-
European Stroke Journal Jun 2022Low blood pressure (BP) in acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) is associated with poor functional outcome, death, or severe disability. Increasing BP might benefit patients... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Low blood pressure (BP) in acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) is associated with poor functional outcome, death, or severe disability. Increasing BP might benefit patients with post-stroke hypotension including those with potentially salvageable ischaemic penumbra. This updated systematic review considers the present evidence regarding the use of vasopressors in AIS.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial databases using a structured search strategy. We examined reference lists of relevant publications for additional studies examining BP elevation in AIS.
RESULTS
We included 27 studies involving 1886 patients. Nine studies assessed increasing BP during acute reperfusion therapy (intravenous thrombolysis, mechanical thrombectomy, intra-arterial thrombolysis or combined). Eighteen studies tested BP elevation alone. Phenylephrine was the most commonly used agent to increase BP (n = 16 studies), followed by norepinephrine (n = 6), epinephrine (n = 3) and dopamine (n = 2). Because of small patient numbers and study heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not possible. Overall, BP elevation was feasible in patients with fluctuating or worsening neurological symptoms, large vessel occlusion with labile BP, sustained post-stroke hypotension and ineligible for intravenous thrombolysis or after acute reperfusion therapy. The effects on functional outcomes were largely unknown and close monitoring is advised if such intervention is undertaken.
CONCLUSION
Although theoretical arguments support increasing BP to improve cerebral blood flow and sustain the ischaemic penumbra in selected AIS patients, the data are limited and results largely inconclusive. Large, randomised controlled trials are needed to identify the optimal BP target, agent, duration of treatment and effects on clinical outcomes.
PubMed: 35647316
DOI: 10.1177/23969873221078136 -
International Journal of Surgery... Dec 2018In the past 20 years, many studies compared phenylephrine with ephedrine to prevent or treat hypotension in elective or emergency cesarean delivery and parturients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In the past 20 years, many studies compared phenylephrine with ephedrine to prevent or treat hypotension in elective or emergency cesarean delivery and parturients with pre-eclampsia. A meta-analysis of the abovementioned trials is needed.
METHODS
Several databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to April 2018 for trials comparing phenylephrine with ephedrine in cesarean delivery. The primary outcome is the incidence of maternal hypotension.
RESULTS
Thirty-six trials (2439 patients) with elective cesarean delivery, three trials (400 patients) with emergency cesarean delivery and three trials (192 patients) with parturients with pre-eclampsia were included and analyzed. The incidence of hypotension did not differ in the elective surgery group (relative risk 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05), emergency surgery group (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.19) and pre-eclamptic parturients group (relative risk 0.93, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.37). The phenylephrine group had a higher incidence of bradycardia and lower incidences of tachycardia and nausea or vomiting in all three patient groups. The phenylephrine group also had lower fetal acidosis rate, higher umbilical artery and vein pH values and less base excess in the elective surgery. The abovementioned outcomes were similar in the emergency surgery group and the pre-eclampsia group. Publication bias for hypotension was detected. However, the trim and fill method demonstrated that the publication bias had little impact on hypotension. Trial sequential analysis of hypotension in elective surgery showed that this meta-analysis lacked a sufficient cumulative sample size and that further studies should be included.
CONCLUSION
Phenylephrine and ephedrine were both effective in maintaining hemodynamic balance. Newborns benefited more from phenylephrine in elective cesarean delivery, but not in emergency cesarean delivery or in parturients with pre-eclampsia. More trials should be included to achieve more conclusive results.
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, Spinal; Cesarean Section; Ephedrine; Female; Humans; Hypotension; Incidence; Infant, Newborn; Phenylephrine; Pregnancy; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 30389535
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.10.039 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Phenylephrine is the first-line drug used to maintain blood pressure in cesarean delivery. However, it poses a high risk of bradycardia and depression of cardiac...
Comparative efficacy and safety of prophylactic norepinephrine and phenylephrine in spinal anesthesia for cesarean section: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
Phenylephrine is the first-line drug used to maintain blood pressure in cesarean delivery. However, it poses a high risk of bradycardia and depression of cardiac activity in pregnant women. Consequently, norepinephrine has gained popularity over the recent years, as an alternative to Phenylephrine because it is thought that prophylactic use of vasopressors may reduce the incidence of hypotension after spinal anesthesia. This systematic review compared the efficacy of both treatments. We searched the following databases; CNKI, PubMed, Embase, Web of science, clinicaltrials.gov, Medline and Cochrane Library, for randomized controlled trials comparing the prophylactic efficacy of norepinephrine and phenylephrine on elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. The search period was from inception to July 2022, and the primary outcome indicator was incidence of bradycardia. Statistical analysis was conducted on Rev manager 5.4, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to evaluate the quality of evidence from each main finding. A total of 12 papers were included in the analysis. The incidence of bradycardia (RR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.49, < 0.00001) and reactive hypertension (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.83, = 0.003) was significantly lower in the norepinephrine (NE) group compared with the phenylephrine (PE) category. In contrast, there were no statistical differences in the umbilical cord blood gas analysis pH values between the groups (arterial: MD = 0.00, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.01, = 0.22, vein: MD = 0.01, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.02, = 0.06). The incidence of hypotension, nausea, and vomiting did not differ significantly between the NE and PE groups (hypotension: 23% vs. 18%; nausea: 14% vs. 18%; vomiting: 5% vs. 7%, respectively). Prophylactic use of norepinephrine is safe and effective in maintaining maternal hemodynamics without causing adverse events to either the pregnant woman or fetus. website https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022347095.
PubMed: 36518675
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1015325 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. It can be associated with nausea or vomiting and may pose serious... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. It can be associated with nausea or vomiting and may pose serious risks to the mother (unconsciousness, pulmonary aspiration) and baby (hypoxia, acidosis, neurological injury).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of prophylactic interventions for hypotension following spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 August 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials, including full texts and abstracts, comparing interventions to prevent hypotension with placebo or alternative treatment in women having spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We excluded studies if hypotension was not an outcome measure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data from eligible studies. We report 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 126 studies involving 9565 participants. Interventions were to prevent maternal hypotension following spinal anaesthesia only, and we excluded any interventions considered active treatment. All the included studies reported the review's primary outcome. Across 49 comparisons, we identified three intervention groups: intravenous fluids, pharmacological interventions, and physical interventions. Authors reported no serious adverse effects with any of the interventions investigated. Most trials reported hypotension requiring intervention and Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes as the only outcomes. None of the trials included in the comparisons we describe reported admission to neonatal intensive care unit. Crystalloid versus control (no fluids)Fewer women experienced hypotension in the crystalloid group compared with no fluids (average risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.98; 370 women; 5 studies; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in numbers of women with nausea and vomiting (average RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; 1 study; 69 women; very low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (60 babies, low-quality evidence). Colloid versus crystalloidFewer women experienced hypotension in the colloid group compared with the crystalloid group (average RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.80; 2105 women; 28 studies; very low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for maternal hypertension requiring intervention (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.46, 3 studies, 327 women;very low-quality evidence), maternal bradycardia requiring intervention (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.79, 6 studies, 509 women; very low-quality evidence), nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.13, 15 studies, 1154 women, I² = 37%; very low-quality evidence), neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.52, 6 studies, 678 babies; very low-quality evidence), or Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes (average RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.05, 11 studies, 826 babies; very low-quality evidence). Ephedrine versus phenylephrineThere were no clear differences between ephedrine and phenylephrine groups for preventing maternal hypotension (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18; 401 women; 8 studies; very low-quality evidence) or hypertension (average RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.16, 2 studies, 118 women, low-quality evidence). Rates of bradycardia were lower in the ephedrine group (average RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.64, 5 studies, 304 women, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of women with nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49, 4 studies, 204 women, I² = 37%, very low-quality evidence), or babies with neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.00, 3 studies, 175 babies, low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (321 babies; low-quality evidence). Ondansetron versus controlOndansetron administration was more effective than control (placebo saline) for preventing hypotension requiring treatment (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), bradycardia requiring treatment (average RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), and nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.51; 653 women, 7 studies, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.09; 134 babies; 2 studies, low-quality evidence) or Apgar scores of less than 8 at five minutes (284 babies, low-quality evidence). Lower limb compression versus controlLower limb compression was more effective than control for preventing hypotension (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.78, 11 studies, 705 women, I² = 65%, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of bradycardia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.56, 1 study, 74 women, very low-quality evidence) or nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.42 , 95% CI 0.14 to 1.27, 4 studies, 276 women, I² = 32%, very-low quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (130 babies, very low-quality evidence). Walking versus lyingThere was no clear difference between the groups for women with hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.21, 1 study, 37 women, very low-quality evidence).Many included studies reported little to no information that would allow an assessment of their risk of bias, limiting our ability to draw meaningful conclusions. GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. We downgraded evidence for limitations in study design, imprecision, and indirectness; most studies assessed only women scheduled for elective caesarean sections.External validity also needs consideration. Readers should question the use of colloids in this context given the serious potential side effects such as allergy and renal failure associated with their administration.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
While interventions such as crystalloids, colloids, ephedrine, phenylephrine, ondansetron, or lower leg compression can reduce the incidence of hypotension, none have been shown to eliminate the need to treat maternal hypotension in some women. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding rare adverse effects associated with use of the interventions (for example colloids) due to the relatively small numbers of women studied.
PubMed: 28976555
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002251.pub3 -
Medicine Feb 2019Phenylephrine is the current "gold standard' vasopressor used to treat maternal hypotension in women undergoing cesarean delivery with spinal anesthesia. Since 2015,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of norepinephrine versus phenylephrine for the management of maternal hypotension during cesarean delivery with spinal anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Phenylephrine is the current "gold standard' vasopressor used to treat maternal hypotension in women undergoing cesarean delivery with spinal anesthesia. Since 2015, various studies have explored the use of norepinephrine to manage maternal hypotension. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy and safety of norepinephrine and phenylephrine for the prevention and treatment of maternal hypotension.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted using electronic databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase (Embase.com), and the Cochrane CENTRAL register of controlled trials. Parturients underwent cesarean delivery with spinal anesthesia and received norepinephrine to prevent or treat hypotension were considered. Maternal outcomes, including incidences of hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, intraoperative nausea and vomiting (IONV), maternal cardiac output (CO), and blood pressure (BP) control precision, as well as neonatal Apgar scores and umbilical cord blood analyses, were compared between groups.
RESULTS
Three RCTs in 4 reports published between 2015 and 2018 were finally identified with a total of 294 parturients. We found there was no difference in effectiveness between norepinephrine and phenylephrine for the treatment of maternal hypotension (odds ratio [OR] 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-1.10, P = .11), and there was no difference in the occurrence of hypertension (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.33-1.62, P = .45). Of note, compared to the phenylephrine group, parturients in the norepinephrine group were less likely to experience bradycardia (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.12-0.68, P = .005) and IONV (OR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-0.99, P = .04). Further, we did not observe a difference between the two vasopressors in the incidence of neonatal Apgar scores < 7 at 1 and 5 minutes or in umbilical vein (UV) blood gas. However, evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions regarding the greater maternal CO and better BP control precision with the use of norepinephrine.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis shows norepinephrine provides similar efficacy to manage maternal hypotension compared to phenylephrine; additionally, showing advantage regarding certain side effects like bradycardia and IONV reduction. Accordingly, norepinephrine is a promising alternative to phenylephrine. However, before routine clinical application, more studies are warranted.
Topics: Anesthesia, Spinal; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Hypotension; Norepinephrine; Phenylephrine; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 30702617
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014331 -
Neurotrauma Reports 2020Intravenous phenylephrine (PE) is utilized commonly in critical care for cardiovascular support. Its impact on the cerebrovasculature is unclear and its use may have... (Review)
Review
Intravenous phenylephrine (PE) is utilized commonly in critical care for cardiovascular support. Its impact on the cerebrovasculature is unclear and its use may have important implications during states of critical neurological illness. The aim of this study was to perform a scoping review of the literature on the cerebrovascular/cerebral blood flow (CBF) effects of PE in traumatic brain injury (TBI), evaluating both animal models and human studies. We searched MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, Global Health, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library from inception to January 2020. We identified 12 studies with various animal models and 4 studies in humans with varying TBI pathology. There was a trend toward a consistent increase in mean arterial pressure (MAP) by the injection of PE systemically, and by proxy, an increase of the cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP). There was a consistent constriction of cerebral vessels by PE reported in the small number of studies documenting such a response. However, the heterogeneity of the literature on the CBF/cerebral blood volume (CBV) response makes the strength of the conclusions on PE limited. Studies were heterogeneous in design and had significant limitations, with most failing to adjust for confounding factors in cerebrovascular/CBF response. This review highlights the significant knowledge gap on the cerebrovascular/CBF effects of PE administration in TBI, calling for further study on the impact of PE on the cerebrovasculature both and in experimental settings.
PubMed: 34223530
DOI: 10.1089/neur.2020.0008 -
BMJ Paediatrics Open 2019Routine retinopathy of prematurity eye examinations are an important part of neonatal care, and mydriatic medicines are essential in dilating the pupil for the eye...
INTRODUCTION
Routine retinopathy of prematurity eye examinations are an important part of neonatal care, and mydriatic medicines are essential in dilating the pupil for the eye examination. There are concerns about the level of evidence for efficacy and safety of these mydriatic medicines.
OBJECTIVE
This review evaluates both efficacy and safety evidence of mydriatics used during the retinopathy of prematurity eye examination.
METHOD
Systematic literature review.
RESULTS
There is limited evidence guiding clinical practice for safety and efficacy of mydriatics. The majority of publications are underpowered and with an unclear to high level of bias. There are a wide variety of mydriatic regimens evaluated for efficacy and safety, and multiple regimens are associated with case reports.
CONCLUSIONS
Current international guideline seems unnecessarily high, especially when the reviewed literature suggest that lower doses are effective, albiet from underpowered studies. The lowest effective combination regimen appears to be phenylephrine 1% and cyclopentolate 0.2% (1 drop). Microdrop administration of this regimen would further increase the safety profile, however, efficacy needs to be assessed.
PubMed: 31206081
DOI: 10.1136/bmjpo-2019-000448 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Sickle cell disease comprises a group of genetic haemoglobin disorders. The predominant symptom associated with sickle cell disease is pain resulting from the occlusion... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sickle cell disease comprises a group of genetic haemoglobin disorders. The predominant symptom associated with sickle cell disease is pain resulting from the occlusion of small blood vessels by abnormally 'sickle-shaped' red blood cells. There are other complications, including chronic organ damage and prolonged painful erection of the penis, known as priapism. Severity of sickle cell disease is variable, and treatment is usually symptomatic. Priapism affects up to half of all men with sickle cell disease, however, there is no consistency in treatment. We therefore need to know the best way of treating this complication in order to offer an effective interventional approach to all affected individuals. This is an update of a previously published review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and risks of different treatments for stuttering (repeated short episodes) and fulminant (lasting for six hours or more) priapism in sickle cell disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched trial registries. Date of the most recent search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 09 September 2019. Date of most recent search of trial registries and of Embase: 01 October 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing non-surgical or surgical treatment with placebo or no treatment, or with another intervention for stuttering or fulminant priapism.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials.
MAIN RESULTS
Three trials with 102 participants were identified and met the criteria for inclusion in this review. These trials compared stilboestrol to placebo, sildenafil to placebo and a four-arm trial which compared ephedrine or etilefrine to placebo and ranged in duration from two weeks to six months. All of the trials were conducted in an outpatient setting in Jamaica, Nigeria and the UK. None of the trials measured our first primary outcome, detumescence. However, all three trials reported on the reduction in frequency of stuttering priapism, our second primary outcome; and from the evidence included in this review, we are uncertain whether stilboestrol, etilefrine or ephedrine reduce the frequency of stuttering priapism as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. Additionally, we conclude that sildenafil may make little or no difference (low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported on immediate side effects and we are uncertain whether etilefrine or ephedrine reduce the occurrence of these (very low-certainty of evidence) and also conclude that sildenafil may make little or no difference in side effects (low-quality evidence). Given that all of the trials were at risk of bias and all had low participant numbers, we considered the certainty of the evidence to be low to very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of evidence for the benefits or risks of the different treatments for both stuttering and fulminant priapism in sickle cell disease. This systematic review has clearly identified the need for well-designed, adequately-powered, multicentre randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of specific interventions for priapism in sickle cell disease.
Topics: Adrenergic Agents; Anemia, Sickle Cell; Diethylstilbestrol; Ephedrine; Estrogens, Non-Steroidal; Etilefrine; Humans; Male; Priapism; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sildenafil Citrate; Tachycardia; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Young Adult
PubMed: 32251534
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004198.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Topical local anaesthetics provide effective analgesia for patients undergoing numerous superficial procedures, including repair of dermal lacerations. The need for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Topical local anaesthetics provide effective analgesia for patients undergoing numerous superficial procedures, including repair of dermal lacerations. The need for cocaine in topical anaesthetic formulations has been questioned because of concern about adverse effects, thus novel preparations of cocaine-free anaesthetics have been developed. This review was originally published in 2011 and has been updated in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether benefits of non-invasive topical anaesthetic application occur at the expense of decreased analgesic efficacy. To compare the efficacy of various single-component or multi-component topical anaesthetic agents for repair of dermal lacerations. To determine the clinical necessity for topical application of the ester anaesthetic, cocaine.
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, we searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 2010 to December 2016), Embase (2010 to December 2016) and MEDLINE (2010 to December 2016). We did not limit this search by language or format of publication. We contacted manufacturers, international scientific societies and researchers in the field. Weemailed selected journalsand reviewed meta-registers of ongoing trials. For the previous version of this review, we searched these databases to November 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of topical anaesthetics for repair of dermal laceration in adult and paediatric participants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information when needed. We collected adverse event information from trial reports. We assessed methodological risk of bias for each included study and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
The present updated review included 25 RCTs involving 3278 participants. The small number of trials in each comparison group and the heterogeneity of outcome measures precluded quantitative analysis of data for all but one outcome: pain intensity. In two pooled studies, the mean self-reported visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 to 100 mm) score for topical prilocaine-phenylephrine (PP) was higher than the mean self-reported VAS (0 to 100 mm) score for topical tetracaine-epinephrine-cocaine (TAC) by 5.59 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.16 to 13.35). Most trials that compared infiltrated and topical anaesthetics were at high risk of bias, which is likely to have affected their results. Researchers found that several cocaine-free topical anaesthetics provided effective analgesic efficacy. However, data regarding the efficacy of each topical agent are based mostly on single comparisons in trials with unclear or high risk of bias. Mild, self-limited erythematous skin induration occurred in one of 1042 participants who had undergone application of TAC. Investigators reported no serious complications among any of the participants treated with cocaine-based or cocaine-free topical anaesthetics. The overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE system is low owing to limitations in design and implementation, imprecision of results and high probability of publication bias (selective reporting of data). Additional well-designed RCTs with low risk of bias are necessary before definitive conclusions can be reached.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have found two new studies published since the last version of this review was prepared. We have added these studies to those previously included and have conducted an updated analysis, which resulted in the same review conclusions as were presented previously.Mostly descriptive analysis indicates that topical anaesthetics may offer an efficacious, non-invasive means of providing analgesia before suturing of dermal lacerations. Use of cocaine-based topical anaesthetics might be hard to justify, given the availability of other effective topical anaesthetics without cocaine. However, the overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE system is low owing to limitations in design and implementation, imprecision of results and high probability of publication bias (selective reporting of data). Additional well-designed RCTs with low risk of bias are necessary before definitive conclusions can be reached.
Topics: Adult; Anesthetics, Local; Child; Cocaine; Drug Combinations; Epinephrine; Humans; Lacerations; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin; Sutures; Tetracaine
PubMed: 28230244
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005364.pub3 -
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk... 2015Vasopressor agents are often prescribed in septic shock. However, their effects remain controversial. We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis...
OBJECTIVE
Vasopressor agents are often prescribed in septic shock. However, their effects remain controversial. We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the effects among different types of vasopressor agents.
DATA SOURCES
We searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from database inception until December 2014.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials in adults with septic shock that evaluated different vasopressor agents were selected.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Twenty-one trials (n=3,819) met inclusion criteria, which compared eleven vasopressor agents or vasopressor combinations (norepinephrine [NE], dopamine [DA], vasopressin [VP], epinephrine [EN], terlipressin [TP], phenylephrine [PE], TP+NE, TP + dobutamine [DB], NE+DB, NE+EN, and NE + dopexamine [DX]). Except for the superiority of NE over DA, the mortality of patients treated with any vasopressor agent or vasopressor combination was not significantly different. Compared to DA, NE was found to be associated with decreased cardiac adverse events, heart rate (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -2.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.95, -0.25; P=0.03), and cardiac index (SMD: -0.73; 95% CI: -1.14, -0.03; P=0.004) and increased systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) (SMD: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.61, 1.45; P<0.0001). This Bayesian meta-analysis revealed a possible rank of probability of mortality among the eleven vasopressor agents or vasopressor combinations; from lowest to highest, they are NE+DB, EN, TP, NE+EN, TP+NE, VP, TP+DB, NE, PE, NE+DX, and DA.
CONCLUSION
In terms of survival, NE may be superior to DA. Otherwise, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that any other vasopressor agent or vasopressor combination is superior to another. When compared to DA, NE is associated with decreased heart rate, cardiac index, and cardiovascular adverse events, as well as increased SVRI. The effects of vasopressor agents or vasopressor combinations on mortality in patients with septic shock require further investigation.
PubMed: 26203253
DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S80060