Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filters for Venous Thromboembolism in Adults With Trauma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Trauma is an independent risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Due to contraindications or delay in starting pharmacological prophylaxis among trauma patients with a high risk of bleeding, the inferior vena cava (IVC) filter has been utilized as alternative prevention for pulmonary embolism (PE). Albeit, its clinical efficacy has remained uncertain. Therefore, we performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic IVC filters in severely injured patients. Methods: Three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane) were searched from August 1, 2012, to October 27, 2021. Independent reviewers performed data extraction and quality assessment. Relative risk (RR) at 95% confidence interval (CI) pooled in a randomized meta-analysis. A parallel clinical practice guideline committee assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. The outcomes of interest included VTE, PE, deep venous thrombosis, mortality, and IVC filter complications. Results: We included 10 controlled studies (47 140 patients), of which 3 studies (310 patients) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 7 were observational studies (46 830 patients). IVC filters demonstrated no significant reduction in PE and fatal PE (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.06-1.28 and RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01-7.84, respectively) by pooling RCTs with low certainty. However, it demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of PE and fatal PE (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12-0.55 and RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.011-0.81, respectively) by pooling observational studies with very low certainty. IVC filter did not improve mortality in both RCTs and observational studies (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.86-2.43 and RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.3-1.31, respectively). Conclusion: In trauma patients, moderate risk reduction of PE and fatal PE was demonstrated among observational data but not RCTs. The desirable effect is not robust to outweigh the undesirable effects associated with IVC filter complications. Current evidence suggests against routinely using prophylactic IVC filters.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Treatment in Patients with COVID-19 Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Early use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) decreases the need for endotracheal intubation (EI) in different respiratory failure causes. While HFNC is used in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) under weak recommendations, its efficacy remains to be investigated. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to examine HFNC efficacy in preventing EI among COVID-19 patients with AHRF. Secondary objectives were to determine predictors of HFNC success/failure, mortality rate, and length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study conducted at a single tertiary care centre in Saudi Arabia from April to August 2020. Adult patients admitted to the ICU with AHRF secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia and managed with HFNC were included. We excluded patients who were intubated or managed with non-invasive ventilation before HFNC. RESULTS: Forty-four patients received HFNC for a median duration of 3 days (interquartile range, 1-5 days). The mean age was 57 ± 14 years, and 86% were men. HFNC failure and EI occurred in 29 (66%) patients. Patients in whom HNFC treatment failed had a higher risk of death (52% versus 0%; P = 0.001). After adjusting for confounding factors, a high SOFA score and a low ROX index were significantly associated with HFNC failure (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.93; P = 0.025; and HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.88; P = 0.008, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: One-third of hypoxemic COVID-19 patients who received HFNC did not require intubation. High SOFA score and low ROX index were associated with HFNC failure.