Evaluating the efficacy of different volume resuscitation strategies in acute pancreatitis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Acute pancreatitis poses a significant health risk due to the potential for pancreatic necrosis and multi-organ failure. Fluid resuscitation has demonstrated positive effects; however, consensus on the ideal intravenous fluid type and infusion rate for optimal patient outcomes remains elusive. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar for studies published between 2005 and January 2023. Reference lists of potential studies were manually searched to identify additional relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies comparing high (≥ 20 ml/kg/h), moderate (≥ 10 to < 20 ml/kg/h), and low (5 to < 10 ml/kg/h) fluid therapy in acute pancreatitis were considered. RESULTS: Twelve studies met our inclusion criteria. Results indicated improved clinical outcomes with low versus moderate fluid therapy (OR = 0.73; 95% CI [0.13, 4.03]; p = 0.71) but higher mortality rates with low compared to moderate (OR = 0.80; 95% CI [0.37, 1.70]; p = 0.55), moderate compared to high (OR = 0.58; 95% CI [0.41, 0.81], p = 0.001), and low compared to high fluids (OR = 0.42; 95% CI [0.16, 1.10]; P = 0.08). Systematic complications improved with moderate versus low fluid therapy (OR = 1.22; 95% CI [0.84, 1.78]; p = 0.29), but no difference was found between moderate and high fluid therapy (OR = 0.59; 95% CI [0.41, 0.86]; p = 0.006). DISCUSSION: This meta-analysis revealed differences in the clinical outcomes of patients with AP receiving low, moderate, and high fluid resuscitation. Low fluid infusion demonstrated better clinical outcomes but higher mortality, systemic complications, and SIRS persistence than moderate or high fluid therapy. Early fluid administration yielded better results than rapid fluid resuscitation.

Antiarrhythmic drug therapy and catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drug therapy are utilized for rhythm control in atrial fibrillation (AF), but their comparative effectiveness, especially with contemporary treatment modalities, remains undefined. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis contrasting current ablation techniques against antiarrhythmic medications for AF. METHODS: We searched PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science until November 2023 for randomized trials comparing AF catheter ablation with antiarrhythmics, against antiarrhythmic drug therapy alone, reporting outcomes for > 6 months. Four investigators extracted data and appraised risk of bias (ROB) with ROB 2 tool. Meta-analyses estimated pooled efficacy and safety outcomes using R software. RESULTS: Twelve trials (n = 3977) met the inclusion criteria. Catheter ablation was associated with lower AF recurrence (relative risk (RR) = 0.44, 95%CI (0.33, 0.59), P ˂ 0.0001) and hospitalizations (RR = 0.44, 95%CI (0.23, 0.82), P = 0.009) than antiarrhythmic medications. Catheter ablation also improved the physical quality of life component score (assessed by a 36-item Short Form survey) by 7.61 points (95%CI -0.70-15.92, P = 0.07); but, due to high heterogeneity, it was not statistically significant. Ablation was significantly associated with higher procedural-related complications [RR = 15.70, 95%CI (4.53, 54.38), P < 0.0001] and cardiac tamponade [RR = 9.22, 95%CI (2.16, 39.40), P = 0.0027]. All-cause mortality was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: For symptomatic AF, upfront catheter ablation reduces arrhythmia and hospitalizations better than continued medical therapy alone, albeit with moderately more adverse events. Careful patient selection and risk-benefit assessment are warranted regarding the timing of ablation.

Mortality, morbidity & clinical outcome with different types of vasopressors in out of hospital cardiac arrest patients- a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Despite their continued use, the effectiveness and safety of vasopressors in post-cardiac arrest patients remain controversial. This study examined the efficacy of various vasopressors in cardiac arrest patients in terms of clinical, morbidity, and mortality outcomes. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed using online databases (MeSH terms: MEDLINE (Ovid), CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, Scopus, and Google Scholar) from 1997 to 2023 for relevant English language studies. The primary outcomes of interest for this study included short-term survival leading to death, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital discharge, neurological outcomes, survival to hospital admission, myocardial infarction, and incidence of arrhythmias. RESULTS: In this meta-analysis, 26 studies, including 16 RCTs and ten non-RCTs, were evaluated. The focus was on the efficacy of epinephrine, vasopressin, methylprednisolone, dopamine, and their combinations in medical emergencies. Epinephrine treatment was associated with better odds of survival to hospital discharge (OR = 1.52, 95%CI [1.20, 1.94]; p < 0.001) and achieving ROSC (OR = 3.60, 95% CI [3.45, 3.76], P < 0.00001)) over placebo but not in other outcomes of interest such as short-term survival/ death at 28-30 days, survival to hospital admission, or neurological function. In addition, our analysis indicates non-superiority of vasopressin or epinephrine vasopressin-plus-epinephrine therapy over epinephrine monotherapy except for survival to hospital admission where the combinatorial therapy was associated with better outcome (0.76, 95%CI [0.64, 0.92]; p = 0.004). Similarly, we noted the non-superiority of vasopressin-plus-methylprednisolone versus placebo. Finally, while higher odds of survival to hospital discharge (OR = 3.35, 95%CI [1.81, 6.2]; p < 0.001) and ROSC (OR = 2.87, 95%CI [1.97, 4.19]; p < 0.001) favoring placebo over VSE therapy were observed, the risk of lethal arrhythmia was not statistically significant. There was insufficient literature to assess the effects of dopamine versus other treatment modalities meta-analytically. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicated that only epinephrine yielded superior outcomes among vasopressors than placebo, albeit limited to survival to hospital discharge and ROSC. Additionally, we demonstrate the non-superiority of vasopressin over epinephrine, although vasopressin could not be compared to placebo due to the paucity of data. The addition of vasopressin to epinephrine treatment only improved survival to hospital admission.

Mortality and mode of dialysis: meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The global use of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) has increased, mirroring the incidence of acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease. Despite its growing clinical usage, patient outcomes with KRT modalities remain controversial. In this meta-analysis, we sought to compare the mortality outcomes of patients with any kidney disease requiring peritoneal dialysis (PD), hemodialysis (HD), or continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). METHODS: The investigation was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were screened for randomized trials and observational studies comparing mortality rates with different KRT modalities in patients with acute or chronic kidney failure. A random-effects model was applied to compute the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) with CRRT vs. HD, CRRT vs. PD, and HD vs. PD. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics, and sensitivity using leave-one-out analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen eligible studies were identified, allowing comparisons of mortality risk with different dialytic modalities. The relative risk was non-significant in CRRT vs. PD [RR = 0.95, (95%CI 0.53, 1.73), p = 0.92 from 4 studies] and HD vs. CRRT [RR = 1.10, (95%CI 0.95, 1.27), p = 0.21 from five studies] comparisons. The findings remained unchanged in the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. Although PD was associated with lower mortality risk than HD [RR = 0.78, (95%CI 0.62, 0.97), p = 0.03], the significance was lost with the exclusion of 4 out of 5 included studies. CONCLUSION: The current evidence indicates that while patients receiving CRRT may have similar mortality risks compared to those receiving HD or PD, PD may be associated with lower mortality risk compared to HD. However, high heterogeneity among the included studies limits the generalizability of our findings. High-quality studies comparing mortality outcomes with different dialytic modalities in CKD are necessary for a more robust safety and efficacy evaluation.

Validation of an automatically generated screening score for frailty: the care assessment need (CAN) score.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a state of vulnerability to stressors that is prevalent in older adults and is associated with higher morbidity, mortality and healthcare utilization. Multiple instruments are used to measure frailty; most are time-consuming. The Care Assessment Need (CAN) score is automatically generated from electronic health record data using a statistical model. The methodology for calculation of the CAN score is consistent with the deficit accumulation model of frailty. At a 95 percentile, the CAN score is a predictor of hospitalization and mortality in Veteran populations. The purpose of this study was to validate the CAN score as a screening tool for frailty in primary care. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, validation study compared the CAN score with a 40-item Frailty Index reference standard based on a comprehensive geriatric assessment. We included community-dwelling male patients over age 65 from an outpatient geriatric medicine clinic. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of the CAN score. RESULTS: 184 patients over age 65 were included in the study: 97.3% male, 64.2% White, 80.9% non-Hispanic. The CGA-based Frailty Index defined 14.1% as robust, 53.3% as prefrail and 32.6% as frail. For the frail, statistical analysis demonstrated that a CAN score of 55 provides sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 91.67, 40.32, 42.64 and 90.91% respectively whereas at a score of 95 the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 43.33, 88.81, 63.41, 77.78% respectively. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.736 (95% CI = .661-.811). CONCLUSION: CAN score is a potential screening tool for frailty among older adults; it is generated automatically and provides acceptable diagnostic accuracy. Hence, the CAN score may be a useful tool to primary care providers for detection of frailty in their patient panels.

Association of the CAN score with the FRAIL scale in community dwelling older adults.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a state of vulnerability to stressors which results in higher morbidity, mortality and healthcare utilization. The FRAIL scale is used as a validated screening for frailty. The Care Assessment Need (CAN) score is automatically generated from electronic health record data using a statistical model that includes data elements similar to the deficit accumulation model for frailty and predicts risk for hospitalization and/or mortality. AIM: To determine the correlation of the CAN score with the FRAIL scale. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 503 community-dwelling older adults. We compared the FRAIL scale with the CAN score. RESULTS: The CAN score was significantly different between robust, prefrail and frail. Post hoc analysis revealed significant increases in scores from robust to prefrail and frail groups, in that order. The CAN score and FRAIL scale showed a correlation. CONCLUSIONS: The CAN score show a moderate positive association with the FRAIL scale.

The Role of Telemedicine in Enhancing Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Management and Dialysis Care.

Telemedicine has emerged as a transformative solution in the realm of healthcare, particularly in addressing the complexities and challenges associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and dialysis care. This editorial explores the potential of telemedicine in revolutionizing the management and treatment of kidney diseases, highlighting its role in mitigating the burdens faced by healthcare systems worldwide. With the advent of high-quality audio and visual platforms, telemedicine has facilitated remote healthcare delivery, enabling healthcare professionals to provide exceptional care from a distance. This is particularly relevant in the context of CKD and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients, where the need for continuous care and monitoring is critical. This editorial underscored the escalating incidence of ESKD, driven by prevalent risk factors, such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, and the disparities in access to treatments among different populations. The integration of telemedicine in CKD and dialysis care presents a pathway toward a more accessible, efficient, and cost-effective healthcare delivery. It offers numerous benefits, including the convenience of remote monitoring, enhanced patient compliance, reduced healthcare costs, and improved patient satisfaction and quality of life. Telemedicine facilitates a multidisciplinary approach to care, allowing for timely intervention and follow-ups, which are crucial for patients undergoing dialysis. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of telemedicine, showcasing its effectiveness in maintaining continuity of care amid restrictions on patient contact. Despite its promising potential, its implementation of telemedicine faces several challenges, including regulatory hurdles, concerns about the security of medical information, and the adequacy of virtual platforms to capture crucial health indicators. In addition, the financial implications of telemedicine and its long-term sustainability remain areas requiring further investigation. In conclusion, telemedicine holds significant promise in enhancing the care and management of CKD and dialysis patients. It offers a vital solution to overcome the geographical barrier, improve access to care, and alleviate the strain on healthcare systems. However, further research is needed to fully understand its benefits compared to traditional care models and to address the challenges associated with implementation. The expansion of telemedicine in kidney care signifies a step toward a more inclusive, efficient, and patient-centered healthcare future.

Pathology in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Redefining Roles and Responsibilities for Tomorrow's Practitioners.

The evolution of pathology from its rudimentary beginnings around 1700 BC to the present day has been marked by profound advancement in understanding and diagnosing diseases. This journey, from the earliest dissections to the modern era of histochemical analysis, sets the stage for the next transformative leap to the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in pathology. Recent research highlights AI's significant potential to revolutionize healthcare within the next decade, with a particular impact on diagnostic processes. A majority of pathologists foresee AI becoming a cornerstone in diagnostic workflow, driven by the advent of image-based algorithms and computational pathology. These innovations promise to enhance the precision of disease diagnosis, particularly in complex cases, such as cancers, by offering detailed insights into the molecular and cellular mechanisms. Moreover, AI-assisted tools are improving the efficiency and accuracy of histological analysis by automating the evaluation of immunohistochemical biomarkers and tissue architecture. This shift not only accelerates diagnostic processes but also facilitates early disease management, crucial for improving patient outcomes. Furthermore, AI is reshaping educational paradigms in pathology, offering interactive learning environments that promise to enrich the training of future pathologists. Despite these advancements, the integration of AI in pathology raises ethical considerations regarding patient consent and data privacy. As pathology embarks on this AI-augmented era, it is imperative to navigate these challenges thoughtfully, ensuring that AI enhances rather than replaces the pathologist's role. This editorial discussed the historical progression of pathology, the current impact of AI on diagnostic practices, and the ethical implications of its adoption, underscoring the need for a symbiotic relationship between pathologists and AI to unlock the full potential of healthcare.

Gender Disparity in Leading Authorship of Critical Care Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

In critical care medicine, research trials serve as crucial avenues for disseminating knowledge, influencing clinical practices, and fostering innovation. Notably, a significant gender imbalance exists within this field, potentially mirrored in the authorship of critical care research. This study aimed to investigate an exploration to ascertain the presence and extent of female representation in first and senior authorship roles within critical care literature. To this end, a systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases for original articles published up to February 2024, coupled with a methodological quality assessment via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and statistical analyses through Review Manager software (RevMan, version 5.4.1, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020). The study's findings, distilled from seven studies included in the final analysis, reveal a pronounced gender disparity. Specifically, in critical care literature examining mixed populations, female first authors were significantly less common than their male counterparts, with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.25 (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.18-5.68; p < 0.00001). Conversely, pediatric critical care studies did not show a significant difference in gender distribution among first authors (OR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.31-6.10; p = 0.68). The investigation also highlighted a stark underrepresentation of female senior authors in critical care research across both mixed (OR: 11.67; 95% CI: 7.76-17.56; p < 0.00001) and pediatric populations (OR: 5.41; 95% CI: 1.88-15.56; p = 0.002). These findings underscore the persistent underrepresentation of women in critical care literature authorship and their slow progression into leadership roles, as evidenced by the disproportionately low number of female senior authors.

Advancing Healthcare Equity in Nephrology: Addressing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Research Trials and Treatment Strategies.

Within the healthcare sector, especially in the field of nephrology, the matter of gender and racial inequalities continues to be a critical concern that requires immediate focus. Women, particularly those of underrepresented racial groups, face significant challenges due to a lack of representation in research studies, leading to a deficit in knowledge about how kidney diseases affect them differently. These challenges are exacerbated by systemic biases in the healthcare system, which manifest in both gender and racial dimensions, hindering access to and the quality of care for kidney diseases. Addressing these complex disparities requires a recalibration of risk stratification models to include both gender- and race-specific factors and a transformation of healthcare policies to facilitate a more inclusive and sensitive approach. Essential to this transformation is the empowerment of women of all races to actively participate in their healthcare decisions and the strengthening of support systems to help them navigate the complexities of the healthcare environment. Furthermore, education programs must be designed to be culturally competent and address the unique needs and concerns of women across different racial backgrounds. Promoting a collaborative patient-provider relationship is crucial in fostering an environment where equity, dignity, and respect are at the forefront. The path to equitable nephrology care lies in a concerted, collective action from researchers, healthcare providers, policymakers, and patients, ensuring that every individual receives the highest standard of care, irrespective of gender or race.

A Systematic Review of Gender Disparity in the Authorship of Clinical Trials and Clinical Practice Guidelines in Various Medicine Subspecialties.

Authorship in clinical trials and clinical practice guidelines is considered prestigious and is associated with broader peer recognition. This systematic review investigated female representation among studies reporting authorship trends in clinical trials or clinical practice guidelines in different medicine subspecialties. Our search strategy yielded 836 articles, of which 30 met the inclusion criteria. Our findings indicate that females are severely underrepresented in authorship of clinical trials and clinical practice guidelines. Although the proportions of females may have improved in the past decade, the gains are marginal. Notably, studies in this domain predominantly focus on first/last authorship positions, and whether females are underrepresented in other positions as collaborative partners is currently unknown. Also, authorship trends in clinical trials or clinical practice guidelines of most medicine subspecialties besides cardiovascular medicine remain under-researched. Hence, standardizing the methodology for studying gender disparity in research output for comparative analysis between different subspecialties is as urgent as addressing the gender disparity in authorship.