-
The American Journal of Emergency... Jun 2022The purpose of this study was to compare and determine whether there were any differences in clinical outcomes between pregnant and non-pregnant women who had been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study was to compare and determine whether there were any differences in clinical outcomes between pregnant and non-pregnant women who had been infected with COVID-19.
METHODS
A literature search was performed in 9 databases on November 20, 2021. The relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used to estimate the effect of pregnancy on COVID-19 outcomes. The I square value was used to assess heterogeneity, and the random or the fixed-effects model were adopted. Sensitivity and publication bias analyses were performed.
RESULTS
This study included 8 published studies with 859,278 COVID-19 female patients. The incidences of fever and cough among pregnant women with COVID-19 were 19.07% and 28.79%, respectively. Pregnancy was associated with significantly increased risks of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (RR = 2.23, 95% CI = 1.58-3.16) and ventilation (RR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.06-4.28), but was not associated with a statistically significant increase in mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that pregnant women with COVID-19 have a significantly higher probability of being hospitalized to the ICU and ventilation than non-pregnant women with COVID-19. To avoid these adverse outcomes, pregnant women should take precautions (for example, reduce going out, maintain social distance, and wear a mask) to avoid COVID-19 infection. Finally, additional research into the fetal outcomes is required to better investigate the impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy.
Topics: COVID-19; Female; Hospitalization; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Pregnancy Outcome; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35413655
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2022.03.060 -
BMJ Open Aug 2017To evaluate the optimal dose of succinylcholine for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion and all related morbidities. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the optimal dose of succinylcholine for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion and all related morbidities.
DESIGN
Systematic review, meta-analysis and metaregression of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
DATA SOURCE AND STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
A comprehensive search of RCTs in the PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry up to July 2016 and articles that evaluated the use of succinylcholine chloride for LMA insertion were included in the analyses. The relative risk (RR) and the corresponding 95% CIs were determined.
INTERVENTION
Succinylcholine as the coinduction agent and the doses were divided into mini (≤0.3 mg/kg) and low (0.3-1.0 mg/kg) doses for dose-dependent effect analyses.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES
The primary outcome was the first-attempt LMA insertion failure rate. Secondary outcomes included all related adverse events.
RESULTS
Data from 10 RCTs comprising 625 participants showed that succinylcholine reduced the first-attempt LMA insertion failure rate (RR, 0.22; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.43), coughing and gagging (RR, 0.26; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.45) and laryngospasm (RR, 0.14; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.39). The use of succinylcholine did not result in a significant increase of postoperative myalgia (RR, 2.58; 95% CI 0.79 to 8.44) and did not reduce the risk of postoperative sore throat (RR, 0.76; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03). Subgroup analysis further showed that low-dose succinylcholine reduced the LMA insertion failure rate and its related coughing and gagging when compared with mini dose.
CONCLUSION
The use of succinylcholine compared with none can facilitate LMA insertion and reduce insertion-related reflexes without significant postoperative myalgia. However, additional prospective studies with a larger sample size are required to fully evaluate the dose-dependent effect and complications of succinylcholine for LMA insertion.
Topics: Cough; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Gagging; Humans; Intubation, Intratracheal; Laryngeal Masks; Neuromuscular Depolarizing Agents; Pain, Postoperative; Pharyngitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Succinylcholine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28780538
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014274 -
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease Apr 2023Treatments for COVID-19, including steroids, might exacerbate disease in patients with coinfection. We aimed to systematically review clinical and laboratory features... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Treatments for COVID-19, including steroids, might exacerbate disease in patients with coinfection. We aimed to systematically review clinical and laboratory features of SARS-CoV-2 and coinfection, investigate possible interventions, assess outcomes, and identify research gaps requiring further attention.
METHODS
We searched two electronic databases, LitCOVID and WHO, up to August 2022, including SARS-CoV-2 and coinfection studies. We adapted the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) system for standardized case causality assessment to evaluate if using corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs in COVID-19 patients determined acute manifestations of strongyloidiasis.
RESULTS
We included 16 studies reporting 25 cases of and SARS-CoV-2 coinfection: 4 with hyperinfection syndrome; 2 with disseminated strongyloidiasis; 3 with cutaneous reactivation of strongyloidiasis; 3 with isolated digestive symptoms; and 2 with solely eosinophilia, without clinical manifestations. Eleven patients were asymptomatic regarding strongyloidiasis. Eosinopenia or normal eosinophil count was reported in 58.3% of patients with reactivation. Steroids were given to 18/21 (85.7%) cases. A total of 4 patients (19.1%) received tocilizumab and/or Anakirna in addition to steroids. Moreover, 2 patients (9.5%) did not receive any COVID-19 treatment. The causal relationship between reactivation and COVID-19 treatments was considered certain (4% of cases), probable (20% of patients), and possible (20% of patients). For 8% of cases, it was considered unlikely that COVID-19 treatment was associated with strongyloidiasis reactivations; the relationship between the infection and administration of COVID-19 treatment was unassessable/unclassifiable in 48% of cases. Of 13 assessable cases, 11 (84.6%) were considered to be causally associated with , ranging from certain to possible.
CONCLUSIONS
Further research is needed to assess the frequency and risk of reactivation in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our limited data using causality assessment supports recommendations that clinicians should screen and treat for infection in patients with coinfection who receive immunosuppressive COVID-19 therapies. In addition, the male gender and older age (over 50 years) may be predisposing factors for reactivation. Standardized guidelines should be developed for reporting future research.
PubMed: 37235296
DOI: 10.3390/tropicalmed8050248 -
Anaesthesia Sep 2014Previous comparisons between the Ambu(®) AuraOnce(™) and other laryngeal mask airways have revealed different results across various clinical studies. We aimed to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Previous comparisons between the Ambu(®) AuraOnce(™) and other laryngeal mask airways have revealed different results across various clinical studies. We aimed to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of the AuraOnce compared with other laryngeal mask airways for airway maintenance in adults undergoing general anaesthesia. Our search of PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus and the Central Register of Clinical Trials of the Cochrane Collaboration yielded nine randomised controlled trials eligible for inclusion. Comparator laryngeal mask airways were the LMA Unique(™) (four trials), the LMA Classic(®) (five trials) and the Portex(®) Soft Seal(®) (three trials). The AuraOnce provided an oropharyngeal leak pressure higher than the LMA Unique (304 participants, mean (95% CI) difference 3.1 (1.6-4.7) cmH2 O, p < 0.0001) and equivalent to the LMA Classic. The Soft Seal provided a higher leak pressure than the AuraOnce (229 participants, mean (95% CI) difference 3.5 (0.4-6.7) cmH2 O, p = 0.03). Insertion was significantly faster with the AuraOnce than the LMA Unique (304 participants, mean (95% CI) difference 5.4 (2.1-8.71) s, p = 0.001) and Soft Seal (229 participants, mean (95% CI) difference 9.5 (3.0-15.9) s, p = 0.004), but similar to the LMA Classic. The first-insertion success rate of the AuraOnce was equivalent to the LMA Unique, LMA Classic and Soft Seal. We found a higher likelihood of bloodstaining on the cuff with the Soft Seal and a higher incidence of sore throat with the LMA Classic. We conclude that the AuraOnce is an effective alternative to the LMA Classic and LMA Unique, and easier to insert than all three other devices studied.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Air Pressure; Anesthesia, General; Female; Humans; Laryngeal Masks; Larynx; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Patient Safety; Pharyngitis; Postoperative Complications; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 24801012
DOI: 10.1111/anae.12682 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Non-invasive ventilation may be a means to temporarily reverse or slow the progression of respiratory failure in cystic fibrosis by providing ventilatory support and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-invasive ventilation may be a means to temporarily reverse or slow the progression of respiratory failure in cystic fibrosis by providing ventilatory support and avoiding tracheal intubation. Using non-invasive ventilation, in the appropriate situation or individuals, can improve lung mechanics through increasing airflow and gas exchange and decreasing the work of breathing. Non-invasive ventilation thus acts as an external respiratory muscle. This is an update of a previously published review.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effect of non-invasive ventilation versus no non-invasive ventilation in people with cystic fibrosis for airway clearance, during sleep and during exercise.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We searched the reference lists of each trial for additional publications possibly containing other trials.Most recent search: 08 August 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing a form of pressure preset or volume preset non-invasive ventilation to no non-invasive ventilation used for airway clearance or during sleep or exercise in people with acute or chronic respiratory failure in cystic fibrosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion criteria and methodological quality, and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten trials met the inclusion criteria with a total of 191 participants. Seven trials evaluated single treatment sessions, one evaluated a two-week intervention, one evaluated a six-week intervention and one a three-month intervention. It is only possible to blind trials of airway clearance and overnight ventilatory support to the outcome assessors. In most of the trials we judged there was an unclear risk of bias with regards to blinding due to inadequate descriptions. The six-week trial was the only one judged to have a low risk of bias for all other domains. One single intervention trial had a low risk of bias for the randomisation procedure with the remaining trials judged to have an unclear risk of bias. Most trials had a low risk of bias with regard to incomplete outcome data and selective reporting.Six trials (151 participants) evaluated non-invasive ventilation for airway clearance compared with an alternative chest physiotherapy method such as the active cycle of breathing techniques or positive expiratory pressure. Three trials used nasal masks, one used a nasal mask or mouthpiece and one trial used a face mask and in one trial it is unclear. Three of the trials reported on one of the review's primary outcome measures (quality of life). Results for the reviews secondary outcomes showed that airway clearance may be easier with non-invasive ventilation and people with cystic fibrosis may prefer it. We were unable to find any evidence that non-invasive ventilation increases sputum expectoration, but it did improve some lung function parameters.Three trials (27 participants) evaluated non-invasive ventilation for overnight ventilatory support compared to oxygen or room air using nasal masks (two trials) and nasal masks or full face masks (one trial). Trials reported on two of the review's primary outcomes (quality of life and symptoms of sleep-disordered breathing). Results for the reviews secondary outcome measures showed that they measured lung function, gas exchange, adherence to treatment and preference, and nocturnal transcutaneous carbon dioxide. Due to the small numbers of participants and statistical issues, there were discrepancies in the results between the RevMan and the original trial analyses. No clear differences were found between non-invasive ventilation compared with oxygen or room air except for exercise performance, which significantly improved with non-invasive ventilation compared to room air over six weeks.One trial (13 participants) evaluated non-invasive ventilation on exercise capacity (interface used was unclear) and did not reported on any of the review's primary outcomes. The trial found no clear differences between non-invasive ventilation compared to no non-invasive ventilation for any of our outcomes.Three trials reported on adverse effects. One trial, evaluating non-invasive ventilation for airway clearance, reported that a participant withdrew at the start of the trial due to pain on respiratory muscle testing. One trial evaluating non-invasive ventilation for overnight support reported that one participant could not tolerate an increase in inspiratory positive airway pressure. A second trial evaluating non-invasive ventilation in this setting reported that one participant did not tolerate the non-invasive ventilation mask, one participant developed a pneumothorax when breathing room air and two participants experienced aerophagia which resolved when inspiratory positive airway pressure was decreased.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Non-invasive ventilation may be a useful adjunct to other airway clearance techniques, particularly in people with cystic fibrosis who have difficulty expectorating sputum. Non-invasive ventilation, used in addition to oxygen, may improve gas exchange during sleep to a greater extent than oxygen therapy alone in moderate to severe disease. The effect of NIV on exercise is unclear. These benefits of non-invasive ventilation have largely been demonstrated in single treatment sessions with small numbers of participants. The impact of this therapy on pulmonary exacerbations and disease progression remain unclear. There is a need for long-term randomised controlled trials which are adequately powered to determine the clinical effects of non-invasive ventilation in cystic fibrosis airway clearance and exercise.
Topics: Cystic Fibrosis; Humans; Masks; Noninvasive Ventilation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Insufficiency; Sputum
PubMed: 28218802
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002769.pub5 -
Vaccines Jun 2022Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is defined as "". This hesitancy affects caregivers and more specifically nurses. The purpose of this study is to assess determinants of influenza... (Review)
Review
Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is defined as "". This hesitancy affects caregivers and more specifically nurses. The purpose of this study is to assess determinants of influenza VH in the nurse's community. We conducted a systematic review of qualitative literature according to criteria of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis and Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the synthesis of Qualitative Research from 2009 until October 2020. Eleven qualitative studies analysed (ten thematic content analyses and one grounded theory method) found three main factors in VH. The first determinant was the benefit-risk equation considered as unfavourable due to an ineffective vaccine and fears about adverse effects as the pain of the injection. Wrong immunological beliefs brought into hesitancy. Disease barriers (hand washing and masks) and personal immunity were regarded as more effective than the vaccine. Lastly, dehumanised vaccination and the difficulties of access to healthcare were institutional determinants. Nurses ask for a vaccine promotion by hierarchy and doctors with transparent information and respect for autonomy. The availability of vaccines and methods of pain control seem to be some tracks to reduce nurses' VH.
PubMed: 35891161
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10070997 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Dietary supplementation with prebiotic oligosaccharides to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of necrotising... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dietary supplementation with prebiotic oligosaccharides to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and associated mortality and morbidity in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of enteral supplementation with prebiotics (versus placebo or no treatment) for preventing NEC and associated morbidity and mortality in very preterm or VLBW infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Maternity and Infant Care database and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), from the earliest records to July 2022. We searched clinical trials databases and conference proceedings, and examined the reference lists of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing prebiotics with placebo or no prebiotics in very preterm (< 32 weeks' gestation) or VLBW (< 1500 g) infants. The primary outcomes were NEC and all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcomes were late-onset invasive infection, duration of hospitalisation since birth, and neurodevelopmental impairment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors separately evaluated risk of bias of the trials, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference (MD), with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcomes of interest were NEC and all-cause mortality; our secondary outcome measures were late-onset (> 48 hours after birth) invasive infection, duration of hospitalisation, and neurodevelopmental impairment. We used the GRADE approach to assess the level of certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven trials in which a total of 705 infants participated. All the trials were small (mean sample size 100). Lack of clarity on methods to conceal allocation and mask caregivers or investigators were potential sources of bias in three of the trials. The studied prebiotics were fructo- and galacto-oligosaccharides, inulin, and lactulose, typically administered daily with enteral feeds during birth hospitalisation. Meta-analyses of data from seven trials (686 infants) suggest that prebiotics may result in little or no difference in NEC (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.56; RD none fewer per 1000, 95% CI 50 fewer to 40 more; low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.92; 40 per 1000 fewer, 95% CI 70 fewer to none fewer; low-certainty evidence), or late-onset invasive infection (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.06; 50 per 1000 fewer, 95% CI 100 fewer to 10 more; low-certainty evidence) prior to hospital discharge. The certainty of this evidence is low because of concerns about the risk of bias in some trials and the imprecision of the effect size estimates. The data available from one trial provided only very low-certainty evidence about the effect of prebiotics on measures of neurodevelopmental impairment (Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) Mental Development Index score < 85: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.90; very low-certainty evidence; BSID Psychomotor Development Index score < 85: RR 0.24, 95% 0.03 to 2.00; very low-certainty evidence; cerebral palsy: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.35; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available trial data provide low-certainty evidence about the effects of prebiotics on the risk of NEC, all-cause mortality before discharge, and invasive infection, and very low-certainty evidence about the effect on neurodevelopmental impairment for very preterm or VLBW infants. Our confidence in the effect estimates is limited; the true effects may be substantially different. Large, high-quality trials are needed to provide evidence of sufficient validity to inform policy and practice decisions.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Enterocolitis, Necrotizing; Infant, Extremely Premature; Infant, Premature, Diseases; Infant, Very Low Birth Weight; Infections
PubMed: 37262358
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015133.pub2 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Jun 2022Critically ill children may require airway management to optimize delivery of oxygen and ventilation during resuscitation. We performed a systematic review of studies... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Critically ill children may require airway management to optimize delivery of oxygen and ventilation during resuscitation. We performed a systematic review of studies comparing the use of bag-valve-mask ventilation (BVM), supraglottic airway devices (SGA), and endotracheal intubation (ETI) in pediatric patients requiring prehospital airway management.
METHODS
We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for papers that compared SGA or ETI to BVM use in children, including studies that reported survival outcomes. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We compared key characteristics of the candidate papers, including inclusion criteria, definitions of airway interventions, and association with outcomes.
RESULTS
Of 773 studies, eight met criteria for inclusion. Only one study was a randomized controlled trial; the other seven studies were observational. Four studies compared ETI to BVM, two studies compared SGA to BVM, one study compared ETI to SGA, and two studies compared advanced airway management (AAM) to BVM. Primary outcomes varied, ranging from overall mortality and 24-h mortality to 1-month survival, hospital survival, and neurologically favorable survival. Four of the studies found no difference in survival with the use of ETI, and four found increased mortality with the use of ETI. Associations with outcomes could not be assessed by meta-analysis due to limited number of studies and the wide variation in the design, population, interventions, and outcome measures of the included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, studies of prehospital pediatric airway management varied in scope, design, and conclusions. There was insufficient evidence to evaluate efficacy of pediatric prehospital airway management; however, the current research suggests that there are equal or worse outcomes with the use of ETI compared to other airway techniques. Additional clinical trials are needed to assess the merits of this practice.
Topics: Airway Management; Child; Emergency Medical Services; Humans; Intubation, Intratracheal; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 34807481
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14410 -
Journal of the American College of... Oct 2021To examine the results, level of evidence, and methodologic quality of original studies regarding surgical mask effectiveness in minimizing viral respiratory illness...
OBJECTIVE
To examine the results, level of evidence, and methodologic quality of original studies regarding surgical mask effectiveness in minimizing viral respiratory illness transmission, and, in particular, the performance of the N95 respirator versus surgical mask.
METHODS
Meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines with use of PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library databases.
RESULTS
Eight studies (9164 participants) were included after screening 153 articles. Analyses showed statistically significant differences between N95 respirator versus surgical mask use to prevent influenza-like-illness (risk ratio [RR] = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68-0.94, < 0.05), non-influenza respiratory viral infection (RR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.52-0.74, < 0.05), respiratory viral infection (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.65-0.82, < 0.05), severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) 1 and 2 virus infection (RR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.06-0.49, < 0.05), and laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infection (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.66-0.84, < 0.05). Analyses did not indicate statistically significant results against laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR = 0.87, CI = 0.74-1.03, > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
N95 respirator use was associated with fewer viral infectious episodes for healthcare workers compared with surgical masks. The N95 respirator was most effective in reducing the risk of a viral infection in the hospital setting from the SARS-CoV 1 and 2 viruses compared to the other viruses included in this investigation. Methodologic quality, risk of biases, and small number of original studies indicate the necessity for further research to be performed, especially in front-line healthcare delivery settings.
PubMed: 34746923
DOI: 10.1002/emp2.12582 -
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology 2021The impact of gastrointestinal endoscopy on COVID-19 infection remains poorly investigated. We herein performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The impact of gastrointestinal endoscopy on COVID-19 infection remains poorly investigated. We herein performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the outcomes of COVID-19 in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.
METHOD
Ovid Medline, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid the Cochrane Library, and other electronic databases were searched until 30 November 2020 to identify publications with confirmed COVID-19 infection in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. The primary outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 transmission, personal protective equipment use, rates of case fatality, complications, and procedural success.
RESULTS
A total of 18 articles involving 329 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall basic reproduction rate is 0.37, while the subgroup results from Asia, Europe, and North America are 0.13, 0.44, and 0.33, respectively. The differences in personal protective equipment use between the positive transmission and non-transmission group are mainly in isolation gowns, N95 or equivalent masks, and goggles or face-shields. The rate of case fatality, complication, and procedural success are 0.17 (95% confidence interval = 0.02-0.38), 0.00 (95% confidence interval = 0.00-0.02), and 0.89 (95% confidence interval = 0.50-1.00), respectively. The fatality rate in Europe was the highest (0.23, 95% confidence interval = 0.04-0.50), which is significantly different from other continents ( = 0.034).
CONCLUSION
The risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission within gastrointestinal endoscopy units is considerably low if proper use of personal protective equipment is applied. Similarly, a low fatality and complication rate, as well as a high procedural success rate, indicated that a full recovery of endoscopic units should be considered.
PubMed: 34484425
DOI: 10.1177/17562848211042185