Tahir, Umair

ABSTRACT Ventricular arrhythmias (VA), including ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation, are critical cardiac conditions that are often managed by catheter ablation among those unresponsive to pharmacologic therapy. The choice of anesthesia and sedation regimens for VA ablations may impact arrhythmia inducibility and hemodynamic stability, which can affect procedural success and complication rates. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of sedation versus general anesthesia (GA) among patients undergoing VA ablation. The review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023441553). Database searches were conducted across five major databases from inception to March 9, 2024 to identify randomized trials or observational studies including adult patients undergoing ablations for VA. Screening and data extraction were completed in duplicate. Risk-of-bias assessments were conducted using ROBINS-I as all included studies were observational, and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Six observational studies (N = 16,435) were included. No significant differences were found between sedation and GA for total procedure time (MD: −14.16 minutes; 95%CI: −38.61 to 10.29 minutes), arrhythmia non-inducibility (RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.33–1.58), acute ablation success (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.65–1.71), or procedural complications (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.28–1.85). However, sedation was associated with significantly lower intraprocedural hemodynamic instability (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.12–0.70). These findings indicate that while sedation and GA have comparable outcomes, sedation may be associated with less hemodynamic instability during VA ablation. However, more high-quality studies are needed to confirm these results.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids for the management of pediatric sepsis and septic shock. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science (Core Collection) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were systematically searched up to September 2023. Preprint servers, clinical trial registries and the reference sections of previous reviews were hand-searched. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials that enrolled pediatric sepsis, septic shock or systemic inflammatory response syndrome patients, compared the use of corticosteroid regimens against standard sepsis care and reported eligible outcomes were included. Title/abstract and full-text screening were conducted in-duplicate. Data Extraction: Eligible articles were extracted using a standardized form in-duplicate. Outcomes extracted include mortality incidence, hospital and pediatric intensive care unit length of stay, duration of shock, incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events and incidence of corticosteroid-related adverse events. The risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Assessing Randomized Trials. Data Synthesis: Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. Sixteen randomized controlled trials (N = 973) were included. Corticosteroid use may be associated with reduced mortality risks (risk ratio: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.50–0.85), shorter length of hospital stay (MD: −3.76 days, 95% CI: −6.66 to −0.86), and shorter pediatric intensive care unit length of stay (MD −2.34 days, 95% CI: −3.14 to −1.53 days). Corticosteroid use may be associated with gastrointestinal bleeding but not a higher risk of secondary infection. No studies reported on serious adverse events. All findings were based on low to very low quality of evidence. Conclusions: While corticosteroids show promise for managing pediatric sepsis and septic shock, the question of how to select the best candidate and the most optimal regimen remains unanswered. Future trials need to focus on assessing corticosteroid-related adverse events and stratifying patient inclusion by sepsis subphenotypes.