Association of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure and Lung Recruitment Selection Strategies with Mortality in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Rationale: The most beneficial positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) selection strategy in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unknown, and current practice is variable. Objectives: To compare the relative effects of different PEEP selection strategies on mortality in adults with moderate to severe ARDS. Methods: We conducted a network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation methodology. Measurements and Main Results: We included 18 randomized trials (4,646 participants). Compared with a lower PEEP strategy, the posterior probability of mortality benefit from a higher PEEP without lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) strategy was 99% (risk ratio [RR], 0.77; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.60-0.96, high certainty), the posterior probability of benefit of the esophageal pressure-guided strategy was 87% (RR, 0.77; 95% CrI, 0.48-1.22, moderate certainty), the posterior probability of benefit of a higher PEEP with brief LRM strategy was 96% (RR, 0.83; 95% CrI, 0.67-1.02, moderate certainty), and the posterior probability of increased mortality from a higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy was 77% (RR, 1.06; 95% CrI, 0.89-1.22, low certainty). Compared with a higher PEEP without LRM strategy, the posterior probability of increased mortality from a higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy was 99% (RR, 1.37; 95% CrI, 1.04-1.81, moderate certainty). Conclusions: In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, higher PEEP without LRM is associated with a lower risk of death than lower PEEP. A higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy is associated with increased risk of death when compared with higher PEEP without LRM.

Protocol for a scoping review on transition-related surgery procedures, outcome measures and access to care.

INTRODUCTION: Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals often identify with a gender different to the one assigned at birth. Transition is a term used to describe the process TGD individuals take to live as their true gender. Surgery can be a very important aspect of care for members of TGD communities. Transition-related surgery (TRS) refers to many different types of surgeries completed to meet a TGD individual's gender-related goals. While various systematic reviews have attempted to synthesise the existing peer-reviewed literature around aspects of TRS, there are few scoping reviews in this area. Our scoping review aims to address this gap through providing an up-to-date overview of the TRS literature in order to provide an overarching view of the topic. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: This review will follow the methods outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology for scoping reviews and will be reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. A search of nine scientific databases resulted in 20 062 potential articles. After removing duplicates, articles will be screened for inclusion using Covidence. Data extraction and synthesis will be carried out using NVivo and reviewed by team members. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study is a scoping review of the existing literature, no ethics review is required. The findings from this review will be disseminated through multiple pathways including open access publication, submission to conferences, social media and Listservs. The findings of the study will also be readily available to clinicians, organizations, interest groups, and policy-makers.

Virtual preoperative assessment in surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Preoperative assessment is a standard evaluation, traditionally done in-person in a preanesthesia clinic, for patients who will be undergoing a procedure involving anesthesia. Given the increased adoption of virtual care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to review the effectiveness of virtual preoperative assessment for the evaluation of surgical patients. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: MEDLINE (Ovid), MEDLINE InProcess/ePubs, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the initial coverage of the respective database to May 2021. A manual citation search of Google Scholar and PubMed was conducted to identify missed articles. Continued literature surveillance was done through July 2021. PATIENTS: Patients aged 18 years and older undergoing virtual preoperative anesthesia assessment. INTERVENTIONS: Virtual preoperative assessment. MEASUREMENTS: Surgery cancellation rates, patient experience, resources saved, staff experience, success in using the data collected to diagnose and manage patients. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen studies (n = 31,496 patients) were included in this review. The average age of patients was 58 ± 15 years, and 47% were male. Virtual preoperative assessment resulted in similar surgery cancellation rates compared to in-person evaluation, with a pooled cancellation rate of 2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1-3%). Most studies reported a positive patient experience, with a pooled estimate of 90% (95% CI, 81-95%). There was a high success rate in using the information collected with virtual care, in the range of 92-100%, to diagnose and manage patients resulting in time and cost savings in the range of 24-137 min and $60-67 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates the utility of virtual care for preoperative assessment of surgical patients. Virtual preanesthesia evaluation had similar surgery cancellation rates, high patient satisfaction, and reduced costs compared to in-person evaluation.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children during the coronavirus disease pandemic of 2019: a review of clinical features and acute phase management.

The current coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has presented unique health challenges in the pediatric population. Compared to adults, the most significant change in viral disease manifestation is encompassed by the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). MIS-C is a new inflammatory syndrome which develops 2-4 weeks after COVID-19 exposure, with evidence suggesting it is a post-infectious immune reaction. We describe its epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis (which varies based on definition used) and treatment options based on published recommendations. A systematic literature search we conducted through MEDLINE yielded 518 abstracts and identified five studies that reported more than 100 cases of MIS-C and their mortality. Most cases developed multiorgan dysfunction, including cardiovascular, dermatologic, neurological, renal, and respiratory issues, and required intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Many patients admitted to the ICU needed inotrope support and invasive mechanical ventilation, and the most severe cases required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. Most clinicians treated MIS-C with intravenous immunoglobulin, systemic steroids, and biological therapies. Overall mortality was low (2-3%) in all studies. Further research is needed to: understand if early intervention can prevent its progression; optimize its treatment; and improve outcomes of this new syndrome for the patients who develop MIS-C.

Risk factors and protective measures for healthcare worker infection during highly infectious viral respiratory epidemics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate risk factors for healthcare worker (HCW) infection in viral respiratory pandemics: severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), SARS CoV-1, influenza A H1N1, influenza H5N1. To improve understanding of HCW risk management amid the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from conception until July 2020 for studies comparing infected HCWs (cases) and noninfected HCWs (controls) and risk factors for infection. Outcomes included HCW types, infection prevention practices, and medical procedures. Pooled effect estimates with pathogen-specific stratified meta-analysis and inverse variance meta-regression analysis were completed. We used the GRADE framework to rate certainty of evidence. (PROSPERO no. CRD42020176232, 6 April 2020.). RESULTS: In total, 54 comparative studies were included (n = 191,004 HCWs). Compared to nonfrontline HCWs, frontline HCWs were at increased infection risk (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.24-2.22), and the risk was greater for HCWs involved in endotracheal intubations (risk difference, 35.2%; 95% CI, 21.4-47.9). Use of gloves, gown, surgical mask, N95 respirator, face protection, and infection training were each strongly protective against infection. Meta-regression showed reduced infection risk in frontline HCWs working in facilities with infection designated wards (OR, -1.04; 95% CI, -1.53 to -0.33, P = .004) and performing aerosol-generating medical procedures in designated centers (OR, -1.30; 95% CI, -2.52 to -0.08; P = .037). CONCLUSIONS: During highly infectious respiratory pandemics, widely available protective measures such as use of gloves, gowns, and face masks are strongly protective against infection and should be instituted, preferably in dedicated settings, to protect frontline HCW during waves of respiratory virus pandemics.