The Effects of Restrictive Fluid Resuscitation on the Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Sepsis or Septic Shock: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Controlled Trials

This study aims to assess the impact of a restrictive resuscitation strategy on the outcomes of patients with sepsis and septic shock. This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A systematic search was performed in databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, covering the period from the inception of the database to August 2023, with no limitations on the language of publication. Outcomes assessed in the meta-analysis included mortality, duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay in days, duration of mechanical ventilation in days, acute kidney injury (AKI) or the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), and length of hospital stay in days. Overall, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the present meta-analysis. The findings of this study indicate that although the risk of mortality was lower in fluid restriction compared to the control group, the difference was statistically insignificant (risk ratio (RR): 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.9-1.05; P value: 0.61). Additionally, the duration of mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter in the restrictive fluid group compared to its counterparts (mean difference (MD): -1.02; 95% CI: -1.65 to -0.38; P value: 0.003). There were no significant differences found in relation to the duration of ICU stays, the incidence of AKI, the requirement for RRT, or the length of hospital stays measured in days.

Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes of Patients With Myocardia Infarction (MI) With Non-obstructive Coronary Arteries and MI With Obstructive Coronary Arteries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The aim of this study was to compare long-term outcomes in patients with myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) and patients with myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary arteries (MIOCA). This meta-analysis was conducted according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The literature search was conducted in online databases including PubMed and Web of Science from 2010 onwards. Primary outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction. A total of 16 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that the risk of MACE was higher in MIOCA patients (risk ratio (RR): 1.47, 95%CI: 1.43-1.52, p-value: 0.001) compared to MINOCA patients. Additionally, the risk of all-cause mortality was also significantly higher in MIOCA patients compared to MINOCA (RR: 1.33, 95%CI: 1.14-1.56, p-value: 0.001). Our findings also indicate that patients with MIOCA are at a significantly higher risk of recurrent myocardial infarction and cardiovascular-related mortality compared to patients with MINOCA. Overall, the insights gained from this meta-analysis have significant clinical implications, guiding decision-making in the management of patients with MINOCA.