Patiromer utility as an adjunct treatment in patients needing urgent hyperkalaemia management (PLATINUM): design of a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study.

INTRODUCTION: Hyperkalaemia is common, life-threatening and often requires emergency department (ED) management; however, no standardised ED treatment protocol exists. Common treatments transiently reducing serum potassium (K+) (including albuterol, glucose and insulin) may cause hypoglycaemia. We outline the design and rationale of the Patiromer Utility as an Adjunct Treatment in Patients Needing Urgent Hyperkalaemia Management (PLATINUM) study, which will be the largest ED randomised controlled hyperkalaemia trial ever performed, enabling assessment of a standardised approach to hyperkalaemia management, as well as establishing a new evaluation parameter (net clinical benefit) for acute hyperkalaemia treatment investigations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PLATINUM is a Phase 4, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in participants who present to the ED at approximately 30 US sites. Approximately 300 adult participants with hyperkalaemia (K+ ≥5.8 mEq/L) will be enrolled. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive glucose (25 g intravenously <15 min before insulin), insulin (5 units intravenous bolus) and aerosolised albuterol (10 mg over 30 min), followed by a single oral dose of either 25.2 g patiromer or placebo, with a second dose of patiromer (8.4 g) or placebo after 24 hours. The primary endpoint is net clinical benefit, defined as the mean change in the number of additional interventions less the mean change in serum K+, at hour 6. Secondary endpoints are net clinical benefit at hour 4, proportion of participants without additional K+-related medical interventions, number of additional K+-related interventions and proportion of participants with sustained K+ reduction (K+ ≤5.5 mEq/L). Safety endpoints are the incidence of adverse events, and severity of changes in serum K+ and magnesium. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: A central Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Ethics Committee provided protocol approval (#20201569), with subsequent approval by local IRBs at each site, and participants will provide written consent. Primary results will be published in peer-reviewed manuscripts promptly following study completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04443608.

Utility of COVID-19 antigen testing in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The BinaxNOW coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Ag Card test (Abbott Diagnostics Scarborough, Inc.) is a lateral flow immunochromatographic point-of-care test for the qualitative detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid protein antigen. It provides results from nasal swabs in 15 minutes. Our purpose was to determine its sensitivity and specificity for a COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: Eligible patients had symptoms of COVID-19 or suspected exposure. After consent, 2 nasal swabs were collected; 1 was tested using the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 (ie, the gold standard polymerase chain reaction test) and the second run on the BinaxNOW point of care platform by emergency department staff. RESULTS: From July 20 to October 28, 2020, 767 patients were enrolled, of which 735 had evaluable samples. Their mean (SD) age was 46.8 (16.6) years, and 422 (57.4%) were women. A total of 623 (84.8%) patients had COVID-19 symptoms, most commonly shortness of breath (n = 404; 55.0%), cough (n = 314; 42.7%), and fever (n = 253; 34.4%). Although 460 (62.6%) had symptoms ≤7 days, the mean (SD) time since symptom onset was 8.1 (14.0) days. Positive tests occurred in 173 (23.5%) and 141 (19.2%) with the gold standard versus BinaxNOW test, respectively. Those with symptoms >2 weeks had a positive test rate roughly half of those with earlier presentations. In patients with symptoms ≤7 days, the sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values for the BinaxNOW test were 84.6%, 98.5%, 94.9%, and 95.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The BinaxNOW point-of-care test has good sensitivity and excellent specificity for the detection of COVID-19. We recommend using the BinasNOW for patients with symptoms up to 2 weeks.

Prediction value of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) in COVID-19 patients - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: In COVID-19, the rapid prediction of the severity of a patient's condition using modern biomarkers can accelerate the implementation of appropriate therapy, and thus improve the patient's prognosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted of data available in the literature on the differences in baseline suPAR blood concentration between patients (1) who tested positive and negative for COVID-19, (2) who had severe and non-severe COVID-19, and (3) COVID-19 survivors and non-survivors. RESULTS: SuPAR levels in SARS-CoV-2 negative and positive patients varied and amounted to 3.61±1.59 ng/ml vs. 6.45±3.13 ng/ml, respectively (MD = -3.18; 95%CI: -4.71 to -1.66; p<0.001). suPAR levels among non-severe and severe COVID-19 patients were 7.06±2.64 ng/ml and 5.06±3.16 ng/ml (MD = 0.18; 95%CI: -2.48 to 2.83; p=0.90), respectively. Pooled analysis showed that suPAR levels between severe versus critical COVID-19 patients to be 5.59±1.54 ng/ml and 6.49±1.43 ng/ml, respectively (MD = -1.00; 95%CI: -1.31 to -0.70; p<0.001). The suPAR levels between ICU survivors versus non-survivors amounted to 5.82±2.33 ng/ml and 8.43±4.66 ng/ml (MD = -3.59; 95%CI: -6.19 to -1.00; p=0.007). In the case of in-hospital mortality, the mean suPAR level among survivors to hospital discharge was 5.63±1.27 ng/ml, compared to 7.85±2.61 ng/ml for patients who did not survive (MD = -3.58; 95%CI: -5.42 to -1.74; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SuPAR levels are significantly elevated in severe COVID-19 illness and maybe useful in predicting mortality. Further studies are needed to determine cut-off points and clarify the association of suPAR levels with disease progression. This is of utmost importance given the ongoing pandemic and overburdened health care systems.

The sFlt-1/PlGF Ratio in Pregnant Patients Affected by COVID-19.

COVID-19 in pregnant women increases the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preeclampsia. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on sFlt-1/PIGF ratio during pregnancy. The study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies reporting the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in pregnant women with COVID-19. Results were compared using meta-analysis by the Mantel-Haenszel method. A total of 7 studies were included in the analysis. sFlt-1/PlGF ratios between COVID-19 positive vs. negative women were 45.8 ± 50.3 vs. 37.4 ± 22.5, respectively (SMD = 1.76; 95% CI: 0.43 to 3.09; p = 0.01). sFlt-1/PlGF ratios between asymptomatic vs. symptomatic patients were 49.3 ± 35.7 vs. 37.1 ± 25.6 (SMD = 0.30; 95% CI: -0.35 to 0.95; p = 0.36). sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in non-severe group was 30.7 ± 56.5, compared to 64.7 ± 53.5 for severe patients (SMD = -1.88; 95% CI: -3.77 to 0.01; p = 0.05). sFlt-1/PlGF ratios in COVID-19 patients, with and without hypertensive disease of pregnancy, were 187.0 ± 121.8 vs. 21.6 ± 8.6, respectively (SMD = 2.46; 95% CI: 0.99 to 3.93; p = 0.001). Conclusions: Patients with COVID-19, as compared to patients without COVID-19, were characterized by higher sFlt-1/PlGF ratio. Moreover, severe COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 infection in hypertensive pregnant women was related to significantly higher sFlt-1/PlGF ratio.

The effect of zinc supplementation on the course of COVID-19 - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Zinc is a trace element that plays a role in stimulating innate and acquired immunity. The aim of the study was to determine the antiviral effect of the administration of zinc in COVID-19 patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in P Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases from 1 January 2020 - 22 August 2022. In addition, reference lists of the included articles and their related citations in PubMed were also reviewed for additional pertinent studies. RESULTS: A total of 9 eligible studies were identified. In-hospital mortality in zinc supplementation patients, and patients treated without zinc, varied and amounted to 21.6% vs. 23.04% difference (OR=0.71; 95%CI: 0.62-0.81; p<0.001). 28-day to 30-day mortality in patients treated with zinc was 7.7%, compared to 11.9% for patients treated without zinc (OR=0.61; 95%CI: 0.35-1.06; p=0.08). In-hospital adverse events among patients treated with and without COVID-19 did not show any statistically significant differences in relation to acute kidney injury occurrence (12.8% vs. 12.4%, respectively; OR=0.63; 95%CI: 0.19-2.12; p=0.45, as well as need for mechanical ventilation (13.2% vs. 14.1%; OR=0.83; 95%CI: 0.52-1.32; p=0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Zinc supplementation is associated with lower COVID-19 in-hospital mortality. Additionally, it is risk-free in COVID-19 patients since there have been no negative side effects, such as acute renal damage or the requirement for mechanical ventilation compared to patients without COVID-19. Due to scientific evidence and the role it represents in the human body, zinc supplementation should be taken into consideration for COVID-19 patients as an adjunct therapy.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Pediatric Cardiac Arrest Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused a global pandemic, required the donning of personal protective equipment during clinical contact, and continues to be a significant worldwide public health concern. Pediatric cardiac arrest is a rare but critical condition with a high mortality rate, the outcomes of which may be negatively affected by donning personal protective equipment. The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric cardiac arrest outcomes. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from their inception to 1 October 2022. We included studies published in English on pediatric patients with cardiac arrest, dichotomized by the pre- and during-COVID-19 periods and then stratified by COVID-19 positive or negative status, to evaluate clinical outcomes associated with cardiac arrest. Six studies were included in the meta-analysis. In witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, there were no differences between the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods for witnessed cardiac arrest (28.5% vs. 28.7%; odds ratio (OR) = 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87 to 1.14; p = 0.93), administration of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (61.5 vs. 63.6%; OR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.98 to 1.26; p = 0.11), bystander automated external defibrillator use (both 2.8%; OR = 1.00; 95%CI: 0.69 to 1.45; p = 0.99), return of spontaneous circulation(8.4 vs. 8.9%; OR = 0.93; 95%CI: 0.47 to 1.88; p = 0.85), survival to hospital admission (9.0 vs. 10.2%, OR = 0.81; 95%CI: 0.45 to 1.44; p = 0.47), or survival to hospital discharge (13.4 vs. 12.4%; OR = 0.62; 95%CI: 0.22 to 1.72; p = 0.35). COVID-19 did not change pediatric cardiac arrest bystander interventions or outcomes.

Prediction Value of KREBS Von Den Lungen-6 (KL-6) Biomarker in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic is a major issue that necessitates the use of cutting-edge disease prediction models. The aim of the study was to assess the existing evidence regarding association between Krebs von den Lungen-6 levels and COVID-19 severity. A literature search was performed on Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from 1 January 2020 up to 2 August 2022. The electronic database search was supplemented by searching Google Scholar. In addition, reference lists of relative articles were also reviewed. KL-6 levels among COVID-19 positive vs. negative patients varied and amounted to 443.37 ± 249.33 vs. 205.73 ± 86.8 U/mL (MD = 275.33; 95%CI: 144.57 to 406.09; p < 0.001). The KL-6 level was 402.82 ± 261.16 U/mL in the severe group and was statistically significantly higher than in the non-severe group (297.38 ± 90.46 U/mL; MD = 192.45; 95%CI: 118.19 to 266.72; p < 0.001). The KL-6 level in the mild group was 272.28 ± 95.42 U/mL, compared to 268.04 ± 55.04 U/mL in the moderate COVID-19 group (MD = -12.58; 95%CI: -21.59 to -3.57; p = 0.006). Our meta-analysis indicates a significant association between increased KL-6 levels and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Moreover, KL-6 levels are significantly higher in patients with a more severe course of COVID-19, indicating that KL-6 may be a useful predictor to identify patients at risk for severe COVID-19.

Prognostic Performance of Cystatin C in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Cystatin C is a specific biomarker of kidney function. We perform this meta-analysis to determine the association of Cystatin C with the COVID-19 severity. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science for studies published until 2nd September 2022 that reported associations between Cystatin C levels and COVID-19 severity. The analysis was performed using a random-effects model to calculate pooled standard mean difference (SMD). Twenty-five studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed statistically significant differences of Cystatin C levels among survive vs. decreased patients (0.998 ± 0.225 vs. 1.328 ± 0.475 mg/dL, respectively; SMD = -2.14; 95%CI: -3.28 to -1.01; p < 0.001). Cystatin C levels in COVID-19 severe vs. non-severe groups varied and amounted to 1.485 ± 1.191 vs. 1.014 ± 0.601 mg/dL, respectively (SMD = 1.81; 95%CI: 1.29 to 2.32; p < 0.001). Additionally, pooled analysis showed that Cystatin C levels in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) was 1.562 ± 0.885 mg/dL, compared to 0.811 ± 0.108 mg/dL for patients without AKI (SMD = 4.56; 95%CI: 0.27 to 8.85; p = 0.04). Summing up, Cystatin C is a potentially very good marker to be used in the context of COVID-19 disease due to the prognosis of patients' serious condition, risk of AKI and mortality. In addition, Cystatin C could be used as a marker of renal complications in COVID-19 other than AKI due to the need to monitor patients even longer after leaving the hospital.

Vitamin C Supplementation for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), millions of people have died, and the medical system has faced significant difficulties. Our purpose was to perform a meta-analysis to estimate the effect of vitamin C on in-hospital mortality and the ICU or hospital length of stay for patients diagnosed with COVID-19. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included studies that evaluated the effect of vitamin C supplementation, compared with standard treatment in COVID-19 patients who are ≥18 y of age. Nineteen trials were included in the meta-analysis. In-hospital mortality with and without vitamin C supplementation was 24.1% vs. 33.9% (OR = 0.59; 95%CI: 0.37 to 0.95; p = 0.03), respectively. Sub-analysis showed that, in randomized clinical trials, in-hospital mortality varied and amounted to 23.9% vs. 35.8% (OR = 0.44; 95%CI: 0.25 to 0.76; p = 0.003), respectively. In the non-randomized trials, in-hospital mortality was 24.2% vs. 33.5% (OR = 0.72; 95%CI: 0.38 to 1.39; p = 0.33), respectively. The ICU length of stay was longer in patients treated with vitamin C vs. standard therapy, 11.1 (7.3) vs. 8.3 (4.7) days (MD = 1.91; 95%CI: 0.89 to 2.93; p < 0.001), respectively. Acute kidney injury in patients treated with and without vitamin C varied and amounted to 27.8% vs. 45.0% (OR = 0.56; 95%CI: 0.40 to 0.78; p < 0.001), respectively. There were no differences in the frequency of other adverse events among patients' treatment with and without vitamin C (all p > 0.05). The use of vitamin C reduces hospital mortality. The length of stay in the ICU is longer among patients treated with vitamin C. In terms of patient safety, vitamin C has an acceptable profile. Low doses of vitamin C are effective and safe. Despite some evidence of the usefulness of vitamin C in modifying the course of COVID-19, it is too early to modify guidelines and recommendations. Further studies, in particular randomized clinical trials, are necessary.

Effect of Coronary Artery Disease on COVID-19-Prognosis and Risk Assessment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Patients with pre-existing CAD were shown to have a more severe course of COVID-19, but this association has not been clarified. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the association between CAD and COVID-19 outcomes. We searched Scopus, Medline (PubMed), Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to 2 November 2021. There were 62 studies with a total population of 49,286 patients included in the meta-analysis. CAD occurrence in survivor vs. non-survivor groups varied and amounted to 9.2% vs. 22.9%, respectively (OR = 0.33; 95%CI: 0.29 to 0.39; I2 = 70%; p < 0.001). CAD was also associated with increased severity of COVID-19 disease and was (10.8% vs. 5.6%, respectively, for severe vs. non-severe groups (OR = 2.28; 95%CI: 1.59 to 3.27; I2 = 72%; p < 0.001). The role of history of CAD in mortality and severe condition in COVID-19 presents itself as prominent-although a risk of bias in retrospective trials needs to be assessed, in case of our meta-analysis the statistically significant results when it comes to higher mortality among patients with CAD compared to non-CAD patients, a more severe condition observed in patients with CAD, and a visibly more frequent admission to intensive care unit in patients with CAD, it seems that an incidence of cardiovascular events plays a role in COVID-19 prognosis.

Comparison of Vie Scope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for intubation during resuscitation by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for endotracheal intubation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cardiac arrest patients than the conventional laryngoscope with Macintosh blade when operators are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). METHODS: Study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed by Emergency Medical Services in Poland. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital setting were included. Patients under 18 years old or with criteria predictive of impossible intubation under direct laryngoscopy, were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to Vie Scope® versus direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade. Study groups were compared on success of intubation attempts, time to intubation, glottis visualization and number of optimization maneuvers. RESULTS: We enrolled 90 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, aged 43-92 years. Compared to the VieScope® laryngoscope, use of the Macintosh laryngoscope required longer times for tracheal intubation with an estimated mean difference of -48 s (95%CI confidence interval [CI], -60.23, -35.77; p < 0.001). Moreover VieScope® improved first attempt success rate, 93.3% vs. 51.1% respectively (odds ratio [OR] = 13.39; 95%CI: 3.62, 49.58; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Vie Scope® laryngoscope in OHCA patients improved the first attempt success rate, and reduced intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in paramedics wearing PPE for against aerosol generating procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials registration number NCT04365608.

Impact of COVID-19 on in-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes: An updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The main purposes of this meta-analysis are to update the information about the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and to investigate the impact of being infected by by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on IHCA outcomes. METHODS: The current meta-analysis is an update and follows the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: In analyses, pre- and intra-COVID-19 periods were observed for: shockable rhythms in 17.6% vs. 16.2% (odds ratio [OR]: 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.72; p = 0.65), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in 47.4% vs. 44.0% (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 0.90-2.07; p = 0.15), 30-day mortality in 59.8% vs. 60.9% (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.75-1.22; p = 0.69) and overall mortality 75.8% vs. 74.7% (OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.49-1.28; p = 0.35), respectively. In analyses, SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients were observed for: shockable rhythms in 9.6% vs. 19.8% (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.35-0.73; p < 0.001), ROSC in 33.9% vs. 52.1% (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.30-0.73; p < 0.001), 30-day mortality in 77.2% vs. 59.7% (OR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.28-3.38; p = 0.003) and overall mortality in 94.9% vs. 76.7% (OR: 3.20; 95% CI: 0.98-10.49; p = 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite ROSC, 30-day and overall mortality rate were not statistically different in pre- vs. intra-COVID-19 periods, a lower incidence of ROSC and higher 20-day mortality rate were observed in SARS-CoV-2 (+) compared to SARS-CoV-2 (-) patients.

Outcomes and mortality associated with atrial arrhythmias among patients hospitalized with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the adult population. Herein, is a systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the impact of AF/atrial flutter (AFL) on mortality, as well as individual complications in patients hospitalized with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A systematic search of the SCOPUS, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane databases was performed. The a priori primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. A random-effects model was used to pool study results. RESULTS: Nineteen studies which included 33,296 patients were involved in this meta-analysis. Inhospital mortality for AF/AFL vs. no-AF/AFL groups varied and amounted to 32.8% vs. 14.2%, respectively (risk ratio [RR]: 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.79-2.65; p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality in new onset AF/AFL compared to no-AFAFL was 22.0% vs. 18.8% (RR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.54-2.24; p < 0.001). Intensive care unit (ICU) admission was required for 17.7% of patients with AF/AFL compared to 10.8% for patients without AF/AFL (RR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.04-3.62; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The present study reveals that AF/AFL is associated with increased in-hospital mortality and worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and may be used as a negative prognostic factor in these patients. Patients with AF/AFL are at higher risk of hospitalization in ICU. The presence of AF/AFL in individuals with COVID-19 is associated with higher risk of complications, such as bleeding, acute kidney injury and heart failure. AF/AFL may be associated with unfavorable outcomes due to the hemodynamic compromise of cardiac function itself or hyperinflammatory state typical of these conditions.

The Influence of COVID-19 on Out-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survival Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is associated with poor prognosis. Because the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted mortality and morbidity, both on an individual level and the health care system as a whole, our purpose was to determine rates of OHCA survival since the onset of the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the influence of COVID-19 on OHCA survival outcomes according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched the literature using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials databases from inception to September 2021 and identified 1775 potentially relevant studies, of which thirty-one articles totaling 88,188 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods was 12.3% vs. 8.9%, respectively (OR = 1.40; 95%CI: 1.06-1.87; p < 0.001). Survival to hospital discharge in pre- vs. intra-COVID-19 periods was 11.5% vs. 8.2% (OR = 1.57; 95%CI: 1.37-1.79; p < 0.001). A similar dependency was observed in the case of survival to hospital discharge with the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1-2 (6.7% vs. 4.0%; OR = 1.71; 95%CI: 1.35-2.15; p < 0.001), as well as in the 30-day survival rate (9.2% vs. 6.4%; OR = 1.63; 95%CI: 1.13-2.36; p = 0.009). In conclusion, prognosis of OHCA is usually poor and even worse during COVID-19.

Vitamin D supplementation to treat SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Evidence from meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D is a likely candidate for treatment as its immune modulating characteristics have effects on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. It was sought herein, to summarize the studies published to date regarding the vitamin D supplementation to treat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive patients. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The primary outcome were 14-day and in-hospital mortality reported as an odds ratio (OR) with the associated 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Eight articles were included in the review with a combined total of 2,322 individual patients, 786 in the vitamin D supplementation group and 1,536 in the control group. The use of vitamin D compared to the group without vitamin D supplementation was associated with a lower 14-day mortality (18.8% vs. 31.3%, respectively; OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.12-2.19; p = 0.36), a lower in-hospital mortality (5.6% vs. 16.1%; OR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.23-1.37; I2 = 74%; p = 0.20), the rarer intensive care unit admission (6.4% vs. 23.4%; OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.06-0.54; I2 = 77%; p = 0.002) as well as rarer mechanical ventilation (6.5% vs. 18.9%; OR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16-0.80; I2 = 0.48; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D supplementation in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients has the potential to positively impact patients with both mild and severe symptoms. As several high-quality randomized control studies have demonstrated a benefit in hospital mortality, vitamin D should be considered a supplemental therapy of strong interest. Should vitamin D prove to reduce hospitalization rates and symptoms outside of the hospital setting, the cost and benefit to global pandemic mitigation efforts would be substantial.