The associations of prognostic nutritional index (PNI) with disease severity and mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain unclear. Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google scholar, and Cochrane Library, were searched from inception to 10 May 2022. The associations of PNI with risk of mortality (primary outcome) and disease severity (secondary outcome) were investigated. Merged results from meta-analysis of 13 retrospective studies (4204 patients) published between 2020 and 2022 revealed a lower PNI among patients in the mortality group [mean difference (MD): −8.65, p < 0.001] or severity group (MD: −5.19, p < 0.001) compared to those in the non-mortality or non-severity groups. A per-point increase in PNI was associated with a reduced risk of mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.9, p < 0.001, I² = 67.3%, seven studies] and disease severity (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.92, p < 0.001, I² = 83%, five studies). The pooled diagnostic analysis of mortality yielded a sensitivity of 0.76, specificity of 0.71, and area under curve (AUC) of 0.79. Regarding the prediction of disease severity, the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.8, 0.61, and 0.65, respectively. In conclusion, this study demonstrated a negative association between PNI and prognosis of COVID-19. Further large-scale trials are warranted to support our findings.

Background: Although post-stroke depression (PSD) affects one-third of patients following an acute stroke, pooled evidence addressing the correlation between a low vitamin D status and the risk of PSD remains inconclusive.Methods: Comprehensive database search of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar was performed from inception to December 2022. The primary outcome was the association of PSD risk with a low vitamin D status, while the secondary outcomes included the relationship between PSD and other risk factors.Results: Analysis of seven observational studies published between 2014 and 2022 with 1,580 patients showed pooled incidences of vitamin D deficiency (defined as 25[OH] D levels < 50 nmol/L) and PSD of 60.1 and 26.1%, respectively. Patients with PSD had a lower circulating vitamin D concentration compared to those without [mean difference (MD) =−13.94 nmol/L, 95% CI: −21.83 to −6.05,p= 0.0005,I²= 91%, six studies, 1,414 patients]. Meta-analysis also demonstrated a correlation between a low vitamin D level and an increased PSD risk [odd ratio (OR) = 3.25, 95% CI: 1.57–6.69,p= 0.001,I²= 78.7%, 1,108 patients], the heterogeneity of which was found to be associated with the incidence of vitamin D deficiency but not female proportion on meta-regression. Besides, female gender (OR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.3–2.44,p= 0.003,I²= 31%, five studies, 1,220 patients), hyperlipidemia (OR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.01–2.36,p= 0.04,I²= 0%, four studies, 976 patients), and high National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores (MD = 1.45, 95% CI: 0.58–2.32,p= 0.001,I²= 82%, five studies, 1,220 patients) were potential risk factors for PSD. For the primary outcome, the certainty of evidence was very low. Regarding secondary outcomes, the certainty of evidence was low for BMI, female gender, hypertension, diabetes, and stroke history, and very low for age, level of education, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and NIHSS scores.Conclusion: The results suggested an association of a low circulating vitamin D level with an increased risk of PSD. Besides, female gender, hyperlipidemia, high NIHSS score were related to an increased risk or occurrence of PSD. The current study may imply the necessity of routine circulating vitamin D screening in this population.Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022381580.

Background: This meta-analysis aimed at assessing the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound-measured laryngeal air column width difference (ACWD) in predicting post-extubation stridor (PES) in intubated adult patients.Methods: We searched the Medline, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google scholar databases from inception to October, 2022 to identify studies that examined the diagnostic accuracy of ACWD for PES. The primary outcome was the diagnostic performance by calculating the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC). The secondary outcomes were the differences in ACWD and duration of intubation between patients with and without PES.Results: Following literature search, 11 prospective studies (intensive care setting, n = 10; operating room setting, n = 1) involving 1,322 extubations were included. The incidence of PES among the studies was 4–25%. All studies were mixed-gender (females: 24.1–68.5%) with sample sizes ranging between 41 and 432. The cut-off values of ACWD for prediction of PES varied from 0.45 to 1.6 mm. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ACWD for PES were 0.8 (95% CI = 0.69–0.88, I²: 37.26%, eight studies) and 0.81 (95% CI = 0.72–0.88, I²: 89.51%, eight studies), respectively. The pooled AUC was 0.87 (95% CI = 0.84–0.90). Patients with PES had a smaller ACWD compared to those without PES (mean difference = −0.54, 95% CI = −0.79 to −0.28, I²: 97%, eight studies). Moreover, patients with PES had a longer duration of tracheal intubation than that in those without (mean difference = 2.75 days, 95% CI = 0.92, 4.57, I²: 90%, seven studies).Conclusion: Ultrasound-measured laryngeal ACWD showed satisfactory sensitivity and specificity for predicting PES. Because of the limited number of studies available, further investigations are needed to support our findings.Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022375772.

The sedation outcomes associated with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) remains unclear. Electronic databases (i.e., the Cochrane controlled trials register, Embase, Medline, and Scopus) were searched from inception to 25 December 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the sedation outcomes with dexmedetomidine or propofol in adult patients diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) receiving DISE. The primary outcome was the difference in minimum oxygen saturation (mSaO2). Five RCTs (270 participants) published between 2015 and 2020 were included for analysis. Compared with dexmedetomidine, propofol was associated with lower levels of mSaO2 (mean difference (MD) = −7.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) −12.04 to −2.44; 230 participants) and satisfaction among endoscopic performers (standardized MD = −2.43, 95% CI −3.61 to −1.26; 128 participants) as well as a higher risk of hypoxemia (relative ratios = 1.82, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.76; 82 participants). However, propofol provided a shorter time to fall asleep and a lower risk of failed sedation compared with dexmedetomidine. No significant difference was found in other outcomes. Compared with propofol, dexmedetomidine exhibited fewer adverse effects on respiratory function and provided a higher level of satisfaction among endoscopic performers but was associated with an elevated risk of failed sedation.

Despite acceptance of the surgical pleth index (SPI) for monitoring the intraoperative balance between noxious stimulation and anti-nociception under general anesthesia, its efficacy for predicting postoperative moderate-to-severe pain remains unclear. We searched electronic databases (e.g., Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE) to identify articles focusing on associations of SPI at the end of surgery with immediate moderate-to-severe pain in the postanesthesia care unit from inception to 7 July 2022. A total of six observational studies involving 756 adults published between 2016 and 2020 were eligible for quantitative syntheses. Pooled results revealed higher values of SPI in patients with moderate-to-severe pain than those without (mean difference: 7.82, 95% CI: 3.69 to 11.95, p = 0.002, I² = 46%). In addition, an elevated SPI at the end of surgery was able to predict moderate-to-severe pain with a sensitivity of 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65–0.77; I² = 29.01%) and a specificity of 0.58 (95% CI: 0.39–0.74; I² = 79.31%). The overall accuracy based on the summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve was 0.72. In conclusion, this meta-analysis highlighted the feasibility of the surgical pleth index to predict postoperative moderate-to-severe pain immediately after surgery. Our results from a limited number of studies warrant further investigations for verification.

Study objective: To assess the association between prognostic nutritional index (PNI) and risk of postoperative delirium (POD) in adult patients.Methods: MEDLINE, Google scholar, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases were searched from inception till April 2022. The primary outcome was the association between PNI and the risk of POD, while the secondary outcomes were correlations of other prognostic factors with POD risk. The correlation between PNI and the incidence of POD was assessed with three approaches: Difference in preoperative PNI between POD and non-POD groups (Model 1) as well as the association of PNI as a continuous parameter (Model 2) or as a binary variable (i.e., low vs. high using a PNI cut-off value of 50) (Model 3) with POD risk.Results: Analysis of nine observational studies published from 2010 to 2021 recruiting 3,743 patients showed a POD incidence of 6.4–35%. Our meta-analysis demonstrated a lower PNI among patients in the POD group (MD: −3.78, 95% CI: −4.85 to −2.71, p < 0.0001, I² = 54.2%) compared to the non-POD group (Model 1). Pooled results revealed a negative association between PNI and POD risk for both Model 2 (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86–0.97, p = 0.002, I² = 71%) and Model 3 (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.26–2.23, p < 0.0001, I² = 0%). Besides, while our results supported an age-dependent increase in POD risk, other factors including body-mass index, surgical time, health status, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and male gender were non-significant predictors of POD.Conclusion: Our results demonstrated a negative association between PNI and POD, which warrant further large-scale studies for validation.Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022323809.