Guidelines recommend that intravenous iron should be considered to improve symptoms of heart failure (HF) and reduce the risk for HF admissions in patients after acute HF.

This study sought to analyze the effect of intravenous iron on cardiovascular (CV) death and HF admissions in a broad population of HF patients with iron deficiency and the relation with baseline transferrin saturation (TSAT).

A systematic review of all published randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of intravenous iron in patients with iron deficiency and HF between January 1, 2000, and August 26, 2023, was performed. The overall treatment effect was estimated using a fixed effect model for: 1) CV death; 2) CV death and HF admission; 3) first HF admission; and 4) total HF admissions. Metaregression through a mixed effect model was used to explore the impact of baseline TSAT in case of heterogeneity among trial results.

A total of 14 randomized controlled trials were identified in the systematic review and retained in the meta-analysis. Aggregate-level data were included on 6,624 HF patients, 3,407 of whom were randomized to intravenous iron and 3,217 to placebo. Treatment with intravenous iron resulted in a lower risk for CV death (OR: 0.867 [95% CI: 0.755-0.955]; P = 0.0427), combined CV death and HF admission (OR: 0.838 [95% CI: 0.751-0.936]; P = 0.0015), first HF admission (OR: 0.855 [95% CI: 0.744-0.983]; P = 0.0281), and total HF admissions (rate ratio: 0.739 [95% CI: 0.661-0.827]; P < 0.0001). Significant heterogeneity among trial results was observed for first and total HF admissions. Metaregression suggested that some of the heterogeneity was related to the baseline TSAT of the enrolled population, with trials enrolling patients with lower TSAT exhibiting a large effect size on HF-related events.

The totality of data suggests that treatment with intravenous iron reduces both CV death and HF-related events in a broad population with HF. A lower baseline TSAT might be important for the effect on HF-related events.

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) causes progressive or relapsing weakness and numbness of the limbs, which lasts for at least two months. Uncontrolled studies have suggested that intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) could help to reduce symptoms. This is an update of a review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2013.

To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin in people with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy.

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 8 March 2023.

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that tested any dose of IVIg versus placebo, plasma exchange, or corticosteroids in people with definite or probable CIDP.

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was significant improvement in disability within six weeks after the start of treatment, as determined and defined by the study authors. Our secondary outcomes were change in mean disability score within six weeks, change in muscle strength (Medical Research Council (MRC) sum score) within six weeks, change in mean disability score at 24 weeks or later, frequency of serious adverse events, and frequency of any adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for our main outcomes.

We included nine RCTs with 372 participants (235 male) from Europe, North America, South America, and Israel. There was low statistical heterogeneity between the trial results, and the overall risk of bias was low for all trials that contributed data to the analysis. Five trials (235 participants) compared IVIg with placebo, one trial (20 participants) compared IVIg with plasma exchange, two trials (72 participants) compared IVIg with prednisolone, and one trial (45 participants) compared IVIg with intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP). We included one new trial in this update, though it contributed no data to any meta-analyses. IVIg compared with placebo increases the probability of significant improvement in disability within six weeks of the start of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 3.36; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; 5 trials, 269 participants; high-certainty evidence). Since each trial used a different disability scale and definition of significant improvement, we were unable to evaluate the clinical relevance of the pooled effect. IVIg compared with placebo improves disability measured on the Rankin scale (0 to 6, lower is better) two to six weeks after the start of treatment (mean difference (MD) -0.26 points, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.05; 3 trials, 90 participants; high-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with placebo probably improves disability measured on the Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) scale (1 to 10, lower is better) after 24 weeks (MD 0.80 points, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.37; 1 trial, 117 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference between IVIg and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.87; 3 trials, 315 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The trial comparing IVIg with plasma exchange reported none of our main outcomes. IVIg compared with prednisolone probably has little or no effect on the probability of significant improvement in disability four weeks after the start of treatment (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.68; 1 trial, 29 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and little or no effect on change in mean disability measured on the Rankin scale (MD 0.21 points, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.61; 1 trial, 24 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference between IVIg and prednisolone in the frequency of serious adverse events (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.69; 1 cross-over trial, 32 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with IVMP probably increases the likelihood of significant improvement in disability two weeks after starting treatment (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.38; 1 trial, 45 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with IVMP probably has little or no effect on change in disability measured on the Rankin scale two weeks after the start of treatment (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.63; 1 trial, 45 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or on change in mean disability measured with the Overall Neuropathy Limitation Scale (ONLS, 1 to 12, lower is better) 24 weeks after the start of treatment (MD 0.03 points, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.97; 1 trial, 45 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The frequency of serious adverse events may be higher with IVIg compared with IVMP (RR 4.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 86.78; 1 trial, 45 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).

Evidence from RCTs shows that IVIg improves disability for at least two to six weeks compared with placebo, with an NNTB of 4. During this period, IVIg probably has similar efficacy to oral prednisolone and IVMP. Further placebo-controlled trials are unlikely to change these conclusions. In one large trial, the benefit of IVIg compared with placebo in terms of improved disability score persisted for 24 weeks. Further research is needed to assess the long-term benefits and harms of IVIg relative to other treatments.

Care bundles are a promising approach to reducing postpartum hemorrhage-related morbidity and mortality. We assessed the effectiveness and safety of care bundles for postpartum hemorrhage prevention and/or treatment.

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Maternity and Infant Care Database, and Global Index Medicus (inception to June 9, 2023) and ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (last 5 years) using a phased search strategy, combining terms for postpartum hemorrhage and care bundles.

Peer-reviewed studies evaluating postpartum hemorrhage-related care bundles were included. Care bundles were defined as interventions comprising ≥3 components implemented collectively, concurrently, or in rapid succession. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, interrupted time series, and before-after studies (controlled or uncontrolled) were eligible.

Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 (randomized trials) and ROBINS-I (nonrandomized studies). For controlled studies, we reported risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with certainty of evidence determined using GRADE. For uncontrolled studies, we used effect direction tables and summarized results narratively.

Twenty-two studies were included for analysis. For prevention-only bundles (2 studies), low-certainty evidence suggests possible benefits in reducing blood loss, duration of hospitalization, and intensive care unit stay, and maternal well-being. For treatment-only bundles (9 studies), high-certainty evidence shows that the E-MOTIVE intervention reduced risks of composite severe morbidity (risk ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.50) and blood transfusion for bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage, severe postpartum hemorrhage, and mean blood loss. One nonrandomized trial and 7 uncontrolled studies suggest that other postpartum hemorrhage treatment bundles might reduce blood loss and severe postpartum hemorrhage, but this is uncertain. For combined prevention/treatment bundles (11 studies), low-certainty evidence shows that the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative care bundle may reduce severe maternal morbidity (risk ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.72). Ten uncontrolled studies variably showed possible benefits, no effects, or harms for other bundle types. Nearly all uncontrolled studies did not use suitable statistical methods for single-group pretest-posttest comparisons and should thus be interpreted with caution.

The E-MOTIVE intervention improves postpartum hemorrhage-related outcomes among women delivering vaginally, and the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative bundle may reduce severe maternal morbidity. Other bundle designs warrant further effectiveness research before implementation is contemplated.

The use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in orthopaedics continues to increase. One common use of PRP is as an adjunct in rotator cuff repair surgery. Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have summarized the data on PRP use in rotator cuff repair surgery. However, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are subject to spin bias, where authors' interpretations of results influence readers' interpretations.

To evaluate spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of PRP with rotator cuff repair surgery.

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

A PubMed and Embase search was conducted using the terms rotator cuff repair and PRP and systematic review or meta-analysis. After review of 74 initial studies, 25 studies met the inclusion criteria. Study characteristics were documented, and each study was evaluated for the 15 most common forms of spin and using the AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, Version 2) rating system. Correlations between spin types and study characteristics were evaluated using binary logistic regression for continuous independent variables and a chi-square test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables.

At least 1 form of spin was found in 56% (14/25) of the included studies. In regard to the 3 different categories of spin, a form of misleading interpretation was found in 56% (14/25) of the studies. A form of misleading reporting was found in 48% (12/25) of the studies. A form of inappropriate extrapolation was found in 16% (4/25) of the studies. A significant association was found between misleading interpretation and publication year (odds ratio [OR], 1.41 per year increase in publication; 95% CI, 1.04-1.92; P = .029) and misleading reporting and publication year (OR, 1.41 per year increase in publication; 95% CI, 1.02-1.95; P = .037). An association was found between inappropriate extrapolation and journal impact factor (OR, 0.21 per unit increase in impact factor; 95% CI, 0.044-0.99; P = .048).

A significant amount of spin was found in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of PRP use in rotator cuff repair surgery. Given the increasing use of PRP by clinicians and interest among patients, spin found in these studies may have a significant effect on clinical practice.

Transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) is a leading cause of transfusion-related mortality. A concern with passive surveillance to detect transfusion reactions is underreporting. Our aim was to obtain evidence-based estimates of TRALI incidence using meta-analysis of active surveillance studies and to compare these estimates with passive surveillance.

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting TRALI rates. A search of Medline and Embase by a research librarian identified studies published between January 1, 1991 and January 20, 2023. Prospective and retrospective observational studies reporting TRALI by blood component (red blood cells [RBCs], platelets, or plasma) were identified and all inpatient and outpatient settings were eligible. Adult and pediatric, as well as general and specific clinical populations, were included. Platelets and plasma must have used at least one modern TRALI donor risk mitigation strategy. A random effects model estimated TRALI incidence by blood component for active and passive surveillance studies and heterogeneity was examined using meta-regression.

Eighty studies were included with approximately 176-million blood components transfused. RBCs had the highest number of studies (n = 66) included, followed by platelets (n = 35) and plasma (n = 34). Pooled TRALI estimates for active surveillance studies were 0.17/10,000 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.03-0.43; I2  = 79%) for RBCs, 0.31/10,000 (95% CI: 0.22-0.42; I2  = <1%) for platelets, and 3.19/10,000 (95% CI: 0.09-10.66; I2  = 86%) for plasma. Studies using passive surveillance ranged from 0.02 to 0.10/10,000 among the various blood components.

In summary, these estimates may improve a quantitative understanding of TRALI risk, which is important for clinical decision-making weighing the risks and benefits of transfusion.

Intravenous albumin is commonly utilised in cardiovascular surgery for priming of the cardiopulmonary bypass circuit, volume replacement, or both, although the evidence to support this practice is uncertain. The aim was to compare i.v. albumin with synthetic colloids and crystalloids for paediatric and adult patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery for all-cause mortality and other perioperative outcomes.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of i.v. albumin compared with synthetic colloids and crystalloids on the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was conducted. Secondary outcomes included renal failure, blood loss, duration of hospital or intensive care unit stay, cardiac index, and blood component use; subgroups were analysed by age, comparator fluid, and intended use (priming, volume, or both). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCRT) from 1946 to November 23, 2022.

Of 42 RCTs, mortality was assessed in 15 trials (2711 cardiac surgery patients) and the risk difference was 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.01, I2=0%. Among secondary outcomes, i.v. albumin resulted in smaller fluid balance, mean difference -0.55 L, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.4, I2=90% (nine studies, 1975 patients) and higher albumin concentrations, mean difference 7.77 g L-1, 95% CI 3.73-11.8, I2=95% (six studies, 325 patients).

Intravenous albumin use was not associated with a difference in morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery, when compared with comparator fluids. The lack of improvement in important outcomes with albumin and its higher cost suggests it should be used restrictively.

PROSPERO; CRD42020171876.

We systematically reviewed the literature to investigate the effects of peri-procedural desmopressin in patients without known inherited bleeding disorders undergoing surgery or other invasive procedures. We included 63 randomized trials (4163 participants) published up to February 1, 2023. Seven trials were published after a 2017 Cochrane systematic review on this topic. There were 38 trials in cardiac surgery, 22 in noncardiac surgery, and 3 in non-surgical procedures. Meta-analyses demonstrated that desmopressin likely does not reduce the risk of receiving a red blood cell transfusion (25 trials, risk ratio [RR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86 to 1.05) and may not reduce the risk of reoperation due to bleeding (22 trials, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.19) when compared to placebo or usual care. However, we demonstrated significant reductions in number of units of red blood cells transfused (25 trials, mean difference -0.55 units, 95% CI - 0.94 to - 0.15), total volume of blood loss (33 trials, standardized mean difference - 0.40 standard deviations; 95% CI - 0.56 to - 0.23), and the risk of bleeding events (2 trials, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.84). The certainty of evidence of these findings was generally low. Desmopressin increased the risk of clinically significant hypotension that required intervention (19 trials, RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.36 to 3.41). Limited evidence suggests that tranexamic acid is more effective than desmopressin in reducing transfusion risk (3 trials, RR 2.38 favoring tranexamic acid, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.39) and total volume of blood loss (3 trials, mean difference 391.7 mL favoring tranexamic acid, 95% CI - 93.3 to 876.7 mL). No trials directly informed the safety and hemostatic efficacy of desmopressin in advanced kidney disease. In conclusion, desmopressin likely reduces periprocedural blood loss and the number of units of blood transfused in small trials with methodologic limitations. However, the risk of hypotension needs to be mitigated. Large trials should evaluate desmopressin alongside tranexamic acid and enroll patients with advanced kidney disease.

To describe the incidence and types of spin in systematic reviews of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for hip osteoarthritis (OA) and to determine whether patterns in study characteristics could be identified among studies with identifiable spin.

The PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases were queried. Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews or meta-analyses that included an assessment of intra-articular PRP injections as a stand-alone treatment for hip OA. Two authors independently assessed the presence of spin in the included studies and recorded general study characteristics. The prevalence of the 15 different categories of spin was quantified using descriptive statistics.

Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria for this study. All studies contained at least two types of spin (range 2-9), with a median of 2. The most common type of spin was type 14 ("Failure to report a wide confidence interval of estimates"), which was observed in 10 studies. The second most common type of spin was type 13 ("Failure to specify the direction of the effect when it favors the control intervention"), found in 6 studies.

Spin is highly prevalent in abstracts of systematic reviews of PRP in the treatment of hip OA. Several associations were found between spin types and the study characteristics of AMSTAR 2 rating, Scopus CiteScore, journal impact factor, and PROSPERO preregistration. When present, spin in the abstracts of reviewed studies tended to favor the use of PRP in hip osteoarthritis.

It is important to understand the prevalence of spin in published abstracts, especially in areas of great impact or interest, so authors and readers can have a greater awareness of this potential form of bias.

In on-pump cardiac surgery, the albumin priming strategy could maintain colloid osmotic pressure better than crystalloid solutions and reduce excessive perioperative fluid balance. However, a high-quality meta-analysis is required to compare the safety of these approaches in perioperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. Owing to limited direct evidence, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to increase the pool of studies and provide indirect evidence.

The pre-defined primary outcomes were intraoperative and the first 24 h postoperative RBC transfusion volume in units. The pre-defined secondary outcome was postoperative blood loss (the first 24 h). We reviewed all randomized controlled trials comparing albumin, crystalloid, and artificial colloid priming strategies. Studies that only displayed pre-defined outcomes could be included. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed on studies that directly compared the pre-defined outcomes between albumin and crystalloids. Additionally, a random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) model was employed to generate indirect evidence for the pre-defined outcomes between albumin and crystalloids.

The literature search identified 830 studies,10 of which were included in the final analysis. Direct meta-analysis indicated that crystalloid priming significantly decreased total perioperative RBC transfusions (MD: -0.68U; 95%CI: -1.26, -0.09U; P = 0.02) and intraoperative RBC transfusions (MD: -0.20U; 95%CI: -0.39, -0.01U; P = 0.03) compared to albumin. Postoperative RBC transfusions showed a decreasing trend in the crystalloid group; however, the difference was not statistically significant. (MD: -0.16U; 95%CI: -0.45, 0.14U; P = 0.30). After including indirect evidence, the NMA results continued to demonstrate a higher RBC receiving with the albumin priming strategy compared to crystalloids, although the differences did not reach statistical significance. For postoperative blood loss, direct evidence showed no significant differences between albumin and crystalloid priming strategies. However, NMA evidence displayed that albumin exist higher probability of reducing postoperative blood loss than crystalloid.

Both direct and NMA evidence indicated that the albumin priming strategy resulted in more perioperative RBC transfusions than crystalloids. Considering the additional blood management burden, the application of an albumin-priming strategy in on-pump cardiac surgery still needs more consideration.