AIMS: To determine the prevalence of alcohol abstinence, factors associated with alcohol abstinence and the impact of abstinence on morbidity and overall survival in people with alcohol-associated cirrhosis.
METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase from inception to 15 April 2023 for prospective and retrospective cohort studies describing alcohol abstinence in people with known alcohol-associated cirrhosis. Meta-analysis of proportions for pooled estimates was performed. The method of inverse variance, employing a random-effects model, was used to pool the hazard ratio (HR) comparing outcomes of abstinent against non-abstinent individuals with alcohol-associated cirrhosis.
RESULTS: We included 19 studies involving 18,833 people with alcohol-associated cirrhosis. The prevalence of alcohol abstinence was 53.8% (CI: 44.6%-62.7%). Over a mean follow-up duration of 48.6 months, individuals who continued to consume alcohol had significantly lower overall survival compared to those who were abstinent (HR: 0.611, 95% CI: 0.506-0.738). These findings remained consistent in sensitivity/subgroup analysis for the presence of decompensation, study design and studies that assessed abstinence throughout follow-up. Alcohol abstinence was associated with a significantly lower risk of hepatic decompensation (HR: 0.612, 95% CI: 0.473-0.792).
CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol abstinence is associated with substantial improvement in overall survival in alcohol-associated cirrhosis. However, only half of the individuals with known alcohol-associated cirrhosis are abstinent.
METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in emergency departments of two tertiary hospitals from June 1 to August 31, 2021. Consecutive patients aged >18 years admitted for COVID-19-related HRF (World Health Organization criteria: confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia with respiratory rate > 30 breaths/min, severe respiratory distress, or peripheral oxygen saturation < 90% on room air) requiring NRB + NC or HFNC were screened for enrollment. Primary outcome was improvement of partial pressure arterial oxygen (PaO2) at two hours. Secondary outcomes were intubation rate, ventilator-free days, hospital length of stay, and 28-day mortality. Data were analyzed using linear regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity score.
RESULTS: Among the 110 patients recruited, 52 (47.3%) were treated with NRB + NC, and 58 (52.7%) with HFNC. There were significant improvements in patients' PaO2, PaO2/FIO2 ratio, and respiratory rate two hours after the initiation of NRB + NC and HFNC. Comparing the two groups, after IPTW adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in PaO2 improvement (adjusted mean ratio [MR] 2.81; 95% CI -5.82 to 11.43; p = .524), intubation rate (adjusted OR 1.76; 95% CI 0.44 to 6.92; p = .423), ventilator-free days (adjusted MR 0.00; 95% CI -8.84 to 8.85; p = .999), hospital length of stay (adjusted MR 3.04; 95% CI -2.62 to 8.69; p = .293), and 28-day mortality (adjusted OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.15 to 2.98; p = .608).
CONCLUSION: HFNC may be beneficial in COVID-19 HRF. NRB + NC is a viable alternative, especially in resource-limited settings, given similar improvement in oxygenation at two hours, and no significant differences in long-term outcomes. The effectiveness of NRB + NC needs to be investigated by a powered randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: 99 adult patients at four training and research hospitals who had undergone an abdominal contrast computed tomography scan in the ED with the final diagnosis of splenic abscess from January 2004 to November 2017 were recruited. Evaluation for sarcopenia was performed via calculating the psoas cross-sectional area at the level of the third lumbar vertebra and normalising for height, before checking it against pre-defined values. Univariate analyses were used to evaluate the differences between survivors and non-survivors. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the presence of sarcopenia in predicting in-hospital mortality were calculated. Kaplan-Meier methods, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards model were also performed to examine survival between groups with sarcopenia versus non-sarcopenia.
RESULTS: Splenic abscess patients with sarcopenia were 7.56 times more at risk of in-hospital mortality than those without sarcopenia (multivariate-adjusted HR: 7.56; 95% CI: 1.55-36.93). Presence of sarcopenia was found to have 84.62% sensitivity and 96.49% negative predictive value in predicting mortality.
CONCLUSION: Sarcopenia is associated with poor prognoses of in-hospital mortality in patients with splenic abscess presenting to the ED. We recommend its use in the ED to rapidly risk stratify and predict outcome to guide treatment strategies.