DataSheet_1_The effect of reparixin on survival in patients at high risk for in-hospital mortality: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.docx

IntroductionA great number of anti-inflammatory drugs have been suggested in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Reparixin, a non-competitive allosteric inhibitor of the CXCL8 (IL-8) receptors C-X-C chemokine receptor type 1 (CXCR1) and C-X-C chemokine receptor type 2 (CXCR2), has already been tried out as a treatment in different critical settings. Due to the contrasting existing literature, we decided to perform the present meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the effect of the use of reparixin on survival in patients at high risk for in-hospital mortality.MethodsWe created a search strategy to include any human RCTs performed with reparixin utilization in patients at high risk for in-hospital mortality, excluding oncological patients. Two trained, independent authors searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for appropriate studies. Furthermore, references of review articles and included RCTs were screened to identify more studies. No language restrictions were enforced. To assess the risk of bias of included trials, the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was used.ResultsOverall, six studies were included and involved 406 patients (220 received reparixin and 186 received the comparator). The all-cause mortality in the reparixin group was significantly lower than that in the control group [5/220 (2.3%) in the reparixin group vs. 12/186 (6.5%) in the control group, odds ratio = 0.33 (95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.96), p-value for effect 0.04, p for heterogeneity 0.20, I2 = 36%]. In addition, no difference in the rate of pneumonia, sepsis, or non-serious infections was shown between the two groups.ConclusionOur meta-analysis of randomized trials suggests that short-term inhibition of CXCL8 activity improved survival in patients at high risk for in-hospital mortality without increasing the risk of infection.Meta-analysis registrationPROSPERO, identifier CRD42021254467.</p

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest System-of-Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: COVID-19 pandemic overwhelmed healthcare systems and diverted resources allocated for other conditions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyse how the pandemic impacted the system-of-care of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase up to May 31, 2021, for studies comparing out-of-hospital cardiac arrests that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic versus a non-pandemic period. Survival at hospital discharge or at 30 days was the primary outcome. Results: We included 24 studies for a total of 75,952 patients. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests during COVID-19 pandemic had lower survival (19 studies; 603/11,666 [5.2%] vs. 1320/17,174 [7.7%]; OR = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44–0.65; P = 0.001) and return of spontaneous circulation (4370/24353 [18%] vs. 7401/34510 [21%]; OR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.55–0.75; P P P  Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic affected the system-of-care of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and patients had worse short-term outcomes compared to pre-pandemic periods. Advanced airway management strategy shifted from endotracheal intubation to supraglottic airway devices. PROSPERO CRD42021250339.</p

Overall results.

Overall results.</p

Additional file 2 of Propofol and survival: an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 2. Complete reference list of included studies

Additional file 1 of Propofol and survival: an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 1. Search strategy, supplemental Tables, and supplemental Figures

Study characteristics.

Study characteristics.</p

Non-Invasive Ventilation in the Prehospital Emergency Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Noninvasive ventilation is a well-established treatment for acute respiratory failure, being increasingly applied in the prehospital setting. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate whether early prehospital initiation of noninvasive ventilation reduces mortality compared to standard oxygen therapy. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to February 7th, 2022, for studies comparing prehospital noninvasive ventilation performed by emergency medical services versus standard oxygen therapy in patients with acute respiratory failure. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up available. We included ten randomized studies and two quasi-randomized studies for a total of 1485 patients. Prehospital treatment with noninvasive ventilation compared with standard oxygen therapy did not significantly reduce mortality at the longest follow-up available (107/810 [13%] vs 114/772 [15%]; RR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.70–1.13; P = 0.34; I2=24%). The endotracheal intubation rate was reduced when receiving prehospital noninvasive ventilation (38/776 [4.9%] vs 81/743 [11%]; RR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31–0.63; P 2=0%; number needed to treat 17). The intensive care admission rate (114/532 [21%] vs 129/507 [25%]; RR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.69–1.04; P = 0.11; I2=0%) and length of hospital stay (mean difference=-1.29 days; 95% CI, −3.35–0.77; P = 0.21; I2=82%) were similar between groups. Adults with acute respiratory failure treated in the prehospital setting with noninvasive ventilation had a lower risk of intubation than those managed with standard oxygen therapy, with similar risk of death, intensive care admission, and length of hospital stay. PROSPERO CRD42021284947</p

Studies bias.

<p>Studies bias.</p

Dexmedetomidine as a Sedative Agent in Critically Ill Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

<div><p>Introduction</p><p>The effect of dexmedetomidine on length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and time to extubation is still unclear.</p><p>Materials and Methods</p><p>Pertinent studies were independently searched in BioMedCentral, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials (updated February first 2013). Randomized studies (dexmedetomidine versus any comparator) were included if including patients mechanically ventilated in an intensive care unit (ICU). Co-primary endpoints were the length of ICU stay (days) and time to extubation (hours). Secondary endpoint was mortality rate at the longest follow-up available.</p><p>Results</p><p>The 27 included manuscripts (28 trials) randomized 3,648 patients (1,870 to dexmedetomidine and 1,778 to control). Overall analysis showed that the use of dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant reduction in length of ICU stay (weighted mean difference (WMD) = −0.79 [−1.17 to −0.40] days, p for effect <0.001) and of time to extubation (WMD = −2.74 [−3.80 to −1.65] hours, p for effect <0.001). Mortality was not different between dexmedetomidine and controls (risk ratio = 1.00 [0.84 to 1.21], p for effect = 0.9). High heterogeneity between included studies was found.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>This meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies suggests that dexmedetomidine could help to reduce ICU stay and time to extubation, in critically ill patients even if high heterogeneity between studies might confound the interpretation of these results.</p></div

Examined studies.

<p>Examined studies.</p