Effect of antiplatelet therapy after COVID-19 diagnosis: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

by Hong Duo, Mengying Jin, Yanwei Yang, Rewaan Baheti, Yujia Feng, Zirui Fu, Yuyue Jiang, Lanzhuoying Zheng, Jing Wan, Huaqin Pan

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may predispose patients to thrombotic disease in the venous and arterial circulations.

Based on the current debate on antiplatelet therapy in COVID-19 patients, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of antiplatelet treatments. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science on February 1, 2023, and only included Randomized clinical trials. The study followed PRISMA guidelines and used Random-effects models to estimate the pooled percentage and its 95% CI.

Five unique eligible studies were included, covering 17,950 patients with COVID-19. The result showed no statistically significant difference in the relative risk of all-cause death in antiplatelet therapy versus non-antiplatelet therapy (RR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.83–1.05, P = 0.26, I² = 32%). Compared to no antiplatelet therapy, patients who received antiplatelet therapy had a significantly increased relative risk of major bleeding (RR 1.81, 95%CI 1.09–3.00, P = 0.02, I² = 16%). The sequential analysis suggests that more RCTs are needed to draw more accurate conclusions. This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that the use of antiplatelet agents exhibited no significant benefit on all-cause death, and the upper bound of the confidence interval on all-cause death (RR 95% CI, 0.83–1.05) suggested that it was unlikely to be a substantiated harm risk associated with this treatment. However, evidence from all RCTs suggested a high risk of major bleeding in antiplatelet agent treatments.

According to the results of our sequential analysis, there is not enough evidence available to support or negate the use of antiplatelet agents in COVID-19 cases. The results of ongoing and future well-designed, large, randomized clinical trials are needed.

Assessing the role of combination of stem cell and light‐based treatments on skin wound repair: A meta‐analysis

Abstract

The meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare the impact of the combination of stem cells (SCs) and light-based treatments (LBTs) on skin wound (SW) repair. Examinations comparing SCs to LBT with SCs for SW repair was among the meta-analysis from various languages that met the inclusion criteria. Using continuous random-effect models, the results of these investigations were examined, and the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals was computed (CIs). Seven examinations from 2012 to 2022 were recruited for the current analysis including 106 animals with SWs. Photobiomodulation therapy (PBT) plus SCs had a significantly higher wound closure rate (WCR) (MD, 9.08; 95% CI, 5.55–12.61, p < 0.001) compared to SCs in animals with SWs. However, no significant difference was found between PBT plus SCs and SCs on wound tensile strength (WTS) (MD, 2.01; 95% CI, −0.42 to 4.44, p = 0.10) in animals with SWs. The examined data revealed that PBT plus SCs had a significantly higher WCR, however, no significant difference was found in WTS compared to SCs in animals with SWs. Nevertheless, caution should be exercised while interacting with its values since all the chosen examinations were found with a low sample size and a low number of examinations were found for the comparisons studied for the meta-analysis.

Effect of minimally invasive versus conventional aortic root replacement on transfusion and postoperative wound complications in patients: A meta‐analysis

Abstract

We examined whether small incision aortic root replacement could reduce the amount of blood transfusion during operation and the risk of postoperative complications. An extensive e-review of the 4 main databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and EMBASE) was carried out to determine all the published trials by July 2023. The search terms used were associated with partial versus full sternotomy and aortic root. This analysis only included the study articles that compared partial and full sternotomy. After excluding articles based on titles or abstracts, selected full-text articles had reference lists searched for any potential further articles. We analysed a total of 2167 subjects from 10 comparable trials. The minimally invasive aortic root graft in breastbone decreased the duration of hospitalization (MD, −2.58; 95% CI, −3.15, −2.01, p < 0.0001) and intraoperative red blood cell transfusion (MD, −1.27; 95% CI, −2.34, −0.19, p = 0.02). However, there were no significant differences in wound infection (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.16, 4.93, p = 0.88), re-exploration for bleeding (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.60, 1.53, p = 0.86), intraoperative blood loss (MD, −259.19; 95% CI, −615.11, 96.73, p = 0.15) and operative time (MD, −7.39; 95% CI, −19.10, 4.32, p = 0.22); the results showed that the microsternotomy did not differ significantly from that of the routine approach. Small sternotomy may be an effective and safe substitute for the treatment of the aorta root. Nevertheless, the wide variety of data indicates that larger, well-designed studies are required to back up the current limited literature evidence showing a benefit in terms of complications like postoperative wound infections or the volume of intraoperative red blood cell transfusion.