Cheema, Huzaifa Ahmad

Background The optimal imaging guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in complex coronary lesions remains a matter of debate. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided PCI versus angiography-guided PCI. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OCT-guided PCI to angiography-guided PCI were included. Data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4, with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated for dichotomous outcomes using a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Results Eleven RCTs involving 6432 participants were included. OCT-guided PCI showed no statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality compared to angiography-guided PCI (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51–1.01, P = 0.06, I 2 = 0%). However, OCT-guided PCI was associated with a significant reduction in cardiac death (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30–0.90, P = 0.02, I 2 = 0%), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55–0.89, P = 0.003, I 2 = 0%), stent thrombosis (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33–0.87, P = 0.01, I 2 = 0%), and major edge dissection (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.34–0.65, P < 0.00001, I 2 = 0%). Upon stratification of studies on the basis of follow-up duration, similar results were noted. Conclusion OCT-guided PCI demonstrated significant benefits in reducing cardiac death, MACE, and procedural complications compared to angiography-guided PCI. These findings support the integration of OCT in complex PCI, although further studies are warranted to assess its impact on long-term mortality.

Background: Vitamin C is a vital nutrient that functions as an antioxidant and is important as a co-factor and regulator of several immune system pathways. The role of vitamin C in the treatment of COVID-19 is largely debatable. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitamin C in the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: We searched several electronic databases from inception to March 2023 to retrieve randomized controlled trials on the use of vitamin C for COVID-19. RevMan 5.4 was used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) along with confidence intervals (95% CI) using a random-effects model. Results: We included nine randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis. Vitamin C did not reduce the all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 compared to the standard treatment (RR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.83–1.02; I 2 = 1%). Vitamin C was found to be associated with a similar incidence of ventilation in COVID-19 patients when compared to standard treatment (RR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.87–1.11, I 2 = 0%). There were no significant differences between both groups regarding the incidence of hospitalization (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98–1.02; I 2 = 0%), incidence of recovery (RR 1.57, 95% CI: 0.45–5.50; I 2 = 52%), hospital mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.44–1.06; I 2 = 0%) and length of hospital stay (MD −0.63, 95% CI: −3.04 to 1.78; I 2 = 81%). Conclusion: Vitamin C administration did not reduce all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. Additional studies are required to evaluate the role of vitamin C in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 especially in ICU patients.

Background: Transradial artery access (TRA) is the favored approach for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary angiography (CAG). However, transulnar artery access (TUA) has emerged as an alternative, particularly when TRA is not feasible. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of TUA versus TRA in patients undergoing PCI and CAG. Methods: From inception to August 2025, a systematic search of electronic databases was conducted. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Results: Nine RCTs involving 6089 patients were included. Meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in procedural success between TUA and TRA (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.82–1.06, P = 0.28, I 2 = 99%). Similarly, puncture success rates were comparable (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91–1.00, P = 0.06, I 2 = 83%). Secondary outcomes showed no significant differences in puncture attempts or hematoma incidence, but TRA was associated with a shorter procedure time (MD: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.27–1.50, P = 0.005). Conclusion: TUA provides a viable alternative to TRA, with similar success rates and complication profiles. However, TRA remains superior in terms of procedure time. Further large-scale RCTs are warranted to confirm these findings and refine clinical guidelines.

Establishing vascular access early in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a crucial factor for improving prognosis. Clinical guidelines recommend both intravascular (IV) and intraosseous (IO) access, but the superiority of one technique over the other has yet to be determined. Our review aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of IV versus IO access in OHCA. A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception till January 2025 for randomized controlled trials or their subgroup analyses comparing IV versus IO access in adult OHCA patients. The data for clinical outcomes were extracted, and forest plots were generated using the random-effects model in the Review Manager 5.4. We included 6 studies reporting data for 19,811 patients. The pooled analysis demonstrated that IO access had significantly higher odds of successful vascular access on first attempt [odds ratio (OR), 1.25; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.19–0.34], but this did not translate to improved survival to hospital discharge (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.90–1.67), survival to hospital discharge with a favorable neurological outcome (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.93–1.76), and return of spontaneous circulation (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.67–1.93). Intravenous and intraosseous vascular access have similar effects on clinical outcomes in patients with OHCA. The preferred method for vascular access should depend on the responder’s feasibility and expertise.

Abstract Rationale: Current guidelines recommend a short course of antibiotic therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by non-fermenting gram-negative bacilli (NF-GNB). However, this approach has been associated with an increased risk of pneumonia recurrence. This meta-analysis aims to address inconsistencies in the literature and evaluate the efficacy of short-course versus long-course antibiotic therapy for VAP, particularly in cases due to NF- GNB. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short versus long courses of antibiotic therapy in patients with VAP. The primary outcomes were the risk of all-cause mortality and pneumonia recurrence. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4, with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) as effect measures. Results: Our pooled analysis included seven RCTs. There was no significant difference in all- cause mortality between short- and long-course antibiotic regimens (RR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.88-1.18; Figure 1). However, a short course of antibiotics increased the incidence ofpneumonia recurrence, particularly in patients with VAP due to NF-GNB (RR 1.64; 95% CI: 1.18-2.29; Figure 1). There were no significant differences between the two regimens regarding the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 0.01 days; 95% CI: -0.51 to 0.53 days), ICU (MD 0.10 days; 95% CI: -1.00 to 1.20 days) and hospital stay (MD -0.63 days; 95% CI: -3.18 to 1.91 days), or subsequent infection with or acquisition of resistant organisms (RR 0.89; 95% CI: 0.63-1.24). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests that while a short course of antibiotics increases the risk of pneumonia recurrence in NF-GNB VAP, it does not impact mortality compared to a longer course. The clinical significance of the increased recurrence of pneumonia remains uncertain, as it did not result in worse clinical outcomes. A practical approach incorporating validated clinical criteria and biomarker thresholds to guide the duration of antibiotic therapy may be more effective for patients with NF-GNB VAP. Larger RCTs are needed to drawdefinitive conclusions in this population.

Vitamin C is a vital nutrient that functions as an antioxidant and is important as a co-factor and regulator of several immune system pathways. The role of vitamin C in the treatment of COVID-19 is largely debatable. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitamin C in the treatment of COVID-19. We searched several electronic databases from inception to March 2023 to retrieve randomized controlled trials on the use of Vitamin C for COVID-19. RevMan 5.4 was used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and Mean Differences (MDs) along with confidence intervals (95% CI) using a random-effects model. We included 9 randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis. Vitamin C did not reduce the all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 compared to the standard treatment [RR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.65-1.14; I 2 =66%]. Vitamin C was found to be associated with an increased incidence of ventilation in COVID-19 patients when compared to standard treatment [RR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.18-1.59; I 2 =58%]. There were no significant differences between both groups regarding the incidence of hospitalization [RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98-1.02; I 2 =0%], incidence of recovery [RR 1.57, 95% CI: 0.45-5.50; I 2 =52%], hospital mortality [RR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.44-1.06; I 2 =0%] and length of hospital stay [MD -0.63, 95% CI: -3.04 to 1.78; I 2 =81%]. Vitamin C administration did not reduce all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. Additional studies are required to evaluate the role of Vitamin C in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 especially in ICU patients.