-
Noninvasive mechanical ventilation assistance in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review.Sao Paulo Medical Journal = Revista... 2023Respiratory failure is the most common cause of death in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and morbidity is related to poor quality of life (QOL)....
BACKGROUND
Respiratory failure is the most common cause of death in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and morbidity is related to poor quality of life (QOL). Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) may be associated with prolonged survival and QOL in patients with ALS.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether NIV is effective and safe for patients with ALS in terms of survival and QOL, alerting the health system.
DESIGN AND SETTING
Systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting standards using population, intervention, comparison, and outcome strategies.
METHODS
The Cochrane Library, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, EMBASE, and CRD databases were searched based on the eligibility criteria for all types of studies on NIV use in patients with ALS published up to January 2022. Data were extracted from the included studies, and the findings were presented using a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
Of the 120 papers identified, only 14 were related to systematic reviews. After thorough reading, only one meta-analysis was considered eligible. In the second stage, 248 studies were included; however, only one systematic review was included. The results demonstrated that NIV provided relief from the symptoms of chronic hypoventilation, increased survival, and improved QOL compared to standard care. These results varied according to clinical phenotype.
CONCLUSIONS
NIV in patients with ALS improves the outcome and can delay the indication for tracheostomy, reducing expenditure on hospitalization and occupancy of intensive care unit beds.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO database: CRD42021279910 - https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=279910.
Topics: Humans; Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; Noninvasive Ventilation; Quality of Life; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Insufficiency
PubMed: 37436254
DOI: 10.1590/1516-3180.2022.0470.R1.100423 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2024The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to challenge the health workforce and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to challenge the health workforce and societies worldwide. Favipiravir was suggested by some experts to be effective and safe to use in COVID-19. Although this drug has been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is still unclear if it has a definite role in the treatment of COVID-19.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of favipiravir compared to no treatment, supportive treatment, or other experimental antiviral treatment in people with acute COVID-19.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and three other databases, up to 18 July 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of favipiravir in treating people with COVID-19.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 trials that randomized 5750 adults (most under 60 years of age). The trials were conducted in Bahrain, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. Most participants were hospitalized with mild to moderate disease (89%). Twenty-two of the 25 trials investigated the role of favipiravir compared to placebo or standard of care, whilst lopinavir/ritonavir was the comparator in two trials, and umifenovir in one trial. Most trials (24 of 25) initiated favipiravir at 1600 mg or 1800 mg twice daily for the first day, followed by 600 mg to 800 mg twice a day. The duration of treatment varied from five to 14 days. We do not know whether favipiravir reduces all-cause mortality at 28 to 30 days, or in-hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.46; 11 trials, 3459 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 8 trials, 1383 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference in the need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.46; 4 trials, 670 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2-point reduction in patients' admission status on the WHO's ordinal scale) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; 4 trials, 721 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference to the progression to oxygen therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.75; 2 trials, 543 participants; low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may lead to an overall increased incidence of adverse events (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.54; 18 trials, 4699 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may result in little to no difference inserious adverse eventsattributable to the drug (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.42; 12 trials, 3317 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The low- to very low-certainty evidence means that we do not know whether favipiravir is efficacious in people with COVID-19 illness, irrespective of severity or admission status. Treatment with favipiravir may result in an overall increase in the incidence of adverse events but may not result in serious adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Amides; Pyrazines
PubMed: 38314855
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015219.pub2 -
International Journal of Infectious... Nov 2023To estimate the prevalence of influenza coinfection in COVID-19 patients and investigate its association with severe clinical outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the prevalence of influenza coinfection in COVID-19 patients and investigate its association with severe clinical outcomes.
METHODS
We systematically searched the Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and CNKI for studies published between January 01, 2020, and May 31, 2023. Meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled prevalence of coinfection and the impact on clinical outcomes. Systematic review registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023423113).
RESULTS
A total of 95 studies involving 62,107 COVID-19 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of coinfection with influenza virus was 2.45% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.67-3.58%), with a high proportion of influenza A. Compared with mono-infected patients (COVID-19 only), the odds ratio (OR) for severe outcomes (including intensive care unit admission [OR = 2.20, 95% CI: 1.68-2.87, P < 0.001], mechanical ventilation support [OR = 2.73, 95% CI: 1.46-5.10, P = 0.002], and mortality [OR = 2.92, 95% CI: 1.16-7.30, P = 0.022]) was significantly higher among patients coinfected influenza A.
CONCLUSION
Although the prevalence of coinfection is low, coinfected patients are at higher risk of severe outcomes. Enhanced identification of both viruses, as well as individualized treatment protocols for coinfection, are recommended to reduce the occurrence of serious disease outcomes in the future.
Topics: Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Influenza, Human; Coinfection; Prevalence
PubMed: 37648094
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2023.08.021 -
Critical Care (London, England) Jul 2023Indigenous Peoples experience health inequities and racism across the continuum of health services. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Indigenous Peoples experience health inequities and racism across the continuum of health services. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence and outcomes of critical illness among Indigenous Peoples.
METHODS
We searched Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception to October 2022). Observational studies, case series of > 100 patients, clinical trial arms, and grey literature reports of Indigenous adults were eligible. We assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and appraised research quality from an Indigenous perspective using the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Assessment Tool. ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were compared using risk ratios and mean difference (MD) for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. ICU admission was synthesized descriptively.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies (Australia and/or New Zealand [n = 12] and Canada [n = 3]) were included. Risk of bias was low in 10 studies and moderate in 5, and included studies had minimal incorporation of Indigenous perspectives or consultation. There was no difference in ICU mortality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous (RR 1.14, 95%CI 0.98 to 1.34, I = 87%). We observed a shorter ICU length of stay among Indigenous (MD - 0.25; 95%CI, - 0.49 to - 0.00; I = 95%) and a higher use for IMV among non-Indigenous (RR 1.10; 95%CI, 1.06 to 1.15; I = 81%).
CONCLUSION
Research on Indigenous Peoples experience with critical care is poorly characterized and has rarely included Indigenous perspectives. ICU mortality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations was similar, while there was a shorter ICU length of stay and less mechanical ventilation use among Indigenous patients. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO CRD42021254661; Registered: 12 June, 2021.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Critical Illness; Incidence; Respiration, Artificial; Critical Care; Indigenous Peoples
PubMed: 37443118
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04570-y -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jul 2023Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) has become a standard treatment for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) caused by large vessel occlusion (LVO). Recent evidence suggests that... (Review)
Review
Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) has become a standard treatment for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) caused by large vessel occlusion (LVO). Recent evidence suggests that general anesthesia (GA) and mechanical ventilation do not lead to inferior neurologic outcomes if compared to non-GA. However, the guidelines lack specific recommendations for ventilation targets during MT under GA. This systematic review aims to identify ventilation strategies correlating with better neurological outcomes in AIS patients undergoing MT, particularly focusing on oxygenation and carbon dioxide (CO) targets. A systematic search of multiple databases was conducted to identify human studies reporting the correlation between ventilation strategies and neurological outcomes in MT for AIS. Eligible studies included clinical trials, observational studies, and case-control studies. Out of 157 studies assessed, 11 met the inclusion criteria. Five studies investigated oxygenation targets, while six studies explored CO targets. The published studies highlighted the controversial role of supplemental normobaric oxygen therapy and its potential association with worse outcomes. Regarding CO targets, the studies identified a potential association between end tidal CO levels and functional outcomes, with hypocapnia being unfavorable. This systematic review demonstrates that the current available evidence still lacks strength to suggest specific ventilation targets, but it highlights the potential risks of hyperoxia and hypocapnia in this specific cohort of patients.
PubMed: 37568327
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12154925 -
Sleep Medicine Reviews Aug 2023Continuous positive airway pressure is the first-line and gold-standard treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Pharmacotherapy is not commonly used in treating OSA... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Continuous positive airway pressure is the first-line and gold-standard treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Pharmacotherapy is not commonly used in treating OSA until recently. Combined noradrenergic and antimuscarinic agents have been clinically applied for OSA patients with variable results. This meta-analysis study aimed to investigate the efficacy of the combined regimen on OSA. A systematic literature search was performed up to November 2022 for the effects of the combined regimen on OSA. Eight randomized controlled trials were identified and systematically reviewed for meta-analysis. There were significant mean differences between OSA patients taking a combined regimen and placebo in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) [mean difference (MD) -9.03 events/h, 95%CI (-16.22, -1.83 events/h; P = 0.01] and lowest oxygen saturation [MD 5.61%, 95% CI % (3.43, 7.80); P < 0.01]. Meta-regression showed that a higher proportion of male participants was associated with a greater reduction of AHI (p = 0.04). This study showed a positive but modest effect of pharmacotherapy in the reduction of OSA severity. The combination drugs are most applicable to male OSA patients based on their efficacy and pharmacological susceptibility. Pharmacotherapy may be applied as an alternative, adjunctive or synergistic treatment under careful consideration of its side effects.
Topics: Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Norepinephrine
PubMed: 37423095
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2023.101809 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Dec 2023Many RCTs have evaluated the influence of intraoperative tidal volume (tV), PEEP, and driving pressure on the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Impact of ventilation strategies on pulmonary and cardiovascular complications in patients undergoing general anaesthesia for elective surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Many RCTs have evaluated the influence of intraoperative tidal volume (tV), PEEP, and driving pressure on the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications, cardiovascular complications, and mortality in adult patients. Our meta-analysis aimed to investigate the association between tV, PEEP, and driving pressure and the above-mentioned outcomes.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs from inception to May 19, 2022. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications; the secondary outcomes were intraoperative cardiovascular complications and 30-day mortality. Primary and secondary outcomes were evaluated stratifying patients in the following groups: (1) low tV (LV, tV 6-8 ml kg and PEEP ≥5 cm HO) vs high tV (HV, tV >8 ml kg and PEEP=0 cm HO); (2) higher PEEP (HP, ≥6 cm HO) vs lower PEEP (LP, <6 cm HO); and (3) driving pressure-guided PEEP (DP) vs fixed PEEP (FP).
RESULTS
We included 16 RCTs with a total sample size of 4993. The incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications was lower in patients treated with LV than with HV (OR=0.402, CI 0.280-0.577, P<0.001) and lower in DP than in FP group (OR=0.358, CI 0.187-0.684, P=0.002). Postoperative pulmonary complications did not differ between HP and LP groups; the incidence of intraoperative cardiovascular complications was higher in HP group (OR=1.385, CI 1.027-1.867, P=0.002). The 30-day mortality was not influenced by the ventilation strategy.
CONCLUSIONS
Optimal intraoperative mechanical ventilation is unclear; however, our meta-analysis showed that low tidal volume and driving pressure-guided PEEP strategies were associated with a reduction in postoperative pulmonary complications.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Respiration, Artificial; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Elective Surgical Procedures; Postoperative Complications; Tidal Volume; Anesthesia, General
PubMed: 37839932
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.09.011 -
Surgery For Obesity and Related... Sep 2023Obesity and its associated complications have a negative impact on human health. Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) ameliorates a series of clinical manifestations... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Obesity and its associated complications have a negative impact on human health. Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) ameliorates a series of clinical manifestations associated with obesity. However, the overall efficacy of MBS on COVID-19 outcomes remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this article is to analyze the relationship between MBS and COVID-19 outcomes.
SETTING
A meta-analysis.
METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to retrieve the related articles from inception to December 2022. All original articles reporting MBS-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Outcomes including hospital admission, mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation utilization, hemodialysis during admission, and hospital stay were selected. Meta-analysis with fixed or random-effect models was used and reported in terms of odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed with the I test. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
A total of 10 clinical trials involving the investigation of 150,848 patients undergoing MBS interventions were included. Patients who underwent MBS had a lower risk of hospital admission (OR: .47, 95% CI: .34-.66, I = 0%), mortality (OR: .43, 95% CI: .28-.65, I = 63.6%), ICU admission (OR: .41, 95% CI: .21-.77, I = 0%), and mechanical ventilation (OR: .51, 95% CI: .35-.75, I = 56.2%) than those who did not undergo surgery, but MBS did not affect hemodialysis risk or COVID-19 infection rate. In addition, the length of hospital stay for patients with COVID-19 after MBS was significantly reduced (WMD: -1.81, 95% CI: -3.11-.52, I = 82.7%).
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings indicate that MBS is shown to improve COVID-19 outcomes, including hospital admission, mortality, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and hospital stay. Patients with obesity who have undergone MBS infected with COVID-19 will have better clinical outcomes than those without MBS.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Intensive Care Units; Bariatric Surgery; Obesity; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 37149418
DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2023.02.023 -
Cureus Oct 2023Introduction Pulmonary symptoms are the most prominent manifestations of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms have been reported... (Review)
Review
Introduction Pulmonary symptoms are the most prominent manifestations of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms have been reported widely as well. Literature describing the relation of these symptoms with outcomes of COVID-19 patients is limited in terms of sample size, geographic diversity, and the spectrum of GI symptoms included. We aim to evaluate the association of GI symptoms with outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies assessing GI symptoms and outcomes in COVID-19 patients were undertaken using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria and the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) checklist. Details on outcomes included ICU vs. non-ICU admission, severe vs. non-severe disease, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) vs. no-IMV use, oxygen saturation <90% vs. >90%, in-hospital mortality vs. discharged alive and survivors. We obtained the odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (95%CI), and forest plots. Sensitivity analysis was used to analyze publication bias and heterogeneity. Results In 35 studies with 7931 confirmed COVID-19 patients, we found that anorexia (pooled OR:2.05; 95%CI: 1.36-3.09, p=0.0006) and abdominal pain (OR 2.80; 95%CI: 1.41-5.54, p=0.003) were associated with a higher risk of poor outcomes and no such association was found for diarrhea (OR 1.04; 95%CI: 0.85-1.26, p=0.71), nausea (OR 0.73; 95%CI: 0.38-1.39, p=0.34) and vomiting (OR 1.24; 95%CI 0.86-1.79, p=0.25). Conclusion The meta-analysis concludes that anorexia and abdominal pain are associated with poor outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, while diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting have no association. Future research should focus on whether detecting GI invasion in conjunction with fecal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing can aid in the early triage of high-risk individuals and improve outcomes.
PubMed: 37965386
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.47028 -
Italian Journal of Pediatrics Oct 2023Extubation failure (EF) is a significant concern in mechanically ventilated newborns, and predicting its occurrence is an ongoing area of research. To investigate the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Extubation failure (EF) is a significant concern in mechanically ventilated newborns, and predicting its occurrence is an ongoing area of research. To investigate the predictors of EF in newborns undergoing planned extubation, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published in English from the inception of each database to March 2023. The PRISMA guidelines were followed in all phases of this systematic review. The Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies tool was used to assess methodological quality. Thirty-four studies were included, 10 of which were overall low risk of bias, 15 of moderate risk of bias, and 9 of high risk of bias. The studies reported 43 possible predictors in six broad categories (intrinsic factors; maternal factors; diseases and adverse conditions of the newborn; treatment of the newborn; characteristics before and after extubation; and clinical scores and composite indicators). Through a qualitative synthesis of 43 predictors and a quantitative meta-analysis of 19 factors, we identified five definite factors, eight possible factors, and 22 unclear factors related to EF. Definite factors included gestational age, sepsis, pre-extubation pH, pre-extubation FiO, and respiratory severity score. Possible factors included age at extubation, anemia, inotropic use, mean airway pressure, pre-extubation PCO, mechanical ventilation duration, Apgar score, and spontaneous breathing trial. With only a few high-quality studies currently available, well-designed and more extensive prospective studies investigating the predictors affecting EF are still needed. In the future, it will be important to explore the possibility of combining multiple predictors or assessment tools to enhance the accuracy of predicting extubation outcomes in clinical practice.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Prospective Studies; Airway Extubation; Respiration, Artificial; Ventilator Weaning; Family
PubMed: 37784184
DOI: 10.1186/s13052-023-01538-0