Aims and Objective: To identify an ideal systolic blood pressure range based on optimal survival among ESRD patients on dialysis.
Method: A systematic search for clinical trials assessing the impact of different systolic blood pressure range on mortality among ESRD patients on hemodialysis was conducted through PubMed, EBSCOhost, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Scopus. All randomized control trials (RCTs) involving ESRD patients on hemodialysis with primary or secondary outcome of assessing the impact different systolic blood pressure range (140 mm Hg) on all-cause mortality were included. The quality of reporting of the included studies was evaluated using the Jadad scale. Two researchers independently conducted eligibility assessment. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consultation with a third researcher when needed. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
Results: A total of 1,787 research articles were identified during the initial search, after which six RCTs met our inclusion criteria. According to the Jadad scale, all six RCTs scored 3 points each for quality of reporting. Four RCTs employed pharmacological intervention while two RCTs assessed non-pharmacological intervention. Of the six RCTs, two studies were able to achieve a systolic blood pressure of <140 mm Hg at the end of trial with a RR for reduction in mortality of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.3-1.07; P = 0.08). Four RCTs were able to achieve a systolic blood pressure of >140 mm Hg at the end of trial, with the RR for reduction of mortality of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.54-0.96; P = 0.003). Overall, pooled estimates of the six RCTs suggested the reduction in systolic blood pressure statistically reduce all cause of mortality (RR, 0.69%; 95% CI, 0.53-0.90; P = 0.006) among ESRD patients on hemodialysis.
Conclusion: Though not statically significant, the current study identifies <140 mm Hg as a promising blood pressure range for optimum survival among ESRD patients on hemodialysis. However, further studies are required to establish an ideal blood pressure range among hemodialysis patients.
Systematic Review Registration: The study protocol was registered under PROSPERO (CRD42019121102).
OBJECTIVE: To assess the learning curve of a dual attending surgeon strategy in severe adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The advantages of a dual attending surgeon strategy in improving the perioperative outcome in scoliosis surgery had been reported. However, the learning curve of this strategy in severe scoliosis had not been widely studied.
METHODS: A total of 105 patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with Cobb angle of 90° or greater, who underwent posterior spinal fusion using a dual attending surgeon strategy were recruited. Primary outcomes were operative time, total blood loss, allogeneic blood transfusion requirement, length of hospital stay from time of operation and perioperative complications. Cases were sorted chronologically into group 1: cases 1 to 35, group 2: cases 36 to 70, and group 3: case 71 to 105. Mean operative time (≤193.3 min), total blood loss (≤1612.2 mL), combination of both and allogeneic blood transfusion were the selected criteria for receiver operating characteristic analysis of the learning curve.
RESULTS: The mean Cobb angle was 104.5° ± 12.3°. The operative time, total blood loss, and allogeneic blood transfusion requirement reduced significantly for group 1 (220.6 ± 54.8 min; 2011.3 ± 881.8 mL; 12 cases) versus group 2 (183.6 ± 36.7 min; 1481.6 ± 1035.5 mL; 3 cases) and group 1 versus group 3 (175.6 ± 38.4 min; 1343.7 ± 477.8 mL; 3 cases) (P blood loss) (area under the curve 0.740; P blood loss when comparing group 1 versus group 2 and group 1 versus group 3. The cut-off point for the learning curve was 57 cases when the preset criteria were fulfilled (≤193.3 min operative time and ≤1612.2 mL of total blood loss).Level of Evidence: 4.