-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Nausea and vomiting is a common and distressing presenting complaint in emergency departments (ED). The aetiology of nausea and vomiting in EDs is diverse and drugs are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Nausea and vomiting is a common and distressing presenting complaint in emergency departments (ED). The aetiology of nausea and vomiting in EDs is diverse and drugs are commonly prescribed. There is currently no consensus as to the optimum drug treatment of nausea and vomiting in the adult ED setting.
OBJECTIVES
To provide evidence of the efficacy and safety of antiemetic medications in the management of nausea and vomiting in the adult ED setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (January 1966 to August 2014), EMBASE (OvidSP) (January 1980 to August 2014) and ISI Web of Science (January 1955 to August 2014). We also searched relevant clinical trial registries and conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any drug in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in the treatment of adults in the ED. Study eligibility was not restricted by language or publication status.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias in included studies. We contacted authors of studies to obtain missing information if required.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight trials, involving 952 participants, of which 64% were women. Included trials were generally of adequate quality, with six trials at low risk of bias, and two trials at high risk of bias. Three trials with 518 participants compared five different drugs with placebo; all reported the primary outcome as mean change in visual analogue scale (VAS) (0 to 100) for nausea severity from baseline to 30 minutes. Trials did not routinely report other primary outcomes of the change in nausea VAS at 60 minutes or number of vomiting episodes. Differences in mean VAS change from baseline to 30 minutes between placebo and the drugs evaluated were: metoclopramide (three trials, 301 participants; mean difference (MD) -5.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -11.33 to 0.80), ondansetron (two trials, 250 participants; MD -4.32, 95% CI -11.20 to 2.56), prochlorperazine (one trial, 50 participants; MD -1.80, 95% CI -14.40 to 10.80), promethazine (one trial, 82 participants; MD -8.47, 95% CI -19.79 to 2.85) and droperidol (one trial, 48 participants; MD -15.8, 95% CI -26.98 to -4.62). The only statistically significant change in baseline VAS to 30 minutes was for droperidol, in a single trial of 48 participants. No other drug was statistically significantly superior to placebo. Other included trials evaluated a drug compared to "active controls" (alternative antiemetic). There was no convincing evidence of superiority of any particular drug compared to active control. All trials included in this review reported adverse events, but they were variably reported precluding meaningful pooling of results. Adverse events were generally mild, there were no reported serious adverse events. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low, mainly because there were not enough data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In an ED population, there is no definite evidence to support the superiority of any one drug over any other drug, or the superiority of any drug over placebo. Participants receiving placebo often reported clinically significant improvement in nausea, implying general supportive treatment such as intravenous fluids may be sufficient for the majority of people. If a drug is considered necessary, choice of drug may be dictated by other considerations such as a person's preference, adverse-effect profile and cost. The review was limited by the paucity of clinical trials in this setting. Future research should include the use of placebo and consider focusing on specific diagnostic groups and controlling for factors such as intravenous fluid administered.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Droperidol; Emergency Service, Hospital; Female; Humans; Male; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Ondansetron; Prochlorperazine; Promethazine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Visual Analog Scale; Vomiting
PubMed: 26411330
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010106.pub2 -
PloS One 2017We assessed the efficacy and safety of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in adults with non-constipated irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
We assessed the efficacy and safety of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in adults with non-constipated irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) or diarrhea-predominant IBS (IBS-D).
METHODS
We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with non-constipated IBS or IBS-D that compared 5-HT3 receptor antagonists with placebo or other conventional treatment. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for improving global IBS symptoms, abdominal pain and abnormal bowel habits, or stool consistency symptoms after therapy, and adverse events, including constipation. Meta- analysis was performed with Mantel Haenszel method using Revman 5.3 software.
RESULTS
We included 21 RCTs; 16 were high quality (Jadad score ≥ 4). The pooled RR of global IBS symptoms improved by 5-HT3 receptor antagonists versus placebo or mebeverine was 1.56 (95% CI: 1.43-1.71); alosetron, ramosetron, and cilansetron had similar treatment effects. The pooled RR of abdominal pain relieved by 5-HT3 receptor antagonists versus placebo was 1.33 (95% CI: 1.26-1.39). The pooled RR showed that 5-HT3 receptor antagonists improved abnormal bowel habits or stool consistency symptoms (RR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.33, 1.99). The pooled RR of adverse events following 5-HT3 receptor antagonist treatment was 1.15 (95% CI: 1.08, 1.22). Subgroup analysis indicated that alosetron had a high rate of adverse effects (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.25); adverse events following ramosetron treatment were not statistically significantly different. 5-HT3 receptor antagonists were likelier to cause constipation: the pooled RR of constipation developing with 5-HT3 receptor antagonist versus placebo was 3.71 (95% CI: 2.98-4.61). However, constipation was likelier in patients with non-constipated IBS after taking 5-HT3 receptor antagonists than in patients with IBS-D only (non-constipated IBS and IBS-D: RR = 5.28 [95% CI: 3.93, 7.08] vs. IBS-D only 3.24 [2.54, 4.12]).
CONCLUSIONS
Ramosetron, cilansetron, ondansetron, and alosetron are effective for treating non-constipated IBS and IBS-D. Our systematic review found rare serious adverse events.
Topics: Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Placebos; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists
PubMed: 28291778
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172846 -
Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing :... Aug 2019Patients rank postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) as the most undesirable outcome of anesthesia. Mirtazapine is hypothesized to be effective in PONV prophylaxis via... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Patients rank postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) as the most undesirable outcome of anesthesia. Mirtazapine is hypothesized to be effective in PONV prophylaxis via 5HT3 receptor antagonism.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We identified seven randomized controlled trials by systematically searching electronic databases that compare the efficacy of mirtazapine versus placebo or ondansetron in reducing PONV.
FINDINGS
Mirtazapine reduced PONV overall versus placebo in three studies (risk ratio [RR] = 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32 to 0.62) both on conventional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. One study comparing mirtazapine with ondansetron found similar rates of PONV (RR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.94). Mirtazapine reduced preoperative anxiety versus placebo or ondansetron (standardized mean difference -1.4; 95% CI -2.56 to -0.23) but increased sedation (RR = 22.47; 95% CI 5.61 to 89.93). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) quality of evidence was moderate to low.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis suggests that mirtazapine reduces PONV overall versus placebo. We found evidence of reduction in preoperative anxiety, although mirtazapine increased the risk of sedation.
Topics: Antiemetics; Humans; Mirtazapine; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 30879907
DOI: 10.1016/j.jopan.2018.11.006 -
International Journal of Surgery... Dec 2016A systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials was performed to update the present evidence about the safety and efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics versus single antiemetics for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials was performed to update the present evidence about the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics versus single antiemetics for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS
A computer literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Embase was conducted to identify the relevant randomized controlled trials. In addition, a manual search of reference lists of the retrieved articles was conducted. Relevant outcomes were pooled as odds ratio (OR) by RevMan version 5.3 for windows.
RESULTS
Pooled data from 14 RCTs (1542 patients) favored dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics over single antiemetics as a prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the early postoperative period (OR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.27 to 0.54], p < 0.00001), late postoperative period (OR = 0.36, 95% CI [0.23 to 0.56], p < 0.00001), and overall postoperative period (OR = 0.34, 95% CI [0.23 to 0.51], p < 0.00001). Subsequently, rescue antiemetic usage was significantly lower in the combination group (OR = 0.25, 95% CI [0.16 to 0.41], p < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis showed that all combinations of dexamethasone and other antiemetics were superior to corresponding singel antiemetics except for the combination of dexamethasone and ramosetron which was not superior to ramosetron alone in all postoperative periods and the combination of dexamethasone and granisetron which was not superior to granisetron alone in the early postoperative period (OR = 0.26, 95% CI [0.07 to 1.01], p = 0.05). For all adverse events, there was no significant difference between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
Dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics provided better prophylaxis than single antiemetics against postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The underlying mechanism of dexamethasone action and its optimal dose should be further investigated.
Topics: Antiemetics; Benzimidazoles; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Metoclopramide; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Quinuclidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27793640
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.10.034 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk factors for disease, disability and premature mortality globally. The burden of harmful alcohol use is increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and there remains a large unmet need for indicated prevention and treatment interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in these settings. Evidence regarding which interventions are effective and feasible for addressing harmful and other patterns of unhealthy alcohol use in LMICs is limited, which contributes to this gap in services.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatment and indicated prevention interventions compared with control conditions (wait list, placebo, no treatment, standard care, or active control condition) aimed at reducing harmful alcohol use in LMICs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indexed in the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, the Cochrane Clinical Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) through 12 December 2021. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Web of Science, and Opengrey database to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. We searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles for eligible studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All RCTs comparing an indicated prevention or treatment intervention (pharmacologic or psychosocial) versus a control condition for people with harmful alcohol use in LMICs were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 66 RCTs with 17,626 participants. Sixty-two of these trials contributed to the meta-analysis. Sixty-three studies were conducted in middle-income countries (MICs), and the remaining three studies were conducted in low-income countries (LICs). Twenty-five trials exclusively enrolled participants with alcohol use disorder. The remaining 51 trials enrolled participants with harmful alcohol use, some of which included both cases of alcohol use disorder and people reporting hazardous alcohol use patterns that did not meet criteria for disorder. Fifty-two RCTs assessed the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; 27 were brief interventions primarily based on motivational interviewing and were compared to brief advice, information, or assessment only. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to brief interventions given the high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Studies reporting continuous outcomes: Tau² = 0.15, Q =139.64, df =16, P<.001, I² = 89%, 3913 participants, 17 trials, very low certainty; Studies reporting dichotomous outcomes: Tau²=0.18, Q=58.26, df=3, P<.001, I² =95%, 1349 participants, 4 trials, very low certainty). The other types of psychosocial interventions included a range of therapeutic approaches such as behavioral risk reduction, cognitive-behavioral therapy, contingency management, rational emotive therapy, and relapse prevention. These interventions were most commonly compared to usual care involving varying combinations of psychoeducation, counseling, and pharmacotherapy. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to psychosocial treatments due to high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 1.15; Q = 444.32, df = 11, P<.001; I²=98%, 2106 participants, 12 trials, very low certainty). Eight trials compared combined pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions with placebo, psychosocial intervention alone, or another pharmacologic treatment. The active pharmacologic study conditions included disulfiram, naltrexone, ondansetron, or topiramate. The psychosocial components of these interventions included counseling, encouragement to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, motivational interviewing, brief cognitive-behavioral therapy, or other psychotherapy (not specified). Analysis of studies comparing a combined pharmacologic and psychosocial intervention to psychosocial intervention alone found that the combined approach may be associated with a greater reduction in harmful alcohol use (standardized mean difference (standardized mean difference (SMD))=-0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61 to -0.24; 475 participants; 4 trials; low certainty). Four trials compared pharmacologic intervention alone with placebo and three with another pharmacotherapy. Drugs assessed were: acamprosate, amitriptyline, baclofen disulfiram, gabapentin, mirtazapine, and naltrexone. None of these trials evaluated the primary clinical outcome of interest, harmful alcohol use. Thirty-one trials reported rates of retention in the intervention. Meta-analyses revealed that rates of retention between study conditions did not differ in any of the comparisons (pharmacologic risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.44, 247 participants, 3 trials, low certainty; pharmacologic in addition to psychosocial intervention: RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.40, 363 participants, 3 trials, moderate certainty). Due to high levels of heterogeneity, we did not calculate pooled estimates comparing retention in brief (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Q = 172.59, df = 11, P<.001; I = 94%; 5380 participants; 12 trials, very low certainty) or other psychosocial interventions (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; Q = 34.07, df = 8, P<.001; I = 77%; 1664 participants; 9 trials, very low certainty). Two pharmacologic trials and three combined pharmacologic and psychosocial trials reported on side effects. These studies found more side effects attributable to amitriptyline relative to mirtazapine, naltrexone and topiramate relative to placebo, yet no differences in side effects between placebo and either acamprosate or ondansetron. Across all intervention types there was substantial risk of bias. Primary threats to validity included lack of blinding and differential/high rates of attrition.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In LMICs there is low-certainty evidence supporting the efficacy of combined psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use relative to psychosocial interventions alone. There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of pharmacologic or psychosocial interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use largely due to the substantial heterogeneity in outcomes, comparisons, and interventions that precluded pooling of these data in meta-analyses. The majority of studies are brief interventions, primarily among men, and using measures that have not been validated in the target population. Confidence in these results is reduced by the risk of bias and significant heterogeneity among studies as well as the heterogeneity of results on different outcome measures within studies. More evidence on the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions, specific types of psychosocial interventions are needed to increase the certainty of these results.
Topics: Humans; Male; Acamprosate; Alcoholism; Amitriptyline; Developing Countries; Disulfiram; Mirtazapine; Naltrexone; Ondansetron; Topiramate
PubMed: 37158538
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013350.pub2 -
Headache Jan 2021Primary headaches (migraine, tension headache, cluster headache, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalgias) are common in pregnancy and postpartum. It is unclear how to...
BACKGROUND
Primary headaches (migraine, tension headache, cluster headache, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalgias) are common in pregnancy and postpartum. It is unclear how to best and most safely manage them.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review (SR) of interventions to prevent or treat primary headaches in women who are pregnant, attempting to become pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding.
METHODS
We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Database of SRs, and Epistemonikos for primary studies of pregnant women with primary headache and existing SRs of harms in pregnant women regardless of indication. No date or language restrictions were applied. We assessed strength of evidence (SoE) using standard methods.
RESULTS
We screened 8549 citations for studies and 2788 citations for SRs. Sixteen studies (mostly high risk of bias) comprising 14,185 patients (total) and 26 SRs met the criteria. For prevention, we found no evidence addressing effectiveness. Antiepileptics, venlafaxine, tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, β-blockers, prednisolone, and oral magnesium may be associated with fetal/child adverse effects, but calcium channel blockers and antihistamines may not be (1 single-group study and 11 SRs; low-to-moderate SoE). For treatment, combination metoclopramide and diphenhydramine may be more effective than codeine for migraine or tension headache (1 randomized controlled trial; low SoE). Triptans may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects (8 nonrandomized comparative studies; low SoE). Acetaminophen, prednisolone, indomethacin, ondansetron, antipsychotics, and intravenous magnesium may be associated with fetal/child adverse effects, but low-dose aspirin may not be (indirect evidence; low-to-moderate SoE). We found insufficient evidence regarding non-pharmacologic treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
For prevention of primary headache, calcium channel blockers and antihistamines may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects. For treatment, combination metoclopramide and diphenhydramine may be more effective than codeine. Triptans and low-dose aspirin may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects. Future research should identify effective and safe interventions in pregnancy and postpartum.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Female; Headache Disorders, Primary; Humans; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications
PubMed: 33433020
DOI: 10.1111/head.14041 -
Evidence-based Complementary and... 2019The high prevalence of delirium among postoperative patients has increased morbidity and mortality. The kind of drug that can effectively reduce the incidence of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The high prevalence of delirium among postoperative patients has increased morbidity and mortality. The kind of drug that can effectively reduce the incidence of delirium has become the focus of discussion in recent years. However, a consensus in this respect has yet to be reached.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Embase databases from their inception through October 12, 2018. We included RCTs of pharmacological prevention for postoperative delirium in adults (at least 18 years), and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of trials. The primary outcomes were the risk ratios (RRs) of incidence of postoperative delirium, and the secondary outcomes were the RRs of mortality and adverse events in the intervention and control groups.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight trials, which comprised 20302 patients and 18 different drugs, were included in the analysis. Of the 38 studies, 17 were rated as low risk with respect to methodological quality. Dexmedetomidine administration (RR 0.58, 95%CI 0.44-0.76, P<0.01) was associated with a significantly lower incidence of postoperative delirium than the control conditions. However, the findings from the studies with a low risk of bias did not show a significant difference in this beneficial effect (RR 0.64, 95%CI 0.39-1.04, P=0.07). The antipsychotic drugs olanzapine (RR 0.44, 95%CI 0.30- 0.65, P<0.01) and risperidone (RR 0.42, 95%CI 0.19-0.92, P=0.03) had promising effects, but there was a lack of sufficient evidence to obtain a definitive conclusion. The beneficial effect of other drugs, including haloperidol, methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, gabapentin, ketamine, cyproheptadine, donepezil, hypertonic saline, melatonin, nimodipine, ondansetron, pregabalin, rivastigmine, TJ-54, and tryptophan, was not proven on the basis of present evidence.
CONCLUSION
Among the pharmacological prophylactic measures for postoperative delirium, dexmedetomidine, olanzapine, and risperidone showed higher efficacy than other drugs. However, more high-quality evidence is needed to confirm these results.
PubMed: 31001357
DOI: 10.1155/2019/9607129 -
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular... Nov 2022TRANSESOPHAGEAL ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY (TEE) is carried out in various clinical settings, with an increasing importance, and sedation usually is required to perform it.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
TRANSESOPHAGEAL ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY (TEE) is carried out in various clinical settings, with an increasing importance, and sedation usually is required to perform it. Several sedative agents are available, and the authors aimed to compare the cardiovascular and respiratory safety of the strategies used for sedation in TEE through a systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA). The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and PsycInfo databases were searched in December 2020 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing sedation strategies for patients undergoing TEE. The authors assessed variations in systolic blood pressure (SBP), heart rate (HR), and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO), along with the incidences of hypotension, bradycardia, and desaturation. A random-effect meta-analysis was performed. Nine RCTs (N = 881 patients) with 20 active arms (5 dexmedetomidine; 4 propofol; 4 midazolam; 3 midazolam + opioid; 2 ketamine + propofol; 1 midazolam + ondansetron; 1 midazolam + metoclopramide) and 1 placebo arm were included. Dexmedetomidine was associated with decreases in SBP (mean difference [MD] = -18.78 mmHg; 95% CI [-26.27 to -11.28]) and HR (MD = -11.15 beats/min; 95% CI [-16.15 to -6.15]). Dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the HR compared with ketamine + propofol (-16.90 beats/min; 95% CI: -33.21 to -0.58]) and midazolam + opioid (-24.15 beats/min; 95% CI: -42.67 to -5.63). Midazolam was found to reduce SBP (-12.09 mmHg; 95% CI: -20.43 to -3.74) and was shown to reduce SpO compared with the placebo (-1.00%; 95% CI -1.74 to -0.26). Based on the NMA, the drugs with a higher likelihood of decreasing both SBP and HR were dexmedetomidine and midazolam. All of the drugs led to a small decrease (only statistically significant for midazolam) in SpO, with the systematic use of supplemental O in some trials. The risks of hypotension, bradycardia, or desaturation were not significantly different among the evaluated drugs.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Bradycardia; Dexmedetomidine; Echocardiography, Transesophageal; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Hypotension; Ketamine; Metoclopramide; Midazolam; Network Meta-Analysis; Ondansetron; Propofol
PubMed: 36028379
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2022.07.003 -
Emergency Medicine Australasia : EMA Apr 2024Ketamine is commonly used for procedural sedation anaesthesia in paediatric patients undergoing painful procedures in the ED. Ketamine's safety profile is excellent, but... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Review article: Efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron versus placebo or control in reducing vomiting in children undergoing ketamine procedural sedation in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ketamine is commonly used for procedural sedation anaesthesia in paediatric patients undergoing painful procedures in the ED. Ketamine's safety profile is excellent, but ketamine-associated vomiting (KAV) is common. Routine ondansetron prophylaxis could reduce KAV incidence. This literature review evaluated the efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron in reducing KAV incidence. A systematic literature review was performed on databases and trial registries on 14 January 2023 to identify randomised controlled trials. The primary outcome was reduction in KAV incidence, for any route of prophylactic ondansetron, in ED and up to 24 h post-discharge. ED length of stay, parental satisfaction and time to resumption of normal diet were secondary outcomes. Data analysis was performed using Revman 5.3. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects modelling. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool. Evidence quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendation, Assessment Development and Evaluation methodology. Five trials with 920 participants met the eligibility criteria. Prophylactic ondansetron resulted in a reduction in KAV incidence overall odds ratio of 0.51 (95% confidence interval: 0.36-0.73). Intravenous and intramuscular prophylactic ondansetron showed benefit whereas the effect of oral administration was unclear. There was no difference between groups for secondary outcomes overall. The quality of evidence was deemed to be low overall because of high risk of bias and imprecision in outcome measures. This review found low to moderate certainty evidence that prophylactic ondansetron reduces KAV incidence. Methodologically rigorous research, with appropriately timed prophylactic ondansetron based on the route of administration, would further elucidate prophylactic oral ondansetron's efficacy.
Topics: Humans; Child; Ondansetron; Ketamine; Antiemetics; Aftercare; Patient Discharge; Vomiting; Anesthesia; Emergency Service, Hospital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38220580
DOI: 10.1111/1742-6723.14372 -
The American Journal of Emergency... May 2024Traumatic brain injury (TBI) results in 2.5 million emergency department (ED) visits per year in the US, with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) accounting for 90% of... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) results in 2.5 million emergency department (ED) visits per year in the US, with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) accounting for 90% of cases. There is considerable evidence that many experience chronic symptoms months to years later. This population is rarely represented in interventional studies. Management of adult mTBI in the ED has remained unchanged, without consensus of therapeutic options. The aim of this review was to synthesize existing literature of patient-centered ED treatments for adults who sustain an mTBI, and to identify practices that may offer promise.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed and Cochrane databases, while following PRISMA guidelines. Studies describing pediatric patients, moderate to severe TBI, or interventions outside the ED were excluded. Two reviewers independently performed title and abstract screening. A third blinded reviewer resolved discrepancies. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was employed to assess the methodological quality of the studies.
RESULTS
Our search strategy generated 1002 unique titles. 95 articles were selected for full-text screening. The 26 articles chosen for full analysis were grouped into one of the following intervention categories: (1) predictive models for Post-Concussion Syndrome (PCS), (2) discharge instructions, (3) pharmaceutical treatment, (4) clinical protocols, and (5) functional assessment. Studies that implemented a predictive PCS model successfully identified patients at highest risk for PCS. Trials implementing discharge related interventions found the use of video discharge instructions, encouragement of daily light exercise or bed rest, and text messaging did not significantly reduce mTBI symptoms. The use of electronic clinical practice guidelines (eCPG) and longer leaves of absence from work following injury reduced symptoms. Ondansetron was shown to reduce nausea in mTBI patients. Studies implementing ED Observation Units found significant declines in inpatient admissions and length of hospital stay. The use of tablet-based tasks was found to be superior to many standard cognitive assessments.
CONCLUSION
Validated instruments are available to aid clinicians in identifying patients at risk for PCS or serious cognitive impairment. EDOU management and evidence-based modifications to discharge instructions may improve mTBI outcomes. Additional research is needed to establish the therapeutic value of medications and lifestyle changes for the treatment of mTBI in the ED.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Brain Concussion; Post-Concussion Syndrome; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Emergency Service, Hospital; Patient-Centered Care
PubMed: 38460465
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2024.02.038