RESUMO
Aim: This systematic review aims to consolidate findings from current clinical trials that compare the effectiveness of insulin infusion at 0.05 IU/kg/h versus 0.1 IU/kg/h in managing pediatric diabetic ketoacidosis. Methods: We searched several databases, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Central and Web of Science. Our primary outcomes were time to reach blood glucose ≤250 mg/dl and time to resolution of acidosis. Secondary outcomes included rate of blood glucose decrease per hour, incidence of hypoglycemia, hypokalemia, treatment failure, and cerebral edema. Results & conclusion: The present study establishes that a low insulin dose exhibits comparable efficacy to the standard dosage for managing pediatric patients suffering from diabetic ketoacidosis, with a lower incidence of complications.
When kids with type 1 Diabetes (T1DM) face a serious complication called Diabetic Ketoacidosis (DKA), it becomes a life-threatening situation. This condition, responsible for significant mortality, involves high blood sugar, ketone buildup and acidity. Our study delves into a critical aspect of DKA treatment-finding the right insulin dose. By pooling the studies on this point, we discovered that using a lower insulin dose is just as effective as the standard dose in managing DKA in children, with fewer complications. This insight is crucial for improving the care and outcomes for young patients dealing with this challenging condition.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was designed to detect and treat ventricular arrhythmias, which account for nearly half of all cardiovascular fatalities. Transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) complications were reduced by introducing subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD). S-ICD can be implanted using a three (3IT)- or two (2IT)-incision technique. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the 3IT to the 2IT. METHODS: We searched medical electronic databases of Cochrane Central, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS) from the study's inception until March 8, 2023. We compared 2IT and 3IT techniques of S-ICDs in terms of procedural, safety, and efficacy outcomes. We used Review Manager software for the statistical analysis. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous variables; and the mean difference with its 95% CI for continuous variables. We measured the heterogeneity using the chi-squared and I-squared tests. If the data were heterogeneous, the random-effect (RE) model was applied; otherwise, the fixed-effect model (FE) was used. RESULTS: We included three retrospective observational studies of 2076 patients, 1209 in the 2IT group and 867 in the 3IT. There was no statistically significant difference in erosion after S-ICD when 2IT compared with 3IT (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: [0.07, 1.02]; P = .05) (I2 = 0%, P = .90). There was no difference in risk of infection, lead dislocation, or inappropriate shock with either incision technique (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: [0.48, 1.29]; P = .34) (I2 = 0%, P = .71) and (RR = 0.37, 95% CI: [0.02, 8.14]; P = .53) (I2 = 66%, P = .05) respectively. Our meta-analysis showed that the efficacy of both techniques is comparable; Appropriate shock (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: [0.78, 1.12]; P = .48) (I2 = 0%, P = .81) and first shock efficacy (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: [0.44, 1.82]; P = .76) (I2 = 0%, P = .87). CONCLUSION: 2IT and 3IT of S-ICD have comparable efficacy and complication rates; however, the 3IT exposes patients to an additional incision without any additional benefits. These findings may provide clinicians with a simpler method for subcutaneous ICD implantation and likely result in improved cosmetic outcomes. Before the 2IT technique can be considered the standard of care, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) must be conducted to assess its long-term safety and efficacy.
