Search

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether a specific videolaryngoscopy technique is superior to standard direct laryngoscopy using a Macintosh blade to reduce the risk of difficult intubation in surgical and intensive care unit patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all randomized controlled trials comparing videolaryngoscopes (VLSs) to direct laryngoscopy in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (from inception to April 2020). The primary outcome was difficult intubation in adult surgical and intensive care unit patients. Secondary outcomes were successful intubation at the first attempt, airway trauma, sore throat, hoarseness, hypoxia, and mortality. RESULTS: We included 97 randomized controlled trials to evaluate 12775 patients. A high risk of bias was found in at least 50% of the included studies for each outcome. VLSs reduced the risk of difficult intubation compared to direct Macintosh laryngoscopy (RR 0.48, 95% CI from 0.35 to 0.65). VLSs increased the rate of successful intubation at the first attempt when compared to direct Macintosh laryngoscopy (RR 1.03, 95% CI from 1.00 to 1.07). Lower risks of airway trauma were found with VLSs (RR 0.69, 95% CI from 0.55 to 0.86). A decreased risk of hoarseness was associated with the use of VLSs (RR 0.67, 95% CI from 0.54 to 0.83). In addition, VLSs did not significantly reduce the risk of hypoxia compared with direct laryngoscopy (RR 0.83, 95% CI from 0.60 to 1.16). CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the use of VLSs reduced the risk of difficult intubation and slightly increased the ratio of successful intubation at the first attempt among adult patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: Delirium, a common behavioral manifestation of acute brain dysfunction in Intensive Care Unit (ICU), is a significant contributor to mortality and worse longterm outcome. Antipsychotics, especially haloperidol, are commonly administered for the treatment and prevention of delirium in critically ill patients while the evidence for the safety and efficacy of these drugs is still lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the benefits of haloperidol for the prevention of delirium in ICU patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We made a systematic review and meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eight RCTs with 2806 patients were included. The prophylactic use of haloperidol did not reduce the delirium incidence (RR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.69-1.71), the duration of delirium (MD: -0.33, 95% CI: -1.25-0.588) and the delirium/coma free days (MD: 0.08, 95% CI: -0.06-0.23). We did not find an increase of extrapyramidal effects (RR: 1.86, 95% CI: 0.30-11.39), QTc prolongation (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.79-1.55) and arrhythmias (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.72-2.19). The use of haloperidol did not increase the ICU (MD: 0.77, 95% CI: -0.28-1.83) and hospital length of stay (MD: -0.57, 95% CI: -1.32-0.18). Haloperidol did not increase the sedation level (RR: 1.88, 95% CI: 0.76-4.63) and mortality (RR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.83-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: Haloperidol did not reduce the delirium incidence, the delirium duration, the delirium/coma free-days and did not increase the incidence of extrapyramidal effects, arrhythmias, the ICU and hospital length of stays and sedation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: Lopinavir/ritonavir has been used for the treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus infections. It has been suggested that, based on this experience, this drug should also be studied in SARS-CoV2 infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature regarding the use of lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of these three infections. We systematically searched the PubMed database from inception to April 30th, 2020, to identify in-vitro and animal studies and any reports of human use of lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of SARS, MERS and COVID-19. We also searched the Clinicatrial. gov to identify ongoing trials. RESULTS: Five in-vitro studies evaluated the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir in SARS. Three additional in-vitro studies reported the EC50 of the antiviral activity of lopinavir/ritonavir in MERS. We identified no in vitro studies evaluating the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir on the novel coronavirus. Two retrospective matched-cohort studies reported the use of lopinavir/ritonavir in combination with ribavirin for SARS patients. Three case reports and one retrospective study described the use of lopinavir/ritonavir in MERS. Twenty-two papers describe the use of lopinavir/ritonavir in adult patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The existing literature does not suffice for assessing whether Lopinavir/ritonavir has any benefit in SARS, MERS or COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypereosinophilic syndromes are characterized by an increased number of blood eosinophils (usually more than 1.5 × 109) infiltrating tissues and causing organ damage through over-production of pro-inflammatory cytokines with heterogeneous clinical presentation. Here we present a case of a 47 years old male, with an unremarkable previous medical history, with a sudden onset of subungual hemorrhage and low back pain. Admitted for right arm weakness and vomiting, was raised the suspicion of acute cerebrovascular syndrome, but a brain CT scan with angiogram and perfusion sequences did not show any signs of early ischaemic lesions; conversely, lab tests revealed an increased peripheral eosinophil blood count. Clinical conditions rapidly worsened and a brain MRI showed multiple sub-acute ischaemic lesions compatible with vasculitis while EEG was in favor of widespread cortical distress. Diagnosis of the hypereosinophilic syndrome was made through peripheral blood smear and osteo-medullar biopsy, which showed a rich prevalence of eosinophils. The molecular biology testing showed FIP1L1-PDGRA gene mutation. Despite the prompt therapy beginning with intravenous corticosteroids and tyrosine-kinase inhibitors with normalization of cell blood count in a few days, the patient remained in minimal consciousness. When facing unusual symptoms onset (low back pain with weakness in one limb) and a highly impaired WBC not consistent with other courses (such as infections, vasculitis, allergies, and other diseases involving the immune system) clinicians should take into account the possibility of a hematological disorder and treat it as soon as possible to avoid a poor prognosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) is characterised by headache, visual disorders, seizures, altered mentation, consciousness disturbances and focal neurological signs. Initially described in patients with pre and eclampsia, severe hypertension, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome can occur in other clinical conditions such as infection, sepsis, shock, cancer chemotherapy, autoimmune diseases and hypercalcemia. Pathogenesis of brain lesions in PRES is not full understood and two opposite theories have been proposed. Both models are based on the central role of hypertension. According to the first theory, hypertension could cause a breakdown of the autoregulatory system in cerebral circulation, leading to brain edema. The second theory suggests that hypertension causes activation of autoregulatory system, which finally results in a vasoconstriction of brain vessels with hypoperfusion, ischemia and subsequent fluid leakage. However a large number of patients, with PRES, doesn’t show hypertension. We here describe the hypothesis of the crucial role of endothelial dysfunction and activation in PRES pathogenesis. Our hypothesis offers a common pathogenetic mechanism in which every PRES-related condition can be set. In our model, the activation of immune system and the consequent endothelial activation start a molecular cascade which finally causes the production of molecules which alter the normal homeostasis of blood–brain barrier. This alteration consists in a weakening of brain vessel tight junctions, which allows fluid leakage and edema. In this scenario, hypertension would be an epiphenomenon of the underlying mechanism and not the cause and, for this reason, it can be present or not in PRES. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]