-
Critical Care (London, England) Jan 2020Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in burn patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Our... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in burn patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Our primary aim was to review incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of AKI in burn patients admitted to the ICU. Secondary aims were to review the use of renal replacement therapy (RRT) and impact on health care costs.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, UpToDate, and NICE through 3 December 2018. All reviews in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews except protocols were added to the PubMed search. We searched for studies on AKI according to Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function, and End-stage kidney disease (RIFLE); Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN); and/or Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria in burn patients admitted to the ICU. We collected data on AKI incidence, risk factors, use of RRT, renal recovery, length of stay (LOS), mortality, and health care costs.
RESULTS
We included 33 observational studies comprising 8200 patients. Overall study quality, scored according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, was moderate. Random effect model meta-analysis revealed that the incidence of AKI among burn patients in the ICU was 38 (30-46) %. Patients with AKI were almost evenly distributed in the mild, moderate, and severe AKI subgroups. RRT was used in 12 (8-16) % of all patients. Risk factors for AKI were high age, chronic hypertension, diabetes mellitus, high Total Body Surface Area percent burnt, high Abbreviated Burn Severity Index score, inhalation injury, rhabdomyolysis, surgery, high Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, high Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, sepsis, and mechanical ventilation. AKI patients had 8.6 (4.0-13.2) days longer ICU LOS and higher mortality than non-AKI patients, OR 11.3 (7.3-17.4). Few studies reported renal recovery, and no study reported health care costs.
CONCLUSIONS
AKI occurred in 38% of burn patients admitted to the ICU, and 12% of all patients received RRT. Presence of AKI was associated with increased LOS and mortality.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42017060420).
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Burns; Humans; Incidence; Intensive Care Units
PubMed: 31898523
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-019-2710-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Antihypertensive drugs are often used in the belief that lowering blood pressure will prevent progression to more severe disease, and thereby improve pregnancy outcome.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antihypertensive drugs are often used in the belief that lowering blood pressure will prevent progression to more severe disease, and thereby improve pregnancy outcome. This Cochrane Review is an updated review, first published in 2001 and subsequently updated in 2007 and 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antihypertensive drug treatments for women with mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (13 September 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised trials evaluating any antihypertensive drug treatment for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy, defined as systolic blood pressure 140 to 169 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure 90 to 109 mmHg. Comparisons were of one or more antihypertensive drug(s) with placebo, with no antihypertensive drug, or with another antihypertensive drug, and where treatment was planned to continue for at least seven days.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, we included 63 trials (data from 58 trials, 5909 women), with moderate to high risk of bias overall.We carried out GRADE assessments for the main 'antihypertensive drug versus placebo/no antihypertensive drug' comparison only. Evidence was graded from very low to moderate certainty, with downgrading mainly due to design limitations and imprecision.For many outcomes, trials contributing data evaluated different hypertensive drugs; while we did not downgrade for this indirectness, results should be interpreted with caution.Antihypertensive drug versus placebo/no antihypertensive drug (31 trials, 3485 women)Primary outcomes: moderate-certainty evidence suggests that use of antihypertensive drug(s) probably halves the risk of developing severe hypertension (risk ratio (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.60; 20 trials, 2558 women), but may have little or no effect on the risk of proteinuria/pre-eclampsia (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.92; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.14; 23 trials, 2851 women; low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence also shows that antihypertensive drug(s) probably have little or no effect in the risk of total reported fetal or neonatal death (including miscarriage) (aRR 0.72; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.04; 29 trials, 3365 women), small-for-gestational-age babies (aRR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.18; 21 trials, 2686 babies) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks (aRR 0.96; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12; 15 trials, 2141 women).
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
we are uncertain of the effect of antihypertensive drug(s) on the risk of maternal death, severe pre-eclampsia, or eclampsia, orimpaired long-term growth and development of the baby in infancy and childhood, because the certainty of this evidence is very low. There may be little or no effect on the risk of changed/stopped drugs due to maternal side-effects, or admission to neonatal or intensive care nursery (low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in the risk of elective delivery (moderate-certainty evidence).Antihypertensive drug versus another antihypertensive drug (29 trials, 2774 women)Primary outcomes: beta blockers and calcium channel blockers together in the meta-analysis appear to be more effective than methyldopa in avoiding an episode of severe hypertension (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.88; 11 trials, 638 women). There was also an increase in this risk when other antihypertensive drugs were compared with calcium channel blockers (RR 1.86; 95% CI 1.09 to 3.15; 5 trials, 223 women), but no evidence of a difference when methyldopa and calcium channel blockers together were compared with beta blockers (RR1.18, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.48; 10 trials, 692 women). No evidence of a difference in the risk of proteinuria/pre-eclampsia was found when alternative drugs were compared with methyldopa (aRR 0.78; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.06; 11 trials, 997 women), with calcium channel blockers (aRR: 1.24, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.19; 5 trials, 375 women), or with beta blockers (aRR 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.67; 12 trials, 1107 women).For the babies, we found no evidence of a difference in the risk oftotal reported fetal or neonatal death (including miscarriage) when comparing other antihypertensive drugs with methyldopa (aRR 0.77, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.14; 22 trials, 1791 babies), with calcium channel blockers (aRR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.57; nine trials, 700 babies), or with beta blockers (aRR: 1.23, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.88; 19 trials, 1652 babies); nor in the risk for small-for-gestational age in the comparison with methyldopa (aRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.20; seven trials, 597 babies), with calcium channel blockers (aRR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.73; four trials, 200 babies), or with beta blockers (average RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.60; 7 trials, 680 babies). No evidence of an overall difference among groups in the risk of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) was found in the comparison with methyldopa (aRR: 0.91; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.22; 11 trials, 835 women), with calcium channel blockers (aRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.23; six trials, 330 women), or with beta blockers (aRR 1.22, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.66; 9 trials, 806 women).
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
There were no cases of maternal death andeclampsia. There is no evidence of a difference in the risk of severe pre-eclampsia, changed/stopped drug due to maternal side-effects, elective delivery, admission to neonatal or intensive care nursery when other antihypertensive drugs are compared with methyldopa, calcium channel blockers or beta blockers. Impaired long-term growth and development in infancy and childhood was not reported for these comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antihypertensive drug therapy for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy reduces the risk of severe hypertension. The effect on other clinically important outcomes remains unclear. If antihypertensive drugs are used, beta blockers and calcium channel blockers appear to be more effective than the alternatives for preventing severe hypertension. High-quality large sample-sized randomised controlled trials are required in order to provide reliable estimates of the benefits and adverse effects of antihypertensive treatment for mild to moderate hypertension for both mother and baby, as well as costs to the health services, women and their families.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Female; Fetal Death; Humans; Hypertension; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Infant, Small for Gestational Age; Maternal Death; Placebo Effect; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular; Proteinuria; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30277556
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002252.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Eplerenone is an aldosterone receptor blocker that is chemically derived from spironolactone. In Canada, it is indicated for use as adjunctive therapy to reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Eplerenone is an aldosterone receptor blocker that is chemically derived from spironolactone. In Canada, it is indicated for use as adjunctive therapy to reduce mortality for heart failure patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II systolic chronic heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. It is also used as adjunctive therapy for patients with heart failure following myocardial infarction. Additionally, it is indicated for the treatment of mild and moderate essential hypertension for patients who cannot be treated adequately with other agents. It is important to determine the clinical impact of all antihypertensive medications, including aldosterone antagonists, to support their continued use in essential hypertension. No previous systematic reviews have evaluated the effect of eplerenone on cardiovascular morbidity, mortality, and magnitude of blood pressure lowering in patients with hypertension.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of eplerenone monotherapy versus placebo for primary hypertension in adults. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events (fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction), cerebrovascular events (fatal or non fatal strokes), adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 3 March 2016. We handsearched references from retrieved studies to identify any studies missed in the initial search. We also searched for unpublished data by contacting the corresponding authors of the included studies and pharmaceutical companies involved in conducting studies on eplerenone monotherapy in primary hypertension. The search had no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomized placebo-controlled trials studying adult patients with primary hypertension. We excluded studies in people with secondary or gestational hypertension and studies where participants were receiving multiple antihypertensives.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently reviewed the search results for studies meeting our criteria. Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality using a standardized data extraction form. A fourth independent review author resolved discrepancies or disagreements. We performed data extraction and synthesis using a standardized format on Covidence. We conducted data analysis using Review Manager 5.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 1437 adult patients participated in the five randomized parallel group studies, with treatment durations ranging from 8 to 16 weeks. The daily doses of eplerenone ranged from 25 mg to 400 mg daily. Meta-analysis of these studies showed a reduction in systolic blood pressure of 9.21 mmHg (95% CI -11.08 to -7.34; I = 58%) and a reduction of diastolic pressure of 4.18 mmHg (95% CI -5.03 to -3.33; I = 0%) (moderate quality evidence).There may be a dose response effect for eplerenone in the reduction in systolic blood pressure at doses of 400 mg/day. However, this finding is uncertain, as it is based on a single included study with low quality evidence. Overall there does not appear to be a clinically important dose response in lowering systolic or diastolic blood pressure at eplerenone doses of 50 mg to 400 mg daily. There did not appear to be any differences in the number of patients who withdrew due to adverse events or the number of patients with at least one adverse event in the eplerenone group compared to placebo. However, only three of the five included studies reported adverse events. Most of the included studies were of moderate quality, as we judged multiple domains as being at unclear risk in the 'Risk of bias' assessment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Eplerenone 50 to 200 mg/day lowers blood pressure in people with primary hypertension by 9.21 mmHg systolic and 4.18 mmHg diastolic compared to placebo, with no difference of effect between doses of 50 mg/day to 200 mg/day. A dose of 25 mg/day did not produce a statistically significant reduction in systolic or diastolic blood pressure and there is insufficient evidence for doses above 200 mg/day. There is currently no available evidence to determine the effect of eplerenone on clinically meaningful outcomes such as mortality or morbidity in hypertensive patients. The evidence available on side effects is insufficient and of low quality, which makes it impossible to draw conclusions about potential harm associated with eplerenone treatment in hypertensive patients.
Topics: Adult; Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Eplerenone; Essential Hypertension; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spironolactone
PubMed: 28245343
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008996.pub2 -
Complementary Therapies in Clinical... Nov 2022Acupuncture is a traditional therapy that can be potentially effective for treating high blood pressure. Grade 1 hypertension is a relatively mild form of hypertension.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acupuncture is a traditional therapy that can be potentially effective for treating high blood pressure. Grade 1 hypertension is a relatively mild form of hypertension. This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture in patients with grade 1 hypertension.
METHODS
We systematically searched the EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wan Fang databases for randomised controlled trials investigating acupuncture therapy for grade 1 hypertension through March 2021. The primary outcomes were changes in blood pressure after acupuncture and efficacy of acupuncture. The secondary result was an adverse reaction to the treatment. Data were pooled and analysed using Review Manager 5.3 and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software version 19.0.
RESULTS
Ten randomised controlled trials involving 1196 patients were included. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that in terms of changes in systolic blood pressure (MD 3.62 mmHg; 95% CI, 1.34 to 5.90; I = 56%), diastolic blood pressure (MD 3.12 mmHg; 95% CI, 1.03 to 5.20; I = 77%), and treatment efficacy (RR 2.12; 95% CI, 1.38 to 3.26; I = 93%), acupuncture is more effective in treating grade 1 hypertension than a placebo, no treatment at all, or interventions that improve lifestyle alone, with a low incidence of adverse effects. However, we did not find a suitable subgroup to reduce heterogeneity. Interventions, acupuncture methods, and treatment courses were not the only sources of heterogeneity among the studies.
CONCLUSION
Existing evidence shows that acupuncture could be used for treating hypertension; however, higher-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to better evaluate the safety and efficacy of acupuncture.
Topics: Humans; Acupuncture Therapy; Hypertension; Blood Pressure; Treatment Outcome; China; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35963138
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2022.101649 -
Ochsner Journal 2014Few clinical practice guidelines provide management recommendations for acute hypertensive episodes except in the context of specific conditions such as pregnancy and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Few clinical practice guidelines provide management recommendations for acute hypertensive episodes except in the context of specific conditions such as pregnancy and stroke.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search to identify guidelines addressing acute hypertension and appraised the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) validated quality assessment tool. Two reviewers independently appraised and one extracted key recommendations. Literature on secondary hypertension, hypertension in pregnancy, preeclampsia/eclampsia, stroke, aortic dissection, and pheochromocytoma was excluded.
RESULTS
Three guidelines were identified, sponsored by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) in conjunction with the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). AGREE II yielded mean domain (%) and overall assessment scores (1-7) as follows: NHLBI: 73%, 5.5; ACEP: 67%, 5.5; and ESH/ESC: 56%, 4.5. In hypertensive emergencies, the NHLBI guideline recommends reducing mean arterial pressure by ≤25% for the first hour, and then to 160/100-110 mmHg by 2-6 hours with subsequent gradual normalization in 24-48 hours. The ESH/ESC has similar recommendations. The ACEP does not address guidelines for hypertensive emergency but focuses on whether screening for target organ damage or medical intervention in patients with asymptomatic elevated blood pressure in emergency departments reduces the rate of adverse outcomes, concluding that routine screening does not reduce adverse outcomes, but patients with poor follow-up may benefit from routine screening.
CONCLUSION
NHLBI and ESH/ESC guidelines are high quality and provide similar recommendations for management of asymptomatic acute hypertensive episodes and hypertensive emergencies. Additional research is needed to inform clinical practice guidelines for this common condition.
PubMed: 25598731
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019High intracranial pressure (ICP) is the most frequent cause of death and disability after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). It is usually treated with general... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
High intracranial pressure (ICP) is the most frequent cause of death and disability after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). It is usually treated with general maneuvers (normothermia, sedation, etc.) and a set of first-line therapeutic measures (moderate hypocapnia, mannitol, etc.). When these measures fail, second-line therapies are initiated, which include: barbiturates, hyperventilation, moderate hypothermia, or removal of a variable amount of skull bone (secondary decompressive craniectomy).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of secondary decompressive craniectomy (DC) on outcomes of patients with severe TBI in whom conventional medical therapeutic measures have failed to control raised ICP.
SEARCH METHODS
The most recent search was run on 8 December 2019. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic + Embase (OvidSP) and ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S). We also searched trials registries and contacted experts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized studies assessing patients over the age of 12 months with severe TBI who either underwent DC to control ICP refractory to conventional medical treatments or received standard care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected potentially relevant studies from the search results, and obtained study reports. Two review authors independently extracted data from included studies and assessed risk of bias. We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis. We rated the quality of the evidence according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three trials (590 participants). One single-site trial included 27 children; another multicenter trial (three countries) recruited 155 adults, the third trial was conducted in 24 countries, and recruited 408 adolescents and adults. Each study compared DC combined with standard care (this could include induced barbiturate coma or cooling of the brain, or both). All trials measured outcomes up to six months after injury; one also measured outcomes at 12 and 24 months (the latter data remain unpublished). All trials were at a high risk of bias for the criterion of performance bias, as neither participants nor personnel could be blinded to these interventions. The pediatric trial was at a high risk of selection bias and stopped early; another trial was at risk of bias because of atypical inclusion criteria and a change to the primary outcome after it had started. Mortality: pooled results for three studies provided moderate quality evidence that risk of death at six months was slightly reduced with DC (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.01; 3 studies, 571 participants; I = 38%; moderate-quality evidence), and one study also showed a clear reduction in risk of death at 12 months (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76; 1 study, 373 participants; high-quality evidence). Neurological outcome: conscious of controversy around the traditional dichotomization of the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scale, we chose to present results in three ways, in order to contextualize factors relevant to clinical/patient decision-making. First, we present results of death in combination with vegetative status, versus other outcomes. Two studies reported results at six months for 544 participants. One employed a lower ICP threshold than the other studies, and showed an increase in the risk of death/vegetative state for the DC group. The other study used a more conventional ICP threshold, and results favoured the DC group (15.7% absolute risk reduction (ARR) (95% CI 6% to 25%). The number needed to treat for one beneficial outcome (NNTB) (i.e. to avoid death or vegetative status) was seven. The pooled result for DC compared with standard care showed no clear benefit for either group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.13; 2 studies, 544 participants; I = 86%; low-quality evidence). One study reported data for this outcome at 12 months, when the risk for death or vegetative state was clearly reduced by DC compared with medical treatment (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86; 1 study, 373 participants; high-quality evidence). Second, we assessed the risk of an 'unfavorable outcome' evaluated on a non-traditional dichotomized GOS-Extended scale (GOS-E), that is, grouping the category 'upper severe disability' into the 'good outcome' grouping. Data were available for two studies (n = 571). Pooling indicated little difference between DC and standard care regarding the risk of an unfavorable outcome at six months following injury (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.63; 544 participants); heterogeneity was high, with an I value of 82%. One trial reported data at 12 months and indicated a clear benefit of DC (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.95; 373 participants). Third, we assessed the risk of an 'unfavorable outcome' using the (traditional) dichotomized GOS/GOS-E cutoff into 'favorable' versus 'unfavorable' results. There was little difference between DC and standard care at six months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.40; 3 studies, 571 participants; low-quality evidence), and heterogeneity was high (I = 78%). At 12 months one trial suggested a similar finding (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study, 373 participants; high-quality evidence). With regard to ICP reduction, pooled results for two studies provided moderate quality evidence that DC was superior to standard care for reducing ICP within 48 hours (MD -4.66 mmHg, 95% CI -6.86 to -2.45; 2 studies, 182 participants; I = 0%). Data from the third study were consistent with these, but could not be pooled. Data on adverse events are difficult to interpret, as mortality and complications are high, and it can be difficult to distinguish between treatment-related adverse events and the natural evolution of the condition. In general, there was low-quality evidence that surgical patients experienced a higher risk of adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Decompressive craniectomy holds promise of reduced mortality, but the effects of long-term neurological outcome remain controversial, and involve an examination of the priorities of participants and their families. Future research should focus on identifying clinical and neuroimaging characteristics to identify those patients who would survive with an acceptable quality of life; the best timing for DC; the most appropriate surgical techniques; and whether some synergistic treatments used with DC might improve patient outcomes.
Topics: Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Decompressive Craniectomy; Humans; Intracranial Hypertension; Intracranial Pressure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31887790
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003983.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Early enteral nutrition support (within 48 hours of admission or injury) is frequently recommended for the management of patients in intensive care units (ICU). Early... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Early enteral nutrition support (within 48 hours of admission or injury) is frequently recommended for the management of patients in intensive care units (ICU). Early enteral nutrition is recommended in many clinical practice guidelines, although there appears to be a lack of evidence for its use and benefit.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of early enteral nutrition (initiated within 48 hours of initial injury or ICU admission) versus delayed enteral nutrition (initiated later than 48 hours after initial injury or ICU admission), with or without supplemental parenteral nutrition, in critically ill adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2019, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to April 2019), Embase Ovid SP (1974 to April 2019), CINAHL EBSCO (1982 to April 2019), and ISI Web of Science (1945 to April 2019). We also searched Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP), trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry), and scientific conference reports, including the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. We applied no restrictions by language or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared early versus delayed enteral nutrition, with or without supplemental parenteral nutrition, in adults who were in the ICU for longer than 72 hours. This included individuals admitted for medical, surgical, and trauma diagnoses, and who required any type of enteral nutrition.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted study data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, and as mean differences (MD) for continuous data, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven RCTs with a total of 345 participants. Outcome data were limited, and we judged many trials to have an unclear risk of bias in several domains. Early versus delayed enteral nutrition Six trials (318 participants) assessed early versus delayed enteral nutrition in general, medical, and trauma ICUs in the USA, Australia, Greece, India, and Russia. Primary outcomes Five studies (259 participants) measured mortality. It is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition affects the risk of mortality within 30 days (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.38; 1 study, 38 participants; very low-quality evidence). Four studies (221 participants) reported mortality without describing the timeframe; we did not pool these results. None of the studies reported a clear difference in mortality between groups. Three studies (156 participants) reported infectious complications. We were unable to pool the results due to unreported data and substantial clinical heterogeneity. The results were inconsistent across studies. One trial measured feed intolerance or gastrointestinal complications; it is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition affects this outcome (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.01; 59 participants; very low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomes One trial assessed hospital length of stay and reported a longer stay in the early enteral group (median 15 days (interquartile range (IQR) 9.5 to 20) versus 12 days (IQR 7.5 to15); P = 0.05; 59 participants; very low-quality evidence). Three studies (125 participants) reported the duration of mechanical ventilation. We did not pool the results due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity. The results were inconsistent across studies. It is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition affects the risk of pneumonia (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.06; 4 studies, 192 participants; very low-quality evidence). Early enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition versus delayed enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition We identified one trial in a burn ICU in the USA (27 participants). Primary outcomes It is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition affects the risk of mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.18; very low-quality evidence), or infectious complications (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.94 to 1.94; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available for feed intolerance or gastrointestinal complications. Secondary outcomes It is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 9.00, 95% CI -10.99 to 28.99; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available for hospital length of stay or pneumonia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether early enteral nutrition, compared with delayed enteral nutrition, affects the risk of mortality within 30 days, feed intolerance or gastrointestinal complications, or pneumonia. Due to very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain if early enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition compared with delayed enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition reduces mortality, infectious complications, or duration of mechanical ventilation. There is currently insufficient evidence; there is a need for large, multicentred studies with rigorous methodology, which measure important clinical outcomes.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Critical Illness; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Malnutrition; Parenteral Nutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 31684690
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012340.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute paralysing disease caused by inflammation of the peripheral nerves, which corticosteroids would be expected to benefit. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute paralysing disease caused by inflammation of the peripheral nerves, which corticosteroids would be expected to benefit.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the ability of corticosteroids to hasten recovery and reduce the long-term morbidity from GBS.
SEARCH METHODS
On 12 January 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched trials registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of any form of corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone versus placebo or supportive care alone in GBS. Our primary outcome was change in disability grade on a seven-point scale after four weeks. Secondary outcomes included time from randomisation until recovery of unaided walking, time from randomisation until discontinuation of ventilation (for those ventilated), death, death or disability (inability to walk without aid) after 12 months, relapse, and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The review authors used standard methods expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
The review authors discovered no new trials in the new searches in June 2009, November 2011, or January 2016. Six trials with 587 participants provided data for the primary outcome. According to moderate quality evidence, the disability grade change after four weeks in the corticosteroid groups was not significantly different from that in the control groups, mean difference (MD) 0.36 less improvement (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.16 more to 0.88 less improvement). In four trials of oral corticosteroids with 120 participants in total, there was very low quality evidence of less improvement after four weeks with corticosteroids than without corticosteroids, MD 0.82 disability grades less improvement (95% CI 0.17 to 1.47 grades less). In two trials with a combined total of 467 participants, there was moderate quality evidence of no significant difference of a disability grade more improvement after four weeks with intravenous corticosteroids (MD 0.17, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.39). According to moderate quality evidence, there was also no significant difference between the corticosteroid treated and control groups for improvement by one or more grades after four weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.24) or for death or disability after one year (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.5). We found high quality evidence that the occurrence of diabetes was more common (RR 2.21, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.12) and hypertension less common (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41) in the corticosteroid-treated participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
According to moderate quality evidence, corticosteroids given alone do not significantly hasten recovery from GBS or affect the long-term outcome. According to very low quality evidence, oral corticosteroids delay recovery. Diabetes requiring insulin was more common and hypertension less common with corticosteroids based on high quality evidence.
Topics: Adrenocorticotropic Hormone; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Child; Glucocorticoids; Guillain-Barre Syndrome; Humans; Methylprednisolone; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27775812
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001446.pub5 -
PloS One 2023Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a health burden of rising importance. Slowing progression to end stage kidney disease is the main goal of drug treatment. The aim of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a health burden of rising importance. Slowing progression to end stage kidney disease is the main goal of drug treatment. The aim of this analysis is to compare drug treatments of DKD by means of a systemic review and a network meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched Medline, CENTRAL and clinicaltrials.gov for randomized, controlled studies including adults with DKD treated with the following drugs of interest: single angiotensin-converting-enzyme-inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor-blocker (single ACEi/ARB), angiotensin-converting-enzyme-inhibitor and angiotensin-receptor-blocker combination (ACEi+ARB combination), aldosterone antagonists, direct renin inhibitors, non-steroidal mineralocorticoid-receptor-antagonists (nsMRA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). As primary endpoints, we defined: overall mortality and end-stage kidney disease, as secondary endpoints: renal composite outcome and albuminuria and as safety endpoints: acute kidney injury, hyperkalemia and hypotension. Under the use of a random effects model, we computed the overall effect estimates using the statistic program R4.1 and the corresponding package "netmeta". Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool and the quality of evidence of each pairwise comparison was rated according to GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
RESULTS
Of initial 3489 publications, 38 clinical trials were found eligible, in total including 42346 patients. Concerning the primary endpoints overall mortality and end stage kidney disease, SGLT2i on top of single ACEi/ARB compared to single ACEi/ARB was the only intervention significantly reducing the odds of mortality (OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.70-0.95) and end-stage kidney disease (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.54-0.88). The indirect comparison of nsMRA vs SGLT2i in our composite endpoint suggests a superiority of SGLT2i (OR 0.60, 95%CI 0.47-0.76). Concerning safety endpoints, nsMRA and SGLT2i showed benefits compared to the others.
CONCLUSIONS
As the only drug class, SGLT2i showed in our analysis beneficial effects on top of ACEi/ARB treatment regarding mortality and end stage kidney disease and by that reconfirmed its position as treatment option for diabetic kidney disease. nsMRA reduced the odds for a combined renal endpoint and did not raise any safety concerns, justifying its application.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Diabetic Nephropathies; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Angiotensins; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 37917640
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293183 -
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2023Hypertension has now developed into a major public health problem worldwide. Under the existing antihypertensive drug treatment paradigm, problems such as decreasing... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hypertension has now developed into a major public health problem worldwide. Under the existing antihypertensive drug treatment paradigm, problems such as decreasing drug resistance and increasing drug side effects can occur for elderly patients. Acupuncture, a core technique in the non-pharmacological treatment of Chinese medicine, plays an important role in the treatment of elevated blood pressure.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to systematically evaluate the effect of acupuncture alone or in combination with antihypertensive drugs on the efficiency of reducing blood pressure and controlling blood pressure in elderly patients with hypertension.
METHODS
Articles of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for hypertension in the elderly published before November 2022 were searched in 7 databases. The methodological quality of the literature was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The primary outcome was the efficiency rate of blood pressure reduction, and the secondary outcome was the change in blood pressure after treatment.
RESULTS
This study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1,466 subjects. Among the primary outcome-efficiency rate, acupuncture-only treatment (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.03-1.20, < 0.01) and acupuncture combined with antihypertensive drug treatment (RR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.06-1.31, < 0.01) were significantly different compared with drugs-only treatment. Among the secondary outcomes, SBP (MD: -4.85, 95% CI: -10.39 to -0.69, = 0.09) and DBP (MD: -1.45, 95% CI: -5.35 to 2.45, = 0.47) show no significant difference between acupuncture-only treatment and drug-only treatment. Compared to drugs-only treatment, acupuncture plus drugs has more significant efficiency in lowering SBP (MD: -9.81, 95% CI: -13.56 to -6.06, < 0.01) and DBP (MD: -7.04, 95% CI: -10.83 to -3.24, < 0.01).
CONCLUSION
For elderly patients with hypertension, acupuncture-only treatment has the same efficiency and antihypertensive effect compared to drug therapy and acupuncture plus drugs outperforms drugs-only treatment. If the patients receive therapy with less frequency per week and longer duration, there will be a more obvious antihypertensive effect. Due to the methodological defects in the included study and the limited sample size of this paper, more well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed for verification.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022376407, PROSPERO (CRD42022376407).
PubMed: 38162142
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1147135