No abstract

Background: Systemic thrombolysis (ST) may not be ideal for many patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) due to bleeding risk. In this analysis, we evaluated the safety and effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) as an alternative to ST for acute PE. Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years who underwent MT and/or ST for PE were identified from the National Inpatient Sample database from 2016 to 2017. Patients who underwent catheter-directed thrombolysis were excluded. We compared in-hospital outcomes of both groups in this retrospective study. Results: Of 16 890 patients who received an intervention for acute PE, 1380 (8.2%) received MT and 15 510 (91.8%) received ST. There was no difference in age between both groups. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in patients who received MT than that in those who received ST (11.9% vs 20.6%, odds ratio [OR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29–0.93, p=0.028). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of periprocedural bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and acute kidney injury between the 2 groups (p≥0.608 for all). Patients who received MT had a higher rate of respiratory complications (19.0% vs 11.6%, OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.06–3.03, p=0.030) and discharge to an outside facility (34.1% vs 19.2%, OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.41–3.37, p<0.001) than those who received ST. Conclusion: Mortality was significantly lower with MT than that with ST, but larger randomized studies are needed to validate this. The use of MT should be individualized on the basis of the patients’ clinical presentation, risk profile, and local resources. Clinical Impact In this study, we utilized the National Inpatient Sample database to study the in-hospital outcomes of pulmonary embolism patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy compared to those who underwent systemic thrombolysis. We found that the patients who were diagnosed with pulmonary embolism and underwent mechanical thrombectomy had significantly lower mortality compared to those who were treated using systemic thrombolysis. This study was the first of its kind, utilizing the national inpatient sample database for evaluation of mechanical thrombectomy in comparison with the standard of care. These result would direct further randomized controlled trials for better evaluation of the utilization of mechanical thrombectomy in the correct clinical context. Furthermore, our study demonstrated comparable peri-operative complications between the mechanical thrombectomy group and the systemic thrombolysis group. These results would direct clinicians to consider mechanical thrombectomy if clinically indicated given the promising results.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated worldwide investigation into a myriad of potential therapeutic agents, including corticosteroids. The first RCT reporting results on the impact of systemic corticosteroids on COVID-19 in a peer reviewed journal was the RECOVERY trial published in July, 2020. The RECOVERY trial showed a reduced risk of 28-day mortality in patients who received oral or intravenous dexamethasone for 10 days. This study is a meta-analysis of peer reviewed RCTs aims to estimate the association of systemic corticosteroid therapy compared to the usual care or placebo on all-cause mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Software based tools to accelerate the analysis process. Methods: Meta-analysis of peer reviewed RCTs comparing systemic corticosteroids to usual care or placebo. Results: Five English language RCTs were identified, including data from 7645 hospitalized patients worldwide using systemic dexamethasone, hydrocortisone and methylprednisolone in COVID-19 positive patients. Three RCTs were discontinued when preliminary results from the RECOVERY trial became available. Meta-analysis of all identified RCTs showed no difference in survival in patients who received systemic corticosteroid therapy compared to usual care or placebo (Odds ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.64-1.05, p = 0.09). Subgroup analysis from the 1967 critically ill patients in the identified RCTs showed improved survival in patients who received systemic corticosteroid therapy (Odds ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.87, p = 0.01). Conclusions: This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published in peer-reviewed literature by January 1, 2021 showed reduced mortality in critically ill patients but not all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received systemic corticosteroids. The early termination of three of the included RCTs because of the preliminary results of the RECOVERY trial is likely to have dramatically influenced the results of this meta-analysis. Further research is needed to clarify the role of systemic corticosteroid therapy in the management of COVID-19.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated worldwide investigation into a myriad of potential therapeutic agents, including antivirals such as remdesivir. The first RCT reporting results on the impact of remdesivir on COVID-19 in a peer reviewed journal was the ACTT-1 trial published in November, 2020. The ACTT-1 trial showed more rapid clinical improvement and a reduced risk of 28-day mortality in patients who received remdesivir. This study is a meta-analysis of peer reviewed RCTs aims to estimate the association of remdesivir therapy compared to the usual care or placebo on all-cause mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Software based tools to accelerate the analysis process. Methods: Meta-analysis of peer reviewed RCTs comparing remdesivir to usual care or placebo. The protocol for this meta-analysis was registered and published in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021229985) on February 5, 2021. Results: Four English language RCTs were identified, including data from 7,333 hospitalized patients worldwide using remdesivir in COVID-19 positive patients. Meta-analysis of all identified RCTs showed no difference in survival in patients who received remdesivir therapy compared to usual care or placebo. The random effects meta-analysis has a summary odd ratio is 0.89 (95% CI 0.65-1.21, p = 0.30). Considerable variability in the severity of illness is noted with the rates of IMV at the time of randomization ranging from 0% to 27%. Conclusions: This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published in peer-reviewed literature by February 1, 2021 did not show reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received remdesivir. Further research is needed to clarify the role of remdesivir therapy in the management of COVID-19.