0
selected
-
1.
Erythropoietin Improves Poor Outcomes in Preterm Infants with Intraventricular Hemorrhage
Song J, Wang Y, Xu F, Sun H, Zhang X, Xia L, Zhang S, Li K, Peng X, Li B, et al
CNS drugs. 2021
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) is a common complication in preterm infants that has poor outcomes, especially in severe cases, and there are currently no widely accepted effective treatments. Erythropoietin has been shown to be neuroprotective in neonatal brain injury. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate the protective effect of repeated low-dose recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO) in preterm infants with IVH. METHODS This was a single-blinded prospective randomized controlled trial. Preterm infants ≤ 32 weeks gestational age who were diagnosed with IVH within 72 h after birth were randomized to receive rhEPO 500 IU/kg or placebo (equivalent volume of saline) every other day for 2 weeks. The primary outcome was death or neurological disability assessed at 18 months of corrected age. RESULTS A total of 316 eligible infants were included in the study, with 157 in the rhEPO group and 159 in the placebo group. Although no significant differences in mortality (p = 0.176) or incidence of neurological disability (p = 0.055) separately at 18 months of corrected age were seen between the rhEPO and placebo groups, significantly fewer infants had poor outcomes (death and neurological disability) in the rhEPO group: 14.9 vs. 26.4%; odds ratio (OR) 0.398; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.199-0.796; p = 0.009. In addition, the incidence of Mental Development Index scores of < 70 was lower in the rhEPO group than in the placebo group: 7.2 vs. 15.3%; OR 0.326; 95% CI 0.122-0.875; p = 0.026. CONCLUSIONS Treatment with repeated low-dose rhEPO improved outcomes in preterm infants with IVH. TRIAL REGISTRATION The study was retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 April 2019 (NCT03914690).
-
2.
Restrictive versus liberal transfusion thresholds in very low birth weight infants: A systematic review with meta-analysis
Wang P, Wang X, Deng H, Li L, Chong W, Hai Y, Zhang Y
PloS one. 2021;16(8):e0256810
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND To assess the efficacy and safety of restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion thresholds in very low birth weight infants. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database without any language restrictions. The last search was conducted in August 15, 2020. All randomized controlled trials comparing the use of restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion thresholds in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants were selected. Pooled risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variable with 95% confidence intervals were assessed by a random-effects model. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. RESULTS Overall, this meta-analysis included 6 randomized controlled trials comprising 3,483 participants. Restrictive transfusion does not increase the risk of all-cause mortality (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence), and does not increase the composite outcome of death or neurodevelopmental impairment (RR, 1.01, 95% CI, 0.93-1.09; I2 = 7%; high-quality evidence) or other serious adverse events. Results were similar in subgroup analyses of all-cause mortality by weight of infants, gestational age, male infants, and transfusion volume. CONCLUSIONS In very low birth weight infants, a restrictive threshold for red blood cell transfusion was not associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, in either short term or long term.
PICO Summary
Population
Very low birth weight infants (6 studies, n= 3,483).
Intervention
Restrictive red blood cell transfusion threshold.
Comparison
Liberal red blood cell transfusion threshold.
Outcome
Restrictive transfusion did not increase the risk of all-cause mortality (RR, 0.99; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence), and did not increase the composite outcome of death or neurodevelopmental impairment (RR, 1.01; I2 = 7%; high-quality evidence) or other serious adverse events. Results were similar in subgroup analyses of all-cause mortality by weight of infants, gestational age, male infants, and transfusion volume.
-
3.
Erythropoietin prevents necrotizing enterocolitis in very preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial
Wang Y, Song J, Sun H, Xu F, Li K, Nie C, Zhang X, Peng X, Xia L, Shen Z, et al
Journal of translational medicine. 2020;18(1):308
Abstract
BACKGROUND Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is one of the most severe complications in very preterm infants, but there are currently no accepted methods to prevent NEC. Studies have shown that erythropoietin (EPO) has the potential to prevent NEC or improve outcomes of preterm NEC. This study aimed to determine whether recombinant human EPO (rhEPO) could protect against NEC in very preterm infants. METHODS The study was a prospective randomized clinical trial performed among four NICU centers. A total of 1327 preterm infants with gestational age ≤ 32 weeks were admitted to the centers, and 42 infants were excluded leaving 1285 eligible infants to be randomized to the rhEPO or control group. Infants in the rhEPO group were given 500 IU/kg rhEPO intravenously every other day for 2 weeks, while the control group was given the same volume of saline. The primary outcome was the incidence of NEC in very preterm infants at 36 weeks of corrected gestational age. RESULTS A total of 1285 infants were analyzed at 36 weeks of corrected age for the incidence of NEC. rhEPO treatment significantly decreased the incidence of NEC (stage I, II and III) (12.0% vs. 17.1%, p = 0.010), especially confirmed NEC (stage II and III) (3.0% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.027). Meanwhile, rhEPO treatment significantly reduced the number of red blood cells transfusion in the confirmed NEC cases (1.2 ± 0.4 vs. 2.7 ± 1.0, p = 0.004). Subgroup analyses showed that rhEPO treatment significantly decreased the incidence of confirmed NEC at gestational age < 28 weeks (p = 0.019), and the incidence of all stages NEC in preterm infants with hemoglobin < 90 g/l (p = 0.000) and 5 min Apgar score > 5 (p = 0.028). CONCLUSION Repeated low-dose rhEPO treatment is beneficial against NEC in very preterm infants. Trial registration The protocol was registered retrospectively at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03919500) on April 18, 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03919500.
-
4.
Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: systematic review and network meta-analysis
Wang Y, Ye Z, Ge L, Siemieniuk RAC, Wang X, Wang Y, Hou L, Ma Z, Agoritsas T, Vandvik PO, et al
BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2020;368:l6744
-
-
-
Free full text
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (or stress ulcer prophylaxis) on outcomes important to patients. DESIGN Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS We included randomised controlled trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided critical oversight of the systematic review, including identifying outcomes important to patients. We performed random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. When results differed between low risk and high risk of bias studies, we used the former as best estimates. RESULTS Seventy two trials including 12 660 patients proved eligible. For patients at highest risk (>8%) or high risk (4-8%) of bleeding, both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.89), 3.3% fewer for highest risk and 2.3% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 0.46 (0.27 to 0.79), 4.6% fewer for highest risk and 3.1% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty). Both may increase the risk of pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 1.39 (0.98 to 2.10), 5.0% more, low certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 1.26 (0.89 to 1.85), 3.4% more, low certainty). It is likely that neither affect mortality (PPIs 1.06 (0.90 to 1.28), 1.3% more, moderate certainty; H2RAs 0.96 (0.79 to 1.19), 0.9% fewer, moderate certainty). Otherwise, results provided no support for any affect on mortality, Clostridium difficile infection, length of intensive care stay, length of hospital stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation (varying certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS For higher risk critically ill patients, PPIs and H2RAs likely result in important reductions in gastrointestinal bleeding compared with no prophylaxis; for patients at low risk, the reduction in bleeding may be unimportant. Both PPIs and H2RAs may result in important increases in pneumonia. Variable quality evidence suggested no important effects of interventions on mortality or other in-hospital morbidity outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42019126656.
PICO Summary
Population
Adult critically ill patients, (72 studies, n=12,660).
Intervention
Gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).
Comparison
Gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with Histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, placebo or no prophylaxis.
Outcome
For patients at highest risk (>8%) or high risk (4-8%) of bleeding, both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 0.61, 3.3% fewer for highest risk and 2.3% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 0.46, 4.6% fewer for highest risk and 3.1% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty). Both may increase the risk of pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 1.39, 5.0% more, low certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 1.26, 3.4% more, low certainty). It is likely that neither affect mortality (PPIs 1.06, 1.3% more, moderate certainty; H2RAs 0.96, 0.9% fewer, moderate certainty). Otherwise, results provided no support for any effect on mortality, Clostridium difficile infection, length of intensive care stay, length of hospital stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation (varying certainty of evidence).
-
5.
Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials
Wang Y, Ge L, Ye Z, Siemieniuk RA, Reintam Blaser A, Wang X, Perner A, Møller MH, Alhazzani W, Cook D, et al
Intensive care medicine. 2020
-
-
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
PURPOSE Motivated by a new randomized trial (the PEPTIC trial) that raised the issue of an increase in mortality with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) relative to histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), we updated our prior systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) addressing the impact of pharmacological gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients. METHODS We searched for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. We performed Bayesian random-effects NMA and conducted analyses using all PEPTIC data as well as a restricted analysis using only PEPTIC data from high compliance centers. We used the GRADE approach to quantify absolute effects and assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS Seventy-four trials enrolling 39 569 patients proved eligible. Both PPIs (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% credible interval 0.93 to 1.14, moderate certainty) and H2RAs (RR 0.98, 0.89 to 1.08, moderate certainty) probably have little or no impact on mortality compared with no prophylaxis. There may be no important difference between PPIs and H2RAs on mortality (RR 1.05, 0.97 to 1.14, low certainty), the 95% credible interval of the complete analysis has not excluded an important increase in mortality with PPIs. Both PPIs (RR 0.46, 0.29 to 0.66) and H2RAs (RR 0.67, 0.48 to 0.94) probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; the magnitude of reduction is probably greater in PPIs than H2RAs (RR 0.69, 0.45 to 0.93), and the difference may be important in higher, but not lower bleeding risk patients. PPIs (RR 1.08, 0.88 to 1.45, low certainty) and H2RAs (RR 1.07, 0.85 to 1.37, low certainty) may have no important impact on pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis. CONCLUSION This updated NMA confirmed that PPIs and H2RAs are most likely to have a similar effect on mortality compared to each other and compared to no prophylaxis; however, the possibility that PPIs may slightly increase mortality cannot be excluded (low certainty evidence). PPIs and H2RAs probably achieve important reductions in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; for higher bleeding risk patients, the greater benefit of PPIs over H2RAs may be important. PPIs or H2RAs may not result in important increases in pneumonia but the certainty of evidence is low.
PICO Summary
Population
Adult critically ill patients (74 trials, n= 39569).
Intervention
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis.
Comparison
Histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, placebo or no prophylaxis.
Outcome
Both PPIs and H2RAs probably have little or no impact on mortality compared with no prophylaxis. There may be no important difference between PPIs and H2RAs on mortality. Both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; the magnitude of reduction is probably greater in PPIs than H2RAs, and the difference may be important in higher, but not lower bleeding risk patients. PPIs and H2RAs may have no important impact on pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis.
-
6.
Terlipressin versus norepinephrine as infusion in patients with septic shock: a multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial
Liu ZM, Chen J, Kou Q, Lin Q, Huang X, Tang Z, Kang Y, Li K, Zhou L, Song Q, et al
Intensive Care Medicine. 2018;44((11):):1816-1825
Abstract
PURPOSE Recent clinical data suggest that terlipressin, a vasopressin analogue, may be more beneficial in septic shock patients than catecholamines. However, terlipressin's effect on mortality is unknown. We set out to ascertain the efficacy and safety of continuous terlipressin infusion compared with norepinephrine (NE) in patients with septic shock. METHODS In this multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial, patients with septic shock recruited from 21 intensive care units in 11 provinces of China were randomised (1:1) to receive either terlipressin (20-160 microg/h with maximum infusion rate of 4 mg/day) or NE (4-30 microg/min) before open-label vasopressors. The primary endpoint was mortality 28 days after the start of infusion. Primary efficacy endpoint analysis and safety analysis were performed on the data from a modified intention-to-treat population. RESULTS Between 1 January 2013 and 28 February 2016, 617 patients were randomised (312 to the terlipressin group, 305 to the NE group). The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 526 (85.3%) patients (260 in the terlipressin group and 266 in the NE group). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality rate between the terlipressin group (40%) and the NE group (38%) (odds ratio 0.93 [95% CI 0.55-1.56]; p = 0.80). Change in SOFA score on day 7 was similar between the two groups: - 7 (IQR - 11 to 3) in the terlipressin group and - 6 (IQR - 10 to 5) in the NE group. There was no difference between the groups in the number of days alive and free of vasopressors. Overall, serious adverse events were more common in the terlipressin group than in the NE group (30% vs 12%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS In this multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial, we observed no difference in mortality between terlipressin and NE infusion in patients with septic shock. Patients in the terlipressin group had a higher number of serious adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: ID NCT01697410.