FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Respiratory support in the emergency department a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

Background

An estimated 20% of emergency department (ED) patients require respiratory support (RS). Evidence suggests that nasal high flow (NHF) reduces RS need.

Aims

This review compared NHF to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in adult ED patients.

Method

The systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) methods reflect the Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Six databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NHF to COT or NIV use in the ED. Three summary estimates were reported: (1) need to escalate care, (2) mortality, and (3) adverse events (AEs).

Results

This SR and MA included 18 RCTs (n = 1874 participants). Two of the five MA conclusions were statistically significant. Compared with COT, NHF reduced the risk of escalation by 45% (RR 0.55; 95% CI [0.33, 0.92], p = .02, NNT = 32); however, no statistically significant differences in risk of mortality (RR 1.02; 95% CI [0.68, 1.54]; p = .91) and AE (RR 0.98; 95% CI [0.61, 1.59]; p = .94) outcomes were found. Compared with NIV, NHF increased the risk of escalation by 60% (RR 1.60; 95% CI [1.10, 2.33]; p = .01); mortality risk was not statistically significant (RR 1.23, 95% CI [0.78, 1.95]; p = .37).

Linking Evidence to Action

Evidence-based decision-making regarding RS in the ED is challenging. ED clinicians have at times had to rely on non-ED evidence to support their practice. Compared with COT, NHF was seen to be superior and reduced the risk of escalation. Conversely, for this same outcome, NIV was superior to NHF. However, substantial clinical heterogeneity was seen in the NIV delivered. Research considering NHF versus NIV is needed. COVID-19 has exposed the research gaps and slowed the progress of ED research.

Heart failure clinic inclusion and exclusion criteria: cross-sectional study of clinics and referring providers perspectives

Por: Mamataz · T. · Virani · S. A. · McDonald · M. · Edgell · H. · Grace · S. L.
Objectives

There are substantial variations in entry criteria for heart failure (HF) clinics, leading to variations in whom providers refer for these life-saving services. This study investigated actual versus ideal HF clinic inclusion or exclusion criteria and how that related to referring providers' perspectives of ideal criteria.

Design, setting and participants

Two cross-sectional surveys were administered via research electronic data capture to clinic providers and referrers (eg, cardiologists, family physicians and nurse practitioners) across Canada.

Measures

Twenty-seven criteria selected based on the literature and HF guidelines were tested. Respondents were asked to list any additional criteria. The degree of agreement was assessed (eg, Kappa).

Results

Responses were received from providers at 48 clinics (37.5% response rate). The most common actual inclusion criteria were newly diagnosed HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class IIIB/IV and recent hospitalisation (each endorsed by >74% of respondents). Exclusion criteria included congenital aetiology, intravenous inotropes, a lack of specialists, some non-cardiac comorbidities and logistical factors (eg, rurality and technology access). There was the greatest discordance between actual and ideal criteria for the following: inpatient at the same institution (=0.14), congenital heart disease, pulmonary hypertension or genetic cardiomyopathies (all =0.36). One-third (n=16) of clinics had changed criteria, often for non-clinical reasons. Seventy-three referring providers completed the survey. Criteria endorsed more by referrers than clinics included low blood pressure with a high heart rate, recurrent defibrillator shocks and intravenous inotropes—criteria also consistent with guidelines.

Conclusions

There is considerable agreement on the main clinic entry criteria, but given some discordance, two levels of clinics may be warranted. Publicising evidence-based criteria and applying them systematically at referral sources could support improved HF patient care journeys and outcomes.

Personal strategies to reduce the effects of landscape fire smoke on asthma-related outcomes: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Por: Beyene · T. · Gibson · P. G. · Murphy · V. · Jensen · M. E. · McDonald · V. M.
Introduction

Landscape fire smoke (LFS) contains several hazardous air pollutants that are known to be detrimental to human health. People with asthma are more vulnerable to the health impact of LFS than general populations. The aim of this review is to investigate the effectiveness of personal strategies to reduce the effect of LFS on asthma-related outcomes.

Methods and analysis

We will electronically search databases such as Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Clinical Trials Register to identify eligible articles for the review. Screening of search results and data extraction from included studies will be completed by two independent reviewers. The risk of bias (RoB 2) will be assessed using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-Randomised Studies for observational studies, the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the RoB 2 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool for non-RCTs. A random-effect meta-analysis will be performed to determine the pooled summary of findings of the included studies. If meta-analysis is not possible, we will conduct a narrative synthesis. Findings will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

Ethics and dissemination

This study will synthesise the available evidence obtained from published studies and as such, no ethical approval is required. The review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42022341120.

New methodology to assess the excess burden of antibiotic resistance using country-specific parameters: a case study regarding E. coli urinary tract infections

Por: Godijk · N. G. · McDonald · S. A. · Altorf-van der Kuil · W. · Schoffelen · A. F. · Franz · E. · Bootsma · M. C. J.
Objectives

Antimicrobial resistant (AMR) infections are a major public health problem and the burden on population level is not yet clear. We developed a method to calculate the excess burden of resistance which uses country-specific parameter estimates and surveillance data to compare the mortality and morbidity due to resistant infection against a counterfactual (the expected burden if infection was antimicrobial susceptible). We illustrate this approach by estimating the excess burden for AMR (defined as having tested positive for extended-spectrum beta-lactamases) urinary tract infections (UTIs) caused by E. coli in the Netherlands in 2018, which has a relatively low prevalence of AMR E. coli, and in Italy in 2016, which has a relatively high prevalence.

Design

Excess burden was estimated using the incidence-based disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) measure. Incidence of AMR E. coli UTI in the Netherlands was derived from ISIS-AR, a national surveillance system that includes tested healthcare and community isolates, and the incidence in Italy was estimated using data reported in the literature. A systematic literature review was conducted to find country-specific parameter estimates for disability duration, risks of progression to bacteraemia and mortality.

Results

The annual excess burden of AMR E. coli UTI was estimated at 3.89 and 99.27 DALY/100 0000 population and 39 and 2786 excess deaths for the Netherlands and Italy, respectively.

Conclusions

For the first time, we use country-specific and pathogen-specific parameters to estimate the excess burden of resistant infections. Given the large difference in excess burden due to resistance estimated for Italy and for the Netherlands, we emphasise the importance of using country-specific parameters describing the incidence and disease progression following AMR and susceptible infections that are pathogen specific, and unfortunately currently difficult to locate.

❌