No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Until now, transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) has been considered the leading cause of blood transfusion-related diseases and death. In addition, there is no clinically effective treatment plan for TRALI. The aim of this study was to systematically summarize the literature on risk factors for TRALI in critical patients. METHODS: Electronic searches (up to March 2020) were performed in the Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, Embase, and PubMed databases. We included studies reporting on the risk factors of TRALI for critical patients and extracted risk factors. A total of 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS:We summarized and analyzed the potential risk factors of TRALI for critical patients in 13 existing studies. Host-related factors were age (odds ratio [OR] 1.16 [95% CI 1.08-1.24]), female sex (OR 1.26 [95% CI 1.16-1.38]), tobacco use status (OR 3.82 [95% CI 1.91-7.65]), chronic alcohol abuse (OR 3.82 [95% CI 2.97-26.83]), positive fluid balance (OR 1.24 [95% CI 1.08-1.42]), shock before transfusion (OR 4.41 [95% CI 2.38-8.20]), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of the recipients ). The transfusionrelated factors were the number of transfusions ) and units of fresh frozen plasma (OR 1.21 [95% CI 1.01-1.46]). The device-related factor was mechanical ventilation ). CONCLUSIONS: The risk factors that were positively correlated with TRALI in this study included number of transfusions and units of fresh frozen plasma. Age, female sex, tobacco use, chronic alcohol abuse, positive fluid balance, shock before transfusion, ASA score, and mechanical ventilation may be potential risk factors for TRALI. Our results suggest that host-related risk factors may play a more important role in the occurrence and development of TRALI than risk factors related to blood transfusions.

Objective: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively estimate the incidence and mortality of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in overall and subgroups of patients with burns.Data sources: Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL databases, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure database were searched until September 1, 2021.Study selection: Articles that report study data on incidence or mortality of ARDS in patients with burns were selected.Data extraction: Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the quality. We performed a meta-analysis of the incidence and mortality of ARDS in patients with burns using a random effects model, which made subgroup analysis according to the study type, inclusion (mechanical ventilation, minimal burn surface), definitions of ARDS, geographic location, mean age, burn severity, and inhalation injury. Primary outcomes were the incidence and mortality of burns patients with ARDS, and secondary outcomes were incidence for different subgroups.Data synthesis: Pooled weighted estimate of the incidence and mortality of ARDS in patients with burns was 0.24 [95% confidence interval (CI)0.2–0.28] and 0.31 [95% CI 0.18−0.44]. Incidences of ARDS were obviously higher in patients on mechanical ventilation (incidence = 0.37), diagnosed by Berlin definition (incidence = 0.35), and with over 50% inhalation injury proportion (incidence = 0.41) than in overall patients with burns. Patients with burns who came from western countries and with inhalation injury have a significantly higher incidence of ARDS compared with those who came from Asian/African countries (0.28 vs. 0.25) and without inhalation injury (0.41 vs. 0.24).Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that the incidence of ARDS in patients with burns is 24% and that mortality is as high as 31%. The incidence rates are related to mechanical ventilation, location, and inhalation injury. The patients with burns from western countries and with inhalation injury have a significantly higher incidence than patients from Asian/African countries and without inhalation injury.Systematic Review Registration: identifier: CRD42021144888.

Background The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of thiamine and vitamin C with or without hydrocortisone coadministration on the treatment of sepsis and septic shock. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that made a comparative study between the combination therapy of vitamin C and thiamine with or without hydrocortisone and the administration of placebo in patients with sepsis or septic shock. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Both short-term mortality and change in the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score from baseline (delta SOFA) were set as the primary outcomes. Secondary endpoints included intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, new onset of acute kidney injury, total adverse events, ICU and hospital length of stay, duration of vasopressor usage and ventilator-free days. Meanwhile, trial sequential analysis was conducted for primary outcomes. Results Eight RCTs with 1428 patients were included in the current study. The results showed no significant reduction of short-term mortality in sepsis and septic shock patients who received combination therapy of vitamin C and thiamine with or without hydrocortisone compared to those with placebo {risk ratio (RR), 1.02 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.87 to 1.20], p = 0.81, I2 = 0%; risk difference (RD), 0 [95% CI, −0.04 to 0.05]}. Nevertheless, the combination therapy was associated with significant reduction in SOFA score [mean difference (MD), −0.63, (95% CI, −0.96 to −0.29, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%] and vasopressors duration (MD, −22.11 [95% CI, −30.46 to −13.77], p < 0.001, I2 = 6%). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the pooled estimate for other outcomes. Conclusions In the current meta-analysis, the combination therapy of vitamin C and thiamine, with or without hydrocortisone had no impact on short-term mortality when compared with placebo, but was associated with significant reduction in SOFA score among patients with sepsis and septic shock.