ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Neurological damage is the main cause of death or withdrawal of care in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest (CA). Hypoxemia and hyperoxemia following CA were described as potentially harmful, but reports were inconsistent. Current guidelines lack specific oxygen targets after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). OBJECTIVES: The current meta-analysis assessed the effects of restrictive compared to high-dose oxygenation strategy in survivors of CA. METHODS: A structured literature search was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two competing oxygenation strategies in post-ROSC management after CA were eligible. The primary end point was short-term survival (≤ 90 days). The meta-analysis was prospectively registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42023444513). RESULTS: Eight RCTs enrolling 1941 patients were eligible. Restrictive oxygenation was applied to 964 patients, high-dose regimens were used in 977 participants. Short-term survival rate was 55.7% in restrictive and 56% in high-dose oxygenation group (8 trials, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.10, P = 0.90, I2 = 18%, no difference). No evidence for a difference was detected in survival to hospital discharge (5 trials, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.21, P = 0.84, I2 = 32%). Episodes of hypoxemia more frequently occurred in restrictive oxygenation group (4 trials, RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.89, P = 0.004, I2 = 13%). CONCLUSION: Restrictive and high-dose oxygenation strategy following CA did not result in differences in short-term or in-hospital survival. Restrictive oxygenation strategy may increase episodes of hypoxemia, even with restrictive oxygenation targets exceeding intended saturation levels, but the clinical relevance is unknown. There is still a wide gap in the evidence of optimized oxygenation in post-ROSC management and specific targets cannot be concluded from the current evidence.
Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Adult , Humans , Patient Discharge , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/therapy , HospitalsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is standard of care in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) suitable for interventional revascularization. Intracoronary imaging by optical coherence tomography (OCT) expanded treatment approaches adding diagnostic information and contributing to stent optimization. OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of OCT-guided vs. angiography-guided PCI in treatment of ACS. METHODS: A structured literature search was performed. All controlled trials evaluating OCT-guided vs. angiography-guided PCI in patients with ACS were eligible. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). RESULTS: Eight studies enrolling 2612 patients with ACS were eligible. 1263 patients underwent OCT-guided and 1,349 patients angiography-guided PCI. OCT guidance was associated with a 30% lower likelihood of MACE (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.93, p = 0.01, I2 = 1%). OCT-guided PCI was also associated with significantly decreased cardiac mortality (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.96, p = 0.04, I2 = 0%). There was no detectable difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.51-2.31, p = 0.83, I2 = 0). Patients in OCT-guided group less frequently required target lesion revascularization (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07-0.95, p = 0.04, I2 = 0%). Analysis of myocardial infarction did not result in significant treatment differences. In subgroup or sensitivity analysis the observed advantages of OCT-guided PCI were not replicable. CONCLUSION: The evidence suggests that PCI guidance with OCT in ACS decreases MACE, cardiac death and target lesion revascularization compared to angiography. On individual study level, in subgroup or sensitivity analyses these advantages were not thoroughly replicable.
ABSTRACT
The effect of respiratory infectious diseases on STEMI incidence, but also STEMI care is not well understood. The Influenza 2017/2018 epidemic and the COVID-19 pandemic were chosen as observational periods to investigate the effect of respiratory virus diseases on these outcomes in a metropolitan area with an established STEMI network. We analyzed data on incidence and care during the COVID-19 pandemic, Influenza 2017/2018 epidemic and corresponding seasonal control periods. Three comparisons were performed: (1) COVID-19 pandemic group versus pandemic control group, (2) COVID-19 pandemic group versus Influenza 2017/2018 epidemic group and (3) Influenza 2017/2018 epidemic group versus epidemic control group. We used Student's t-test, Fisher's exact test and Chi square test for statistical analysis. 1455 patients were eligible. The daily STEMI incidence was 1.49 during the COVID-19 pandemic, 1.40 for the pandemic season control period, 1.22 during the Influenza 2017/2018 epidemic and 1.28 during the epidemic season control group. Median symptom-to-contact time was 180 min during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the pandemic season control group it was 90 min (p = 0.183), and in the Influenza 2017/2018 cohort it was 90 min, too (p = 0.216). Interval in the epidemic control group was 79 min (p = 0.733). The COVID-19 group had a door-to-balloon time of 49 min, corresponding intervals were 39 min for the pandemic season group (p = 0.038), 37 min for the Influenza 2017/2018 group (p = 0.421), and 38 min for the epidemic season control group (p = 0.429). In-hospital mortality was 6.1% for the COVID-19 group, 5.9% for the Influenza 2017/2018 group (p = 1.0), 11% and 11.2% for the season control groups. The respiratory virus diseases neither resulted in an overall treatment delay, nor did they cause an increase in STEMI mortality or incidence. The registry analysis demonstrated a prolonged door-to-balloon time during the COVID-19 pandemic.
