Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol for Patients With Sepsis Requiring Mechanical Ventilation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Purpose: This meta-analysis was performed to access the influence of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for adult patients with sepsis undergoing mechanical ventilation. Materials and Methods: NCBI PUBMED, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), and China Biological Medicine (CBM) were searched. Revman 5.3 and Stata software (version 12.0, Stata Corp LP, College Station, TX, United States) were used for meta-analysis. Results: Fifteen studies were included, and the data from the included studies were incorporated into the meta-analysis. Also, the result shows that compared with propofol, dexmedetomidine does not reduce 28-day mortality [risk ratios (RR) =0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) =0.83-1.13, p = 0.70]. However, our analysis found that dexmedetomidine could reduce intensive care unit (ICU) stays {standard mean difference (SMD): -0.15; 95% CI: [-0.30-(-0.01)], p = 0.03}, duration of mechanical ventilation {SMD: -0.22; 95% CI: [-0.44-(-0.01)], p = 0.043}, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) {SMD: -0.41; 95% CI: [-0.73-(-0.09)], p = 0.013}, levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) at 24 h (SMD: -2.53; 95% CI: -5.30-0.24, p = 0.074), and levels of CK-MB at 72 h {SMD: -0.45; 95% CI: [-0.83-(-0.08)], p = 0.017}. Conclusions: This meta-analysis (MA) suggests that in terms of 28-day mortality, sepsis patients with the treatment of dexmedetomidine did not differ from those who received propofol. In addition, more high-quality trials are needed to confirm these findings. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, identifier CRD42021249780.

The Efficacy and Safety of Esmolol for Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Purpose: The meta-analysis aims to identify whether septic shock patients can benefit from esmolol. Materials and Methods: The relevant studies from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase were searched by two independent investigators using a variety of keywords. Stata software (version 12.0, Stata Corp LP, College Station, TX, United States)was used for statistical analysis. Results: A total of 14 studies were identified and incorporated into the meta-analysis. For overall analysis, the treatment of esmolol was associated with decreased 28-day mortality (RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.56-0.77, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, our analysis found that, esmolol could decrease HR (SMD: -1.70; 95% CI: [-2.24-(-1.17)], cTnI (SMD: -1.61; 95% CI: [-2.06-(-1.16)] compared with standard treatment. No significant differences between the two groups were found in MAP, Lac, CI, and SVI. Conclusion: The findings of this meta-analysis intend to demonstrate that septic shock patients with high heart beats rate might be benefit from esmolol treatment despite enough fluid resuscitation. While, dependent on the study published, with the further development of septic shock, the positive impact of esmolol varies. The appropriate heart rate change interval cannot be confirmed, further high-quality and large-scale RCTs should be performed to verify it and screening more suitable heart rate levels. Systematic Review Registration: CRD42021239513.

A Bayesian network meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of eighteen targeted drugs or drug combinations for pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) can be relieved by pharmacological interventions, especially the targeted drug, which is classified into endothelin receptor antagonist, phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor, prostaglandin I2, soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator and selective non-prostanoid prostacyclin receptor agonist. To solve the contradictions existing in reported trials and provide a comprehensive guideline for clinical practice. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched. The basic information about the article, trial, arm, intervention, and the detailed data of outcome, including 6 minutes walking distance (6MWD) change, WHO functional class (FC) improvement, Borg dyspnea score (BDS) change, cardiac index (CI) change, mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) change, mean right arterial pressure (mRAP) change, pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) change, clinical worsening, hospitalization, death, severe adverse events (SAEs), and withdrawal were extracted. The rank of treatments was estimated. 10,230 cases provided the firsthand comparison data about targeted drugs for treating PAH. For 6MWD, ambrisentan + tadalafil, vardenafil, and sildenafil + bosentan were better than others. Epoprostenol, macitentan, and sildenafil represented a greater WHO FC improvement. Vardenafil and treprostinil were better for BDS. So were bosentan + epoprostenol and bosentan alone for CI. Iloprost plus bosentan, bosentan + epoprostenol, and epoprostenol were better for mPAP. Iloprost plus bosentan, bosentan alone, and selexipag could reduce PVR. Sildenafil, epoprostenol, and vardenafil had the highest probability to reduce the incidence of death and withdrawal. To conclude, vardenafil and iloprost + bosentan showed relatively better performance in both efficacy and safety. However, the therapeutic choice should be made according to both the feature of each therapy and the individual condition.