-
Medicine Nov 2019Our objective is to assess the effects of epinephrine for out of hospital cardiac arrest. (Review)
Review
AIM
Our objective is to assess the effects of epinephrine for out of hospital cardiac arrest.
BACKGROUND
Cardiac arrest was the most serious medical incidents with an estimated incidence in the United States of 95.7 per 100,000 person years. Though epinephrine improved coronary and cerebral perfusion, improving a return of spontaneous circulation, potentially harmful effects on the heart lead to greater myocardial oxygen demand. Concerns about the effect of epinephrine for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were controversial and called for a higher argument to determine whether the effects of epinephrine is safe and effective for shor and long terms outcomes.
METHOD
Searching databases consist of all kinds of searching tools, such as Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, etc. All the included studies should meet our demand of this meta-analysis. In the all interest outcomes blow we take the full advantage of STATA to assess, the main measure is Risk Ratio (RR) with 95% confidence, the publication bias are assessed by Egger Test.
RESULT
In current systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials investigating epinephrine for out of hospital cardiac arrest, we found that epinephrine was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of ROSC (RR = 3.05, I = 23.1%, P = .0001) and survival to hospital discharge (RR = 1.40, I = 36.3%, P = .008) compared with non-adrenaline administration. Conversely, epinephrine did not increase CPC 1 or 2 (RR = 1.15, I = 40.5%, P = .340) and hospital admission (RR = 2.07, I = 88.2%, P = .0001).
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, in this systematic review and meta-analysis involving studies, the use of epinephrine resulted in a significantly higher likelihood of survival to hospital discharge and ROSC than the non-epinephrine administration, but, there was no significant between group difference in the rate of a favorable neurologic outcome.
Topics: Aged; Epinephrine; Hospitalization; Humans; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest; Patient Discharge; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31702610
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017502 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2019Amblyopia is defined as impaired visual acuity in one or both eyes without demonstrable abnormality of the visual pathway, and is not immediately resolved by wearing...
BACKGROUND
Amblyopia is defined as impaired visual acuity in one or both eyes without demonstrable abnormality of the visual pathway, and is not immediately resolved by wearing glasses.
OBJECTIVES
In performing this systematic review, we aimed to synthesize the best available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of conventional occlusion therapy compared to atropine penalization in treating amblyopia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS BIREME; ClinicalTrials.gov; ISRCTN; and the WHO ICTRP on 7 September 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized/quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing conventional occlusion to atropine penalization for amblyopia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven trials (five randomized controlled trials and two quasi-randomized controlled trials) conducted in six countries (China, India, Iran, Ireland, Spain, and the United States) with a total of 1177 amblyopic eyes. Three of these seven trials were from the original 2009 version of the review. We assessed two trials as having a low risk of bias across all domains, and the remaining five trials as having unclear or high risk of bias for some domains.As different occlusion modalities, atropine penalization regimens, and populations were used across the included trials, we did not conduct any meta-analysis due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Evidence from six trials (two at low risk of bias) suggests that atropine penalization is as effective as conventional occlusion in improving visual acuity. Similar improvement in visual acuity was reported at all time points at which it was assessed, ranging from five weeks (improvement of 1 line) to 10 years (improvement of greater than 3 lines). At six months, although most participants (363/522) come from a trial rated as at low risk of bias with a precise estimate (mean difference (MD) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.06), two other trials rated as at high risk of bias produced inconsistent estimates and wide confidence intervals (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.07 and MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.05; moderate-certainty evidence). At 24 months, additional improvement was found in both groups, but there continued to be no meaningful difference between those receiving occlusion and those receiving atropine therapies (moderate-certainty evidence).We did not find any difference in ocular alignment, stereo acuity, or sound eye visual acuity between occlusion and atropine penalization groups (moderate-certainty evidence). Both treatments were well tolerated. Atropine was associated with better adherence (moderate-certainty evidence) and quality of life (moderate-certainty evidence), but also a higher reported risk of adverse events in terms of mild reduction in the visual acuity of the sound eye not requiring treatment and light sensitivity (high-certainty evidence). Skin, lid, or conjunctival irritation were more common among participants receiving patching than those receiving atropine (high-certainty evidence). Atropine penalization costs less than conventional occlusion.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Both conventional occlusion and atropine penalization produce visual acuity improvement in the amblyopic eye. Atropine penalization appears to be as effective as conventional occlusion, although the magnitude of improvement differed among the trials we analyzed.
Topics: Amblyopia; Atropine; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Occlusive Dressings; Ophthalmic Solutions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 31461545
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006460.pub3