We performed a meta-analysis to compare the impact of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) to that of conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) in adult patients who experience cardiac arrest of cardiac origin. A literature search was performed using criteria set forth in a predefined protocol. Report inclusion criteria were that ECPR was compared to CCPR in adult patients with cardiac arrest of cardiac origin, and that survival and neurological outcome data were available. Exclusion criteria were reports describing non-cardiac origin arrest, review articles, editorials, and nonhuman studies. The efficacies of ECPR and CCPR were compared in terms of survival and neurological outcome. A total of 38,160 patients from 7 studies were ultimately included. ECPR showed similar survival (odds ratio [OR] 2.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45–11.20) and neurologic outcomes (OR 3.14, 95% CI 0.66–14.85) to CCPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. For in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) patients, however, ECPR was associated with significantly better survival (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.44–3.98) and neurologic outcomes (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.38–5.02) than CCPR. Hence, ECPR may be more effective than CCPR as an adjuvant therapy for survival and neurologic outcome in cardiac-origin IHCA patients.
We performed a meta-analysis to seek evidence for the usefulness of the delta neutrophil index (DNI) as a prognostic blood biomarker for mortality in the early stage of sepsis in adults. A literature search was performed using criteria set forth in a predefined protocol. Studies of adults with sepsis that provided a DNI measurement and that had mortality as the outcome, were included. Review articles, editorials, and non-human studies were excluded. The methodological quality of identified studies was assessed independently by two authors using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. A total of 1,822 patients from eleven studies were ultimately included. Standardized mean differences between non-survivors and survivors were compared. An elevated DNI was associated with mortality in patients with sepsis (standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.22; 95% confidence interval 0.73–1.71; I2 = 91%). After excluding two studies—one that included paediatric patients and one with a disproportionately low mortality rate—heterogeneity was minimized (SMD 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.53–0.94; I2 = 43%). Overall, the findings suggest that high DNI values are associated with mortality in septic patients.
This study aimed to compare the accuracy of novel lipid indices, including the visceral adiposity index (VAI), lipid accumulation product (LAP), triglycerides and glucose (TyG) index, TyG-body mass index (TyG-BMI), and TyG-waist circumference (TyG-WC), in identifying insulin resistance and establish valid cutoff values. This cross-sectional study used the data of 11,378 adults, derived from the United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999–2016). Insulin resistance was defined as a homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance value above the 75th percentile for each sex and race/ethnicities. The area under the curves (AUCs) were as follows: VAI, 0.735; LAP, 0.796; TyG index, 0.723; TyG-BMI, 0.823, and; TyG-WC, 0.822. The AUCs for TyG-BMI and TyG-WC were significantly higher than those for VAI, LAP, and TyG index (vs. TyG-BMI, p < 0.001; vs. TyG-WC, p < 0.001). The cutoff values were as follows: VAI: men 1.65, women 1.65; LAP: men 42.5, women 42.5; TyG index: men 4.665, women 4.575; TyG-BMI: men 135.5, women 135.5; and TyG-WC: men 461.5, women 440.5. Given that lipid indices can be easily calculated with routine laboratory tests, these values may be useful markers for insulin resistance risk assessments in clinical settings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.