Search

Abstract Background Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) are widely used for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (cCSCR), but their effectiveness remains unclear. This research was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of this drugs for cCSCR. Methods This is a review of randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing MRAs to placebo in adults with cCSCR, using the effects of MRAs on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and adverse events as primary outcomes and the effects of MRAs on anatomical parameters as secondary outcomes: central subfield thickness (CST), subretinal fluid height (SFH) and central choroidal thickness (CCT). Our all-language online search included Medline (via PubMed), Central, Embase, Lilacs, Ibecs, and RCT registers platforms, as late as May 2021. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (version 2) to assess the methodological quality of each study and synthesized the results in meta-analyses using a random-effects model. Results The search identified 302 records, five of which were eligible, totaling 225 cCSCR patients (aged 45–62 years; M/F ratio 3.1:1) treated for 1 to 12 months with spironolactone (50 mg/day) or eplerenone (50 mg/day) vs. placebo. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests MRAs result in little to no improvement in BCVA compared to placebo (SMD 0.22; 95% CI − 0.04 to 0.48; studies = 5; comparisons = 6; participants = 218; I2 = 0%). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that, when compared to placebo, MRAs have a very uncertain impact on adverse effects (no meta-analysis was performed), and CST (MD 18.1; 95% CI − 113.04 to 76.84; participants = 145; studies = 2; I2 = 68%). MRAs also result in little to no difference in SFH (SMD − 0.35; 95% CI − 0.95 to 0.26; studies = 5; comparisons = 6; participants = 221; I2 = 76%; moderate certainty) and CCT (MD − 21.23; 95% CI − 64.69 to 22.24; participants = 206; studies = 4; comparisons = 5; I2 = 85%; low certainty). Conclusion MRAs have little to no effect on BCVA. Evidence for adverse events and CST is very uncertain. MRAs also have little to no effect on SFH and CCT. These findings should be considered when prescribing MRAs for cCSCR. This research was previous registration in the PROSPERO platform (CRD42020182601).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the hemodynamic and metabolic effects of terlipressin and naloxone in cardiac arrest. METHODS: Cardiac arrest in rats was induced by asphyxia and maintained for 3.5 minutes. Animals were then resuscitated and randomized into one of six groups: placebo (n = 7), epinephrine (0.02 mg/kg; n = 7), naloxone (1 mg/kg; n = 7) or terlipressin, of which three different doses were tested: 50 µg/kg (TP50; n = 7), 100 µg/kg (TP100; n = 7) and 150 µg/kg (TP150; n = 7). Hemodynamic variables were measured at baseline and at 10 (T10), 20 (T20), 30 (T30), 45 (T45) and 60 (T60) minutes after cardiac arrest. Arterial blood samples were collected at T10, T30 and T60. RESULTS: The mean arterial pressure values in the TP50 group were higher than those in the epinephrine group at T10 (165 vs. 112 mmHg), T20 (160 vs. 82 mmHg), T30 (143 vs. 66 mmHg), T45 (119 vs. 67 mmHg) and T60 (96 vs. 66.8 mmHg). The blood lactate level was lower in the naloxone group than in the epinephrine group at T10 (5.15 vs. 10.5 mmol/L), T30 (2.57 vs. 5.24 mmol/L) and T60 (2.1 vs. 4.1 mmol/L). CONCLUSIONS: In this rat model of asphyxia-induced cardiac arrest, terlipressin and naloxone were effective vasopressors in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and presented better metabolic profiles than epinephrine. Terlipressin provided better hemodynamic stability than epinephrine.