-
Journal of Pregnancy 2015The aims of this systematic review were to integrate the research on posttraumatic stress (PTS) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after termination of pregnancy... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aims of this systematic review were to integrate the research on posttraumatic stress (PTS) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after termination of pregnancy (TOP), miscarriage, perinatal death, stillbirth, neonatal death, and failed in vitro fertilisation (IVF).
METHODS
Electronic databases (AMED, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, PubMEd, ScienceDirect) were searched for articles using PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Data from 48 studies were included. Quality of the research was generally good. PTS/PTSD has been investigated in TOP and miscarriage more than perinatal loss, stillbirth, and neonatal death. In all reproductive losses and TOPs, the prevalence of PTS was greater than PTSD, both decreased over time, and longer gestational age is associated with higher levels of PTS/PTSD. Women have generally reported more PTS or PTSD than men. Sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., younger age, lower education, and history of previous traumas or mental health problems) and psychsocial factors influence PTS and PTSD after TOP and reproductive loss.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review is the first to investigate PTS/PTSD after reproductive loss. Patients with advanced pregnancies, a history of previous traumas, mental health problems, and adverse psychosocial profiles should be considered as high risk for developing PTS or PTSD following reproductive loss.
Topics: Abortion, Induced; Abortion, Spontaneous; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Fetal Death; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Male; Observational Studies as Topic; Perinatal Death; Pregnancy; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Stress, Psychological; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 25734016
DOI: 10.1155/2015/646345 -
International Journal of Surgery... Aug 2021Donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney transplantation has been introduced to address organ shortage. However, DCD kidneys are not accepted worldwide due to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney transplantation has been introduced to address organ shortage. However, DCD kidneys are not accepted worldwide due to concerns about inferior quality. To investigate whether these concerns are justified, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate DCD graft outcomes compared to donation after brain death (DBD).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched from database inception until September 2020. Exclusion criteria were studies reporting on pediatric/dual kidney transplants, multi-organ transplants or studies including normothermic perfusion techniques. The primary outcome was graft survival. Secondary outcomes were primary non-function (PNF), delayed graft function (DGF), 3-months biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), 1-year estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR), patient survival, and urologic complications. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Meta-regression analysis was performed in case of high between-study heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Fifty-one studies were included, comprising 73,454 DCD and 518,229 DBD recipients. One-year graft loss was increased in DCD recipients (death-censored: risk ratio (RR) 1.10 (95%-confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.16), all-cause: RR 1.13 (95%-CI 1.08-1.19)). Ten-year graft loss was similar to DBD (death-censored: RR 1.02 (95%-CI 0.92-1.13), all-cause: RR 1.03 (95%-CI 0.94-1.13)). DCD recipients had an increased risk of PNF (RR 1.43 (95%-CI 1.26-1.62)), DGF (RR 2.02 (95%-CI 1.88-2.16)), and 1-year mortality (RR 1.10 (95%-CI 1.01-1.21)). No differences were observed for 3-months BPAR, ureter stenosis/leakage, 1-year eGFR and 10-year mortality.
CONCLUSION
Long-term DCD kidney transplant outcomes are similar to DBD despite a higher risk of PNF, DGF, and a 13% increased risk of graft loss in the first year after transplantation. These results should encourage implementation of DCD programs.
Topics: Brain Death; Child; Death; Graft Survival; Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Retrospective Studies; Tissue Donors; Tissue and Organ Procurement
PubMed: 34256169
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106021 -
Epilepsy & Behavior : E&B Nov 2017The objective of this study was to determine the association of sleep with sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to determine the association of sleep with sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis based on literature search from databases PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus using keywords "SUDEP", or "sudden unexpected death in epilepsy", or "sudden unexplained death in epilepsy". Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy was considered to occur during sleep if the patient was found in bed, if the SUDEP cases were documented as in sleep, or if the patient was found at bedside on the bedroom floor.
RESULTS
Circadian pattern was documented in 880 of the 1025 SUDEP cases in 67 studies meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of the 880 SUDEP cases, 69.3% occurred during sleep and 30.7% occurred during wakefulness. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy was significantly associated with sleep as compared to wakefulness (P<0.001). In the subgroup of 272 cases in which circadian pattern and age were documented, patients 40years old or younger were more likely to die in sleep than those older than 40years (OR: 2.0; 95% CI=1.0, 3.8; P=0.05). In the subgroup of 114 cases in which both circadian pattern and body position at the time of death were documented, 87.6% (95% CI=81.1%, 94.2%) of patients who died during sleep were in the prone position, whereas 52.9% (95% CI=24.7%, 81.1%) of patients who died during wakefulness were in the prone position. Patients with nocturnal seizures were 6.3 times more likely to die in a prone position than those with diurnal seizures (OR: 6.3; 95% CI=2.0, 19.5; P=0.002).
CONCLUSIONS
There is a strong association of SUDEP with sleep, suggesting that sleep is a significant risk factor for SUDEP. Although the risks of SUDEP associated with sleep are unknown and likely multifactorial, the prone position might be an important contributory factor.
Topics: Death, Sudden; Epilepsy; Female; Humans; Male; Posture; Prone Position; Risk Factors; Seizures; Sleep; Wakefulness
PubMed: 28917499
DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2017.08.021 -
ESC Heart Failure Apr 2023This systematic review evaluated the clinical effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) in patients at an increased risk of... (Review)
Review
This systematic review evaluated the clinical effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) in patients at an increased risk of sudden cardiac death and with an ICD indication for primary or secondary prevention. A systematic literature search was conducted in four databases (Medline via Ovid, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and HTA-INAHTA). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational studies with ≥100 S-ICD patients and a low to moderate risk of bias were eligible for inclusion. The studies' quality and the available evidence's strength were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, the ROBINS-I tool, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. One RCT, a post hoc analysis of the RCT (n = 849) and four controlled observational studies (n = 7149) were included. The quality of the available evidence was graded as low to very low, except for the primary composite endpoint of the RCT, which was rated as moderate quality. After 4 years, the RCT showed that S-ICD was non-inferior to TV-ICD regarding the composite endpoint of inappropriate shocks and device-related complications (68 [15.1%] vs. 68 [15.7%], hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.71, 1.39], non-inferiority margin 1.45, P = 0.001). The RCT and two observational studies reported statistically significantly fewer lead complications in S-ICD patients (after 4 years: 1.4% vs. 6.6%, HR 0.24, 95% CI [0.10, 0.54]; after 3 years: 0.3% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.03; and after 5 years: 0.8% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.03). Identified evidence about appropriate and inappropriate shocks was inconclusive: The RCT detected statistically significantly more appropriate shocks in patients with S-ICD (83 [19.2%] vs. 57 [11.5%], HR 1.52, 95% CI [1.08, 2.12], P = 0.02), whereas one observational study showed a statistically significantly lower rate in the S-ICD group (9.9%, 95% CI [7.0, 13.9], vs. 13.9%, 95% CI [10.8, 17.8], P = 0.003). Regarding inappropriate shocks, one observational study reported statistically significantly higher rates in the S-ICD cohort (11.9% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.007), whereas the RCT and two other observational studies did not detect a statistically significant difference between the treatment groups (P > 0.05). None of the included studies showed a statistically significant difference in overall mortality and shock efficacy between patients with S-ICD and TV-ICD (P > 0.05). The available evidence is insufficient to show the superiority of S-ICD compared with TV-ICD, hindering the widespread use of the technology. Results of the recently completed ATLAS trial are to be awaited, and the anticipated role of the S-ICD needs to be clearly formulated.
Topics: Humans; Defibrillators, Implantable; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Treatment Outcome; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36444868
DOI: 10.1002/ehf2.14249 -
Transplantation Reviews (Orlando, Fla.) Dec 2021Accurate estimations of potential organ donors (POTDs) are required to improve transplant systems. This systematic review analyses current studies on national... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Accurate estimations of potential organ donors (POTDs) are required to improve transplant systems. This systematic review analyses current studies on national estimations of potential donors for transplantation as well as the practical and policy implications of detected differences.
METHOD
A systematic review of literature published between 01.01.2010 and 01.04.2020 in PubMed was conducted. Data was extracted into a self-developed matrix, and further data retrieved on national population sizes, waiting lists and transplant activities.
RESULTS
Six studies were included. Investigated populations, underlying data collections and eligibility criteria for POTDs varied widely. Estimated POTDs per million population (p.m.p.) ranged from 25.8 to 333.6, conversion rates from 3.2% to 47.5% leading to 41.2 to 86.4 transplanted organs p.m.p.. Patients on the waiting lists varied from 66.7 to 338.9 p.m.p., defining gaps between organ supply and demand in countries. Not all studies adhered to the definitions and processes of the critical pathway for deceased donation which is the latest international consensus statement on deceased organ donation.
CONCLUSION
Differences in estimated POTDs and differences in supply and demand of donor organs between countries cannot be satisfactorily explained yet due to an obvious lack of evidence, consistent methodology, international consensus and robust underlying datasets. Future studies should be based on robust underlying data sets and aim for potential donor estimations that allow national comparisons due to the adherence to the international consensus on definitions, processes and methodology.
Topics: Brain Death; Humans; Organ Transplantation; Tissue Donors; Tissue and Organ Procurement; Waiting Lists
PubMed: 34246111
DOI: 10.1016/j.trre.2021.100638 -
The Patient Apr 2019Measuring the quality of care at the end of life and/or the quality of dying and death can be challenging. Some measurement tools seek to assess the quality of care...
INTRODUCTION
Measuring the quality of care at the end of life and/or the quality of dying and death can be challenging. Some measurement tools seek to assess the quality of care immediately prior to death; others retrospectively assess, following death, the quality of end-of-life care. The comparative evaluation of the properties and application of the various instruments has been limited.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review identified and critically appraised the psychometric properties and applicability of tools used after death.
METHOD
We conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by systematically searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for relevant studies. We then appraised the psychometric properties and the quality of reporting of the psychometric properties of the identified tools using the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) checklist. The protocol of this systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016047296).
RESULTS
The search identified 4751 studies. Of these, 33 met the inclusion criteria, reporting on the psychometric properties of 67 tools. These tools measured quality of care at the end of life (n = 35), quality of dying and death (n = 22), or both quality of care at the end of life and dying and death (n = 10). Most tools were completed by family carers (n = 57), with some also completed by healthcare professionals (HCPs) (n = 2) or just HCPs (n = 8). No single tool was found to be adequate across all the psychometric properties assessed. Two quality of care at the end of life tools-Care of the Dying Evaluation and Satisfaction with Care at the End of Life in Dementia-had strong psychometric properties in most respects. Two tools assessing quality of dying and death-the Quality of Dying and Death and the newly developed Staff Perception of End of Life Experience-had limited to moderate evidence of good psychometric properties. Two tools assessing both quality of care and quality of dying and death-the Quality Of Dying in Long-Term Care for cognitively intact populations and Good Death Inventory (Korean version)-had the best psychometric properties.
CONCLUSION
Four tools demonstrated some promise, but no single tool was consistent across all psychometric properties assessed. All tools identified would benefit from further psychometric testing.
Topics: Checklist; Death; England; Humans; Psychometrics; Retrospective Studies; Surveys and Questionnaires; Terminal Care; Wales
PubMed: 30141020
DOI: 10.1007/s40271-018-0328-2 -
Neurocritical Care Apr 2021Apnea is one of the three cardinal findings in brain death (BD). Apnea testing (AT) is physiologically and practically complex. We sought to review described... (Review)
Review
Apnea is one of the three cardinal findings in brain death (BD). Apnea testing (AT) is physiologically and practically complex. We sought to review described modifications of AT, safety and complication rates, monitoring techniques, performance of AT on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and other relevant considerations regarding AT. We conducted a systematic scoping review to answer these questions by searching the literature on AT in English language available in PubMed or EMBASE since 1980. Pediatric or animal studies were excluded. A total of 87 articles matched our inclusion criteria and were qualitatively synthesized in this review. A large body of the literature on AT since its inception addresses a variety of modifications, monitoring techniques, complication rates, ways to perform AT on ECMO, and other considerations such as variability in protocols, lack of uniform awareness, and legal considerations. Only some modifications are widely used, especially methods to maintain oxygenation, and most are not standardized or endorsed by brain death guidelines. Future updates to AT protocols and strive for unification of such protocols are desirable.
Topics: Apnea; Brain Death; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Humans
PubMed: 32524528
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-020-01015-0 -
The American Journal of Cardiology May 2024
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Humans; Defibrillators, Implantable; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38395120
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.01.026 -
The Canadian Journal of Cardiology Nov 2022The incidence of sports-related sudden cardiac death (SrSCD) attributable to myocarditis is unknown. With the known association between SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The incidence of sports-related sudden cardiac death (SrSCD) attributable to myocarditis is unknown. With the known association between SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) and myocarditis, an understanding of pre-pandemic rates of SrSCD due to myocarditis will be important in assessing a change of risk in the future. The objective was to ascertain the incidence of SrSCD or aborted sudden cardiac death (SCD) attributable to myocarditis in the general population.
METHODS
A literature search through PubMed/Medline and Ovid/Embase was completed. Studies of SrSCD with autopsy data or clear-cause aborted SrSCD were included. SrSCD was defined as SCD which occurred within 1 hour of exercise. Data were abstracted by 2 independent reviewers using the MOOSE guidelines. Risk assessment was performed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence Studies. Random-effects models were used to report the incidence and 95% CIs. The primary outcome was the incidence of SrSCD attributable to myocarditis, and the secondary outcome was SrSCD overall.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies were included comprising 347,092,437 person-years (PY). There were 1955 SrSCD or aborted SrSCD overall with an incidence of 0.93 (95% CI 0.47-1.82) per 100,000 PY. Fifty-three SrSCD were attributed to myocarditis with an incidence of 0.047 (95% CI 0.018-0.123) per 100,000 PY, or 1 death attributable to myocarditis in 2.13 million PY.
CONCLUSIONS
In this meta-analysis, the overall incidence of SrSCD was low. Furthermore, SrSCD attributed to myocarditis is exceedingly rare.
Topics: Humans; Myocarditis; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Sports; Incidence
PubMed: 35850383
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2022.07.006 -
Journal of Athletic Training May 2022To evaluate the quality of the evidence on the incidence of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) and sudden cardiac death (SCD) in athletes and military members and estimate the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the quality of the evidence on the incidence of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) and sudden cardiac death (SCD) in athletes and military members and estimate the annual incidence of SCA and SCD.
DATA SOURCES
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, BIOSIS, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to dates between February 21 and July 29, 2019.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies in which the incidence of SCA, SCD, or both in athletes or military members aged <40 years was reported were eligible for inclusion. We identified 40 studies for inclusion.
DATA EXTRACTION
Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using a validated, customized tool for prevalence studies. Twelve had a low ROB, while the remaining 28 had a moderate or high ROB. Data were extracted for narrative review and meta-analysis.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Random-effects meta-analysis was performed in studies judged to have a low ROB in 2 categories: (1) 5 studies of regional- or national-level data, including athletes at all levels and both sexes, demonstrated 130 SCD events with a total of 11 272 560 athlete-years, showing a cumulative incidence rate of 0.98 (95% CI = 0.62, 1.53) per 100 000 athlete-years and high heterogeneity (I2 = 78%) and (2) 3 studies of competitive athletes aged 14 to 25 years were combined for a total of 183 events and 17 798 758 athlete-years, showing an incidence rate of 1.91 (95% CI = 0.71, 5.14) per 100 000 athlete-years and high heterogeneity (I2 = 97%). The remaining low-ROB studies involved military members and were not synthesized.
CONCLUSIONS
The worldwide incidence of SCD is rare. Low-ROB studies indicated the incidence was <2 per 100 000 athlete-years. Overall, the quality of the available evidence was low, but high-quality individual studies inform the question of incidence levels.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42019125560.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Incidence; Military Personnel; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Athletes
PubMed: 34038947
DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-0748.20