Search

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation after cardiac surgery in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. This meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Online databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library, were comprehensively searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and requiring mechanical ventilation. The examined outcomes included the mean length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay in hours, duration of mechanical ventilation in hours, length of hospital stay in days, and number of patients diagnosed with delirium. A total of 14 studies were included in the present meta-analysis while 1360 patients undergoing cardiac surgery were involved in these studies. Pooled results showed that the duration of mechanical ventilation was lower in the dexmedetomidine group compared to the propofol group (mean difference (MD): 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.06-1.44, p-value: 0.03). We also found a significantly low length of stay in ICU in the dexmedetomidine group compared to the propofol (MD: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.04-1.74, p-value: 0.04). The length of hospital stay was also significantly lower in patients receiving dexmedetomidine as compared to the propofol group (MD: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.32-0.70, p-value<0.001). Risk of delirium was significantly higher in patients receiving propofol compared to patients receiving dexmedetomidine (RR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.48-2.74, p-value<0.001). In conclusion, our meta-analysis provides evidence of the beneficial impacts of dexmedetomidine on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital, and the risk of delirium., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2023, Sattar et al.)

The aim of this study is to assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-PTX) and solvent-based PTX (sb-PTX) as treatment options for advanced gastric cancer. This meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We carried out a comprehensive search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE from inception to June 15, 2023. The search strategy included the following keywords: "Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel," "solvent-based paclitaxel," and "advanced gastric cancer," along with their synonyms and medical subject heading (MeSH) terms. In this meta-analysis, the primary outcome was the comparison of overall survival and progression-free survival between the two groups. For safety purposes, we compared the risk of hematological and non-hematological events between the two groups. Four studies were included in this meta-analysis enrolling 1052 patients (483 received nb-PTX and 569 received sb-PTX). In terms of efficacy, nab-PTX showed favorable trends in overall survival and progression-free survival, despite no statistically significant differences being reported. The subgroup meta-analysis showed that nab-PTX seemed to have a better effect on peritoneal metastasis compared to sb-PTX. Regarding safety, the number of patients with neutropenia and leucopenia was significantly higher in the nab-PTX group compared to the sb-PTX group. However, the difference was statistically insignificant. Future research should focus on conducting more robust studies to further validate these findings and establish a stronger evidence base for the use of nab-PTX in this patient population., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2023, Gangannapalle et al.)

Coronary vessel disease (CVD) is a class of diseases that impacts the blood vessels and heart and is one of the leading causes of disability and death. CVD includes cerebrovascular disease and coronary heart disease, both illnesses of the vessels transporting the oxygenated blood to the brain or heart. Colchicine is an inexpensive and old drug with strong anti-inflammatory effects. Numerous randomized control trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the effectiveness of low-dose colchicine for the prevention of severe cardiovascular events without showing any signs of serious adverse effects within the regime of treatment. In the current meta-analysis, we aim to assess the efficacy and safety of colchicine for secondary cardiovascular outcome prevention among patients with clinically proven CVD. The current meta-analysis was carried out using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. PUBMED, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were used to search for RCTs comparing colchicine and placebos for the prevention of secondary cardiovascular outcomes. The primary efficacy endpoint was mortality due to cardiovascular disease, stroke, urgent coronary revascularization, and myocardial infarction. Secondary efficacy outcomes included death due to all-cause mortality. Seven RCTs were reviewed, with a pooled sample size of 12114, out of which 6099 were randomized to the colchicine group, and 6015 were randomized to the control group. The decrease in cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction, stroke, urgent coronary revascularization, and cardiac-related death, was significantly lower in patients randomized to colchicine (p-value<0.05). The incidence of safety outcomes did not vary significantly different between groups (p>0.05). In patients with CVD, compared to standard medical therapy, colchicine significantly decreases the risk of cardiovascular events such as cardiovascular-related death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and urgent coronary revascularizations., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2022, Sattar et al.)