-
Journal of Neurotrauma Nov 2023Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of death and disability in children. Many clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have addressed pediatric TBI in the last... (Review)
Review
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of death and disability in children. Many clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have addressed pediatric TBI in the last decade but significant variability in the use of these guidelines persists. Here, we systematically review CPGs recommendations for pediatric moderate-to-severe TBI, evaluate the quality of CPGs, synthesize the quality of evidence and strength of included recommendations, and identify knowledge gaps. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Web sites of organizations publishing recommendations on pediatric injury care. We included CPGs developed in high-income countries from January 2012 to May 2023, with at least one recommendation targeting pediatric (≤ 19 years old) moderate-to-severe TBI populations. The quality of included clinical practice guidelines was assessed using the AGREE II tool. We synthesized evidence on recommendations using a matrix based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. We identified 15 CPGs of which 9 were rated moderate to high quality using AGREE II. We identified 90 recommendations, of which 40 (45%) were evidence based. Eleven of these were based on moderate to high quality evidence and were graded as moderate or strong by at least one guideline. These included transfer, imaging, intracranial pressure control, and discharge advice. We identified gaps in evidence-based recommendations for red blood cell transfusion, plasma and platelet transfusion, thromboprophylaxis, surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis, early diagnosis of hypopituitarism, and mental health mangement. Many up-to-date CPGs are available, but there is a paucity of evidence to support recommendations, highlighting the urgent need for robust clinical research in this vulnerable population. Our results may be used by clinicians to identify recommendations based on the highest level of evidence, by healthcare administrators to inform guideline implementation in clinical settings, by researchers to identify areas where robust evidence is needed, and by guideline writing groups to inform the updating of existing guidelines or the development of new ones.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Young Adult; Anticoagulants; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Erythrocyte Transfusion; Hypopituitarism; Venous Thromboembolism; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 37341019
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2023.0149 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Honey is a viscous, supersaturated sugar solution derived from nectar gathered and modified by the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Honey has been used since ancient times as a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Honey is a viscous, supersaturated sugar solution derived from nectar gathered and modified by the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Honey has been used since ancient times as a remedy in wound care. Evidence from animal studies and some trials has suggested that honey may accelerate wound healing.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of honey compared with alternative wound dressings and topical treatments on the of healing of acute (e.g. burns, lacerations) and/or chronic (e.g. venous ulcers) wounds.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update of the review we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 October 2014); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to October Week 1 2014); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 13 October 2014); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 13 October 2014); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 15 October 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials that evaluated honey as a treatment for any sort of acute or chronic wound were sought. There was no restriction in terms of source, date of publication or language. Wound healing was the primary endpoint.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data from eligible trials were extracted and summarised by one review author, using a data extraction sheet, and independently verified by a second review author. All data have been subsequently checked by two more authors.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 26 eligible trials (total of 3011 participants). Three trials evaluated the effects of honey in minor acute wounds, 11 trials evaluated honey in burns, 10 trials recruited people with different chronic wounds including two in people with venous leg ulcers, two trials in people with diabetic foot ulcers and single trials in infected post-operative wounds, pressure injuries, cutaneous Leishmaniasis and Fournier's gangrene. Two trials recruited a mixed population of people with acute and chronic wounds. The quality of the evidence varied between different comparisons and outcomes. We mainly downgraded the quality of evidence for risk of bias, imprecision and, in a few cases, inconsistency.There is high quality evidence (2 trials, n=992) that honey dressings heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional dressings (WMD -4.68 days, 95%CI -5.09 to -4.28) but it is unclear if there is a difference in rates of adverse events (very low quality evidence) or infection (low quality evidence).There is very low quality evidence (4 trials, n=332) that burns treated with honey heal more quickly than those treated with silver sulfadiazine (SSD) (WMD -5.12 days, 95%CI -9.51 to -0.73) and high quality evidence from 6 trials (n=462) that there is no difference in overall risk of healing within 6 weeks for honey compared with SSD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02) but a reduction in the overall risk of adverse events with honey relative to SSD. There is low quality evidence (1 trial, n=50) that early excision and grafting heals partial and full thickness burns more quickly than honey followed by grafting as necessary (WMD 13.6 days, 95%CI 9.82 to 17.38).There is low quality evidence (2 trials, different comparators, n=140) that honey heals a mixed population of acute and chronic wounds more quickly than SSD or sugar dressings.Honey healed infected post-operative wounds more quickly than antiseptic washes followed by gauze and was associated with fewer adverse events (1 trial, n=50, moderate quality evidence, RR of healing 1.69, 95%CI 1.10 to 2.61); healed pressure ulcers more quickly than saline soaks (1 trial, n= 40, very low quality evidence, RR 1.41, 95%CI 1.05 to 1.90), and healed Fournier's gangrene more quickly than Eusol soaks (1 trial, n=30, very low quality evidence, WMD -8.00 days, 95%CI -6.08 to -9.92 days).The effects of honey relative to comparators are unclear for: venous leg ulcers (2 trials, n= 476, low quality evidence); minor acute wounds (3 trials, n=213, very low quality evidence); diabetic foot ulcers (2 trials, n=93, low quality evidence); Leishmaniasis (1 trial, n=100, low quality evidence); mixed chronic wounds (2 trials, n=150, low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is difficult to draw overall conclusions regarding the effects of honey as a topical treatment for wounds due to the heterogeneous nature of the patient populations and comparators studied and the mostly low quality of the evidence. The quality of the evidence was mainly downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision. Honey appears to heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional treatment (which included polyurethane film, paraffin gauze, soframycin-impregnated gauze, sterile linen and leaving the burns exposed) and infected post-operative wounds more quickly than antiseptics and gauze. Beyond these comparisons any evidence for differences in the effects of honey and comparators is of low or very low quality and does not form a robust basis for decision making.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Apitherapy; Burns; Honey; Humans; Leg Ulcer; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Varicose Ulcer; Wound Healing; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 25742878
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005083.pub4 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Jul 2021The role of nutritional intervention in wound care has been a topic of controversy. Although the efficacy of macronutrient supplementation has been well described, there...
BACKGROUND
The role of nutritional intervention in wound care has been a topic of controversy. Although the efficacy of macronutrient supplementation has been well described, there is a paucity of evidence and no official recommendation regarding the use of vitamins and minerals to optimize wound healing. This is the first review of vitamin and mineral wound intervention that systematically summarizes the literature using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and distills the evidence by wound type.
METHODS
In this comprehensive review, the authors outline the nutrients and delivery methods used in the identified studies, analyze reported treatment outcomes, summarize nutrient effectiveness, and propose evidence-based conclusions to improve wound healing outcomes and enhance the consistency of nutritional intervention in wound care.
RESULTS
Thirty-six studies with a combined total of 2339 patients investigated the use of oral, topical, or intravenous vitamin and/or mineral supplementation for treatment of the following wound types: burn wounds (n = 3), pressure ulcers (n = 7), diabetic ulcers (n = 4), venous ulcers (n = 7), digital ulcers (n = 1), skin incisions (n = 9), hypertrophic scars (n = 4), and sinonasal wounds (n = 1). Improved outcomes were reported in patients with burn wounds receiving vitamins A, B1, B6, B12, D, and E and zinc, calcium, copper, magnesium, selenium, and zinc; patients with pressure ulcers receiving vitamin C and zinc; patients with diabetic ulcers receiving vitamin A, B9, D, and E; patients with venous ulcers receiving zinc; and patients with hypertrophic scars receiving vitamin E.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the high-level data provided in this review, the use of specific nutritional interventions may improve the outcome of certain wound types. Further investigation is warranted to draw definitive conclusions.
Topics: Burns; Cicatrix, Hypertrophic; Humans; Nutritional Support; Paranasal Sinuses; Skin Ulcer; Trace Elements; Treatment Outcome; Vitamins; Wound Healing
PubMed: 34181622
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008061 -
Emergency Medicine Australasia : EMA Apr 2020Vasopressor medications have traditionally been administered via central venous catheters (CVCs), primarily due to concerns of peripheral extravasation of...
OBJECTIVE
Vasopressor medications have traditionally been administered via central venous catheters (CVCs), primarily due to concerns of peripheral extravasation of vasoconstrictive medications. Recent studies have suggested that vasopressor administration via peripheral intravenous catheters (PiVCs) may be a feasible and safe alternative. This systematic review evaluates the safety of delivering vasopressor medications via PiVCs.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review to assess the frequency of complications associated with the delivery of vasopressors via PiVCs. A literature search for prospective and retrospective studies of vasopressor infusions in adults was performed. We included studies of continuous infusions of vasopressor medications (noradrenaline, adrenaline, metaraminol, phenylephrine, dopamine and vasopressin) delivered via a PiVCs that included at least 20 patients. Data on patient factors, cannulation approach, monitoring protocols, vasopressor dosing and dilutions and adverse events were collected and summarised.
RESULTS
Seven studies were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including 1382 patients. No study fulfilled all of the validity criteria. Noradrenaline was the most commonly administered agent (n = 702 episodes of administration), followed by phenylephrine (n = 546), dopamine (n = 108), metaraminol (n = 74) and vasopressin and adrenaline (<5 patients). Mean duration of infusion was 22 h (95% confidence interval [CI] 8-36 h). Extravasation occurred in 3.4% (95% CI 2.5-4.7%) of patients. There were no reported episodes of tissue necrosis or limb ischaemia. All extravasation events were successfully managed conservatively or with vasodilatory medications.
CONCLUSIONS
Reports of the administration of vasopressors via PiVCs, when given for a limited duration, under close observation, suggest that extravasation is uncommon and is unlikely to lead to major complications.
Topics: Adult; Catheterization, Peripheral; Humans; Hypotension; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 31698544
DOI: 10.1111/1742-6723.13406 -
Journal of Critical Care Jun 2015The aim of this study was to collect and describe all published reports of local tissue injury or extravasation from vasopressor administration via either peripheral... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to collect and describe all published reports of local tissue injury or extravasation from vasopressor administration via either peripheral intravenous (IV) or central venous catheter.
METHODS
A systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed from inception through January 2014 for reports of adults who received vasopressor intravenously via peripheral IV or central venous catheter for a therapeutic purpose. We included primary studies or case reports of vasopressor administration that resulted in local tissue injury or extravasation of vasopressor solution.
RESULTS
Eighty-five articles with 270 patients met all inclusion criteria. A total of 325 separate local tissue injury and extravasation events were identified, with 318 events resulting from peripheral vasopressor administration and 7 events resulting from central administration. There were 204 local tissue injury events from peripheral administration of vasopressors, with an average duration of infusion of 55.9 hours (±68.1), median time of 24 hours, and range of 0.08 to 528 hours. In most of these events (174/204, 85.3%), the infusion site was located distal to the antecubital or popliteal fossae.
CONCLUSIONS
Published data on tissue injury or extravasation from vasopressor administration via peripheral IVs are derived mainly from case reports. Further study is warranted to clarify the safety of vasopressor administration via peripheral IVs.
Topics: Catheterization, Central Venous; Catheterization, Peripheral; Central Venous Catheters; Critical Illness; Extravasation of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Materials; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Necrosis; Soft Tissue Injuries; Vascular Access Devices; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 25669592
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2015.01.014 -
JAMA Internal Medicine May 2024Central venous catheters (CVCs) are commonly used but are associated with complications. Quantifying complication rates is essential for guiding CVC utilization... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Central venous catheters (CVCs) are commonly used but are associated with complications. Quantifying complication rates is essential for guiding CVC utilization decisions.
OBJECTIVE
To summarize current rates of CVC-associated complications.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases were searched for observational studies and randomized clinical trials published between 2015 to 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
This study included English-language observational studies and randomized clinical trials of adult patients that reported complication rates of short-term centrally inserted CVCs and data for 1 or more outcomes of interest. Studies that evaluated long-term intravascular devices, focused on dialysis catheters not typically used for medication administration, or studied catheters placed by radiologists were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis was applied to summarize event rates. Rates of placement complications (events/1000 catheters with 95% credible interval [CrI]) and use complications (events/1000 catheter-days with 95% CrI) were estimated.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Ten prespecified complications associated with CVC placement (placement failure, arterial puncture, arterial cannulation, pneumothorax, bleeding events requiring action, nerve injury, arteriovenous fistula, cardiac tamponade, arrhythmia, and delay of ≥1 hour in vasopressor administration) and 5 prespecified complications associated with CVC use (malfunction, infection, deep vein thrombosis [DVT], thrombophlebitis, and venous stenosis) were assessed. The composite of 4 serious complications (arterial cannulation, pneumothorax, infection, or DVT) after CVC exposure for 3 days was also assessed.
RESULTS
Of 11 722 screened studies, 130 were included in the analyses. Seven of 15 prespecified complications were meta-analyzed. Placement failure occurred at 20.4 (95% CrI, 10.9-34.4) events per 1000 catheters placed. Other rates of CVC placement complications (per 1000 catheters) were arterial canulation (2.8; 95% CrI, 0.1-10), arterial puncture (16.2; 95% CrI, 11.5-22), and pneumothorax (4.4; 95% CrI, 2.7-6.5). Rates of CVC use complications (per 1000 catheter-days) were malfunction (5.5; 95% CrI, 0.6-38), infection (4.8; 95% CrI, 3.4-6.6), and DVT (2.7; 95% CrI, 1.0-6.2). It was estimated that 30.2 (95% CrI, 21.8-43.0) in 1000 patients with a CVC for 3 days would develop 1 or more serious complication (arterial cannulation, pneumothorax, infection, or DVT). Use of ultrasonography was associated with lower rates of arterial puncture (risk ratio [RR], 0.20; 95% CrI, 0.09-0.44; 13.5 events vs 68.8 events/1000 catheters) and pneumothorax (RR, 0.25; 95% CrI, 0.08-0.80; 2.4 events vs 9.9 events/1000 catheters).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Approximately 3% of CVC placements were associated with major complications. Use of ultrasonography guidance may reduce specific risks including arterial puncture and pneumothorax.
Topics: Humans; Central Venous Catheters; Catheterization, Central Venous; Catheter-Related Infections
PubMed: 38436976
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.8232 -
American Journal of Perinatology Aug 2017Risk factors for placental abruption have changed, but there has not been an updated systematic review investigating outcomes. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of... (Review)
Review
Risk factors for placental abruption have changed, but there has not been an updated systematic review investigating outcomes. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and CINAHL for publications from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2016. We reviewed English-language publications reporting estimated incidence and/or risk factors for maternal, labor, delivery, and perinatal outcomes associated with abruption. We excluded case studies, conference abstracts, and studies that lacked a referent/comparison group or did not clearly characterize placental abruption. A total of 123 studies were included. Abruption was associated with elevated risk of cesarean delivery, postpartum hemorrhage and transfusion, preterm birth, intrauterine growth restriction or low birth weight, perinatal mortality, and cerebral palsy. Additional maternal outcomes included relaparotomy, hysterectomy, sepsis, amniotic fluid embolism, venous thromboembolism, acute kidney injury, and maternal intensive care unit admission. Additional perinatal outcomes included acidosis, encephalopathy, severe respiratory disorders, necrotizing enterocolitis, acute kidney injury, need for resuscitation, chronic lung disease, infant death, and epilepsy. Few studies examined outcomes beyond the initial birth period, but there is evidence that both mother and child are at risk of additional adverse outcomes. There was also considerable variation in, or absence of, the reporting of abruption definitions.
Topics: Abruptio Placentae; Asphyxia Neonatorum; Blood Transfusion; Cerebral Palsy; Cesarean Section; Female; Fetal Growth Retardation; Humans; Hypoxia, Brain; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Infant, Newborn; Maternal Mortality; Perinatal Mortality; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Recurrence; Stillbirth
PubMed: 28329897
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1599149 -
Phlebology Aug 2020Medical compression therapy is used for non-invasive treatment of venous and lymphatic diseases. Medical compression therapy-associated adverse events and...
OBJECTIVES
Medical compression therapy is used for non-invasive treatment of venous and lymphatic diseases. Medical compression therapy-associated adverse events and contraindications have been reported, although some contraindications are theoretically based. This consensus statement provides recommendations on medical compression therapy risks and contraindications.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of medical compression therapy publications reporting adverse events up until November 2017 was performed. A consensus panel comprising 15 international experts critically reviewed the publications and formulated the recommendations.
RESULTS
Sixty-two publications reporting medical compression therapy adverse events were identified. The consensus panel issued 21 recommendations on medical compression therapy contraindications and adverse event risk mitigation, in addition to reviewing medical compression therapy use in borderline indications. The most frequently reported non-severe medical compression therapy-associated adverse events included skin irritation, discomfort and pain. Very rare but severe adverse events, including soft tissue and nerve injury, were also identified.
CONCLUSION
This consensus statement summarises published medical compression therapy-associated adverse events and contraindications, and provides guidance on medical compression therapy. Severe medical compression therapy-associated adverse events are very rarely encountered if compression is used correctly and contraindications are considered.
Topics: Compression Bandages; Consensus; Contraindications; Humans; Lymphatic Diseases
PubMed: 32122269
DOI: 10.1177/0268355520909066 -
The American Journal of Emergency... Nov 2020Vasopressors are mainstay treatment for patients in shock and are usually infused through central venous catheters (CVCs). However, CVCs are associated with risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Vasopressors are mainstay treatment for patients in shock and are usually infused through central venous catheters (CVCs). However, CVCs are associated with risk of infection or delay from the needs of confirmation of placement. Infusing vasopressor through peripheral venous catheter (PIVs) could be an alternative in the Emergency Departments (ED) but data regarding complications is inconclusive. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to assess literature involving prevalence of complications from infusing vasopressors via PIVs.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus databases from beginnings to 02/02/2020 to identify relevant randomized control trials, cohort, case-control studies. We excluded case reports. Authors assessed studies' quality with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Kappa score was used to assess interrater agreement. Outcome was complications as direct results from infusing vasopressors through PIVs.
RESULTS
We identified 325 articles and included 9 studies after reviewing 16 full text articles. Our analysis included 1835 patients whose mean age was 63 (Standard Deviation 12) years and 48% was female. There were 122 (7%) complications, of which 117 (96%) were minor. The meta-analysis with random effects showed the pooled prevalence of complications as 0.086 (95%CI 0.031-0.21). Studies reporting infusion safety guidelines had significantly lower prevalence of complications (0.029, 95%CI 0.018-0.045), compared to those not reporting a safety guideline (0.12, 95%CI 0.038-0.30, p = 0.024).
CONCLUSION
There was low prevalence of complications as a direct result from infusing vasopressors through PIVs. Studies with safety guidelines were associated with significantly lower prevalence of complications. Further studies are needed to confirm our observations.
Topics: Catheterization, Central Venous; Catheterization, Peripheral; Central Venous Catheters; Emergency Service, Hospital; Erythema; Extravasation of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Materials; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Intensive Care Units; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Shock; Time-to-Treatment; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 33039229
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.09.047