-
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases... Jul 2023Previous studies have reported mixed associations between inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary...
BACKGROUND
Previous studies have reported mixed associations between inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Using updated literature, we investigated the association between ICS-containing medications and CVD in COPD patients, stratified by study-related factors.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that reported effect estimates for the association between ICS-containing medications and the risk of CVD in COPD patients. CVD outcomes specifically included heart failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke-related events. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis and a meta-regression to identify effect-modifying study-related factors.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria and investigated the association between ICS-containing medications and the risk of CVD. Pooled results from our meta-analysis showed a significant association between ICS-containing medication and reduced risk of CVD (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence intervals 0.78 to 0.97). Study follow-up time, non-ICS comparator, and exclusion of patients with previous CVD modified the association between ICS use and risk of CVD.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, we found an association between ICS-containing medications and reduced risk of CVD in COPD patients. Results from the meta-regression suggest that subgroups of COPD patients may benefit from ICS use more than others and further work is needed to determine this.
PubMed: 37289196
DOI: 10.15326/jcopdf.2022.0386 -
High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular... Jul 2023Acute severe elevation of blood pressure (BP) is a common clinical event, that can present as hypertensive emergency (HTNE) and hypertensive urgency (HTNU). HTNE results... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute severe elevation of blood pressure (BP) is a common clinical event, that can present as hypertensive emergency (HTNE) and hypertensive urgency (HTNU). HTNE results in life-threatening target organ damage, including myocardial infarction, pulmonary edema, stroke, and acute kidney injury. It is associated with high utilization of healthcare and increased cost. HTNU is high BP without acute serious complications.
AIM
The purpose of this review was to examine the clinical-epidemiological characteristics of patients with HTNE and propose a risk stratification framework to differentiate between the two conditions, since prognosis, setting of therapy and treatment is vastly different.
METHODS
Systematic review.
RESULTS
Fourteen full-text studies were included in this review. In comparison with HTNU, patients with HTNE had higher mean systolic (mean difference 2.413, 95% CI 0.477, 4.350) and diastolic BP (mean difference 2.043, 95% CI 0.624, 3.461). HTNE were more prevalent in men (OR 1.390, 95% CI 1.207, 1.601), older adults (mean difference 5.282, 95% CI 3.229, 7.335) and those with diabetes (OR 1.723, 95% CI 1.485, 2.000). Non-adherence to BP medications (OR 0.939, 95% CI 0.647, 1.363) and unawareness of hypertension diagnosis (OR 0.807, 95% CI 0.564, 1.154) did not elevate the risk of HTNE.
CONCLUSIONS
Systolic and diastolic BP are marginally higher in patients with HTNE. Given that these differences are not clinically significant, other epidemiological and medical characteristics (older age, male sex, cardiometabolic comorbidities) as well as patient's presentation should be considered to differentiate between HTNU and HTNE.
Topics: Humans; Male; Aged; Emergencies; Hypertension; Blood Pressure; Comorbidity; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 37284909
DOI: 10.1007/s40292-023-00586-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Pelvic, hip, and long bone fractures can result in significant bleeding at the time of injury, with further blood loss if they are treated with surgical fixation. People... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pelvic, hip, and long bone fractures can result in significant bleeding at the time of injury, with further blood loss if they are treated with surgical fixation. People undergoing surgery are therefore at risk of requiring a blood transfusion and may be at risk of peri-operative anaemia. Pharmacological interventions for blood conservation may reduce the risk of requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion and associated complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of different pharmacological interventions for reducing blood loss in definitive surgical fixation of the hip, pelvic, and long bones.
SEARCH METHODS
We used a predefined search strategy to search CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Transfusion Evidence Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) from inception to 7 April 2022, without restrictions on language, year, or publication status. We handsearched reference lists of included trials to identify further relevant trials. We contacted authors of ongoing trials to acquire any unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people who underwent trauma (non-elective) surgery for definitive fixation of hip, pelvic, and long bone (pelvis, tibia, femur, humerus, radius, ulna and clavicle) fractures only. There were no restrictions on gender, ethnicity, or age. We excluded planned (elective) procedures (e.g. scheduled total hip arthroplasty), and studies published since 2010 that had not been prospectively registered. Eligible interventions included: antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid, aprotinin, epsilon-aminocaproic acid), desmopressin, factor VIIa and XIII, fibrinogen, fibrin sealants, and non-fibrin sealants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We did not perform a network meta-analysis due to lack of data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 RCTs (929 participants), published between 2005 and 2021. Three trials did not report any of our predefined outcomes and so were not included in quantitative analyses (all were tranexamic acid versus placebo). We identified three comparisons of interest: intravenous tranexamic acid versus placebo; topical tranexamic acid versus placebo; and recombinant factor VIIa versus placebo. We rated the certainty of evidence as very low to low across all outcomes. Comparison 1. Intravenous tranexamic acid versus placebo Intravenous tranexamic acid compared to placebo may reduce the risk of requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion up to 30 days (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.69; 6 RCTs, 457 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.77; 2 RCTs, 147 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may result in little to no difference in risk of participants experiencing myocardial infarction (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 2 RCTs, 199 participants; low-certainty evidence), and cerebrovascular accident/stroke (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 3 RCTs, 324 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference between groups for risk of deep vein thrombosis (Peto OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.22 to 21.35; 4 RCTs, 329 participants, very low-certainty evidence), pulmonary embolism (Peto OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.66; 4 RCTs, 329 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and suspected serious drug reactions (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 2 RCTs, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for number of red blood cell units transfused, reoperation, or acute transfusion reaction. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision (wide confidence intervals around the estimate and small sample size, particularly for rare events), and risk of bias (unclear or high risk methods of blinding and allocation concealment in the assessment of subjective measures), and upgraded the evidence for transfusion requirement for a large effect. Comparison 2. Topical tranexamic acid versus placebo We are uncertain if there is a difference between topical tranexamic acid and placebo for risk of requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.22; 2 RCTs, 101 participants), all-cause mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.10; 1 RCT, 36 participants), risk of participants experiencing myocardial infarction (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 7.62; 1 RCT, 36 participants), cerebrovascular accident/stroke (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 1 RCT, 65 participants); and deep vein thrombosis (Peto OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.77; 2 RCTs, 101 participants). All outcomes reported were very low-certainty evidence. No data were available for number of red blood cell units transfused, reoperation, incidence of pulmonary embolism, acute transfusion reaction, or suspected serious drug reactions. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision (wide confidence intervals around the estimate and small sample size, particularly for rare events), inconsistency (moderate heterogeneity), and risk of bias (unclear or high risk methods of blinding and allocation concealment in the assessment of subjective measures, and high risk of attrition and reporting biases in one trial). Comparison 3. Recombinant factor VIIa versus placebo Only one RCT of 48 participants reported data for recombinant factor VIIa versus placebo, so we have not presented the results here.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We cannot draw conclusions from the current evidence due to lack of data. Most published studies included in our analyses assessed the use of tranexamic acid (compared to placebo, or using different routes of administration). We identified 27 prospectively registered ongoing RCTs (total target recruitment of 4177 participants by end of 2023). The ongoing trials create six new comparisons: tranexamic acid (tablet + injection) versus placebo; intravenous tranexamic acid versus oral tranexamic acid; topical tranexamic acid versus oral tranexamic acid; different intravenous tranexamic acid dosing regimes; topical tranexamic acid versus topical fibrin glue; and fibrinogen (injection) versus placebo.
Topics: Humans; Tranexamic Acid; Hemorrhage; Hemostatics; Fibrinogen; Pulmonary Embolism; Venous Thrombosis; Stroke; Myocardial Infarction; Arthroplasty, Replacement; Transfusion Reaction; Fractures, Bone
PubMed: 37272509
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013499.pub2 -
Current Problems in Cardiology Oct 2023Twelve CCI patients were studied with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection. The majority of these patients were males (83.3%) with a median age of 55 years from... (Review)
Review
Twelve CCI patients were studied with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection. The majority of these patients were males (83.3%) with a median age of 55 years from three geographical locations, constituting the Middle East (7), Spain (3), and the USA (1). In 6 patients, IgG/IgM was positive for COVID-19, 4 with high pretest probability and 2 with positive RT-PCR. Type 2 DM, hyperlipidemia, and smoking were the primary risk factors. Right-sided neurological impairments and verbal impairment were the most common symptoms. Our analysis found 8 (66%) synchronous occurrences. In 58.3% of cases, neuroimaging showed left Middle Cerebral Artery (MCA) infarct and 33.3% right. Carotid artery thrombosis (16.6%), tandem occlusion (8.3%), and carotid stenosis (1%) were also reported in imaging. Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and anticoagulants were conservative therapies (10). Two AMI patients had aspiration thrombectomy, while three AIS patients had intravenous thrombolysis/tissue plasminogen activator (IVT-tPA), 2 had mechanical thrombectomy (MT), and 1 had decompressive craniotomy. Five had COVID-19-positive chest X-rays, whereas 4 were normal. four of 8 STEMI and 3 NSTEMI/UA patients complained chest pain. LV, ICA, and pulmonary embolism were further complications (2). Upon discharge, 7 patients (70%) had residual deficits while 1 patient unfortunately died.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Anticoagulants; COVID-19; Infarction, Middle Cerebral Artery; Stroke; Thrombectomy; Thrombolytic Therapy; Tissue Plasminogen Activator; Treatment Outcome; Case Reports as Topic
PubMed: 37209804
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2023.101814 -
EClinicalMedicine May 2023Isolated pulmonary embolism (PE) appears to be associated with a specific clinical profile and sequelae compared to deep vein thrombosis (DVT)-associated PE. The...
BACKGROUND
Isolated pulmonary embolism (PE) appears to be associated with a specific clinical profile and sequelae compared to deep vein thrombosis (DVT)-associated PE. The objective of this study was to identify clinical characteristics that discriminate both phenotypes, and to characterize their differences in clinical outcome.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing PE phenotypes. A systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed and CENTRAL was conducted, from inception until January 27, 2023. Exclusion criteria were irrelevant content, inability to retrieve the article, language other than English or German, the article comprising a review or case study/series, and inappropriate study design. Data on risk factors, clinical characteristics and clinical endpoints were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses.
FINDINGS
Fifty studies with 435,768 PE patients were included. In low risk of bias studies, 30% [95% CI 19-42%, = 97%] of PE were isolated. The Factor V Leiden [OR: 0.47, 95% CI 0.37-0.58, = 0%] and prothrombin G20210A mutations [OR: 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.75, = 0%] were significantly less prevalent among patients with isolated PE. Female sex [OR: 1.30, 95% CI 1.17-1.45, = 79%], recent invasive surgery [OR: 1.31, 95% CI 1.23-1.41, = 65%], a history of myocardial infarction [OR: 2.07, 95% CI 1.85-2.32, = 0%], left-sided heart failure [OR: 1.70, 95% CI 1.37-2.10, = 76%], peripheral artery disease [OR: 1.36, 95% CI 1.31-1.42, = 0%] and diabetes mellitus [OR: 1.23, 95% CI 1.21-1.25, = 0%] were significantly more frequently represented among isolated PE patients. In a synthesis of clinical outcome data, the risk of recurrent VTE in isolated PE was half that of DVT-associated PE [RR: 0.55, 95% CI 0.44-0.69, = 0%], while the risk of arterial thrombosis was nearly 3-fold higher [RR: 2.93, 95% CI 1.43-6.02, = 0%].
INTERPRETATION
Our findings suggest that isolated PE appears to be a specific entity that may signal a long-term risk of arterial thrombosis. Randomised controlled trials are necessary to establish whether alternative treatment regimens are beneficial for this patient subgroup.
FUNDING
None.
PubMed: 37152363
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101973 -
Clinical Kidney Journal May 2023Renal anemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with poor outcomes. Hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) stabilizer, which induces endogenous erythropoietin...
The impacts of hypoxia-inducible factor stabilizers on laboratory parameters and clinical outcomes in chronic kidney disease patients with renal anemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Renal anemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with poor outcomes. Hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) stabilizer, which induces endogenous erythropoietin synthesis and enhances iron mobilization, is a novel treatment for anemia in CKD. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze the effect of HIF stabilizers in anemic CKD patients. This meta-analysis included 43 officially published articles and 3 unpublished studies (27 338 patients). HIF stabilizer treatment significantly increased hemoglobin (Hb) level when compared with placebo (mean difference 1.19 g/dL; 95% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.44 g/dL; < .001). There was no significant difference in Hb level when compared with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). Significant reductions of ferritin and transferrin saturation (TSAT) were observed, while total iron-binding capacity was increased in the HIF stabilizer group compared with placebo or ESAs. HIF stabilizers significantly reduced hepcidin, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein and triglyceride levels. Acute kidney injury and thrombotic events were significantly observed in patients receiving HIF stabilizers. There were no significant differences in myocardial infarction, stroke, dialysis initiation, pulmonary hypertension and mortality between HIF stabilizer and control groups. The present meta-analysis provided evidence that HIF stabilizers increased Hb and TIBC levels and reduced hepcidin, ferritin and TSAT in CKD patients with renal anemia. Long-term follow-up studies on clinical outcomes of HIF stabilizers are still needed.
PubMed: 37151413
DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfac271 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Aortic aneurysms occur when the aorta, the body's largest artery, grows in size, and can occur in the thoracic or abdominal aorta. The approaches to repair aortic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Aortic aneurysms occur when the aorta, the body's largest artery, grows in size, and can occur in the thoracic or abdominal aorta. The approaches to repair aortic aneurysms include directly exposing the aorta and replacing the diseased segment via open repair, or endovascular repair. Endovascular repair uses fluoroscopic-guidance to access the aorta and deliver a device to exclude the aneurysmal aortic segment without requiring a large surgical incision. Endovascular repair can be performed under a general anesthetic, during which the unconscious patient is paralyzed and reliant on an anesthetic machine to maintain the airway and provide oxygen to the lungs, or a loco-regional anesethetic, for which medications are administered to provide the person with sufficient sedation and pain control without requiring a general anesthetic. While people undergoing general anesthesia are more likely to remain still during surgery and have a well-controlled airway in the event of unanticipated complications, loco-regional anesthesia is associated with fewer postoperative complications in some studies. It remains unclear which anesthetic technique is associated with better outcomes following the endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of general anesthesia compared to loco-regional anesthesia for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 11 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for all randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of general anesthesia compared to loco-regional anesthesia for endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay. Our secondary outcomes were: incidence of endoleaks, requirement for re-intervention, incidence of myocardial infarction, quality of life, incidence of respiratory complications, incidence of pulmonary embolism, incidence of deep vein thrombosis, and length of procedure. We planned to use GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We found no studies, published or ongoing, that met our inclusion criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We did not identify any randomized controlled trials that compared general versus loco-regional anesthesia for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. There is currently insufficient high-quality evidence to determine the benefits or harms of either anesthetic approach during endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Well-designed prospective randomized trials with relevant clinical outcomes are needed to adequately address this.
Topics: Humans; Anesthesia, Conduction; Anesthesia, General; Anesthetics, General; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Endovascular Procedures; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life
PubMed: 37052421
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013182.pub2 -
The American Journal of Cardiology May 2023There is lack of evidence regarding the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel disease... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Non-ST-Elevation Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
There is lack of evidence regarding the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the clinical impact of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with that of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in this subset of patients. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Knowledge were searched for studies including patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD who underwent PCI or CABG up to September 1, 2021. The primary end point of the meta-analysis was all-cause mortality at 1 year. The secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or repeat revascularization at 1 year. The analysis was conducted using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Four prospective observational studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1,542 patients who underwent CABG and 1,630 patients who underwent PCI. No significant differences were found in terms of all-cause mortality (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21, p = 0.51), MI (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.51, p = 0.46), or stroke (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.35, p = 0.42) between PCI and CABG. Repeat revascularization was significantly lower in the CABG group (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.34, p <0.00001). In patients presenting with NSTE-ACS and MVD, 1-year mortality, MI, and stroke were similar between patients treated with either PCI or CABG, but the repeat revascularization rate was higher after PCI.
Topics: Humans; Coronary Artery Disease; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Coronary Artery Bypass; Myocardial Infarction; Acute Coronary Syndrome; Stroke; Treatment Outcome; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37011556
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.03.005 -
Immunity, Inflammation and Disease Mar 2023Since publishing successful clinical trial results of mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in December 2020, multiple reports have arisen about... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Since publishing successful clinical trial results of mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in December 2020, multiple reports have arisen about cardiovascular complications following the mRNA vaccination. This study provides an in-depth account of various cardiovascular adverse events reported after the mRNA vaccines' first or second dose including pericarditis/myopericarditis, myocarditis, hypotension, hypertension, arrhythmia, cardiogenic shock, stroke, myocardial infarction/STEMI, intracranial hemorrhage, thrombosis (deep vein thrombosis, cerebral venous thrombosis, arterial or venous thrombotic events, portal vein thrombosis, coronary thrombosis, microvascular small bowel thrombosis), and pulmonary embolism.
METHODS
A systematic review of original studies reporting confirmed cardiovascular manifestations post-mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was performed. Following the PRISMA guidelines, electronic databases (PubMed, PMC NCBI, and Cochrane Library) were searched until January 2022. Baseline characteristics of patients and disease outcomes were extracted from relevant studies.
RESULTS
A total of 81 articles analyzed confirmed cardiovascular complications post-COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in 17,636 individuals and reported 284 deaths with any mRNA vaccine. Of 17,636 cardiovascular events with any mRNA vaccine, 17,192 were observed with the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine, 444 events with mRNA-1273 (Moderna). Thrombosis was frequently reported with any mRNA vaccine (n = 13,936), followed by stroke (n = 758), myocarditis (n = 511), myocardial infarction (n = 377), pulmonary embolism (n = 301), and arrhythmia (n = 254). Stratifying the results by vaccine type showed that thrombosis (80.8%) was common in the BNT162b2 cohort, while stroke (39.9%) was common with mRNA-1273 for any dose. The time between the vaccination dosage and the first symptom onset averaged 5.6 and 4.8 days with the mRNA-1273 vaccine and BNT162b2, respectively. The mRNA-1273 cohort reported 56 deaths compared to the 228 with BNT162b2, while the rest were discharged or transferred to the ICU.
CONCLUSION
Available literature includes more studies with the BNT162b2 vaccine than mRNA-1273. Future studies must report mortality and adverse cardiovascular events by vaccine types.
Topics: Humans; 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273; BNT162 Vaccine; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Myocardial Infarction; Myocarditis; Pulmonary Embolism; Stroke; Thrombocytopenia; Thrombosis
PubMed: 36988252
DOI: 10.1002/iid3.807 -
BMJ Quality & Safety Nov 2023Diagnostic error (DE) is a common problem in clinical practice, particularly in the emergency department (ED) setting. Among ED patients presenting with cardiovascular...
Diagnostic error among vulnerable populations presenting to the emergency department with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular or neurological symptoms: a systematic review.
BACKGROUND
Diagnostic error (DE) is a common problem in clinical practice, particularly in the emergency department (ED) setting. Among ED patients presenting with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms, a delay in diagnosis or failure to hospitalise may be most impactful in terms of adverse outcomes. Minorities and other vulnerable populations may be at higher risk of DE. We aimed to systematically review studies reporting the frequency and causes of DE in under-resourced patients presenting to the ED with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms.
METHODS
We searched EBM Reviews, Embase, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science from 2000 through 14 August 2022. Data were abstracted by two independent reviewers using a standardised form. The risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
Of the 7342 studies screened, we included 20 studies evaluating 7436,737 patients. Most studies were conducted in the USA, and one study was multicountry. 11 studies evaluated DE in patients with cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms, 8 studies with cardiovascular symptoms and 1 study examined both types of symptoms. 13 studies investigated missed diagnoses and 7 studies explored delayed diagnoses. There was significant clinical and methodological variability, including heterogeneity of DE definitions and predictor variable definitions as well as methods of DE assessment, study design and reporting.Among the studies evaluating cardiovascular symptoms, black race was significantly associated with higher odds of DE in 4/6 studies evaluating missed acute myocardial infarction (AMI)/acute coronary syndrome (ACS) diagnosis compared with white race (OR from 1.18 (1.12-1.24) to 4.5 (1.8-11.8)). The association between other analysed factors (ethnicity, insurance and limited English proficiency) and DE in this domain varied from study to study and was inconclusive.Among the studies evaluating DE in patients with cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms, no consistent association was found indicating higher or lower odds of DE. Although some studies showed significant differences, these were not consistently in the same direction.The overall ROB was low for most included studies; however, the certainty of evidence was very low, mostly due to serious inconsistency in definitions and measurement approaches across studies.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review demonstrated consistent increased odds of missed AMI/ACS diagnosis among black patients presenting to the ED compared with white patients in most studies. No consistent associations between demographic groups and DE related to cerebrovascular/neurological diagnoses were identified. More standardised approaches to study design, measurement of DE and outcomes assessment are needed to understand this problem among vulnerable populations.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020178885 and is available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020178885.
Topics: Humans; Diagnostic Errors; Emergency Service, Hospital; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Vulnerable Populations
PubMed: 36972982
DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015038