Search

Serum renin increases in response to sympathetic nerve activation and hypotension. Recent studies have reported the association of serum renin levels with adverse clinical outcomes in acute care settings. This scoping review aimed to systematically review the available literature on renin as a prognostic marker in intensive care and perioperative patients. We searched for studies published since inception until March 31, 2023, which assessed the association between serum renin levels and clinical outcomes or the effect of synthetic angiotensin II administration on serum renin levels in critically ill and perioperative patients in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up; the secondary outcomes were adverse renal outcomes (ie, acute kidney injury, the need for renal replacement therapy, and major adverse kidney events), hemodynamic instability, outcomes to angiotensin II administration, and prognostic performance for mortality when compared with lactate. Among the 2081 studies identified, we included 16 studies with 1573 patients (7 studies on shock, 5 on nonspecific critical illness, 2 on cardiac surgery, 1 on noncardiac surgery, and 1 on coronavirus disease 2019). A significant association between serum renin levels and poor outcomes was identified in 14 studies, with 10 studies demonstrating an association with mortality. One post hoc analysis found that angiotensin II administration reduced mortality in patients with markedly elevated renin values. Two studies showed that renin was superior to lactate as a prognostic marker of mortality. Our scoping review showed that elevated serum renin levels may be associated with clinically relevant outcomes among various perioperative and intensive care populations. Increased serum renin levels may identify patients in which synthetic angiotensin II administration improves clinical outcomes and may outperform serum lactate in predicting mortality., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article., (Copyright © 2023 International Anesthesia Research Society.)

Purpose: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate if etomidate impacted mortality in critically ill adults when compared with other induction agents., Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials which compared etomidate with any other induction agent in critically ill adult patients undergoing endotracheal intubation. The primary outcome was mortality at the main timepoint defined by the study. We conducted a fixed-effects meta-analysis for the risk ratio. Using that risk ratio and 95% confidence interval, we then estimated the probability of any harm (RR > 1) and the number needed to harm ≤100 (RR ≥ 1.05)., Results: We included 11 randomized trials comprising 2704 patients. We found that etomidate increased mortality (319/1359 [23%] vs. 267/1345 [20%]; risk ratio (RR) = 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.33; P = 0.03; I 2  = 0%; number needed to harm = 31). The probabilities of any increase and a 1% increase (NNH ≤100) in mortality were 98.1% and 92.1%, respectively., Conclusions: This meta-analysis found a high probability that etomidate increases mortality when used as an induction agent in critically ill patients with a number needed to harm of 31., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hypercoagulability and thrombo-inflammation are the main reasons for death in COVID-19 patients. It is unclear whether there is a difference between D-dimer levels in patients without or with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)., Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrails.gov databases looking for studies reporting D-dimer levels in patients without or with COVID-19 ARDS. Secondary endpoints included length of hospital stay, and mortality data at the longest follow-up available., Results: We included 12 retrospective and 3 prospective studies with overall 2,828 patients, of whom 1,404 (49.6%) had non-COVID-19 ARDS and 1,424 had COVID-19 ARDS. D-dimer levels were not significantly higher in non-COVID-19 ARDS than in COVID-19 ARDS patients (mean 7.65 mg/L vs. mean 6.20 mg/L MD 0.88 [CI: -0.61 to 2.38] p = 0.25; I² = 85%) while the length of hospital stay was shorter (non-COVID-19 mean 37.4 days vs. COVID-19 mean 48.5 days, MD -10.92 [CI: -16.71 to -5.14] p < 0.001; I² = 44%). No difference in mortality was observed: non-COVID-19 ARDS 418/1167 (35.8%) vs. COVID-19 ARDS 467/1201 (38.8%)., Conclusions: We found no difference in the mean D-dimer levels between non-COVID-19 ARDS and COVID-19 ARDS patients., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Tóth et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)