-
1.
Prognostic of red blood cell transfusion during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy on mortality: A meta-analysis
Li Y, Wang J, Li C, Wang L, Chen Y
Perfusion. 2023;:2676591231157234
Abstract
BACKGROUND This meta-analysis aimed to explore the impact of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion on mortality during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Previous studies investigated the prognostic impact of RBC transfusion during ECMO on the risk of mortality, but no meta-analysis has been published before. METHODS The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched for papers published up to 13 December 2021, using the MeSH terms "ECMO", "'Erythrocytes", and "Mortality" to identify meta-analyses. Total or daily RBC transfusion during ECMO and mortality were examined. RESULTS The random-effect model was used. Eight studies (794 patients, including 354 dead) were included. The total volume of RBC was associated with higher mortality standardized weighted difference (SWD = -0.62, 95% CI: -1.06,-0.18, p = .006; I2 = 79.7%, P(heterogeneity) = 0.001). The daily volume of RBC was associated with higher mortality (SWD = -0.77, 95% CI: -1.11,-0.42, p < .001; I2 = 65.7%, P(heterogeneity) = 0.020). The total volume of RBC was associated with mortality for venovenous (VV) (SWD = -0.72, 95% CI: -1.23, -0.20, p = .006) but not venoarterial ECMO (p = .126) or when reported together (p = .089). The daily volume of RBC was associated with mortality for VV (SWD = -0.72, 95% CI: -1.18, -0.26, p = 0.002; I2 = 0.0%, P(heterogeneity) = 0.642) and venoarterial (SWD = -0.95, 95% CI: -1.32, -0.57, p < .001) ECMO, but not when reported together (p = .067). The sensitivity analysis suggested the robustness of the results. CONCLUSION When considering the total and daily volumes of RBC transfusion during ECMO, the patients who survived received smaller total and daily volumes of RBC transfusion. This meta-analysis suggests that RBC transfusion might be associated with a higher risk of mortality during ECMO.
-
2.
Flapless osteotome-mediated sinus floor elevation using platelet-rich fibrin versus lateral approach using deproteinised bovine bone mineral for residual bone height of 2-6 mm: a randomised trial
Lv H, Sun X, Wang J, Wang H, Wang L, Zhou Y
Clinical oral implants research. 2022
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate patient-reported outcomes and radiographic results of simultaneous implant placement in severely atrophic maxilla using flapless endoscope-assisted osteotome sinus floor elevation with platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), also defined as PESS, and to compare the results with those of lateral sinus floor elevation (LSFE). METHODS Patients with a residual bone height (RBH) of 2-6 mm were included in a randomised controlled trial. PESS was performed with PRF as the sole grafting material. LSFE was performed using deproteinised bovine bone matrix. Patient-reported outcomes were recorded on a visual analogue scale (VAS-pain) and visual rating scale (VRS-swelling and VRS-willingness). Peri-implant bone height (PBH), bone mineral density (BMD), and sinus grafting remodelling index were measured using CBCT immediately postoperatively and 3(rd) , 6(th) and 18(th) months post-surgery. RESULTS The study population consisted of 20 patients in each group. The RBH of two groups averaged 3.35±0.79 mm and 2.92±0.63 mm with no significant difference (p > 0.05). VAS-pain was 18.0 (IR 15.0-22.5) and 35.0 (IR 32.5-37.0) in the PESS and LSFE groups, respectively (p < 0.01). VAS-pain decreased with time in both groups. VRS-swelling was lower in the PESS group than LSFE group. VRS-willingness was higher in the PESS group than LSFE group (p < 0.01). At 18 months post-surgery, the marginal bone loss was 0.60±0.25 mm and 0.69±0.35 mm in the two groups with no significant difference (p = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of this study, PESS was associated with lower postoperative morbidity and was more tolerable than LSFE. PESS could be a reliable procedure for sinus floor elevation in patients with insufficient RBH.
-
3.
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.
-
4.
Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Placebo in the Treatment of Tendinopathy: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Dai W, Yan W, Leng X, Wang J, Hu X, Cheng J, Ao Y
Clinical journal of sport medicine : official journal of the Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine. 2021
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections versus placebo in the treatment of tendinopathy. DATA SOURCES We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through November 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the clinical efficacy of PRP versus placebo for the treatment of tendinopathy. Outcomes were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis with random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS A total of 13 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in pain relief at 4 to 6 weeks (standard mean difference [SMD]: -0.18, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: -0.62 to 0.26), 12 weeks (SMD: -0.14, 95% CI: -0.55 to 0.26), and ≥24 weeks (SMD: -0.56, 95% CI: -1.16 to 0.05) or function improvement at 4 to 6 weeks (SMD: 0.11, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.35), 12 weeks (SMD: 0.18, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.49), and ≥24 weeks (SMD: 0.26, 95% CI: -0.14 to 0.66) for PRP compared with placebo in the treatment of tendinopathy. The sensitivity analysis indicated no significant difference in pain relief or function improvement at 12 weeks between PRP and placebo for different types of tendinopathies, treatment regimens, leukocyte concentrations, or cointerventions. CONCLUSIONS Platelet-rich plasma injection was not found to be superior to placebo in the treatment of tendinopathy, as measured by pain relief and functional improvement at 4 to 6, 12, and ≥24 weeks.
-
5.
Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Time to Clinical Improvement in Patients With Severe and Life-threatening COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Li L, Zhang W, Hu Y, Tong X, Zheng S, Yang J, Kong Y, Ren L, Wei Q, Mei H, et al
Jama. 2020
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Importance: Convalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but further data from randomized clinical trials are needed. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed in 7 medical centers in Wuhan, China, from February 14, 2020, to April 1, 2020, with final follow-up April 28, 2020. The trial included 103 participants with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 that was severe (respiratory distress and/or hypoxemia) or life-threatening (shock, organ failure, or requiring mechanical ventilation). The trial was terminated early after 103 of a planned 200 patients were enrolled. Intervention: Convalescent plasma in addition to standard treatment (n = 52) vs standard treatment alone (control) (n = 51), stratified by disease severity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was time to clinical improvement within 28 days, defined as patient discharged alive or reduction of 2 points on a 6-point disease severity scale (ranging from 1 [discharge] to 6 [death]). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to discharge, and the rate of viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results turned from positive at baseline to negative at up to 72 hours. Results: Of 103 patients who were randomized (median age, 70 years; 60 [58.3%] male), 101 (98.1%) completed the trial. Clinical improvement occurred within 28 days in 51.9% (27/52) of the convalescent plasma group vs 43.1% (22/51) in the control group (difference, 8.8% [95% CI, -10.4% to 28.0%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 0.79-2.49]; P = .26). Among those with severe disease, the primary outcome occurred in 91.3% (21/23) of the convalescent plasma group vs 68.2% (15/22) of the control group (HR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07-4.32]; P = .03); among those with life-threatening disease the primary outcome occurred in 20.7% (6/29) of the convalescent plasma group vs 24.1% (7/29) of the control group (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.30-2.63]; P = .83) (P for interaction = .17). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (15.7% vs 24.0%; OR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.29-1.46]; P = .30) or time from randomization to discharge (51.0% vs 36.0% discharged by day 28; HR, 1.61 [95% CI, 0.88-2.93]; P = .12). Convalescent plasma treatment was associated with a negative conversion rate of viral PCR at 72 hours in 87.2% of the convalescent plasma group vs 37.5% of the control group (OR, 11.39 [95% CI, 3.91-33.18]; P < .001). Two patients in the convalescent plasma group experienced adverse events within hours after transfusion that improved with supportive care. Conclusion and Relevance: Among patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, convalescent plasma therapy added to standard treatment, compared with standard treatment alone, did not result in a statistically significant improvement in time to clinical improvement within 28 days. Interpretation is limited by early termination of the trial, which may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000029757.
-
6.
Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Time to Clinical Improvement in Patients With Severe and Life-threatening COVID-19
Li L, Zhang W, Hu Y, Tong X, Zheng S, Yang J, Kong Y, Ren L, Wei Q, Mei H, et al
Jama. 2020
Abstract
ImportanceConvalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but further data from randomized clinical trials are needed ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with COVID-19 Design, Setting, and ParticipantsOpen-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed in 7 medical centers in Wuhan, China, from February 14, 2020, to April 1, 2020, with final follow-up April 28, 2020 The trial included 103 participants with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 that was severe (respiratory distress and/or hypoxemia) or life-threatening (shock, organ failure, or requiring mechanical ventilation) The trial was terminated early after 103 of a planned 200 patients were enrolled InterventionConvalescent plasma in addition to standard treatment (n = 52) vs standard treatment alone (control) (n = 51), stratified by disease severity Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrimary outcome was time to clinical improvement within 28 days, defined as patient discharged alive or reduction of 2 points on a 6-point disease severity scale (ranging from 1 [discharge] to 6 [death]) Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to discharge, and the rate of viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results turned from positive at baseline to negative at up to 72 hours ResultsOf 103 patients who were randomized (median age, 70 years;60 [58 3%] male), 101 (98 1%) completed the trial Clinical improvement occurred within 28 days in 51 9% (27/52) of the convalescent plasma group vs 43 1% (22/51) in the control group (difference, 8 8% [95% CI, −10 4% to 28 0%];hazard ratio [HR], 1 40 [95% CI, 0 79-2 49];P = 26) Among those with severe disease, the primary outcome occurred in 91 3% (21/23) of the convalescent plasma group vs 68 2% (15/22) of the control group (HR, 2 15 [95% CI, 1 07-4 32];P = 03);among those with life-threatening disease the primary outcome occurred in 20 7% (6/29) of the convalescent plasma group vs 24 1% (7/29) of the control group (HR, 0 88 [95% CI, 0 30-2 63];P = 83) (Pfor interaction = 17) There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (15 7% vs 24 0%;OR, 0 65 [95% CI, 0 29-1 46];P = 30) or time from randomization to discharge (51 0% vs 36 0% discharged by day 28;HR, 1 61 [95% CI, 0 88-2 93];P = 12) Convalescent plasma treatment was associated with a negative conversion rate of viral PCR at 72 hours in 87 2% of the convalescent plasma group vs 37 5% of the control group (OR, 11 39 [95% CI, 3 91-33 18];P < 001) Two patients in the convalescent plasma group experienced adverse events within hours after transfusion that improved with supportive care Conclusion and RelevanceAmong patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, convalescent plasma therapy added to standard treatment, compared with standard treatment alone, did not result in a statistically significant improvement in time to clinical improvement within 28 days Interpretation is limited by early termination of the trial, which may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference Trial RegistrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry:ChiCTR2000029757
-
7.
Platelet-rich plasma versus hyaluronic acid in knee osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis with the consistent ratio of injection
Wu Q, Luo X, Xiong Y, Liu G, Wang J, Chen X, Mi B
Journal of orthopaedic surgery (Hong Kong). 2020;28(1):2309499019887660
Abstract
Osteoarthritis (OA) is an extremely common form of chronic joint disease which can affect the knees and other joints of older adults, leading to debilitating disability in the knee and consequent reduction in quality of life. Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or hyaluronic acid (HA) injections are effective for maintaining long-term beneficial effects without increasing the risk of intra-articular infection. However, few studies have compared the relative value of HA and PRP for OA treatment. PRP is more effective than HA for OA treatment in recent studies of this topic. We systematically searched Medline, SpringerLink, Embase, Pubmed, Clinical Trials.gov, the Cochrane Library, and OVID for all articles published through May 2018. Any study was included that compared the effect of HA and PRP (consistent treatment cycle and frequency of injection) on patient's pain levels and functionality improvements. Review Manager 5.3 was used to analyze data regarding these two primary outcomes. We included 10 total studies in the present meta-analysis. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC; MD: 10.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 9.13 to 11.62, p < 0.00001), Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC; MD: -20.69, 95% CI: -24.50 to -16.89, p < 0.00001, I(2) = 94%), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; MD: -1.50, 95% CI: -1.61 to -1.38, p < 0.00001, I(2) = 90%) differed significantly between the PRP and HA groups. Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOSs) did not differ significantly (chi(2) = 23.53, I(2) = 41%, p = 0.11). Our hypothesis appears not to be confirmed because PRP and HA did not differ significantly with respect to KOOS score. However, the IKDC, WOMAC, and VAS scores differed significantly. Thus, based on the current evidence, PRP appears to be better than HA at achieving pain relief and self-reported functional improvement. Ia, meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials.
-
8.
Effect of platelet-rich fibrin on the control of alveolar osteitis, pain, trismus, soft tissue healing, and swelling following mandibular third molar surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Zhu J, Zhang S, Yuan X, He T, Liu H, Wang J, Xu B
International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2020
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to estimate the effect of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) on the control of alveolar osteitis (AO), pain, trismus, soft tissue healing, and swelling following mandibular third molar surgery. A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to May 2019. Randomized controlled studies conforming to the inclusion criteria were included. The record screening and data extraction were conducted by two authors independently. The risk of bias assessment was performed according to the guidelines recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. The quantitative analysis was performed using RevMan version 5.3. Nineteen studies were included in the systematic review and 17 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. The use of PRF significantly reduced the incidence of AO and postoperative pain when compared to the controls (AO: relative risk 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.65, Z=3.90, P<0.0001 (I(2)=0%); pain: day 1, standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.12, 95% CI -1.87 to -0.37, Z=2.93, P=0.003 (I(2)=95%); day 3, SMD -0.93, 95% CI -1.48 to -0.38, Z=3.30, P=0.001 (I(2)=92%); day 7, SMD -1.84, 95% CI -2.98 to -0.71, Z=3.19, P=0.001 (I(2)=97%)). Additionally, the result showed a better soft tissue healing when PRF was used (mean difference -0.63, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.18, Z=2.76, P=0.006 (I(2)=90%)). The use of PRF reduced the incidence of AO and postoperative pain following third molar surgery. Furthermore, PRF may also improve the postoperative soft tissue healing.
-
9.
[Clinical study of local injection of autologous platelet-rich plasma in treatment of diabetic foot ulcer]
Qin X, Wang J
Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery. 2019;33(12):1547-1551
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of local injection of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in treatment of diabetic foot ulcer. Methods: Between October 2017 and October 2018, 90 diabetic foot ulcer patients who met the selection criteria were randomly divided into 3 groups: PRP injection group (group A, PRP was injected and hydrogel dressing covered the wounds), PRP covered group (group B, PRP gel and hydrogel dressing covered the wounds), and the control group (group C, hydrogel dressing covered the wounds), 30 cases in each group. There was no significant difference in gender, age, injured side, disease duration, preoperative glycosylated hemoglobin, wound size, and Wagner grading between groups (P>0.05). The frequency of treatments and hospitalization day in all groups and the total amount of PRP application in groups A and B were recorded. The wound healing condition was recorded during the treatment, and the wound healing rate was calculated at 3 months after the first debridement. Results: The frequency of treatments in groups A, B, and C were (10.2+/-0.8), (11.4+/-0.6), (12.5+/-0.5) times, respectively. The total amount of PRP application of groups A and B were (306+/-24) and (342+/-18) mL, respectively. There was no significant difference in the frequency of treatments and the total amount of PRP application between groups (P>0.05). The hospitalization days of groups A, B, and C were (40.5+/-1.8), (62.1+/-2.3), and (88.6+/-1.4) days, respectively, showing significant differences between groups (P<0.05). In the course of treatment, the necrosis and exudation of the wounds gradually reduced, the areas of wounds gradually reduced; and the above conditions of group A were significantly better than groups B and C, and group B was better than group C. At 3 months after the first debridement, the wound healing rates of groups A, B, and C were 93.2%+/-0.8%, 52.1%+/-1.1%, and 21.3%+/-1.3%, respectively, with significant differences between groups (P<0.05). Conclusion: PRP can effectively promote the repair of diabetic foot ulcer. The effectiveness of local injection of PRP is superior to the local coverage.
-
10.
Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma injections for treating Achilles tendonitis : Systematic review of high-quality randomized controlled trials
Wang Y, Han C, Hao J, Ren Y, Wang J
Der Orthopade. 2019
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Achilles tendon is the coarsest tendon in the body. Achilles tendonitis is relatively common and its incidence is increasing. PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for treating Achilles tendonitis. METHODS A literature search was carried out in the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials (2017), PubMed (January 1976-March 2017) and EMBASE (January 1976-March 2017) databases to retrieve the available clinical evidence for PRP in the treatment of Achilles tendon lesions for a systematic review. The inclusion criteria were (1) conservative PRP treatment of Achilles tendon inflammation in a randomized controlled trial (RCT), (2) level I clinical research evidence and (3) published in English. The exclusion criteria were (1) unclear experimental methods and data and (2) PRP treatment of other diseases. RESULTS A total of 4 articles involving 152 cases were included in the analysis. The mean age of subjects was 49 years. Data on the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles (VISA-A) score, color Doppler ultrasound index and recovery time to normal exercise were extracted. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups and control groups following the PRP injections. CONCLUSION The lack of differences between data from the control group and the patient groups included in the studies may be related to the difficulty of performing a randomized controlled trial (RCT). A strong basis for using PRP to treat Achilles tendonitis was not found, although PRP has important clinical significance for treating Achilles tendonitis.