Measurement properties of quality-of-life outcome measures for children and adults with eczema: A systematic review update 2.0

For the quality of life working group of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative. A systematic review on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for the assessment of quality of life (QoL) in children and adults with eczema was published in 2016 and updated in 2019. We now aimed to systematically assess the measurement properties of PROMs based on recently published development and validation studies regarding QoL skin- or disease-specific PROMs using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines and integrate these findings with those from the 2019 update. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase. Eligible studies reported on measurement properties of skin- or disease-specific PROMs for the assessment of QoL in children and adults with eczema. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. The methodological quality of the included PROMs was judged using updated criteria for good measurement properties, and the quality of evidence was graded. The new evidence was integrated into the results from 2019. Finally, a recommendation for use of the identified PROMs was derived based on all evidence. We identified 12 eligible studies. Based on the newly generated evidence, the Childhood Atopic Dermatitis Impact Scale—short form (CADIS-SF) for infants and the Skindex for adults can be recommended for use. We identified three new PROMs, which have the potential to be used, but require further validation: the Pediatric Allergic Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (PADQLQ), the Skindex-Mini, and the Scratch Intensity and Impact Scale (SIIS). All other assessed PROMs still have the opportunity to be recommended for use (except for the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI)) but need further validation

Left-Ventricular Unloading With Impella During Refractory Cardiac Arrest Treated With Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is the implementation of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) during refractory cardiac arrest. The role of left-ventricular (LV) unloading with Impella in addition to VA-ECMO ("ECMELLA") remains unclear during ECPR. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to characterize patients with ECPR receiving LV unloading and to compare in-hospital mortality between ECMELLA and VA-ECMO during ECPR.DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and abstract websites of the three largest cardiology societies (American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and European Society of Cardiology).STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies with adult patients with refractory cardiac arrest receiving ECPR with ECMELLA or VA-ECMO until July 2023 according to the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis checklist.DATA EXTRACTION: Patient and treatment characteristics and in-hospital mortality from 13 study records at 32 hospitals with a total of 1014 ECPR patients. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI were computed with the Mantel-Haenszel test using a random-effects model.DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven hundred sixty-two patients (75.1%) received VA-ECMO and 252 (24.9%) ECMELLA. Compared with VA-ECMO, the ECMELLA group was comprised of more patients with initial shockable electrocardiogram rhythms (58.6% vs. 49.3%), acute myocardial infarctions (79.7% vs. 51.5%), and percutaneous coronary interventions (79.0% vs. 47.5%). VA-ECMO alone was more frequently used in pulmonary embolism (9.5% vs. 0.7%). Age, rate of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and low-flow times were similar between both groups. ECMELLA support was associated with reduced odds of mortality (OR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.30-0.91]) and higher odds of good neurologic outcome (OR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.17-4.22]) compared with VA-ECMO support alone. ECMELLA therapy was associated with numerically increased but not significantly higher complication rates. Primary results remained robust in multiple sensitivity analyses.CONCLUSIONS: ECMELLA support was predominantly used in patients with acute myocardial infarction and VA-ECMO for pulmonary embolism. ECMELLA support during ECPR might be associated with improved survival and neurologic outcome despite higher complication rates. However, indications and frequency of ECMELLA support varied strongly between institutions. Further scientific evidence is urgently required to elaborate standardized guidelines for the use of LV unloading during ECPR.</p