Search

Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially life-threatening condition. Although computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is the reference standard for diagnosis, its early diagnosis remains a challenge, and the concerns about the radiation exposures further limit the general use of CTPA. The primary aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the overall diagnostic accuracy of transthoracic lung ultrasound (TLS) in the diagnosis of PE. Methods: PubMed, Web of science, OvidSP, ProQuest, EBSCO, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrial.gov were searched systematically. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves were used to examine the TS performance. The Bayes analysis was used to calculate the post-test probability of PE. Publication bias was assessed with Deeks funnel plot. Results: The results indicated that the sensitivity, specificity, PLR and NLR were 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.78 to 0.90), and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.90). And the DOR and HSROC were 28.82 (95% CI, 17.60 to 47.21), 0.91(95% CI, 0.88, 0.93). Conclusions: The present meta-analysis suggested that transthoracic lung ultrasonography is helpful in diagnosing pulmonary embolism. Although the application of transthoracic lung ultrasound may change some patients’ diagnostic processes, it is inappropriate to generally use transthoracic ultrasonography in diagnosing pulmonary embolism currently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the effects and safety of low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with septic shock. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from database inception until 1 August 2018. Two reviewers performed literature selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation independently. Results: Twelve randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. The combined results showed that low-dose hydrocortisone use had no survival benefit in patients with septic shock (relative risk = 1.09; 95% confidence interval = 0.88–1.05; P = 0.37). But low-dose hydrocortisone use was useful for shock reverse (relative risk = 1.09; 95% confidence interval = 1.00–1.19; P = 0.04) and in shortening the time of vasopressor support (weighted mean difference = −1.79, 95% confidence interval = −2.05 to −1.52; P < 0.00001). In addition, use of low-dose hydrocortisone was associated with a higher risk of hyperglycemia (relative risk = 1.21; 95% confidence interval = 1.04–1.40; P = 0.01) and hypernatremia (relative risk = 6.34; 95% confidence interval = 1.19–33.81; P = 0.03). There was no significant improvement of intensive care unit mortality (relative risk = 1.11; 95% confidence interval = 0.93–1.33; P = 0.23) or hospital mortality (relative risk = 1.08; 95% confidence interval = 0.94–1.24; P = 0.29), length of intensive care unit (weighted mean difference = −1.84; 95% confidence interval = −5.80 to 2.11; P = 0.36) or length of hospital (weighted mean difference = 0.11; 95% confidence interval = −2.06 to 2.29; P = 0.98), and time of mechanical support (weighted mean difference = −0.69; 95% confidence interval = −1.76 to −0.38; P = 0.20) with the use of low-dose hydrocortisone. There was no significant difference in secondary infection (relative risk = 1.04; 95% confidence interval = 0.91–1.18; P = 0.57), recurrence of shock (relative risk = 1.47; 95% confidence interval = 0.64–3.39; P = 0.36), and gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk = 1.41; 95% confidence interval = 0.89–2.22; P = 0.14) with the use of low-dose hydrocortisone. Conclusion: Although there was no effect of low-dose hydrocortisone on survival of patients with septic shock, it is associated with a higher rate of shock reversal and shortening duration of vasopressor support; thus, low-dose hydrocortisone may be an alternative drug in septic shock patients who are refractory to fluid resuscitation and vasopressors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early fluid resuscitation is vital to patients with sepsis. However, the choice of fluid has been a hot topic of discussion. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the use of albumin-containing fluids for resuscitation in patients with sepsis was associated with a decreased mortality rate. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to March 2014. The selection of eligible studies, assessment of methodological quality, and extraction of all relevant data were conducted by two authors independently. Results: In total, 15 RCTs were eligible for analysis. After pooling the data, we found there was no significant effect of albumin-containing fluids on mortality in patients with sepsis of any severity (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.02 and RD: –0.01, 95% CI: –0.03, 0.01). The results were robust to subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses and trial sequential analyses. Conclusion: The present meta-analysis did not demonstrate significant advantage of using albumin-containing fluids for resuscitation in patients with sepsis of any severity. Given the cost-effectiveness of using albumin, crystalloids should be the first choice for fluid resuscitation in septic patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]