Systematic review with meta-analysis of mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proadm) as a prognostic marker in Covid-19-hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) is useful for risk stratification in patients with sepsis and respiratory infections. The study's purpose was to assess the available data and determine the association between MR-proADM levels and mortality in COVID-19 participants. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of medical electronic databases was performed including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and grey literature for relevant data published from 1 January 2020, to 20 November 2022. Mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Fourteen studies reported MR-proADM levels in survivors vs. non-survivors of COVID-19 patients. Pooled analysis showed that MR-proADM level in the survivor group was 0.841 ± 0.295 nmol/L for patients who survive COVID-19, compared to 1.692 ± 0.761 nmol/L for non-survivors (MD = -0.78; 95%CI: -0.92 to -0.64; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The main finding of this study is that mortality of COVID-19 is linked to MR-proADM levels, according to this meta-analysis. The use of MR-proADM might be extremely beneficial in triaging, assessing probable therapy escalation, predicting potential complications during therapy or significant clinical deterioration of patients, and avoiding admission which may not be necessary. Nevertheless, in order to confirm the obtained data, it is necessary to conduct large prospective studies that will address the potential diagnostic role of MR-proADM as a marker of COVID-19 severity.KEY MESSAGESSeverity of COVID-19 seems to be linked to MR-proADM levels and can be used as a potential marker for predicting a patient's clinical course.The use of MR-proADM might be beneficial in triaging, assessing probable therapy escalation, predicting potential complications during therapy or significant clinical deterioration of patients, and avoiding admission which may not be necessary.For patients with COVID-19, MR-proADM may be an excellent prognostic indicator because it is a marker of endothelial function that may predict the precise impact on the equilibrium between vascular relaxation and contraction and lowers platelet aggregation inhibitors, coagulation inhibitors, and fibrinolysis activators in favor of clotting factors.

Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Prehospital Management of Patients with Suspected Acute Stroke: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Acute Ischemic Stroke (AIS) can be successfully handled if it is noticed early in the prehospital setting and immediately diagnosed in the emergency department (ED). The coronavirus pandemic has altered the way health care is delivered and has had a profound impact on healthcare delivery. The effects could include prioritizing the prevention of COVID-19 spread, which could result in the discontinuation or deferral of non-COVID-19 care. We used the National Emergency Medical Service Command Support System, a register of medical interventions performed by emergency medical services (EMS) in Poland, to assess the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic across the Masovian Voivodeship on suspected stroke patients' baseline characteristics, prehospital vital parameters, clinical and neurological status, emergency procedures performed on the prehospital phase and EMS processing times. Between 1 April 2019 and 30 April 2021, the study population included 18,922 adult suspected stroke patients who were treated by EMS teams, with 18,641 admitted to the emergency departments. The overall number of suspected stroke patients treated by EMS remained unchanged during COVID-19 compared to the pre-COVID-19 period; however, the average time from call to hospital admission increased by 15 min.

Comparative effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical/face masks in preventing airborne infections in the era of SARS-CoV2 pandemic: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Recently, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the effect of N95 respirators compared with medical masks to protect against acute respiratory infections. However, these studies are limited by modest sample sizes and inconclusive results. Therefore, the goal of the present study was to review the relevant and available published RCTs with the aid of the increased power of meta-analytic methods in order to assess the effectiveness of medical masks and N95 respirators in reducing the risk of respiratory infections. METHODS: This meta-analysis follows the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for conducting and reporting results. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception through April 1, 2020 to identify potentially relevant studies. Two authors (LS and JS) independently searched the titles and abstracts of the potentially eligible articles. They independently retrieved required data from the eligible trials; the data were initially tabulated for statistical analysis. Two authors (JRL and LS) independently assessed the methodological quality of the included RCTs using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. RESULTS: Six articles met the inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis showed that N95 respirators did not reduce the risk of infection with respiratory viruses compared with medical/surgical masks (5.7% vs. 7.9%; RR = 1.12; 95% CI: 0.88-1.41; p = 0.36); however, there was no statistically significant difference in laboratory-confirmed influenza between N95 and medical masks (RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.77-1.07; p = 0.26). Medical masks provided similar protection against other viruses, including coronavirus (RR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.32-1.73; p = 0.49). Respiratory illness, as well as influenza-like illness were less frequently observed with N95 respirators. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that there are insufficient data to definitively determine whether N95 respirators are superior to medical masks in protection against transmissible acute respiratory infections. Further randomized trials are necessary to compare the above methods of respiratory protection in the context of COVID-19 incidence.