Introduction Cytokine adsorption using the CytoSorb® adsorber has been proposed in various clinical settings including sepsis, ARDS, hyperinflammatory syndromes, cardiac surgery or recovery after cardiac arrest. The aim of this analysis is to provide evidence for the efficacy of the CytoSorb® adsorber with regard to mortality in various settings. Methods We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library database and the database provided by Cytosorbents™ (01.1.2010–29.5.2022). We considered randomized controlled trials and observational studies with control groups. The longest reported mortality was defined as the primary endpoint. We computed risk ratios and 95%-confidence intervals and used DerSimonian and Lairds random effects model. We analysed all studies combined and divided them into the subgroups: sepsis, cardiopulmonary bypass surgery (CPB), other severe illness, SARS-CoV-2 infection and recovery from cardiac arrest. The meta-analysis was registered in advance (PROSPERO: CRD42022290334). Results Of an initial 1295 publications, 34 studies were found eligible, including 1297 patients treated with CytoSorb® and 1314 controls. Cytosorb® intervention did not lower mortality (RR [95%-CI]: all studies 1.07 [0.88; 1.31], sepsis 0.98 [0.74; 1.31], CPB surgery 0.91 [0.64; 1.29], severe illness 0.95 [0.59; 1.55], SARS-CoV-2 1.58 [0.50; 4.94]). In patients with cardiac arrest, we found a significant survival advantage of the untreated controls (1.22 [1.02; 1.46]). We did not find significant differences in ICU length of stay, lactate levels, or IL-6 levels after treatment. Of the eligible 34 studies only 12 were randomized controlled trials. All observational studies showed moderate to serious risk of bias. Interpretation To date, there is no evidence for a positive effect of the CytoSorb® adsorber on mortality across a variety of diagnoses that justifies its widespread use in intensive care medicine.
Objectives Intravenous application of contrast media is part of a wide spectrum of diagnostic procedures for better imaging quality. Clinical avoidance of contrast-enhanced imaging is an ever-present quandary in patients with impaired kidney function. The objective of this study was to estimate the risk for acute kidney injury (AKI), dialysis and mortality among patients undergoing contrast-enhanced CT compared to propensity score–matched controls (i.e. contrast-unenhanced CT). Selected cohort studies featured high-risk patients with advanced kidney disease and critical illness. Methods This review was designed to conform to the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed was searched from August 2021 to November 2021 for all-language articles without date restriction. A random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird method) was used for meta-analysis. Results Twenty-one articles were included, comprising data of 169,455 patients. The overall risk of AKI was similar in the contrast-enhanced and unenhanced groups (OR: 0.97 [95% CI: 0.85; 1.11], p = 0.64), regardless of baseline renal function and underlying disease. Substantial heterogeneity was detected (I2 = 90%, p ≤ 0.0001). Multivariable logistic regression identified hypertension (p = 0.03) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≤ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (p = 0.0001) as factors associated with greater risk of post-contrast AKI. Conclusions Based on propensity score–matched pairs obtained from 21 cohort studies, we found no evidence for increased risk for AKI, dialysis or mortality after contrast-enhanced CT among patients with eGFR ≥ 45 mL/min/1.73 m2. In congruence with the emerging evidence in the literature, caution should be exercised in patients with hypertension and eGFR ≤ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Key Points • The application of contrast media for medical imaging is not associated with higher odds for AKI, induction of renal replacement therapy, or mortality. Many comorbidities traditionally associated with greater risk for acute kidney injury do not appear to predispose for renal decline after contrast media exposure. • Underlying hypertension and eGFR less than or equal to 30 mL/min/1.73 m2seem to predispose for post-contrast acute kidney injury. • Propensity score matching cannot account for unmeasured influences on AKI incidence, which needs to be addressed in the interpretation of results.
Background While it is well known that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) increase the risk of acute renal failure1,2, the role of neprilysin inhibition (NEPi) is unclear and some physicians are reluctant to prescribe Sacubitril/Valsartan because of safety concerns. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the risk for renal events, progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) or progression to dialysis on combined NEPi and ACEi/ARBs compared to ACEi or ARBs. Methods We performed a systematic meta-analysis including 17 randomized controlled trials (study drug Sacubitril/Valsartan or Omapatrilat), involving a total of 23,569 patients, after searching PubMed, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.org and Embase for eligible studies. From the included trials, all renal endpoints, including long- and short-term outcomes and hyperkalemia were extracted. Pooled odds ratios were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird-method. The study was registered at PROSPERO. Results Overall, treatment with Sacubitril/Valsartan or Omapatrilat showed a slightly lower risk of any renal event (OR 0.82, [0.7–0.97]) compared to treatment with an ACEi or ARB alone. Also, there was a decreased risk of severe acute renal events (OR 0.8, [0.69–0.93]) and a decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline (mean difference -0.58 ml/min, [-0.83–-0.33 ml/min]). There was no difference in chronic renal events (OR 0.92, [0.8–1.05]) or hyperkalemia (OR 1.02, [0.84–1.23]). Conclusion NEPi + ACEi/ARBs are safe in terms of renal adverse events. Longer trials focusing on CKD are needed to evaluate the effect of neprilysin inhibition on lowering progression of CKD.
Cytokine adsorption using the CytoSorb® device has been proposed in various clinical settings including sepsis, ARDS, hyperinflammatory syndromes, cardiac surgery or recovery after cardiac arrest. The aim of this analysis is to provide evidence for the efficacy of the CytoSorb® device with regard to mortality in various settings. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library database and the database provided by Cytosorbents™ (01.1.2010–29.5.2022). We considered randomized controlled trials and intervention studies with control groups. The longest reported mortality was defined as primary endpoint. For analyzing the data, we computed risk ratios and 95%-confidence intervals and used DerSimonian and Lairds random effects model. We analyzed all studies combined and divided into the subgroups sepsis, cardiac surgery, other severe illness, SARS-CoV-2 infection and recovery from cardiac arrest. The meta-analysis was registered in advance (PROSPERO: CRD42022290334). Results: Of an initial 1295 publications, 34 studies were found eligible, including 1297 patients treated with CytoSorb® and 1314 controls. Cytosorb® did not lower mortality in all studies together (1.07 [0.88; 1.31] RR [95%-CI]), in sepsis (0.98 [0.74; 1.31]), CPB surgery (0.91 [0.64; 1.29]), severe illness (0.95 [0.59; 1.55]) or SARS-CoV-2 (1.58 [0.50; 4.94]). In patients with cardiac arrest, we found a significant survival advantage of the untreated controls (RR 1.22 [1.02; 1.46]). We did not find significant differences in ICU length of stay, lactate levels, or IL-6 levels after treatment. Interpretation: To date there is no evidence for a positive effect of the CytoSorb® adsorber on mortality across a variety of indications that justifies its widespread use in intensive care medicine.
Objective: Resistant hypertension is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease and mortality. Yet, its management is still challenging. This study aims to establish the comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic and interventional treatments by conducting a network meta-analysis. Design and method: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Web of Science Core Collection in March 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing treatment options as add-on therapy for management of resistant hypertension were included. Outcomes were blood pressure changes, measured in the office and in 24h ABPM. We applied a frequentist random effects model to perform a network meta-analysis combining placebo medication and sham procedure as the reference comparator. Results: From 4771 records, 24 studies met our inclusion criteria with 3458 included patients in total. 12 active treatment alternatives were analyzed. Among all comparators, spironolactone had the highest-ranking probability and was considered as the most effective treatment to reduce office systolic blood pressure (-13.30 mmHg [-17.89; -8.72]; P < 0.0001) and 24h systolic blood pressure (-8.46 mmHg [-12.54; -4.38]; P < 0.0001) in patients with resistant hypertension. Conclusions: Among all pharmacologic and interventional treatments, spironolactone has been found to be most effective in reducing office and 24h systolic blood pressure as an add-on therapy for resistant hypertension. Our study provides an evidence-based and valid reference in clinical decision-making.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.