scholarly journals Higher PEEP versus Lower PEEP Strategies for Patients in ICU without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hongyu Yi ◽  
Xiaoming Li ◽  
Zhi Mao ◽  
Chao Liu ◽  
Xin Hu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
High Peep ◽  
Icu Patients ◽  
Icu Stay ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Duration Of Ventilation

Abstract Background: The application of high PEEP remains to be a controversial issue when it comes to ICU patients underwent ventilation. There are studies supporting the usage of high PEEP in patients with ARDS, while for those without ARDS, the conclusion is of great ambiguity. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects of high and low level of PEEP on ICU patients without ARDS.Methods: We searched public databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrial.gov) to find eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcomes included in this meta-analysis were in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality and the duration of ventilation, ICU stay, and hospital stay. We used the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool to evaluate risk of bias. Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) was conducted. Results: We included 2307 patients from 24 trials using high and low PEEP. Although no significant difference was found between high and low PEEP applications in in-hospital mortality (risk ratio[RR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval[CI] [0.81, 1.19], P=0.87), 28-day mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI [0.33, 1.40], P=0.30) and the duration of ventilation (mean difference[MD] -0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.04], P=0.09), ICU stay (MD -0.38, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.27], P=0.25), and hospital stay (MD -0.56, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.32], P=0.22), high PEEP indeed increased the level of PaO2/FIO2 (MD 32.39, 95% CI [13.06, 51.72], P=0.001), and therefore decreased the incidences of ARDS (RR 0.57, 95% CI [0.37, 0.89], P=0.01) and hypoxaemia (RR 0.60, 95% CI [0.41, 0.88], P=0.009). In addition, although total results did not reveal the advantage of high PEEP on other secondary outcomes regarding atelectasis, barotrauma, ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP), hypotension, mean arterial pressure (MAP), SaO2 and lactate, subgroup analysis seemed to obtain different results. The TSA results suggested more RCTs were needed. Conclusion: Ventilation with high PEEP in ICU patients without ARDS may improve the level of oxygenation (PaO2/FIO2) resulting in low incidences of ARDS and hypoxaemia. Nevertheless, other clinical outcomes including in-hospital and 28-day mortality, duration of ventilation, ICU stay and hospital stay, pulmonary complications, hemodynamics and post-operative fluid balance did not show any significant difference.

scholarly journals Prevalence and Clinical Outcomes of Clostridium difficile Infection in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Styliani Karanika ◽  
Suresh Paudel ◽  
Fainareti N. Zervou ◽  
Christos Grigoras ◽  
Ioannis M. Zacharioudakis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Clostridium Difficile ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Clostridium Difficile Infection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Icu Patients ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background.  Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are at higher risk for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Methods. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies from 1983 to 2015 using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases to study the prevalence and outcomes of CDI in this patient population. Among the 9146 articles retrieved from the studies, 22 articles, which included a total of 80 835 ICU patients, were included in our final analysis. Results.  The prevalence of CDI among ICU patients was 2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1%–2%), and among diarrheic ICU patients the prevalence was 11% (95% CI, 6%–17%). Among CDI patients, 25% (95% CI, 5%–51%) were diagnosed with pseudomembranous colitis, and the estimated length of ICU stay before CDI acquisition was 10.74 days (95% CI, 5%–51%). The overall hospital mortality among ICU patients with CDI was 32% (95% CI, 26%–39%), compared with 24% (95% CI, 14%–36%) among those without CDI presenting a statistically significant difference in mortality risk (P = .030). It is worth noting that the length of ICU and hospital stay among CDI patients was significantly longer, compared with non-CDI patients (standardized mean of difference [SMD] = 0.49, 95% CI, .39%–.6%, P = .00 and SMD = 1.15, 95% CI, .44%–1.91%, P = .003, respectively). It is noteworthy that the morbidity score at ICU admission (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II [APACHE II]) was not statistically different between the 2 groups (P = .911), implying that the differences in outcomes can be attributed to CDI. Conclusions.  The ICU setting is associated with higher prevalence of CDI. In this setting, CDI is associated with increased hospital mortality and prolonged ICU and overall hospital stay. These findings highlight the need for additional prevention and treatment studies in this setting.

scholarly journals Efficacy of probiotics in the prevention of VAP in critically ill ICU patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Priyam Batra ◽  
Kapil Dev Soni ◽  
Purva Mathur
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Icu Stay ◽  
Length Of Icu Stay

Abstract Introduction Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is reported as the second most common nosocomial infection among critically ill patients with the incidence ranging from 2 to 16 episodes per 1000 ventilator days. The use of probiotics has been shown to have a promising effect in many RCTs. Our systematic review and meta-analysis were thus planned to determine the effect of probiotic use in critically ill ventilated adult patients on the incidence of VAP, length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, the incidence of diarrhea, and the incidence of oropharyngeal colonization and in-hospital mortality. Methodology Systematic search of various databases (such as Embase, Cochrane, and Pubmed), published journals, clinical trials, and abstracts of the various major conferences were made to obtain the RCTs which compare probiotics with placebo for VAP prevention. The results were expressed as risk ratios or mean differences. Data synthesis was done using statistical software - Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020). Results Nine studies met our inclusion criterion and were included in the meta-analysis. The incidence of VAP (risk ratio: 0.70, CI 0.56, 0.88; P = 0.002; I2 = 37%), duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference −3.75, CI −6.93, −0.58; P 0.02; I2 = 96%), length of ICU stay (mean difference −4.20, CI −6.73, −1.66; P = 0.001; I2 = 84%) and in-hospital mortality (OR 0.73, CI 0.54, 0.98; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%) in the probiotic group was significantly lower than that in the control group. Probiotic administration was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in length of hospital stay (MD −1.94, CI −7.17, 3.28; P = 0.47; I2 = 88%), incidence of oro-pharyngeal colonization (OR 0.59, CI 0.33, 1.04; P = 0.07; I2 = 69%), and incidence of diarrhea (OR 0.59, CI 0.34, 1.03; P = 0.06; I2 = 38%). Discussion Our meta-analysis shows that probiotic administration has a promising role in lowering the incidence of VAP, the duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, and in-hospital mortality.

Outcome Evaluation of Laparoscopic and Open Nissen Fundoplication in Children—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xing Lei ◽  
Qingquan Ren ◽  
Yang Yang ◽  
Tiecheng Bai
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Nissen Fundoplication ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Hospital Stay ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Duration Of Surgery ◽  
The Mean

Our aim was to estimate the efficacy of laparoscopic and open Nissen fundoplication (ONF) in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in children. An electronic systematic review of the published literature was conducted in Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (PubMed), and EmBase in October 2015 in English and without time restrictions. The participants, interventions, and comparisons in the clinical question translated directly into eligibility criteria for study inclusion and exclusion. Study information extraction and methodological quality assessments were accomplished by two reviewers independently. Methodological quality was assessed by using the “Criteria for judging risk of bias in the ‘Risk of bias’ assessment tool.” Odds ratio (OR) with 95 per cent confidence interval was computed as summary statistics. Fixed-effects model was used and a pooled OR was calculated with the Mantel–Haenszel method initially. If the studies were heterogeneous, then the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used for meta-analysis. Outcome indices included mortality of patients, recurrence of GERD, reoperation of GERD, patients with complications, length of postoperative hospital stay, and surgery duration of laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) and ONF. Statistical analyses were carried out by using Review Manager 5.2. The duration of follow-up varied between two days and four years. Children operated with LNF had a higher recurrence rate of GERD than those undergoing ONF. The pooled OR of LNF versus ONF was 2.98 (95% confidence interval = 1.29–6.87) while the heterogeneity was I2 = 47 per cent and P = 0.13. Statistical analysis showed that there was no significant difference for mortality, reoperation, and complication. The mean duration of surgery was significantly longer in the LNF than the ONF group while the results of length of postoperative hospital stay remained inconformity. In this meta-analysis, children operated with LNF had a higher recurrence rate of GERD than those undergoing ONF. Meanwhile, when considering the outcomes of mortality, reoperation, and complications, there was no significant difference. The mean duration of surgery was significantly longer in the LNF than the ONF group while no consistent conclusion of length of postoperative hospital stay was found.

scholarly journals Safety and efficacy of routine diagnostic test reduction interventions in patients admitted to the intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-34
Author(s):  
Katherine P Hooper ◽  
Matthew H Anstey ◽  
Edward Litton
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Significant Difference

Reducing unnecessary routine diagnostic testing has been identified as a strategy to curb wasteful healthcare. However, the safety and efficacy of targeted diagnostic testing strategies are uncertain. The aim of this study was to systematically review interventions designed to reduce pathology and chest radiograph testing in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). A predetermined protocol and search strategy included OVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until 20 November 2019. Eligible publications included interventional studies of patients admitted to an ICU. There were no language restrictions. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and test reduction. Key secondary outcomes included ICU mortality, length of stay, costs and adverse events. This systematic review analysed 26 studies (with more than 44,00 patients) reporting an intervention to reduce one or more diagnostic tests. No studies were at low risk of bias. In-hospital mortality, reported in seven studies, was not significantly different in the post-implementation group (829 of 9815 patients, 8.4%) compared with the pre-intervention group (1007 of 9848 patients, 10.2%), (relative risk 0.89, 95% confidence intervals 0.79 to 1.01, P = 0.06, I2 39%). Of the 18 studies reporting a difference in testing rates, all reported a decrease associated with targeted testing (range 6%–72%), with 14 (82%) studies reporting >20% reduction in one or more tests. Studies of ICU targeted test interventions are generally of low quality. The majority report substantial decreases in testing without evidence of a significant difference in hospital mortality.

Mortality Benefit From the Passive Leg Raise Maneuver in Guiding Resuscitation of Septic Shock Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 088506662110197
Author(s):  
Moosa Azadian ◽  
Suyee Win ◽  
Amir Abdipour ◽  
Carolyn Krystal Kim ◽  
H. Bryant Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Septic Shock ◽  
Fluid Resuscitation ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Passive Leg Raise

Background: Fluid therapy plays a major role in the management of critically ill patients. Yet assessment of intravascular volume in these patients is challenging. Different invasive and non-invasive methods have been used with variable results. The passive leg raise (PLR) maneuver has been recommended by international guidelines as a means to determine appropriate fluid resuscitation. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if using this method of volume assessment has an impact on mortality outcome in patients with septic shock. Methods: This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched available data in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception until October 2020 for prospective, randomized, controlled trials that compared PLR-guided fluid resuscitation to standard care in adult patients with septic shock. Our primary outcome was mortality at the longest duration of follow-up. Results: We screened 1,425 article titles and abstracts. Of the 23 full-text articles reviewed, 5 studies with 462 patients met our eligibility criteria. Odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for mortality at the longest reported time interval were calculated for each study. Using random effects modeling, the pooled OR (95% CI) for mortality with a PLR-guided resuscitation strategy was 0.82 (0.52 -1.30). The included studies were not blinded and they ranged from having low to high risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Conclusion: Our analysis showed there was no statistically significant difference in mortality among septic shock patients treated with PLR-guided resuscitation vs. those with standard care.

scholarly journals Racecadotril for acute diarrhoea in children: systematic review and meta-analyses

2015 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 234-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morris Gordon ◽  
Anthony Akobeng
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Acute Diarrhoea ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms ◽  
Duration Of Illness ◽  
Significant Difference

ObjectiveRacecadotril is an antisecretory agent that can prevent fluid/electrolyte depletion from the bowel as a result of acute diarrhoea without affecting intestinal motility. An up-to-date systematic review is indicated to summarise the evidence on racecadotril for the treatment of acute diarrhoea in children.DesignA Cochrane format systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.PatientsChildren with acute diarrhoea, as defined by the primary studies.InterventionsRCTs comparing racecadotril with placebo or other interventions.Main outcome measursDuration of illness, stool output/volume and adverse events.ResultsSeven RCTs were included, five comparing racecadotril with placebo or no intervention, one with pectin/kaolin and one with loperamide. Moderate to high risk of bias was present in all studies. There was no significant difference in efficacy or adverse events between racecadotril and loperamide. A meta-analysis of three studies with 642 participants showed significantly shorter duration of symptoms with racecadotril compared with placebo (mean difference −53.48 h, 95% CI −65.64 to −41.33). A meta-analysis of five studies with 949 participants showed no significant difference in adverse events between racecadotril and placebo (risk ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.34).ConclusionsThere is some evidence that racecadotril is more effective than placebo or no intervention in reducing the duration of illness and stool output in children with acute diarrhoea. However, the overall quality of the evidence is limited due to sparse data, heterogeneity and risk of bias. Racecadotril appears to be safe and well tolerated.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and safety of herbal medicines for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e022499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Collins Zamawe ◽  
Carina King ◽  
Hannah Maria Jennings ◽  
Chrispin Mandiwa ◽  
Edward Fottrell
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Herbal Medicines ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Significant Difference

ObjectiveThe use of herbal medicines for induction of labour (IOL) is common globally and yet its effects are not well understood. We assessed the efficacy and safety of herbal medicines for IOL.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of published literature.Data sourcesWe searched in MEDLINE, AMED and CINAHL in April 2017, updated in June 2018.Eligibility criteriaWe considered experimental and non-experimental studies that compared relevant pregnancy outcomes between users and non-user of herbal medicines for IOL.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted by two reviewers using a standardised form. A random-effects model was used to synthesise effects sizes and heterogeneity was explored through I2statistic. The risk of bias was assessed using ‘John Hopkins Nursing School Critical Appraisal Tool’ and ‘Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool’.ResultsA total of 1421 papers were identified through the searches, but only 10 were retained after eligibility and risk of bias assessments. The users of herbal medicine for IOL were significantly more likely to give birth within 24 hours than non-users (Risk Ratio (RR) 4.48; 95% CI 1.75 to 11.44). No significant difference in the incidence of caesarean section (RR 1.19; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.86), assisted vaginal delivery (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.14), haemorrhage (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.60), meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.65 to 2.23) and admission to nursery (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.38) was found between users and non-users of herbal medicines for IOL.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that herbal medicines for IOL are effective, but there is inconclusive evidence of safety due to lack of good quality data. Thus, the use of herbal medicines for IOL should be avoided until safety issues are clarified. More studies are recommended to establish the safety of herbal medicines.

scholarly journals High-dose versus low-dose haemofiltration for the treatment of critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e014171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng Li ◽  
Li-ping Qu ◽  
Dong Qi ◽  
Bo Shen ◽  
Yi-mei Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Kidney Injury ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
High Dose

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of high-dose versus low-dose haemofiltration on the survival of critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). We hypothesised that high-dose treatments are not associated with a higher risk of mortality.DesignMeta-analysis.SettingRandomised controlled trials and two-arm prospective and retrospective studies were included.ParticipantsCritically ill patients with AKI.InterventionsContinuous renal replacement therapy.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcomes: 90-day mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, hospital mortality; secondary outcomes: length of ICU and hospital stay.ResultEight studies including 2970 patients were included in the analysis. Pooled results showed no significant difference in the 90-mortality rate between patients treated with high-dose or low-dose haemofiltration (pooled OR=0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.11, p=0.32). Findings were similar for ICU (pooled OR=1.12, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.34, p=0.21) and hospital mortality (pooled OR=1.03, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.30, p=0.84). Length of ICU and hospital stay were similar between high-dose and low-dose groups. Pooled results are not overly influenced by any one study, different cut-off points of prescribed dose or different cut-off points of delivered dose. Meta-regression analysis indicated that the results were not affected by the percentage of patients with sepsis or septic shock.ConclusionHigh-dose and low-dose haemofiltration produce similar outcomes with respect to mortality and length of ICU and hospital stay in critically ill patients with AKI.This study was not registered at the time the data were collected and analysed. It has since been registered on 17 February 2017 athttp://www.researchregistry.com/, registration number: reviewregistry211.

scholarly journals The proportion and effect of corticosteroid therapy for patients with COVID-19 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun-ning Wang ◽  
Wei-xia Yang ◽  
Pu-wen Chen ◽  
Jian-bin Guo ◽  
Rui Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Corticosteroid Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Corticosteroid Treatment ◽  
Viral Clearance ◽  
Academic Journal ◽  
Icu Patients ◽  
Global Challenge ◽  
Mortality Effect ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Objectives: COVID-19 remains a global challenge. Corticosteroids are a group of anti-inflammatory and suppressive immune response drugs that are widely used in the treatment of COVID-19, especially when it presents with viral pneumonia. Comprehensive reviews investigating the comparative proportion and efficacy of corticosteroid use are scarce. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials to evaluate the proportion and efficacy of corticosteroid use for the treatment of COVID-19.Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, and the China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database for relevant trials on glucocorticoid therapy in COVID-19 patients. Outcome measures were the proportion of patients administered corticosteroids, viral clearance and mortality. Effect size was reported as weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results: Forty-three trials involving 6603 patients were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the proportion of COVID-19 patients who received corticosteroids was significantly lower than that of patients who did not receive corticosteroids. In addition, our meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the proportions of severe and nonsevere patients who were administered corticosteroids. We also performed subgroup analyses stratified by severity, indicating that the proportion of patients administered corticosteroids was significantly higher among intensive care unit (ICU) patients than among non-ICU patients. The results of our meta-analysis indicated that corticosteroid treatment significantly delayed the viral clearance time. Finally, our meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients who died and those who survived. This result indicated that mortality was not correlated with corticosteroid therapy.Conclusion: The proportion of COVID-19 patients who received corticosteroids was significantly lower than that of patients who did not receive corticosteroids. Corticosteroid use in subjects with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections delayed virus clearance and did not convincingly improve survival;therefore, corticosteroids should be used with caution in the treatment of COVID-19.

The Effect of β-Blockers for Burn Patients on Clinical Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 088506662094018
Author(s):  
Nasreen Hassoun-Kheir ◽  
Oryan Henig ◽  
Tomer Avni ◽  
Leonard Leibovici ◽  
Mical Paul
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Selective Reporting ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Β Blocker ◽  
Β Blockers

Objectives: To assess the effects and safety of β-blockers in hospitalized patients with burns. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. A broad search was conducted to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing β-blockers to control in hospitalized patients with burns. The primary outcome was 3-month all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were clinical patient-relevant end points. We subgrouped results by children/adults and burn severity. Risk of bias was assessed using the individual domain approach. Results: Four RCTs reported in 11 publications were included. Primary outcome of mortality was assessed in children (2 trials, n = 424) and adults (2 trials, n = 148) with severe burns. No significant difference was found between propranolol and control for mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.48-1.39, 4 trials with broad confidence intervals in adults and children), sepsis (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.46-1.43, 2 trials), and survivors’ length of stay (absolute mean difference = 2.53, 95% CI = −2.58–7.63, 3 trials). There was no significant difference in bradycardia (RR = 1.33, 95% CI = 0.77-2.3, 2 trials), hypotension (RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 0.73-2.17, 3 trials), or cardiac arrhythmia (RR: 2.97, 95% CI: 0.12-71.87, 1 trial). The evidence was graded as very low certainty, due to trial’s internal risk of bias, imprecision, and possible selective reporting. Conclusions: No sufficient evidence was found to support or refute an advantage for β-blocker use in children or adults after burns. Additional studies are needed to create a consensus and formulate practice guidelines on the optimal β-blocker to use, indications for initiation, and duration of treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document