-
Frontiers in Microbiology 2024Hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) is an acute infectious disease comprising five stages: fever, hypotension, oliguria, diuresis (polyuria), and convalescence....
INTRODUCTION
Hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) is an acute infectious disease comprising five stages: fever, hypotension, oliguria, diuresis (polyuria), and convalescence. Increased vascular permeability, coagulopathy, and renal injury are typical clinical features of HFRS, which has a case fatality rate of 1-15%. Despite this, a comprehensive meta-analyses of the clinical characteristics of patients who died from HFRS is lacking.
METHODS
Eleven Chinese- and English-language research databases were searched, including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wanfang Database, SinoMed, VIP Database, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Proquest, and Ovid, up to October 5, 2023. The search focused on clinical features of patients who died from HFRS. The extracted data were analyzed using STATA 14.0.
RESULTS
A total of 37 articles on 140,295 patients with laboratory-confirmed HFRS were included. Categorizing patients into those who died and those who survived, it was found that patients who died were older and more likely to smoke, have hypertension, and have diabetes. Significant differences were also observed in the clinical manifestations of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, shock, occurrence of overlapping disease courses, cerebral edema, cerebral hemorrhage, toxic encephalopathy, convulsions, arrhythmias, heart failure, dyspnea, acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary infection, liver damage, gastrointestinal bleeding, acute kidney injury, and urine protein levels. Compared to patients who survived, those who died were more likely to demonstrate elevated leukocyte count; decreased platelet count; increased lactate dehydrogenase, alanine aminotransferase, and aspartate aminotransferase levels; prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time and prothrombin time; and low albumin and chloride levels and were more likely to use continuous renal therapy. Interestingly, patients who died received less dialysis and had shorter average length of hospital stay than those who survived.
CONCLUSION
Older patients and those with histories of smoking, hypertension, diabetes, central nervous system damage, heart damage, liver damage, kidney damage, or multiorgan dysfunction were at a high risk of death. The results can be used to assess patients' clinical presentations and assist with prognostication.https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, (CRD42023454553).
PubMed: 38638893
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1329683 -
Canadian Journal of Diabetes Apr 2024Our aim in this study was to systematically assess the association of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) vs dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i)...
Association of SGLT2i vs DPP4i With Pneumonia, COVID-19, and Other Adverse Respiratory Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim in this study was to systematically assess the association of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) vs dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) with pneumonia, COVID-19, and adverse respiratory events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM).
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were retrieved to include studies on DM patients receiving SGLT2i (exposure group) or DPP4i (control group). Stata version 15.0 statistical software was used for the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Ten studies were included, all 10 of which were used for the qualitative review and 7 for the meta-analysis. According to the meta-analysis, patients receiving SGLT2i had a lower incidence of pneumonia (odds ratio [OR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51 to 0.74) and pneumonia risk (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.68, p=0.000) compared with those receiving DPP4i. The same situation was seen for mortality for pneumonia (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.60) and pneumonia mortality risk (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.51). There was lower mortality due to COVID-19 (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.34) and a lower hospitalization rate (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.68, p=0.000) and incidence of mechanical ventilation (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.83, p=0.000) due to COVID-19 in patients with type 2 DM receiving SGLT2i. Qualitative analysis results show that SGLT2i was associated with a lower incidence of COVID-19, lower risk of obstructive airway disease events, and lower hospitalization rate of health-care-associated pneumonia than DPP4i.
CONCLUSION
In patients with type 2 DM, SGLT2i are associated with a lower risk of pneumonia, COVID-19, and mortality than DPP4i.
PubMed: 38636589
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjd.2024.04.009 -
Biomedical Reports May 2024Abrocitinib is a highly selective Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor that can block a multitude of inflammatory signaling pathways that underlie atopic dermatitis (AD). In...
Effects of abrocitinib on pruritus and eczema symptoms and tolerance in patients with moderate‑to‑severe atopic dermatitis in randomized, double‑blind and placebo‑controlled trials: A systematic review and a meta‑analysis.
Abrocitinib is a highly selective Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor that can block a multitude of inflammatory signaling pathways that underlie atopic dermatitis (AD). In addition, abrocitinib inhibits JAK1 signaling in sensory neurons to alleviate acute and chronic pruritus during AD. However, substantial variations in efficacy and safety risks remain due to variations in doses applied in clinical use. Therefore for the present study, differences in the efficacy and tolerability of 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib for treating pruritus and eczema symptoms in patients with moderate-to-severe AD were evaluated compared with placebo. Specifically, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of abrocitinib compared with placebo for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD were searched on Pubmed, E.B. Stephens Company, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Medical network, Web of Science and related Clinical Trials Registry up to November 2023. In total, two researchers evaluated the quality of the included literature according to the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews. RevMan 5.3 software was used to conduct a meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety indicators in a cross-comparison of the effects exerted by placebo and 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib. A total of 1,825 patients with moderate-to-severe AD were included across five double-blind, placebo RCTs. Compared with the placebo group, during the double-blind trial period, significant improvements were observed in the investigator's global assessment score, response rate of eczema area and severity index (EASI)-50, EASI-75, EASI-90 and pruritus numerical rating scale (P-NRS) in the 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib groups (P<0.05). However, pairwise control analysis of the 100 and 200 mg group yielded significant differences (P<0.05) in all of the aforementioned therapeutic indicators except for the P-NRS score. In terms of safety, compared with the placebo group, there were significantly higher incidence of nausea, upper respiratory tract viral infection, infections and infestations in the 100 mg abrocitinib group (P<0.05). In addition, there were significantly higher incidence of nausea, gastrointestinal disorder, headache and dizziness in the 200 mg group (P<0.05). There were also significant differences in the incidence of nausea, gastrointestinal disorder and dizziness between the 100 and 200 mg groups (P<0.05). For patients with moderate-to-severe AD, oral administration of 100 or 200 mg abrocitinib once/day was concluded to ameliorate skin pruritus and eczema symptoms to varying degrees, with the efficacy significantly superior at the 200 mg dose. However, the risk of a number of adverse reactions, such as headache, dizziness, nausea and gastrointestinal dysfunction, is also significantly increased. Therefore, patients should be made aware of the risk of adverse drug effects prior to the administration of long-term high abrocitinib doses. Furthermore, large-scale, multi-center, rigorous clinical trials remain necessary to validate the findings from the present study.
PubMed: 38628626
DOI: 10.3892/br.2024.1772 -
Trends in Anaesthesia & Critical Care Jun 2023Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, which was first discovered in Wuhan, China. The disease has grown into a global... (Review)
Review
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, which was first discovered in Wuhan, China. The disease has grown into a global pandemic causing mild to moderate symptoms in most people. The disease can also exhibit serious illnesses, especially for patients with other chronic diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, or cancer. In such cases of severe illness, high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has been used to provide oxygenation to COVID-19 patients. However, the efficiency of HFNO remains uncertain, prompting the conduction of this systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of the therapy. A thorough search for relevant and original articles was carried out on five electronic databases, including ScienceDirect, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar. No time limitation was placed during the search as it included all the articles related to COVID-19 from 2019 to 2022. The search strategy utilized in this systematic review yielded 504 articles, of which only 10 met the eligibility criteria and were included. Our meta-analysis reveals that HFNO success rate was higher than HFNO failure rates (0.52 (95% CI; 0.47, 0.56) and 0.48 (95% CI; 0.44, 0.53), respectively), however, the difference was statistically insignificant. HFNO was associated with a significant decrease in mortality and intubation rates (0.28 (95% CI; 0.19, 0.39) and 0.28 (95% CI; 0.18, 0.41), respectively). Our statistical analysis has shown that significantly lower ROX index (5.07 ± 1.66, p = 0.028) and PaO/FiO (100 ± 27.51, p = 0.031) are associated with HFNO failure, while a significantly lower respiratory rate (RR) (23.17 ± 4.167, p = 0.006) is associated with HFNO success. No statistically significant difference was observed in SpO/FiO ratio between the HFNO success and failure groups (154.23 ± 42.74 vs. 124.025 ± 28.50, p = 0.62, respectively). Based on the results from our meta-analysis, the success or failure of HFNO in treating COVID-19 adult patients remains uncertain. However, HFNO has been shown to be an effective treatment in reducing mortality and intubation rates. Therefore, HFNO can be recommended for COVID-19 patients but with close monitoring and should be carried out by experienced healthcare workers.
PubMed: 38620122
DOI: 10.1016/j.tacc.2023.101238 -
Minerva Anestesiologica May 2024The medical application of music therapy (MT) has received widespread attention in recent years and some researchers have attempted to apply MT to the treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The medical application of music therapy (MT) has received widespread attention in recent years and some researchers have attempted to apply MT to the treatment of patients with anxiety and delirium in ICU.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Relevant randomized controlled trials (randomized controlled trials s) were searched in databases, such as Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Medline, Scopus, and CINAHL. Researchers performed literature screening, data extraction, literature quality assessment, and heterogeneity analysis among RCTs.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. In general, we included RCTs with low risk of bias, and the primary outcome indicators, including the Chinese version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (C-STAI), Visual Analogue Scale for Anxiety Measurement (VAS-A), and Facial Anxiety Scale (FAS), with a recommended level of evidence of "strong". The pooled results indicated that MT was effective in alleviating the anxiety state of ICU patients (95% CI, SMD=-1.09 [-1.52, -0.67], P<0.05) and could reduce mental and physical fatigue in patients with anxious delirium in ICU (95% CI, WMD=-2.35 [-3.37, -1.33], P <0.05). There were significant differences in the therapeutic effects of MT with different intervention durations. Both 15-minute and 30-minute MT were effective in reducing anxiety levels in patients with anxiety disorders in the ICU (15min: 95%CI, SMD=-1.70[-2.15, -1.24], P<0.05; 30min: 95%CI, SMD=-0.73[-1.16, - 0.29], P<0.05). However, when the duration of MT exceeded 45 min, the overtreatment of MT instead interfered with patient rest and failed to produce a positive therapeutic effect (95% CI, SMD=-1.04 [-3.06, 0.97], P=0.31). In addition, a meta-analysis of physiological outcomes found that MT was effective in maintaining the stabilization of heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) in ICU patients with anxiety (P<0.05), but did not affect patients' oxygen saturation, mean arterial pressure and diastolic blood pressure (P>0.05). No adverse events occurred during MT treatment in the reports of included 14 studies.
CONCLUSIONS
MT can safely and effectively reduce the anxiety level of patients with anxiety and delirium in ICU and relieve their psychological and physical fatigue. And MT was able to maintain the stability of HR, RR, and SBP in ICU patients.
Topics: Humans; Music Therapy; Delirium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anxiety; Intensive Care Units; Treatment Outcome; Critical Care
PubMed: 38619185
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.24.17900-X -
World Journal of Virology Mar 2024Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have shown clinical benefits against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2...
BACKGROUND
Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have shown clinical benefits against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Several studies have reported the use of bamlanivimab as a promising treatment option for COVID-19.
AIM
To synthesize the latest evidence for the efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab alone in the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar using "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID-19", "LY-CoV555", and "Bamlanivimab" keywords up to January 25, 2023. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane bias tools. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 3.0 was used to analyze the data.
RESULTS
A total of 30 studies involving 47368 patients were included. A significant difference was observed between the bamlanivimab and standard of care/placebo groups in terms of mortality rate [risk ratio (RR) = 50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-0.70], hospitalization rate (RR = 0.51; 95%CI: 0.39-0.68), and emergency department (ED) visits (RR = 0.69; 95%CI: 0.47-0.99); while the two groups exhibited no significant difference in terms of intensive care unit (ICU) admission ( > 0.05). Compared to other mAbs, bamlanivimab was associated with a higher rate of hospitalization (RR = 1.44; 95%CI: 1.07-1.94). However, no significant difference was detected between the bamlanivimab and other mAbs groups in terms of mortality rate, ICU admission, and ED ( > 0.05). The incidence of any adverse events was similar between the bamlanivimab and control groups ( > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Although the results suggest the efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab in COVID-19 patients, further research is required to confirm the efficacy of this drug for the current circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.
PubMed: 38616851
DOI: 10.5501/wjv.v13.i1.88660 -
BMJ Evidence-based Medicine Apr 2024To compare the efficacy of influenza vaccines of any valency for adults 60 years and older.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy of influenza vaccines of any valency for adults 60 years and older.
DESIGN AND SETTING
Systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). MEDLINE, EMBASE, JBI Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) Database, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Evidence -Based Medicine database were searched from inception to 20 June 20, 2022. Two reviewers screened, abstracted, and appraised articles (Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) 2.0 tool) independently. We assessed certainty of findings using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approaches. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), and estimated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for count outcomes along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and prediction intervals.
PARTICIPANTS
Older adults (≥60 years old) receiving an influenza vaccine licensed in Canada or the USA (vs placebo, no vaccine, or any other licensed vaccine), at any dose.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Laboratory-confirmed influenza (LCI) and influenza-like illness (ILI). Secondary outcomes were the number of vascular adverse events, hospitalisation for acute respiratory infection (ARI) and ILI, inpatient hospitalisation, emergency room (ER) visit for ILI, outpatient visit, and mortality, among others.
RESULTS
We included 41 RCTs and 15 companion reports comprising 8 vaccine types and 206 032 participants. Vaccines may prevent LCI compared with placebo, with high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3-HD) (NMA: 9 RCTs, 52 202 participants, OR 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.11 to 0.51), low certainty of evidence) and recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) (OR 0.25, 95%CI (0.08 to 0.73), low certainty of evidence) among the most efficacious vaccines. Standard dose trivalent IIV3 (IIV3-SD) may prevent ILI compared with placebo, but the result was imprecise (meta-analysis: 2 RCTs, 854 participants, OR 0.39, 95%CI (0.15 to 1.02), low certainty of evidence). Any HD was associated with prevention of ILI compared with placebo (NMA: 9 RCTs, 65 658 participants, OR 0.38, 95%CI (0.15 to 0.93)). Adjuvanted quadrivalent IIV (IIV4-Adj) may be associated with the least vascular adverse events, but the results were very uncertain (NMA: eight 8 RCTs, 57 677 participants, IRR 0.18, 95%CI (0.07 to 0.43), very low certainty of evidence). RIV on all-cause mortality may be comparable to placebo (NMA: 20 RCTs, 140 577 participants, OR 1.01, 95%CI (0.23 to 4.49), low certainty of evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review demonstrated efficacy associated with IIV3-HD and RIV vaccines in protecting older persons against LCI. RIV vaccine may reduce all-cause mortality when compared with other vaccines, but the evidence is uncertain. Differences in efficacy between influenza vaccines remain uncertain with very low to moderate certainty of evidence.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020177357.
PubMed: 38604619
DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112767 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2024Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe...
BACKGROUND
Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment. This is the first update of a Cochrane review published 6 May 2022, with one new study added.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces aimed at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other interventions or no intervention.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv to 13 April 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by coworkers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls (i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE methods to evaluate the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 2 studies including a total of 16,014 participants. Elimination-of-exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards, which was an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) working at 86 schools were assigned to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (rate ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 working days) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 working days) in the intervention group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71% in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure our other outcomes of SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, or hospitalisation. We found seven ongoing studies using elimination-of-hazard strategies, six RCTs and one non-randomised trial. Administrative control interventions We found one ongoing RCT that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine in preventing COVID-19 infection and reducing disease severity. Combinations of eligible interventions We included one non-randomised study examining a combination of elimination of hazards, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. The study was conducted in two large retail companies in Italy in 2020. The study compared a safety operating protocol, measurement of body temperature and oxygen saturation upon entry, and a SARS-CoV-2 test strategy with a minimum activity protocol. Both groups received protective equipment. All employees working at the companies during the study period were included: 1987 in the intervention company and 1798 in the control company. The study did not report an outcome of interest for this systematic review. Other intervention categories We did not find any studies in this category.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. A test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absenteeism rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. The non-randomised study included in our updated search did not report any outcome of interest for this Cochrane review. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included RCT did not report on any of our other primary outcomes (i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events). We identified no completed studies on any other interventions specified in this review; however, eight eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Delivery of Health Care; Pandemics; Workplace
PubMed: 38597249
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015112.pub3 -
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare Apr 2024Telerehabilitation may facilitate access and adherence to pulmonary rehabilitation. Given the heterogeneity in existing telerehabilitation studies, it is still necessary...
INTRODUCTION
Telerehabilitation may facilitate access and adherence to pulmonary rehabilitation. Given the heterogeneity in existing telerehabilitation studies, it is still necessary to identify the most effective, safe, and cost-efficient strategy for clinical implementation, as well as the necessary level of supervision during telerehabilitation. The aim of this review was to determine the effectiveness and safety of real-time telerehabilitation for chronic respiratory diseases and post-COVID-19 compared to no-rehabilitation, center-based rehabilitation or asynchronous telerehabilitation.
METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted in six databases until 30 April 2023. Clinical trials of real-time telerehabilitation supervised via videoconference in adults with diagnosis of any chronic respiratory disease or post-COVID-19 were included.
RESULTS
Twelve studies with 1540 participants were included. Very-low to moderate certainty evidence showed no difference between real-time telerehabilitation and center-based pulmonary rehabilitation. Studies included in this review reported high adherence rates to real-time telerehabilitation and completion rate, with no difference compared to center-based pulmonary rehabilitation. When compared to no-rehabilitation, the results of this review provide low-certainty evidence that real-time telerehabilitation may have a potential effect on exercise capacity at the end of the intervention, with no better results in others outcomes. No studies comparing real-time telerehabilitation with asynchronous telerehabilitation were found.
CONCLUSION
Real-time telerehabilitation is safe and it seems to promote similar effects to center-based pulmonary rehabilitation. However, the certainty of this evidence ranged from very-low to moderate. Therefore, real-time telerehabilitation offers an alternative to center-based pulmonary rehabilitation models. This review provides a clear definition of real-time telerehabilitation, facilitating results interpretation and clinical applicability.
PubMed: 38594927
DOI: 10.1177/1357633X241241572 -
Heart & Lung : the Journal of Critical... 2024Oxygen therapy constitutes a crucial element of post-cardiac operative care. The study assessed the effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in comparison to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oxygen therapy constitutes a crucial element of post-cardiac operative care. The study assessed the effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in comparison to conventional oxygen therapy (COT).
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of HFNC in comparison to COT for adult patients following cardiac surgery.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception until April 18, 2023, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and crossover studies that compared the efficacy of HFNC with COT in adult patients following cardiac surgery.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included nine studies, consisting of eight RCTs and one crossover study. Compared with COT, HFNC could reduce the need for escalation of respiratory support (RR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.93, P = 0.02), decrease arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO) levels (MD -3.14, 95% CI: -4.90 to -1.39, P<0.001), and increase forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV) levels (MD 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.15, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference between the HFNC and COT groups in terms of mortality, intubation rate, respiratory rate, heart rate, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO), forced vital capacity, and complications of atrial fibrillation and delirium.
CONCLUSION
Compared with COT, HFNC could decrease the need for escalation of respiratory support, lower PaCO levels, and elevate FEV levels in patients following cardiac surgery.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Cannula; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy; Postoperative Care
PubMed: 38582067
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2024.03.008