BackgroundA number of published literature has reported that, physiologically, heart rate variability (HRV) in patients with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) to be greatly confounded by age, sex, race, physical fitness, and circadian rhythm. The purpose of this study was to compare between POTS patients versus healthy participants, in terms of heart rate (HR) and HRV after Head-Up tilt test (HUTT), by systematic review and meta-analysis of available published literature.MethodsMEDLINE (using PubMed interphase), EMBASE and SCOPUS were systematically searched for observational studies comparing POTS patients versus healthy patients, in terms of HR and HRV. HRV was grouped into Time and frequency domain outcome measurements. The time domain was measured as mean RR- interval and mean the square root of the mean of squares of successive R-R waves (rMSSD) in milliseconds. The frequency domain was measured as mean values of Low frequency power (LF), High frequency power (HF), LF/HF-ratio, LF-normalized units (LF(n.u)) and HF-normalized units (HF(n.u)). Demographic data, comorbidities, and mean values of HR, RR- interval, rMSSD, LF, HF, LF/HF-ratio, LF-(n.u) and H.F-n.u were extracted from each group and compared, by their mean differences as an overall outcome measure. Computer software, RevMan 5.3 was utilized, at a 95% significance level.ResultsTwenty (20) eligible studies were found to report 717 POTS and 641 healthy participants. POTS group had a higher mean HR (p < 0.05), lower mean RR-Interval (p < 0.05), lower rMSSD (p < 0.05) than healthy participants. Furthermore, POTS group had lower mean HF(p > 0.05), lower mean LF(p > 0.05), and lower mean HF(n.u) (p > 0.05), higher LF/HF-Ratio (p > 0.05) and higher LF(n.u) (p > 0.05) as compared to healthy participants.ConclusionPOTS patients have a higher HR than healthy patients after HUTT and lower HRV in terms of time domain measure but not in terms of frequency domain measure. HR and time domain analyses of HRV are more reliable than frequency domain analysis in differentiating POTS patients from the healthy participants. We call upon sensitivity and specificity studies.
End‐stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are amongst the vulnerable groups and thus prioritized in the Coronavirus disease‐2019 vaccination programmes. However, this cohort was excluded from vaccine‐trials and yet shares the same vaccination scheme with the general population. Here, we explore trends of immune response‐proportions amongst ESRD patients on renal replacement therapy for up to 4 weeks post‐vaccination completion with Pfizer/Moderna vaccines. From inception to 10 July 2021, we searched six online‐databases for articles reporting humoral and cellular immune response proportions for up to 4 weeks post booster‐vaccination. We pooled the responders' proportions by meta‐analysis and conducted a meta‐regression stratifying outcomes by significant confounders. Twenty‐seven eligible studies reported 2789 ESRD patients. 1337, 1452 and 477 were on haemodialysis, received kidney transplantation, and healthy controls, respectively. Haemodialysis patients' proportions of humoral and cellular immune responses varied from 87.29% (80.77–93.81)–88.78% (86.76–90.80) and 62.86% (56.56, 69.17)–85.78% (78.99, 92.57), respectively, between first‐ and fourth‐weeks. Kidney transplant patients' proportions of humoral and cellular immune responses ranged from 2.6% (0.06–13.48)–29.87% (27.68, 32.07) and 5.13% (0.63–17.3)–59.84% (54.57–65.10), respectively, between first‐ and fourth‐weeks. All healthy controls maintained ≥93% proportions of both responses throughout the follow‐up. Study design and country of study influenced the pooled response proportions. Conclusively, haemodialysis and kidney transplant patients have lower proportions of humoral and cellular immune responses than healthy controls. However, haemodialysis patients' response proportions improve, reaching near healthy‐control levels by the fourth week. Kidney transplant patients' lower responses' proportions also improve but remain significantly lower than healthy controls throughout four‐weeks. The “ one‐size‐fits‐all ” vaccination scheme might be inadequate for kidney transplant patients.
Background: Cyanoacrylate alone or in combination with other interventions, can be used to achieve variable rates of success in preventing rebleeding. Our study aims to assess the pooled risk of gastric and esophageal varices rebleeding after an initial treatment with cyanoacrylate alone and/or in combination with other treatments, by a systematic review of the literature and pooled analysis. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane library were searched for studies that reported the risk of rebleeding during the follow-up period after treatment of gastric or esophageal varices with either cyanoacrylate alone or in combination with other treatments. Standard error, upper and lower confidence intervals at 95% confidence interval for the risk were obtained using STATA Version 15 which was also used to generate forest plots for pooled analysis. The random or fixed effect model was applied depending on the heterogeneity (I 2). Results: A total of 39 studies were found to report treatment of either gastric or esophageal varices with either cyanoacrylate alone or in combination with other treatments. When gastric varices are treated with cyanoacrylate alone, the risk of rebleeding during the follow-up period is 0.15(Confidence Interval: 0.11-0.18). When combined with lipiodol; polidocanol or sclerotherapy the rebleeding risks are 0.13 (
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.