Association between Troponin I and Mortality in COVID-19 Patients: Meta-Analysis Study

Abstract Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the intensive care unit. Biochemical markers of cardiac dysfunction are associated with high mortality in many respiratory conditions. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the link between elevated biomarkers of cardiac dysfunction in ARDS and mortality. Methods A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and CENTRAL databases was performed. We included studies of adult intensive care patients with ARDS that reported the risk of death in relation to a measured biomarker of cardiac dysfunction. The primary outcome of interest was mortality up to 60 days. A random-effects model was used for pooled estimates. Funnel-plot inspection was done to evaluate publication bias; Cochrane chi-square tests and I2 tests were used to assess heterogeneity. Results Twenty-two studies were included in the systematic review and 18 in the meta-analysis. Biomarkers of cardiac stretch included NT-ProBNP (nine studies) and BNP (six studies). Biomarkers of cardiac injury included Troponin-T (two studies), Troponin-I (one study) and High-Sensitivity-Troponin-I (three studies). Three studies assessed multiple cardiac biomarkers. High levels of NT-proBNP and BNP were associated with a higher risk of death up to 60 days (unadjusted OR 8.98; CI 4.15-19.43; p<0.00001). This association persisted after adjustment for age and illness severity. Biomarkers of cardiac injury were also associated with higher mortality, but this association was not statistically significant (unadjusted OR 2.21; CI 0.94-5.16; p= 0.07). Conclusion Biomarkers of cardiac stretch are associated with increased mortality in ARDS.

Download Full-text

Students’ Well-Being and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis Study

Child Indicators Research ◽

10.1007/s12187-021-09821-4 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Metin Kaya ◽

Cahit Erdem

Keyword(s):

Academic Achievement ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Well Being ◽

Analysis Study

Download Full-text

Chimeric Antigen Receptor T‐Cells Safety: A pharmacovigilance & meta‐analysis study

American Journal of Hematology ◽

10.1002/ajh.26259 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Charles Dolladille ◽

Stéphane Ederhy ◽

Emilien Ezine ◽

Sylvain Choquet ◽

Lee S. Nguyen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

T Cells ◽

Chimeric Antigen Receptor ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Antigen Receptor ◽

Analysis Study

Download Full-text

The association between vitamin D and acute rejection in human kidney transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis study

Transplant Immunology ◽

10.1016/j.trim.2021.101410 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 101410

Author(s):

Mohammad Mirzakhani ◽

Sheyda Mohammadkhani ◽

Shirin Hekmatirad ◽

Soudabeh Aghapour ◽

Negar Gorjizadeh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Vitamin D ◽

Kidney Transplantation ◽

Acute Rejection ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Human Kidney ◽

Analysis Study

Download Full-text

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews

BMC Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1186/s12879-021-06214-4 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento ◽

Dónal P. O’Mathúna ◽

Thilo Caspar von Groote ◽

Hebatullah Mohamed Abdulazeem ◽

Ishanka Weerasekara ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Troponin I ◽

Clinical Symptoms ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Severe Disease ◽

Ground Glass Opacity ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Reactive Protein ◽

Overview Of Systematic Reviews ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background Navigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic. Methods Nine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO’s Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes. Results Eighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as “critically low”. Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82–95%), cough with or without sputum (58–72%), dyspnea (26–59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29–51%), sore throat (10–13%), headache (8–12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5–9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%. Conclusions In this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was “critically low”. Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.

Download Full-text