Background: Cardiopulmonary bypass is known to raise the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Previous studies have identified numerous risk factors of cardiopulmonary bypass including the possible impact of perioperative ultrafiltration.However, the association between ultrafiltration (UF) and AKI remains conflicting.Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to further examine the relationship between UF and AKI.Hypothesis: Ultrafiltration during cardiac surgery increases the risk of developping Acute kidney Injury.Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, and SCOPUS through July 2021. The RevMan (version 5.4) software was used to calculate the pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences along with their associated confidence intervals (95% CI). Results:We identified 12 studies with a total of 8005 patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of AKI between the group who underwent UF and the control group who did not (RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.64−1). Subgroup analysis on patients with previous renal insufficiency also yielded nonsignificant difference (RR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.53 −1.33, p = .47). Subgroup analysis based on volume of ultrafiltrate removed (> or <2900 ml) was not significant and did not increase the AKI risk as predicted (RR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.63 −1.07, p = .15). We also did subgroup analysis according to the type of UF and again no significant difference in AKI incidence between UF groups and controls was observed in either the conventional ultrafiltration (CUF), modified ultrafiltration (MUF), zero-balanced ultrafiltration (ZBUF), or combined MUF and CUF subgroups. Conclusion:UF in cardiac surgery is not associated with increased AKI incidence and may be safely used even in baseline chronic injury patients.

Background and Aims Some studies have suggested that earlier initiation of antibiotics has shown positive outcomes in sepsis patients. We aimed to do a systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the effect of prehospital administration of antibiotics on 28 days mortality and length of stay in hospital and intensive care unit for sepsis patients. Methods We formulated a search strategy and used it on search databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. We then screened the records for eligibility and included controlled studies, either clinical trials or cohort studies reporting prehospital antibiotic administration for sepsis patients. We excluded duplicates, books, conferences' abstracts, case reports, editorials, letters, author responses, not English studies, and studies with nonavailable full text. Animal and lab studies were also excluded. Results The total number of studies identified is 1811, 19 were eligible for systematic review and 4 for meta‐analysis (three cohort and one clinical trial). The total number of sepsis patients in the four included studies in the 28 days mortality outcome was 3523 (1779 took prehospital antibiotics and 1744 did not take prehospital antibiotics). Of 1779 who took the antibiotics, 190 died, and of 1744 who did not take antibiotics, 292 died (95% confidence interval 0.68–0.97, p = 0.02). Conclusion This meta‐analysis reveals that receiving prehospital antibiotics can significantly lower mortality in sepsis patients compared to patients who do not receive prehospital antibiotics. However, more clinical trials and multicenter prospective studies with high sample sizes are needed to get strong evidence supporting our findings.

The prevalence of frailty, which is significantly associated with late-life suicidality, increases with age in older adults. This review addresses the compiled evidence on the relationship between suicidality and frailty within older populations, explores the latest findings, weighs the effectiveness of various intervention strategies, and outlines potential future investigations in this area. Growing evidence suggests that identifying and addressing risk factors, including mood disorders, prior suicide attempts, poor physical health, and social isolation/problems can decrease the risk of late-in-life suicide. Various studies have shown that interventions such as diet improvements, cognitive training, psychosocial programs, and depression medication could reduce the severity of frailty and suicidality, with physical exercise being the most effective intervention. Combined programs with multiple interventions can have an even greater impact on combating depression, lowering risk of falls, and improving gait speed in older adults.

Background: In cardiac transplant recipients, the electrocardiogram (ECG) is a noninvasive measure of early allograft rejection. The ECG can predict an acute cellular rejection, thus shortening the time to recognition of rejection. Earlier diagnosis has the potential to reduce the number and severity of rejection episodes. Methodology: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify and select the original research reports on using electrocardiography in diagnosing cardiac transplant rejection in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Studies included reported sensitivity and specificity of ECG readings in heart transplant recipients during the first post-transplant year. Data were analyzed with Review manager version 5.4. p-value was used in testing the significant difference.Results: After the removal of duplicates, 98 articles were eligible for screening. After the full-text screening, a total of 17 papers were included in the review based on the above criteria. A meta-analysis of five studies was done. Conclusion:In heart transplant recipients, a noninvasive measure of early allograft rejection has the potential to reduce the number and severity of rejection episodes by reducing the time and cost of surveillance of rejection and shortening the time to recognition of rejection.

e16147 Background: Recent studies have assessed the efficacy of some therapeutics in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Our aim is to perform a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of Camrelizumab and Apatinib combination therapy versus Apatinib only in treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods: We searched PubMed, WOS, Embase and Scopus databases. Inclusion criteria were clinical trials and cohort studies that evaluated the efficacy of Camrelizumab and Apatinib combination therapy or Apatinib only in treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We excluded case reports, conference abstracts, editorials and animal studies. CMA software (version 3) was used to perform the meta-analysis. Continuous outcomes were presented as (mean and SD) and dichotomous outcomes as event ratio(ER), with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: After complete screening, 12 studies were finally included in our study. 4 studies for combination of Camerlizumab and Apatinib while 8 studies investigated the role of Apatinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The total number of patients included in the study is 844; 172 in combination group and 672 in Apatinib group. By indirect comparison, combination therapy is associated with a relatively better pooled survival rate (ER = 0.532, 95% CI [0.446, 0.615]) compared to Apatinib only therapy (ER = 0.262, 95% CI [0.218, 0.313]). Combination therapy was also associated with higher pooled rates of disease control (ER = 0.755, 95% CI [0.683, 0.815]) compared with Apatinib only (ER = 0.683, 95% CI [0.644, 0.720]). While the Combination therapy was associated with lower pooled rate of stable disease (ER = 0.13, 95% CI [0.339, 0.491]) than Apatinib (ER = 0.531, 95% CI [0.492, 0.570]). The overall survival time was significantly higher in combination therapy (Mean = 14.375, 95% CI [14.101, 14.649]) compared to the pooled mean survival time from Apatinib only therapy (Mean = 10.390, 95% CI [9.925, 10.855]). Conclusions: This study showed that Camrelizumab and Apatinib combination therapy is associated with increased survival rate, disease control and overall survival time in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients compared with Apatinib only. It revealed also that combination therapy is associated with lower stable disease than Apatinib only. Further multicenter clinical trials are needed to support our results.