-
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Innovations,... Feb 2021To systematically review the literature and to estimate the risk of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) cardiac toxicity in patients with coronavirus disease...
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the literature and to estimate the risk of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) cardiac toxicity in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
We searched multiple data sources including PubMed/MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid EBM Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science and medrxiv.org from November 2019 through May 27, 2020. We included studies that enrolled patients with COVID-19 treated with CQ or HCQ, with or without azithromycin, and reported on cardiac toxic effects. We performed a meta-analysis using the arcsine transformation of the different incidences.
RESULTS
A total of 19 studies with a total of 5652 patients were included. The pooled incidence of torsades de pointes arrhythmia, ventricular tachycardia, or cardiac arrest was 3 per 1000 (95% CI, 0-21; =96%) in 18 studies with 3725 patients. Among 13 studies of 4334 patients, the pooled incidence of discontinuation of CQ or HCQ due to prolonged QTc or arrhythmias was 5% (95% CI, 1-11; =98%). The pooled incidence of change in QTc from baseline of 60 milliseconds or more or QTc of 500 milliseconds or more was 9% (95% CI, 3-17; =97%). Mean or median age, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes, concomitant QT-prolonging medications, intensive care unit admission, and severity of illness in the study populations explained between-studies heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION
Treatment of patients with COVID-19 with CQ or HCQ is associated with an important risk of drug-induced QT prolongation and relatively higher incidence of torsades de pointes, ventricular tachycardia, or cardiac arrest. Therefore, these agents should not be used routinely in the management of COVID-19 disease. Patients with COVID-19 who are treated with antimalarials for other indications should be adequately monitored.
PubMed: 33163895
DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2020.10.005 -
Journal of Critical Care Jun 2021The predictive value of airway occlusion pressure at 100 milliseconds (P0.1) on weaning outcome has been controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The predictive value of airway occlusion pressure at 100 milliseconds (P0.1) on weaning outcome has been controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate the predictive value of P0.1 on successful weaning from mechanical ventilation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE, and two authors independently screened articles. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and the summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve were estimated. Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was calculated using meta-regression analysis.
RESULTS
We included 12 prospective observational studies (n = 1089 patients). Analyses of sROC curves showed the area under the curve of 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77 to 0.84) for P0.1. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 86% (95% CI, 72 to 94%) and 58% (95% CI, 37% to 76%) with substantial heterogeneity respectively. DOR was 20.09 (p = 0.019, 95%CI: 1.63-247.15). After filling the missing data using the trim-and-fill method to adjust publication bias, DOR was 36.23 (p = 0.002, 95%CI: 3.56-372.41).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis suggests that P0.1 is a useful tool to predict successful weaning. To determine clinical utility, a large prospective study investigating the sensitivity and specificity of P0.1 on weaning outcomes from mechanical ventilation is warranted.
Topics: Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Prospective Studies; ROC Curve; Respiration, Artificial; Sensitivity and Specificity; Ventilator Weaning
PubMed: 33012587
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.09.030