-
Animal Models and Experimental Medicine Feb 2024The maintenance dosage of selexipag is categorized as low, medium or high. In order to assess the efficacy and safety of different dosages of selexipag for the risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The maintenance dosage of selexipag is categorized as low, medium or high. In order to assess the efficacy and safety of different dosages of selexipag for the risk stratification of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Studies assessing PAH risk stratification indices, such as the World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC), six-minute walk distance (6MWD), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level, right atrial pressure (RAP), cardiac index (CI) and mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO), were included.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included. Selexipag led to improvements in the 6MWD (MD: 24.20 m, 95% CI: 10.74-37.67), NT-proBNP (SMD: -0.41, 95% CI: -0.79-0.04), CI (MD: 0.47 L/min/m, 95% CI: 0.17-0.77) and WHO-FC (OR: 0.564, 95% CI: 0.457-0.697). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that all three dosages improved the 6MWD. A moderate dosage led to improvements in the CI (MD: 0.30 L/min/m, 95% CI: 0.15-0.46) and WHO-FC (OR: 0.589, 95% CI: 0.376-0.922). Within 6 months of treatment, only the WHO-FC and CI were significantly improved (OR: 0.614, 95% CI: 0.380-0.993; MD: 0.30 L/min/m, 95% CI: 0.16-0.45, respectively). More than 6 months of treatment significantly improved the 6MWD, WHO-FC and NT-proBNP (MD: 40.87 m, 95% CI: 10.97-70.77; OR: 0.557, 95% CI: 0.440-0.705; SMD: -0.61, 95% CI: -1.17-0.05, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
Low, medium, and high dosages of selexipag all exhibited good effects. When treatment lasted for more than 6 months, selexipag exerted obvious effects, even in the low-dosage group. This finding is important for guiding individualized treatments.
Topics: Humans; Hypertension, Pulmonary; Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension; Acetamides; Pyrazines
PubMed: 37740617
DOI: 10.1002/ame2.12347 -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Aug 2023Perioperative pulmonary hypertension (PH) is an independent risk factor for morbidity and mortality in cardiac surgery. While inhaled prostacyclins (iPGIs) are an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Perioperative pulmonary hypertension (PH) is an independent risk factor for morbidity and mortality in cardiac surgery. While inhaled prostacyclins (iPGIs) are an established treatment of chronic PH, data on the efficacy of iPGIs in perioperative PH are scarce.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science, CENTRAL, and the grey literature from inception until April 2021. We included randomized controlled trials investigating the use of iPGIs in adult and pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery with an increased risk of perioperative right ventricle failure. We assessed the efficacy and safety of iPGIs compared with placebo and other inhaled or intravenous vasodilators with random-effect meta-analyses. The primary outcome was mean pulmonary artery pressure (MPAP). Secondary outcomes included other hemodynamic parameters and mortality.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included, comprising 734 patients. Inhaled prostacyclins significantly decreased MPAP compared with placebo (standardized effect size, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11 to 0.87; P = 0.01) and to intravenous vasodilators (1.26; 95% CI, 0.03 to 2.49; P = 0.045). Inhaled prostacyclins significantly improved the cardiac index compared with intravenous vasodilators (1.53; 95% CI, 0.50 to 2.57; P = 0.004). In contrast, mean arterial pressure was significantly lower in patients treated with iPGIs vs placebo (-0.39; 95% CI, -0.62 to 0.16; P = 0.001), but higher than in patients treated with intravenous vasodilators (0.81; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.33; P = 0.002). With respect to hemodynamics, iPGIs had similar effects as other inhaled vasodilators. Mortality was not affected by iPGIs.
CONCLUSION
The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis show that iPGIs improved pulmonary hemodynamics with similar efficacy as other inhaled vasodilators, but caused a significant small decrease in arterial pressure when compared with placebo, indicating spill-over into the systemic circulation. These effects did not affect clinical outcomes.
STUDY REGISTRATION DATE
PROSPERO (CRD42021237991); registered 26 May 2021.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Iloprost; Prostaglandins I; Administration, Inhalation; Vasodilator Agents; Hypertension, Pulmonary; Cardiac Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 37380903
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-023-02520-4 -
Chest Aug 2023Epinephrine is the most commonly used drug in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation, but evidence supporting its efficacy is mixed. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Epinephrine is the most commonly used drug in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation, but evidence supporting its efficacy is mixed.
RESEARCH QUESTION
What are the comparative efficacy and safety of standard dose epinephrine, high-dose epinephrine, epinephrine plus vasopressin, and placebo or no treatment in improving outcomes after OHCA?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, we searched six databases from inception through June 2022 for randomized controlled trials evaluating epinephrine use during OHCA resuscitation. We performed frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and present ORs and 95% CIs. We used the the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to rate the certainty of evidence. Outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, survival to discharge, and survival with good functional outcome.
RESULTS
We included 18 trials (21,594 patients). Compared with placebo or no treatment, high-dose epinephrine (OR, 4.27; 95% CI, 3.68-4.97), standard-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.69; 95% CI, 3.32-4.10), and epinephrine plus vasopressin (OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 2.94-4.26) all increased ROSC. High-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 2.97-4.20), standard-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 2.66-3.38), and epinephrine plus vasopressin (OR, 2.79; 95% CI, 2.27-3.44) all increased survival to hospital admission as compared with placebo or no treatment. However, none of these agents may increase survival to discharge or survival with good functional outcome as compared with placebo or no treatment. Compared with placebo or no treatment, standard-dose epinephrine improved survival to discharge among patients with nonshockable rhythm (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.21-3.63), but not in those with shockable rhythm (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.39-1.85).
INTERPRETATION
Use of standard-dose epinephrine, high-dose epinephrine, and epinephrine plus vasopressin increases ROSC and survival to hospital admission, but may not improve survival to discharge or functional outcome. Standard-dose epinephrine improved survival to discharge among patients with nonshockable rhythm, but not those with shockable rhythm.
TRIAL REGISTRY
Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/arxwq.
Topics: Humans; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest; Network Meta-Analysis; Epinephrine; Vasopressins; Resuscitation; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation; Emergency Medical Services
PubMed: 36736487
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.01.033