-
1.
The Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection Therapy in the Treatment of Patients with Achilles Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Arthur Vithran DT, Xie W, Opoku M, Essien AE, He M, Li Y
Journal of clinical medicine. 2023;12(3)
Abstract
BACKGROUND Over the past few years, many studies have been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in treating musculoskeletal conditions. However, there is controversy about its benefits for patients with Achilles tendinopathy. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to investigate whether platelet-rich plasma injections can improve outcomes in patients with Achilles tendinopathy. METHODS A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biomedical CD-ROM, and Chinese Science and Technology Journal databases to identify randomised controlled clinical trials that compared the efficacy of PRP injection in patients with Achilles tendinopathy (AT) versus placebo, published between 1 January 1966 and 1 December 2022. Review Manager 5.4.1 software was used for the statistical analysis, and the Jadad score was used to assess the included literature. Only 8 of the 288 articles found met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS Our work suggests that: The PRP treatment group had a slightly higher VISA-A score than the placebo group at 6 weeks [MD = 1.92, 95% CI (-0.54, 4.38), I(2) = 34%], at 12 weeks [MD = 0.20, 95% CI (-2.65 3.05), I(2) = 60%], and 24 weeks [MD = 2.75, 95% CI (-2.76, 8.26), I(2) = 87%]). However, the difference was not statistically significant. The Achilles tendon thickness was higher at 12 weeks of treatment in the PRP treatment group compared to the control group [MD = 0.34, 95% CI (-0.04, 0.71), p = 0.08], but the difference was not statistically significant. The VAS-improvement results showed no significant difference at 6 and 24 weeks between the two groups, respectively (MD = 6.75, 95% CI = (-6.12, 19.62), I(2) = 69%, p = 0.30), and (MD = 10.46, 95% CI = (-2.44 to 23.37), I(2) = 69%, p = 0.11). However, at 12 weeks of treatment, the PRP injection group showed a substantial VAS improvement compared to the control group (MD = 11.30, 95% CI = (7.33 to 15.27), I(2) = 0%, p < 0.00001). The difference was statistically significant. The return to exercise rate results showed a higher return to exercise rate in the PRP treatment group than the placebo group [RR = 1.11, 95% CI (0.87, 1.42), p = 0.40]; the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION There is no proof that PRP injections can enhance patient functional and clinical outcomes for Achilles tendinopathy. Augmenting the frequency of PRP injections may boost the outcomes, and additionally, more rigorous designs and standardised clinical randomised controlled trials are needed to produce more reliable and accurate results.
-
2.
Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for coronavirus disease 2019 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Zhai K, Xu X, Zhang P, Wei S, Li J, Wu X, Gao B, Zhang Y, Li Y
Perfusion. 2022;:2676591221104302
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Although the application of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is accumulating, the feasibility and safety of this therapy remain controversial. We aimed to evaluate the effect of VV-ECMO in the treatment of these patients. METHODS A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases through November 2021. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the included studies were screened, and meta-analysis was performed by R software (version 4.0.2). RESULTS Forty-two studies including 2037 COVID-19 patients supported with VV-ECMO due to ARDS were identified. The pooled analysis revealed that 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality among patients were respectively 46% (95% CI 37%-57%, I(2) = 66%), 46% (95% CI 30%-70%, I(2) = 93%), and 49% (95% CI 43%-58%, I(2) = 52%), and the pooled incidence rate of in-hospital mortality, major bleeding, hemorrhagic stroke, thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, and renal replacement therapy were respectively 35%, 39%, 11%, 40%, 15%, 21%, and 44%. CONCLUSION Although COVID-19 patients may have a higher risk of bleeding, hemorrhagic stroke, and acute kidney injury during ECMO therapy, the survival rate was more than half of the cases. Our data may support the application of VV-ECMO in COVID-19 patients.
-
3.
Relationship between preoperative external ventricular drainage and preoperative rebleeding in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A meta-analysis
Yang C, Zhang Z, Liao R, Li Y
Clinical neurology and neurosurgery. 2022;224:107563
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To analyze published evidence on the relationship between preoperative external ventricular drainage (preop-EVD) and preoperative rebleeding (preop-rebleeding) in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). METHOD A comprehensive search of three databases (PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library) was conducted from their commencement to March 31, 2022. We collected studies reporting preop-EVD of rupture aneurysms while preop-rebleeding events were documented in these studies. We also extracted information on risk factors for preop-rebleeding from the studies and used Review Manager version 5.3 software to analyze. RESULTS A total of 3671 cases from 14 articles were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Preop-rebleeding rate was 11.04 % (106/960) and 9.22 % (250/2711) in preop-EVD group and control group, respectively. The study lacked power to conclude a clinically significant increase in preop-rebleeding risk (OR=1.60, 95 %CI:0.82-3.22). Fisher> 2 (OR=1.86), modified Fisher> 2 (OR=7.57), World Federation of Neurological Surgeons (WFNS)> 2 (OR=4.39) and aneurysm size > 1 cm (OR=3.01) were risk factors of preop-rebleeding. Patients with Hunt-Hess (HH)> 2 showed a higher preop-rebleeding trend compared to HH≤ 2, but the result did not reach a statistical difference (OR=6.79, P = 0.06). No difference in preop-rebleeding risk between anterior circulation aneurysms and posterior circulation aneurysms. Hydrocephalus had also been shown to be unrelated to higher preop-rebleeding rate. CONCLUSIONS Current evidence does not support that preop-EVD significantly increases the risk of rebleeding prior to aneurysm repair. Patients with poorer clinical status on admission and aneurysms size > 1 cm are at a higher risk of preop-rebleeding.
-
4.
Effect of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation therapy on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review with an updated meta-analysis
Duo H, Li Y, Sun Y, Wei L, Wang Z, Fang F, Zhong Y, Huang J, Luo L, Peng Z, et al
Thrombosis journal. 2022;20(1):47
Abstract
BACKGROUND Previous studies demonstrate a reduced risk of thrombosis and mortality with anticoagulant treatment in patients with COVID-19 than in those without anticoagulation treatment. However, an open question regarding the efficacy and safety of therapeutic anticoagulation (T-AC) versus a lower dose, prophylaxis anticoagulation (P-AC) in COVID-19 patients is still controversial. METHODS We systematically reviewed currently available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBs) from January 8, 2019, to January 8, 2022, and compared prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulant treatment in COVID-19 patients. The primary outcomes were risk of mortality, major bleeding, and the secondary outcomes included venous and arterial thromboembolism. Subgroup analysis was also performed between critically ill and non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 and between patients with higher and lower levels of D-dimer. Sensitivity analysis was performed to decrease the bias and the impact of population heterogeneity. RESULTS We identified 11 RCTs and 17 OBs fulfilling our inclusion criteria. In the RCTs analyses, there was no statistically significant difference in the relative risk of mortality between COVID-19 patients with T-AC treatment and those treated with P-AC (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.78-1.15, P = 0.60). Similar results were also found in the OBs analyses (RR 1.21, 95% CI, 0.98-1.49, P = 0.08). The pooling meta-analysis using a random-effects model combined with effect sizes showed that in the RCTs and OBs analyses, patients with COVID-19 who received T-AC treatment had a significantly higher relative risk of the major bleeding event than those with P-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients (RCTs: RR 1.76, 95% CI, 1.19-2.62, P = 0.005; OBs: RR 2.39, 95% CI, 1.56-3.68, P < 0.0001). Compared with P-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients, patients with T-AC treatment significantly reduced the incidence of venous thromboembolism (RR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.39-0.67, P<0.00001), but it is not associated with arterial thrombosis events (RR 0.97, 95% CI, 0.66-1.42, P = 0.87). The subgroup analysis of OBs shows that the mortality risk significantly reduces in critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with T-AC compared with those with P-AC treatment (RR 0.58, 95% CI, 0.39-0.86, P = 0.007), while the mortality risk significantly increases in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with T-AC (RR 1.56, 95% CI, 1.34-1.80, P < 0.00001). In addition, T-AC treatment does not reduce the risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients with high d-dimer levels in RCTs. Finally, the overall sensitivity analysis after excluding two RCTs studies remains consistent with the previous results. CONCLUSIONS In our integrated analysis of included RCTs and OBs, there is no significant difference between the mortality of T-AC and P-AC treatment in unselected patients with COVID-19. T-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients significantly reduced the incidence of venous thromboembolism but showed a higher risk of bleeding than those with P-AC treatment. In addition, P-AC treatment was superior to T-AC treatment in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients, the evidence supporting the necessity for T-AC treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients came only from OBs. TRIAL REGISTRATION Protocol registration: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021293294).
-
5.
Platelet-rich Plasma Injection Can Be a Viable Alternative to Corticosteroid Injection for Conservative Treatment of Rotator Cuff Disease: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bachelor LP, Bachelor YX, Li T, Li Y, Zhu J, Tang X
Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association. 2022
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to explore whether PRP injection can be a viable alternative to CS injection for conservative treatment of rotator cuff disease. METHODS The study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for English-written randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared PRP and CS injections for patients with rotator cuff disease from January 1, 1990, to March 20, 2022. Two evaluators independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the level of evidence and methodological quality of the enrolled studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3.3 software. RESULTS Thirteen non-surgical RCTs with 725 patients were included. Compared with CS, PRP provided statistically worse short-term (<2 months) changes (Δ) of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) assessment, Δ the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Δ the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaires but better medium-term (2 to 6 months) Δ DASH, long-term (≥ 6 months) Δ Constant-Murley Score (CMS), Δ ASES and Δ SST. No statistical differences regarding pain reduction were found between the two groups. PRP injections led to worse short-term Δ forward flexion, Δ internal rotation but better medium-term Δ forward flexion and Δ external rotation. PRP had significantly lower rates of postinjection failure (requests for a subsequent injection or surgical intervention prior to 12 months) than CS. No outcome reached the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). After sensitivity analyses by excluding studies with substantial clinical and/or methodological heterogeneity, PRP showed better medium-term Δ ASES, Δ VAS, and long-term Δ VAS which reached the MCID. CONCLUSIONS Without the drawbacks of CS injection, PRP injection is not worse than CS injection in pain relief and function recovery at any time point of the follow-up. PRP injection may reduce rates of subsequent injection or surgery, and might provide better improvement in pain and function in the medium- to long-term. PRP injection can be a viable alternative to CS injection for conservative treatment of rotator cuff disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Systematic review of Level I and II studies.
-
6.
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Racial Disparities in Deep Venous Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism Events in COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients
Bhakta S, Erben Y, Sanghavi D, Fortich S, Li Y, Hasan MM, Dong Y, Brigham TJ, Edwards MA, Meschia JF, et al
Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders. 2022
Abstract
OBJECTIVE COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE). Recent studies have characterized racial disparities in the incidence of VTE. The aim of our study was to present a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between race and VTE in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS We performed a systematic literature review to evaluate the number of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) events reported by racial groups in COVID-19 hospitalized patients. For qualitative analysis, independent reviewers extracted data from eligible studies, and we utilized the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of design and content for accurate interpretation. For the quantitative analysis, we pooled the ORs with Der Simonian and Laird random effects models. RESULTS The qualitative analysis included 11 studies, and the meta-analysis had six of them. All studies were observational, retrospective cohort studies, except for one retrospective case-control study. Six studies were eligible for the meta-analysis due to high interstudy heterogeneity; thus, variable reports of racial groups reduced the cohort to Black/African American and White patients (n = 9723) in the analysis. The estimated proportion for DVT/PE for Black/African American and Whites was 0.07 (95% CI [0.00, 0.10]) and 0.04 (95% CI [0.00, 0.07]), respectively. The p value of 0.13 suggest non-significant difference in VTE rates between Black/African American and White patients. CONCLUSION In our study, the proportion of DVT/PE events between Black/African American and White COVID-19 patients were comparable. Future COVID-19 studies should include systematic racial group reporting to identify disparities in the setting of thromboembolic events.
-
7.
Convalescent plasma may not be an effective treatment for severe and critically ill covid-19 patients: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Yang P, Wang J, Zheng R, Tan R, Li X, Liu X, Li Y, Yuan Z, Wang Y, Chen Q, et al
Heart & lung : the journal of critical care. 2022;53:51-60
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma treatment for severe and critically ill Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients remains controversial. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the clinical improvement and mortality risk of convalescent plasma treatment in patients with severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS A literature search was conducted in the electronic databases for the randomized controlled studies about convalescent plasma therapy in severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients. Two reviewers independently extracted relevant data. The primary outcomes were clinical improvement and mortality risk of severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients that were therapied by convalescent plasma. RESULTS A total of 14 randomized controlled trials with 4543 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to control, no significant difference was observed for either clinical improvement (6 studies, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.17, p = 0.16, moderate certainty) or mortality risk (14 studies, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03, p= 0.18, low certainty) in patients of convalescent plasma therapy group. CONCLUSION Convalescent plasma did not increase the clinical improvement or reduce the mortality risk in the severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients.
-
8.
Intracranial Pressure and Cerebral Perfusion Pressure in Large Spontaneous Intracranial Hemorrhage and Impact of Minimally Invasive Surgery
Al-Kawaz MN, Li Y, Thompson RE, Avadhani R, de Havenon A, Gruber J, Awad I, Hanley DF, Ziai W
Frontiers in neurology. 2021;12:729831
Abstract
Introduction: We investigated the effect of hematoma volume reduction with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) on intracranial pressure (ICP) and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) in patients with large spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Methods: Post-hoc analysis of the Minimally Invasive Surgery Plus Alteplase for Intracerebral Hemorrhage Evacuation (MISTIE III) study, a clinical trial with blinded outcome assessments. The primary outcome was the proportion of ICP readings ≥20 and 30 mmHg, and CPP readings <70 and 60 mm Hg. Secondary outcomes included major disability (modified Rankin scale >3) and mortality at 30 and 365 days. We assessed the relationship between proportion of high ICP and low CPP events and MIS using binomial generalized linear models, and outcomes using multiple logistic regression. Results: Of 499 patients enrolled in MISTIE III, 72 patients had guideline based ICP monitors placed, 34 in the MIS group and 38 in control (no surgery) group. Threshold ICP and CPP events ≥20/ <70 mmHg occurred in 31 (43.1%) and 52 (72.2%) patients respectively. On adjusted analyses, proportion of ICP readings ≥20 and 30 mmHg were significantly lower in the MIS group vs. control group [Odds Ratio (OR) 0.27, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.11-0.63 (p = 0.002); OR = 0.18, 0.04-0.75, p = 0.02], respectively. Proportion of CPP readings <70 and 60 mm Hg were also significantly lower in MIS patients [OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15-0.63 (p = 0.001); OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11-0.83 (p = 0.02)], respectively. Higher proportions of CPP readings <70 and 60 mm were significantly associated with short term mortality (p = 0.04), and (p = 0.006), respectively. Long term mortality was significantly associated with higher proportion of time with ICP ≥ 20 (p = 0.04), ICP ≥ 30 (p = 0.04), and CPP <70 mmHg (p = 0.01). Conclusion: Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that surgical reduction of ICH volume decreases proportion of high ICP and low CPP events and that these variables are associated with short- and long-term mortality.
-
9.
Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Ortigoza MB, Yoon H, Goldfeld KS, Troxel AB, Daily JP, Wu Y, Li Y, Wu D, Cobb GF, Baptiste G, et al
JAMA internal medicine. 2021
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
IMPORTANCE There is clinical equipoise for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE To determine the safety and efficacy of CCP compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving noninvasive supplemental oxygen. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS CONTAIN COVID-19, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, was conducted at 21 US hospitals from April 17, 2020, to March 15, 2021. The trial enrolled 941 participants who were hospitalized for 3 or less days or presented 7 or less days after symptom onset and required noninvasive oxygen supplementation. INTERVENTIONS A unit of approximately 250 mL of CCP or equivalent volume of placebo (normal saline). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was participant scores on the 11-point World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement on day 14 after randomization; the secondary outcome was WHO scores determined on day 28. Subgroups were analyzed with respect to age, baseline WHO score, concomitant medications, symptom duration, CCP SARS-CoV-2 titer, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus, and enrollment quarter. Outcomes were analyzed using a bayesian proportional cumulative odds model. Efficacy of CCP was defined as a cumulative adjusted odds ratio (cOR) less than 1 and a clinically meaningful effect as cOR less than 0.8. RESULTS Of 941 participants randomized (473 to placebo and 468 to CCP), 556 were men (59.1%); median age was 63 years (IQR, 52-73); 373 (39.6%) were Hispanic and 132 (14.0%) were non-Hispanic Black. The cOR for the primary outcome adjusted for site, baseline risk, WHO score, age, sex, and symptom duration was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.75-1.18) with posterior probability (P[cOR<1] = 72%); the cOR for the secondary adjusted outcome was 0.92 (95% CrI, 0.74-1.16; P[cOR<1] = 76%). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested heterogeneity of treatment effect: at day 28, cORs were 0.72 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.13; P[cOR<1] = 93%) for participants enrolled in April-June 2020 and 0.65 (95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.02; P[cOR<1] = 97%) for those not receiving remdesivir and not receiving corticosteroids at randomization. Median CCP SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titer used in April to June 2020 was 1:175 (IQR, 76-379). Any adverse events (excluding transfusion reactions) were reported for 39 (8.2%) placebo recipients and 44 (9.4%) CCP recipients (P = .57). Transfusion reactions occurred in 2 (0.4) placebo recipients and 8 (1.7) CCP recipients (P = .06). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, CCP did not meet the prespecified primary and secondary outcomes for CCP efficacy. However, high-titer CCP may have benefited participants early in the pandemic when remdesivir and corticosteroids were not in use. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364737.
-
10.
Intermediate-to-therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for coagulopathy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a systemic review and meta-analysis
Zhang S, Li Y, Liu G, Su B
Thrombosis journal. 2021;19(1):91
Abstract
BACKGROUND Anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients has been associated with survival benefit; however, the optimal anticoagulant strategy has not yet been defined. The objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of intermediate-to-therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis on the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality and other patient-centered secondary outcomes in COVID-19 patients. METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to August 10th 2021. Cohort studies and randomized clinical trials that assessed the efficacy and safety of intermediate-to-therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included. Baseline characteristics and relevant data of each study were extracted in a pre-designed standardized data-collection form. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcomes were incidence of thrombotic events and incidence of any bleeding and major bleeding. Pooled analysis with random effects models yielded relative risk with 95 % CIs. RESULTS This meta-analysis included 42 studies with 28,055 in-hospital COVID-19 patients totally. Our pooled analysis demonstrated that intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation was not associated with lower in-hospital mortality (RR=1.12, 95 %CI 0.99-1.25, p=0.06, I(2)=77 %) and lower incidence of thrombotic events (RR=1.30, 95 %CI 0.79-2.15, p=0.30, I(2)=88 %), but increased the risk of any bleeding events (RR=2.16, 95 %CI 1.79-2.60, p<0.01, I(2)=31 %) and major bleeding events significantly (RR=2.10, 95 %CI 1.77-2.51, p<0.01, I(2)=11 %) versus prophylactic anticoagulation. Moreover, intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation decreased the incidence of thrombotic events (RR=0.71, 95 %CI 0.56-0.89, p=0.003, I(2)=0 %) among critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU), with increased bleeding risk (RR=1.66, 95 %CI 1.37-2.00, p<0.01, I(2)=0 %) and unchanged in-hospital mortality (RR=0.94, 95 %CI 0.79-1.10, p=0.42, I(2)=30 %) in such patients. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS We recommend the use of prophylactic anticoagulation against intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation among unselected hospitalized COVID-19 patients considering insignificant survival benefits but higher risk of bleeding in the escalated thromboprophylaxis strategy. For critically ill COVID-19 patients, the benefits of intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation in reducing thrombotic events should be weighed cautiously because of its association with higher risk of bleeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION The protocol was registered at PROSPERO on August 17th 2021 ( CRD42021273780 ).