Siddharth Dugar

Dr. Siddharth Dugar

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

12Years (2015-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
21 May 2021 in Critical Care
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RSRyota Sato
Ryota Sato
SDSiddharth Dugar
Siddharth Dugar
WCWisit Cheungpasitporn
Wisit Cheungpasitporn
MSMary Schleicher
Mary Schleicher
PCPatrick Collier
Patrick Collier
ADAbhijit Duggal
Abhijit Duggal
Background: Previous studies have found various incidences of right ventricular (RV) injury and its association with clinical outcome in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the impact of the presence of RV injury on mortality in patients with ARDS. Method: We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies investigating the association between RV injury and mortality. Two authors independently evaluated whether studies meet eligibility criteria and extracted the selected patients’ and studies’ characteristics and outcomes. RV injury was diagnosed by trans-thoracic echocardiogram (TTE), trans-esophageal echocardiogram (TEE) and PAC (pulmonary artery catheter) in the included studies. The primary outcome was the association between mortality and the presence of RV injury in patients with ARDS. The overall reported mortality was defined as either the intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, in-hospital mortality, or mortality within 90 days, and short-term mortality was defined as ICU-mortality, in-hospital mortality, or mortality within 30 days. Results: We included 9 studies (N = 1861 patients) in this meta-analysis. RV injury that included RV dysfunction, RV dysfunction with hemodynamic compromise, RV failure, or acute cor-pulmonale was present in 21.0% (391/1,861). In the pooled meta-analysis, the presence of RV injury in patients with ARDS was associated with significantly higher overall mortality (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.13–1.86, p-value = 0.003, I2 = 0%), as well as short-term mortality (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.14–1.93, p-value = 0.003, I2 = 0%). Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis including 1861 patients with ARDS, the presence of RV injury was significantly associated with increased overall and short-term mortality. Trial registration: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020206521).

4 June 2023 in Journal of Intensive Care Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
DHDaisuke Hasegawa
Daisuke Hasegawa
YMYoshiko Mori
Yoshiko Mori
TMTetsuro Maeda
Tetsuro Maeda
NPNarut Prasitlumkum
Narut Prasitlumkum
KNKazuki Nishida
Kazuki Nishida
RSRyota Sato
Ryota Sato
Purpose: The prevalence and its impact on mortality of sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy (SICM) remain controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated the prevalence and prognosis of SICM. Materials and Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. Titles and abstracts were evaluated based on the following criteria: (1) published in English, (2) randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, or cross-sectional studies, (3) ≥ 18 years with sepsis, (4) reporting the prevalence and/or comparison of short-term mortality between those with and without SICM, defined as the new-onset reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) within 72 h on admission or from the diagnosis of sepsis. The random-effect model was used for all analyses. This meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CDR42022332896). Results: Sixteen studies reported the prevalence of SICM and the pooled prevalence of SICM was 20% (95% confidence interval [CI], 16-25%; I2 = 89.9%, P < 0.01). Eleven studies reported short-term mortality and SICM was associated with significantly higher short-term mortality (The pooled odds ratio: 2.30, 95% CI, 1.43-3.69; I2 = 0%, P = 0.001). Conclusion: The prevalence of SICM was 20% in patients with sepsis, and the occurrence of SICM was associated with significantly higher short-term mortality.

14 January 2023 in Chest
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SDSiddharth Dugar
Siddharth Dugar
RSRyota Sato
Ryota Sato
SCSanchit Chawla
Sanchit Chawla
JYJee Young You
Jee Young You
XWXiaofeng Wang
Xiaofeng Wang
ADAbhijit Duggal
Abhijit Duggal

21 August 2023 in Chest
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JYJason R. Yerke
Jason R. Yerke
EMEduardo Mireles-Cabodevila
Eduardo Mireles-Cabodevila
ACAlyssa Y. Chen
Alyssa Y. Chen
SBStephanie N. Bass
Stephanie N. Bass
ARAnita J. Reddy
Anita J. Reddy
AMAjit Moghekar
Ajit Moghekar

22 April 2024 in POCUS Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BOBrandon Oto
Brandon Oto
RBRobert Baeten
Robert Baeten
LCLeon Chen
Leon Chen
PDPuja Dalal
Puja Dalal
RDRia Dancel
Ria Dancel
ASAarti Sarwal
Aarti Sarwal
Despite the growing use of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) in contemporary medical practice and the existence of clinical guidelines addressing its specific applications, there remains a lack of standardization and agreement on optimal practices for several areas of POCUS use. The Society of Point of Care Ultrasound (SPOCUS) formed a working group in 2022 to establish a set of recommended best practices for POCUS, applicable to clinicians regardless of their training, specialty, resource setting, or scope of practice. Using a three-round modified Delphi process, a multi-disciplinary panel of 22 POCUS experts based in the United States reached consensus on 57 statements in domains including: (1) The definition and clinical role of POCUS; (2) Training pathways; (3) Credentialing; (4) Cleaning and maintenance of POCUS devices; (5) Consent and education; (6) Security, storage, and sharing of POCUS studies; (7) Uploading, archiving, and reviewing POCUS studies; and (8) Documenting POCUS studies. The consensus statements are provided here. While not intended to establish a standard of care or supersede more targeted guidelines, this document may serve as a useful baseline to guide clinicians, leaders, and systems considering initiation or enhancement of POCUS programs.

3 February 2024 in Annals of Intensive Care
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RSRyota Sato
Ryota Sato
FSFilippo Sanfilippo
Filippo Sanfilippo
DHDaisuke Hasegawa
Daisuke Hasegawa
NPNarut Prasitlumkum
Narut Prasitlumkum
ADAbhijit Duggal
Abhijit Duggal
SDSiddharth Dugar
Siddharth Dugar
The prevalence of hyperdynamic left ventricular (LV) systolic function in septic patients and its impact on mortality remain controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated the prevalence and association of hyperdynamic LV systolic function with mortality in patients with sepsis. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. Primary outcomes were the prevalence of hyperdynamic LV systolic function in adult septic patients and the associated short-term mortality as compared to normal LV systolic function. Hyperdynamic LV systolic function was defined using LV ejection fraction (LVEF) of 70% as cutoff. Secondary outcomes were heart rate, LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and E/e’ ratio. Four studies were included, and the pooled prevalence of hyperdynamic LV systolic function was 18.2% ([95% confidence interval (CI) 12.5, 25.8]; I2 = 7.0%, P < 0.0001). Hyperdynamic LV systolic function was associated with higher mortality: odds ratio of 2.37 [95%CI 1.47, 3.80]; I2 = 79%, P < 0.01. No difference was found in E/e’ (P = 0.43) between normal and hyperdynamic LV systolic function, while higher values of heart rate (mean difference: 6.14 beats/min [95%CI 3.59, 8.69]; I2 = 51%, P < 0.0001) and LVEDD (mean difference: − 0.21 cm [95%CI − 0.33, − 0.09]; I2 = 73%, P < 0.001) were detected in patients with hyperdynamic LV systolic function. The prevalence of hyperdynamic LV systolic function is not negligible in septic patients. Such a finding is associated with significantly higher short-term mortality as compared to normal LV systolic function.