BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been ongoing for over 3 years, during which numerous clinical and experimental studies have been conducted. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the survival probability and complications of COVID-19 patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).
METHODS: We searched the databases by using Population-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome-Study Design (PICOS). We conducted a search of the PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases to retrieve studies published until December 10, 2022. A random-effects meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and assessed the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score. The results were presented as pooled morbidity with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: The study was conducted on 19 studies that enrolled a total of 1494 patients, and the results showed a pooled survival probability of 66.0%. The pooled morbidity for intracranial hemorrhage was 8.7%, intracranial thrombosis 7.0%, pneumothorax 9.0%, pulmonary embolism 11.0%, pulmonary hemorrhage 9.0%, heart failure 14.0%, liver failure 13.0%, renal injury 44.0%, gastrointestinal hemorrhage 6.0%, gastrointestinal ischemia 6.0% and venous thrombosis 31.0%.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies focused on the survival probability and complications of COVID-19 patients undergoing ECMO, which are significant in evaluating the use of ECMO in COVID-19 patients and provide a basis for further research.
BACKGROUND: Our study was registered on PROSPERO with registration number CRD42022382555.

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is an extremely contagious illness caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and has been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). There are currently no particular treatments, however, nebulized heparin has been offered as a viable therapy. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy of nebulized heparin in COVID-19 patients with respiratory symptoms.
UNASSIGNED: Relevant studies were identified through a systematic search of the PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science, and Scopus databases. The search terms included \"nebulized heparin,\" \"COVID-19,\" and \"SARS-CoV-2.\" Studies that evaluated the use of nebulized heparin in COVID-19 patients with respiratory symptoms were included. The rest of the studies along with those that were not published in English were excluded. The systematic review was registered under PROSPERO-CRD42023413927.
UNASSIGNED: Five studies have been included in this systematic review. Case reports, case series, observational studies, and randomized controlled trial (RCT) comprised the studies. The patient sample sizes ranged from 2 to 98. The studies assessed the efficacy of nebulized heparin in COVID-19 patients with variable disease severity. The evaluated outcomes included mortality, hospital stay duration, oxygen requirements, and laboratory parameters.
UNASSIGNED: Based on the clinical studies included in this systematic review, nebulized heparin may be useful in the management of COVID-19. Oxygen saturation was greater, inflammatory indicators were lower, and hospital stays were shorter in these patients. However, the studies had limitations, including inconsistent sample sizes, varying dosages of nebulized heparin, and no control groups. Nebulized heparin in patients with COVID-19 needs to be studied further to determine its safety and effectiveness.
UNASSIGNED: Gupta B, Ahluwalia P, Gupta N, Gupta A. Role of Nebulized Heparin in Clinical Outcome of COVID-19 Patients with Respiratory Symptoms: A Systematic Review. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023;27(8):572-579.

BACKGROUND: Screening diabetic patients for the presence of asymptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD) may potentially impact therapeutic management and outcome. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials addressing this question.
METHODS: We searched the PubMed database for studies reporting a randomized comparison of systematic screening for CAD in diabetic patients versus no systematic screening. The screening protocols were variable with the use of exercise electrocardiogram test, or stress echocardiography, or nuclear test, or coronary computed tomography angiography.
RESULTS: The final analysis included 5 randomized studies and 3,314 patients altogether. The screening strategy had no detectable impact on outcome with odds ratios (OR) [95 % confidence interval (CI)] of 1.00 [0.67-1.50], 0.72 [0.33-1.57], 0.71 [0.40-1.27], and 0.60 [0.23-1.52] for all-cause death, cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and the composite cardiovascular death or non-fatal myocardial infarction, respectively. Protocol-related coronary procedures were relatively infrequent in screened patients: coronary angiography was performed in 8 % of the cases, percutaneous coronary intervention in 2.5 %, and coronary artery bypass surgery in 1.5 %. There was no evidence for an effect of screening on the use of statins (OR = 1.19 [0.94-1.51]), aspirin (OR = 1.02 [0.83-1.25]), or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (OR = 0.97 [0.79-1.19]).
CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis shows no evidence for a benefit of screening diabetic patients for the presence of asymptomatic CAD. The proportion of patients who undergo myocardial revascularization as a consequence of screening was low.