analysis of 37,780 Individuals.

Insulin resistance (IR), which can be assessed by triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index, is a major contributor to the pathogenesis of cardiovascular diseases. Arterial stiffness is an index of subclinical atherosclerosis. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the existing studies and provide a quantitative assessment of the significance of the TyG index in predicting the incidence of subclinical atherosclerosis and arterial stiffness. A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases from inception until April 30, 2022 was conducted. Published observational studies that evaluated the association between TyG index and arterial stiffness among the adult population and reported odds ratio (OR) for this association after multivariate analysis were included. The random-effects model was used for the estimation of pooled ORs with the corresponding confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 9 observational studies, including 37780 participants, were included. Seven out of the 9 studies analyzed the TyG index as a categorical variable and showed a statistically significant association between TyG index and incident arterial stiffness (pooled OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.52-2.53, P<0.00001, I2=82%). Additionally, similar results were in the 3 studies that analyzed TyG index as a continuous variable (pooled OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.26-1.49, P<0.00001, I2=0%). In conclusion, our meta-analysis demonstrates that a higher TyG index is associated with higher odds of subclinical atherosclerosis and arterial stiffness. TyG index may be used as an independent predictor of an increased risk of subclinical atherosclerosis and arterial stiffness.

Triglyceride-Glucose Index for Early Prediction of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Meta-Analysis of 121,975 Individuals.

Insulin resistance (IR) is a major contributor to the pathogenesis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). The triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index has recently gained popularity for the assessment of IR and NAFLD due to its ease of acquisition and calculation. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the existing studies in the literature and provide a quantitative assessment of the significance of the TyG index in predicting the incidence of NAFLD. A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases from inception until 25 March 2022 was conducted. Published observational studies that evaluated the association between TyG index and NAFLD among the adult population and reported the hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) for this association after multivariate analysis were included. The random-effects model was used as the primary statistical analysis model in the estimation of pooled ORs and HRs with the corresponding confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 17 observational studies, including 121,975 participants, were included. For studies analyzing the TyG index as a categorical variable, both pooled OR (6.00, CI 4.12-8.74) and HR (1.70, CI 1.28-2.27) were significant for the association between TyG index and incident NAFLD. For studies analyzing the TyG index as a continuous variable, pooled OR (2.25, CI 1.66-3.04) showed similar results. Consistent results were obtained in subgroup analyses according to the study design, sample size, ethnicity, and diabetic status. In conclusion, our meta-analysis demonstrates that a higher TyG index is associated with higher odds of NAFLD. TyG index may serve as an independent predictive tool to screen patients at high risk of NAFLD in clinical practice, especially in primary care settings. Patients with a high TyG index should be referred for a liver ultrasound and start intense lifestyle modifications. However, further large-scale prospective cohort studies are necessary to validate our findings.

Balanced Crystalloids versus Normal Saline in Adults with Sepsis: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The crystalloid fluid of choice in sepsis remains debatable. We aimed to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis to compare the effect of balanced crystalloids (BC) vs. normal saline (NS) in adults with sepsis. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Sciences databases through 22 January 2022, was performed for studies that compared BC vs. NS in adults with sepsis. Our outcomes included mortality and acute kidney injury (AKI), need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), and ICU length of stay (LOS). Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using a random-effect model. Fifteen studies involving 20,329 patients were included. Overall, BC showed a significant reduction in the overall mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.96), 28/30-day mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95), and AKI (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.93) but similar 90-day mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-1.03), need for RRT (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76-1.08), and ICU LOS (MD -0.25 days, 95% CI -3.44, 2.95), were observed between the two groups. However, subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed no statistically significant differences in overall mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82-1.02), AKI (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47-1.06), and need for RRT (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.36-1.41). Our meta-analysis demonstrates that overall BC was associated with reduced mortality and AKI in sepsis compared to NS among patients with sepsis. However, subgroup analysis of RCTs showed no significant differences in both overall mortality and AKI between the groups. There was no significant difference in the need for RRT or ICU LOS between BC and NS. Pending further data, our study supports using BC over NS for fluid resuscitation in adults with sepsis. Further large-scale RCTs are necessary to validate our findings.

Outcomes of distal versus conventional transradial access for coronary angiography and intervention: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Distal transradial artery access (DTRA) has recently gained attention due to potential benefits in terms of local complications. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the utility of DTRA compared to conventional transradial artery access (CTRA) for coronary angiography and intervention. METHOD: Multiple databases were searched from inception through May 2021 for all the studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of DTRA in the coronary field. The primary outcome was the access success rate. The secondary outcomes were periprocedural local complications (site hematoma, radial artery occlusion, and spasm) and procedural characteristics (cannulation, fluoroscopy, procedure, and radial artery compression times). All meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies (including four randomized control trials) with 1634 patients who underwent DTRA vs. 1657 with CTRA were included in the final analysis. The access success rate was similar between the two groups (odds ratio (OR):0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI):0.30-1.26; P = 0.18; I2 = 61%). DTRA was associated with a statistically significant lower rate of radial artery occlusion (OR:0.36; 95% CI: 0.22-0.59; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) but similar rates of radial artery spasm and site hematoma when compared to CTRA. Regarding the procedural characteristics, despite having a longer canulation time (mean difference (min.) [MD] 0.89, 95% CI 0.36-1.42; P < 0.0001), DTRA was associated with shorter compression time and comparable fluoroscopy and procedure times. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that the DTRA is effective and safe with superiority in preventing radial artery occlusion when compared to CTRA.