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.

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.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE As a novel oral agent in treating anemia of chronic kidney disease (CKD), several clinical trials of vadadustat have been conducted to compare with darbepoetin alfa. This study systematically reviews and investigates the efficacy and safety of vadadustat in the anemia treatment with different duration in both nondialysis-dependent CKD (NDD-CKD) and dialysis-dependent CKD (DD-CKD). METHODS Several main databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting vadadustat vs darbepoetin alfa for anemia patients with CKD. The outcome indicators were focused on hemoglobin (Hb), the percentage of patients within the target Hb, the need for RBC (Red Blood Cell) transfusions, and serious adverse events (SAEs). RESULTS Four eligible studies with 8,026 participants were included. The changes of Hb levels from the baseline in the darbepoetin alfa group were significantly higher than that in the vadadustat group with DD-CKD (mean difference (MD) - 0.19, [95% confidence interval (CI), - 0.21 to - 0.17], p < 0.0001). In NDD-CKD patients, the changes of Hb levels in the two groups are not significantly different (MD = - 0.06, [95% CI, - 0.18 to 0.05], p = 0.006), especially, during the treatment duration of 20-36 weeks (MD = 0.02, [95% CI, - 0.04 to 0.08], p = 0.51). The percentage of patients within the target Hb was significantly lower in the vadadustat group than that in the darbepoetin alfa group in DD-CKD patients (MD = 0.9, [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.94], p < 0.00001), while in NDD-CKD patients, there was no significant difference (MD = 1.05, [95% CI, 0.99 to 1.12], p < 0.00001). In terms of safety, the two agents had no significant difference in the incidence of RBC transfusions and SAEs (RR = 1.26 [95% CI, 0.99 to 1.61], p = 0.52; RR = 0.97, [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.01], p = 0.19; respectively). CONCLUSION Compared to darbepoetin alfa, vadadustat had the same effect in raising the hemoglobin level in NDD-CKD patients in the short term. Vadadustat may become an effective and safe alternative for the treatment of patients with anemia and CKD, especially in NDD-CKD patients. As the application of vadadustat is still under exploration, future research should compensate for the limitations of our study to estimate the vadadustat's value.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Pulmonary vascular microthrombi are a proposed mechanism of COVID-19 respiratory failure. We hypothesized that early administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) followed by therapeutic heparin would improve pulmonary function in these patients. RESEARCH QUESTION Does tPA improve pulmonary function in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure, and is it safe? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Adults with COVID-19-induced respiratory failure were randomized from May14, 2020 through March 3, 2021, in two phases. Phase 1 (n = 36) comprised a control group (standard-of-care treatment) vs a tPA bolus (50-mg tPA IV bolus followed by 7 days of heparin; goal activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT], 60-80 s) group. Phase 2 (n = 14) comprised a control group vs a tPA drip (50-mg tPA IV bolus, followed by tPA drip 2 mg/h plus heparin 500 units/h over 24 h, then heparin to maintain aPTT of 60-80 s for 7 days) group. Patients were excluded from enrollment if they had not undergone a neurologic examination or cross-sectional brain imaging within the previous 4.5 h to rule out stroke and potential for hemorrhagic conversion. The primary outcome was Pao(2) to Fio(2) ratio improvement from baseline at 48 h after randomization. Secondary outcomes included Pao(2) to Fio(2) ratio improvement of > 50% or Pao(2) to Fio(2) ratio of ≥ 200 at 48 h (composite outcome), ventilator-free days (VFD), and mortality. RESULTS Fifty patients were randomized: 17 in the control group and 19 in the tPA bolus group in phase 1 and eight in the control group and six in the tPA drip group in phase 2. No severe bleeding events occurred. In the tPA bolus group, the Pao(2) to Fio(2) ratio values were significantly (P < .017) higher than baseline at 6 through 168 h after randomization; the control group showed no significant improvements. Among patients receiving a tPA bolus, the percent change of Pao(2) to Fio(2) ratio at 48 h (16.9% control [interquartile range (IQR), -8.3% to 36.8%] vs 29.8% tPA bolus [IQR, 4.5%-88.7%]; P = .11), the composite outcome (11.8% vs 47.4%; P = .03), VFD (0.0 [IQR, 0.0-9.0] vs 12.0 [IQR, 0.0-19.0]; P = .11), and in-hospital mortality (41.2% vs 21.1%; P = .19) did not reach statistically significant differences when compared with those of control participants. The patients who received a tPA drip did not experience benefit. INTERPRETATION The combination of tPA bolus plus heparin is safe in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure. A phase 3 study is warranted given the improvements in oxygenation and promising observations in VFD and mortality. TRIAL REGISTRY ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04357730; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS gov.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The guidelines of National Health Service(NHS, the United Kingdom) recommended for use in obstetrics at increased risk of bleeding, requiring two suction devices to reduce amniotic fluid contamination, however, when comes to massive hemorrhage, it is may difficult to operate because the complex operation may delay time. The aim of the study was to detect the effect of amniotic fluid recovery on intraoperative cell salvage in obstetrics and provide evidence for clinical applications. METHOD Thirty-four patients undergoing elective cesarean section were randomly divided into two groups. In group 1, the cumulative blood from the operation field, including the amniotic fluid, was collected using a single suction device for processing. In group 2, after suctioning away the amniotic fluid using another suction device for the cumulative blood from the operation field. From each group, four samples were taken, including maternal venous blood (sample I), blood before washing (sample II), blood after washing (sample III) and blood after filtration with a leukocyte filter (sample IV), to detect serum potassium (K +), hemoglobin (Hb), white blood cell (WBC), fetal hemoglobin (HbF), alpha fetoprotein (AFP) and squamous cell (SC) levels. RESULTS The AFP, K + and WBC levels of sample III and sample IV were significantly lower than sample I in group 1 and group 2 (P < 0.05). Significantly more SCs were found in sample III than in sample I in group 1 and group 2 (P < 0.05), but SCs of sample IV had no statistical difference compared to sample I in group 1 and group 2 (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the K + , Hb, WBC, AFP and SC levels of sample IV between group 1 and group 2 (P > 0.05). The HbF levels of sample III and sample IV were significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2 (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION There is little or no possibility for AF contamination to enter the re-infusion system when used in conjunction with a leucodepletion filter. For maternal with Rh-negative blood, we recommend two suction devices to reduce HbF pollution. TRIAL REGISTRATION ChiCTR1800015684 , 2018.4.15.

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.

Abstract

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of prophylactic central neck dissection following total thyroidectomy on surgical site wound infection, hematoma, and haemorrhage in subjects with clinically node-negative papillary thyroid carcinoma. A systematic literature search up to April 2022 was performed and 3517 subjects with clinically node-negative papillary thyroid carcinoma at the baseline of the studies; 1503 of them were treated with prophylactic central neck dissection following total thyroidectomy, and 2014 were using total thyroidectomy. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the effect of prophylactic central neck dissection following total thyroidectomy on surgical site wound infection, hematoma, and haemorrhage in subjects with clinically node-negative papillary thyroid carcinoma using the dichotomous method with a random or fixed-effect model. The prophylactic central neck dissection following total thyroidectomy subjects had a significantly lower surgical site wound infection (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20-0.78, P = .007) in subjects with clinically node-negative papillary thyroid carcinoma compared with total thyroidectomy. However, prophylactic central neck dissection following total thyroidectomy did not show any significant difference in hematoma (OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.43-2.71, P = .87), and haemorrhage (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.26-1.97, P = .52) compared with total thyroidectomy in subjects with clinically node-negative papillary thyroid carcinoma. The prophylactic central neck dissection following total thyroidectomy subjects had a significantly higher surgical site wound infection, and no significant difference in hematoma, and haemorrhage compared with total thyroidectomy in subjects with clinically node-negative papillary thyroid carcinoma. The analysis of outcomes should be with caution because of the low number of studies in certain comparisons.

Abstract

PURPOSE This meta-analysis aims to investigate the role of prophylactic clipping after endoscopic colorectal polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in prevention of delayed bleeding (DB) following polypectomy. METHODS We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of prophylactic clipping versus no clipping on DB since inception to 22nd April 2022. We then performed a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. RESULTS We included 8 studies with 5648 patients and 10,436 lesions. Prophylactic clipping did not reduce the overall risk of DB compared with no clipping (1.54% vs 2.05%; Log RR, -0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.59, 0.01; P = 0.06). In subgroup analyses, clipping significantly reduced DB rate in polyps ≥ 2 cm (Log RR, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.08, -0.18; P = 0.01), in non-pedunculated polyps (Log RR, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.01, -0.24; P = 0.00), and in large (≥ 2 cm) proximal polyps (Log RR, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.56, 0.05; P = 0.04), but not in polyps < 2 cm (Log RR, 0.01; 95% CI, -.40, 0.42; P = 0.95). CONCLUSION Prophylactic clipping does not prevent post-polypectomy bleeding after all EMR and should not be performed as a routine practice. Although prophylactic clipping may reduce DB rate following resection of large proximal polyps and non-pedunculated polyps, more high-quality studies are needed to determine the effects of factors such as polyp location, polyp morphology, antithrombotic drug use and complete or partial closure on the effectiveness of prophylactic clipping.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Spinal surgeries are often accompanied by significant blood loss both intraoperatively and postoperatively. Excessive blood loss caused by surgery may lead to several harmful medical consequences. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is a kind of antifibrinolytic agent that has been widely used in spinal surgery. Currently, it is commonly accepted that intravenous TXA (ivTXA) can reduce blood loss in spinal fusion surgeries. Compared with ivTXA, topical TXA (tTXA) seems to be much easier to administer. This advantage provides a maximum concentration of TXA at the hemorrhagic site with little to no TXA entering the circulation. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of tTXA on blood loss during and after spinal surgery via a comprehensive meta-analysis of the published data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other comparative cohort studies. METHODS A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were performed for RCTs and other comparative cohort studies on the effect of tTXA on blood loss during and after spinal surgery. The outcomes were total blood loss, hidden blood loss, intraoperative blood loss, total postoperative drainage volume, drainage tube duration postoperatively, drainage volume and drainage of blood content at postoperative day (POD) 1 and POD2, length of hospital stay, number of patients who received a blood transfusion, serum HB level at POD1, operative timespan, side effects, and complications. The final search was performed in October 2020. We followed the PRISMA guideline, and the registration number is INPLASY202160028. RESULTS In total, six studies with 481 patients were included. tTXA treatment, compared with the control conditions, can significantly reduce the total blood loss, hidden blood loss, total postoperative drainage volume, and several patients receiving blood transfusions; reduce the drainage volume and drainage of blood content at POD1; shorten the drainage tube duration postoperatively and length of hospital stay, and enhance the serum HB level at POD1 for spinal surgery. tTXA treatment did not significantly influence the intraoperative blood loss, drainage volume, or drainage of blood content at POD2 or the operative duration. CONCLUSION Compared with control conditions, tTXA has high efficacy in reducing blood loss, and drainage volume enable quick rehabilitation and has a relatively high level of safety in spinal surgery.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are at risk for venous and arterial thromboembolism and death. Optimal thromboprophylaxis dosing in high-risk patients is unknown. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effects of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose heparins for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk hospitalized patients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The HEP-COVID multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 with D-dimer levels more than 4 times the upper limit of normal or sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of 4 or greater from May 8, 2020, through May 14, 2021, at 12 academic centers in the US. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin vs therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg subcutaneous, twice daily if creatinine clearance was 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater (0.5 mg/kg twice daily if creatinine clearance was 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2) throughout hospitalization. Patients were stratified at the time of randomization based on intensive care unit (ICU) or non-ICU status. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), or death from any cause, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding at 30 ± 2 days. Data were collected and adjudicated locally by blinded investigators via imaging, laboratory, and health record data. RESULTS Of 257 patients randomized, 253 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 66.7 [14.0] years; men, 136 [53.8%]; women, 117 [46.2%]); 249 patients (98.4%) met inclusion criteria based on D-dimer elevation and 83 patients (32.8%) were stratified as ICU-level care. There were 124 patients (49%) in the standard-dose vs 129 patients (51%) in the therapeutic-dose group. The primary efficacy outcome was met in 52 of 124 patients (41.9%) (28.2% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 25.0% death) with standard-dose heparins vs 37 of 129 patients (28.7%) (11.7% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 19.4% death) with therapeutic-dose LMWH (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; P = .03), including a reduction in thromboembolism (29.0% vs 10.9%; RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.66; P < .001). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.6% with standard-dose vs 4.7% with therapeutic-dose heparins (RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 0.59-14.02; P = .17). The primary efficacy outcome was reduced in non-ICU patients (36.1% vs 16.7%; RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.81; P = .004) but not ICU patients (55.3% vs 51.1%; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.62-1.39; P = .71). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this randomized clinical trial, therapeutic-dose LMWH reduced major thromboembolism and death compared with institutional standard heparin thromboprophylaxis among inpatients with COVID-19 with very elevated D-dimer levels. The treatment effect was not seen in ICU patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04401293.