-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019Panic disorder is characterised by recurrent unexpected panic attacks consisting of a wave of intense fear that reaches a peak within a few minutes. Panic disorder is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Panic disorder is characterised by recurrent unexpected panic attacks consisting of a wave of intense fear that reaches a peak within a few minutes. Panic disorder is a common disorder, with an estimated lifetime prevalence of 1% to 5% in the general population and a 7% to 10% prevalence in primary care settings. Its aetiology is not fully understood and is probably heterogeneous.Panic disorder is treated with psychological and pharmacological interventions, often used in combination. Although benzodiazepines are frequently used in the treatment of panic disorder, guidelines recommend antidepressants, mainly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), as first-line treatment for panic disorder, particularly due to their lower incidence of dependence and withdrawal reaction when compared to benzodiazepines. Despite these recommendations, benzodiazepines are widely used in the treatment of panic disorder, probably because of their rapid onset of action.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and acceptability of benzodiazepines versus placebo in the treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR Studies and References), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950-), Embase (1974-), and PsycINFO (1967-) up to 29 May 2018. We handsearched reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews. We contacted experts in the field for supplemental data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All double-blind (blinding of patients and personnel) controlled trials randomising adults with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia to benzodiazepine or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently checked the eligibility of studies and extracted data using a standardised form. Data were then entered data into Review Manager 5 using a double-check procedure. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details, settings, and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 studies in the review with a total of 4233 participants, of which 2124 were randomised to benzodiazepines and 1475 to placebo. The remaining 634 participants were randomised to other active treatments in three-arm trials. We assessed the overall methodological quality of the included studies as poor. We rated all studies as at unclear risk of bias in at least three domains. In addition, we judged 20 of the 24 included studies as having a high risk of bias in at least one domain.Two primary outcomes of efficacy and acceptability showed a possible advantage of benzodiazepines over placebo. The estimated risk ratio (RR) for a response to treatment was 1.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39 to 1.96) in favour of benzodiazepines, which corresponds to an estimated number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 4 (95% CI 3 to 7). The dropout rate was lower among participants treated with benzodiazepines (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.64); the estimated NNTB was 6 (95% CI 5 to 9). We rated the quality of the evidence as low for both primary outcomes. The possible advantage of benzodiazepine was also seen for remission (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.88) and the endpoint data for social functioning (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.53, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.42), both with low-quality evidence. We assessed the evidence for the other secondary outcomes as of very low quality. With the exception of the analyses of the change score data for depression (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.04) and social functioning (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.88 to 0.24), all secondary outcome analyses showed an effect in favour of benzodiazepines compared to placebo. However, the number of dropouts due to adverse effects was higher with benzodiazepines than with placebo (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.15; low-quality evidence). Furthermore, our analyses of adverse events showed that a higher proportion of participants experienced at least one adverse effect when treated with benzodiazepines (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.37; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-quality evidence shows a possible superiority of benzodiazepine over placebo in the short-term treatment of panic disorders. The validity of the included studies is questionable due to possible unmasking of allocated treatments, high dropout rates, and probable publication bias. Moreover, the included studies were only short-term studies and did not examine the long-term efficacy nor the risks of dependency and withdrawal symptoms. Due to these limitations, our results regarding the efficacy of benzodiazepines versus placebo provide only limited guidance for clinical practice. Furthermore, the clinician's choice is not between benzodiazepines and placebo, but between benzodiazepines and other agents, notably SSRIs, both in terms of efficacy and adverse effects. The choice of treatment should therefore be guided by the patient's preference and should balance benefits and harms from treatment in a long-term perspective.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Agoraphobia; Benzodiazepines; Buspirone; Humans; Imipramine; Middle Aged; Numbers Needed To Treat; Panic Disorder; Paroxetine; Patient Dropouts; Placebos; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Young Adult
PubMed: 30921478
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010677.pub2 -
Lancet (London, England) Mar 2017Globally, most patients with hypertension are treated with monotherapy, and control rates are poor because monotherapy only reduces blood pressure by around 9/5 mm Hg on... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Globally, most patients with hypertension are treated with monotherapy, and control rates are poor because monotherapy only reduces blood pressure by around 9/5 mm Hg on average. There is a pressing need for blood pressure-control strategies with improved efficacy and tolerability. We aimed to assess whether ultra-low-dose combination therapy could meet these needs.
METHODS
We did a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover trial of a quadpill-a single capsule containing four blood pressure-lowering drugs each at quarter-dose (irbesartan 37·5 mg, amlodipine 1·25 mg, hydrochlorothiazide 6·25 mg, and atenolol 12·5 mg). Participants with untreated hypertension were enrolled from four centres in the community of western Sydney, NSW, Australia, mainly by general practitioners. Participants were randomly allocated by computer to either the quadpill or matching placebo for 4 weeks; this treatment was followed by a 2-week washout, then the other study treatment was administered for 4 weeks. Study staff and participants were unaware of treatment allocations, and masking was achieved by use of identical opaque capsules. The primary outcome was placebo-corrected 24-h systolic ambulatory blood pressure reduction after 4 weeks and analysis was by intention to treat. We also did a systematic review of trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of quarter-standard-dose blood pressure-lowering therapy against placebo. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12614001057673. The trial ended after 1 year and this report presents the final analysis.
FINDINGS
Between November, 2014, and December, 2015, 55 patients were screened for our randomised trial, of whom 21 underwent randomisation. Mean age of participants was 58 years (SD 11) and mean baseline office and 24-h systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were 154 (14)/90 (11) mm Hg and 140 (9)/87 (8) mm Hg, respectively. One individual declined participation after randomisation and two patients dropped out for administrative reasons. The placebo-corrected reduction in systolic 24-h blood pressure with the quadpill was 19 mm Hg (95% CI 14-23), and office blood pressure was reduced by 22/13 mm Hg (p<0·0001). During quadpill treatment, 18 (100%) of 18 participants achieved office blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg, compared with six (33%) of 18 during placebo treatment (p=0·0013). There were no serious adverse events and all patients reported that the quadpill was easy to swallow. Our systematic review identified 36 trials (n=4721 participants) of one drug at quarter-dose and six trials (n=312) of two drugs at quarter-dose, against placebo. The pooled placebo-corrected blood pressure-lowering effects were 5/2 mm Hg and 7/5 mm Hg, respectively (both p<0·0001), and there were no side-effects from either regimen.
INTERPRETATION
The findings of our small trial in the context of previous randomised evidence suggest that the benefits of quarter-dose therapy could be additive across classes and might confer a clinically important reduction in blood pressure. Further examination of the quadpill concept is needed to investigate effectiveness against usual treatment options and longer term tolerability.
FUNDING
National Heart Foundation, Australia; University of Sydney; and National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Administration, Oral; Amlodipine; Antihypertensive Agents; Atenolol; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Cross-Over Studies; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Hydrochlorothiazide; Hypertension; Irbesartan; Medication Adherence; Tetrazoles; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28190578
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30260-X -
Scientific Reports Oct 2022To summarize the differences in urodynamic outcomes between oral antimuscarinic drugs and OnabotulinumtoxinA, and finding a therapy that maintains good urodynamics in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy, according to urodynamics, of OnabotulinumtoxinA compared with antimuscarinic drugs, for neurogenic detrusor overactivity: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
To summarize the differences in urodynamic outcomes between oral antimuscarinic drugs and OnabotulinumtoxinA, and finding a therapy that maintains good urodynamics in neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO). We conducted a literature search of EMBASE and PubMed, with the language limited to English. In the analysis, all of the published randomized trials of OnabotulinumtoxinA or antimuscarinic drugs used to treat NDO were found and the results were finally obtained through Bayesian model analysis. A total of 12 RCTs and 2208 patients were included. OnabotulinumtoxinA 300U was superior to other drugs in terms of MCC, volume at IDC, and Pdet endpoints. OnabotulinumtoxinA 200U was more effective on the urodynamic endpoint of BC than other drugs or doses of OnabotulinumtoxinA. According to the MCC urodynamic results, oxybutynin, solifenacin 10 mg, and tolterodine 4 mg also had positive effects. OnabotulinumtoxinA 300U, 200U and 100U were better in improving the urodynamic results of NDO, and the current evidence also shows that selective injection of onabotulinumtoxinA can effectively improve the urodynamic results.
Topics: Humans; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Urodynamics; Muscarinic Antagonists; Urinary Bladder, Neurogenic; Solifenacin Succinate; Network Meta-Analysis; Tolterodine Tartrate; Bayes Theorem; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Bladder, Overactive
PubMed: 36289427
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-22765-1 -
Annals of Medicine Feb 2019Haemodynamic instability predisposes patients to cardiac complications in non-cardiac surgery. Esmolol, a short-acting cardioselective beta-adrenergic blocker might be... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Haemodynamic instability predisposes patients to cardiac complications in non-cardiac surgery. Esmolol, a short-acting cardioselective beta-adrenergic blocker might be efficient in perioperative cardiac protection, but could affect other vital organs, such as the kidneys, and post-discharge survival. We performed a systematic review on the use of esmolol for perioperative cardiac protection. We searched PubMed, Ovid Medline and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled trials. Eligible randomized controlled studies (RCTs) reported a perioperative esmolol intervention with at least one of the primary (major cardiac or renal complications during the first 30 postoperative days) or secondary (postoperative adverse effects and all-cause mortality) outcomes. We included 196 adult patients from three RCTs. Esmolol significantly reduced postoperative myocardial ischaemia, RR =0.43 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.21-0.88], p = .02. No association with clinically significant bradycardia and hypotension compared to patients receiving control treatment could be confirmed (RR =7.4 [95% CI: 0.29-139.81], p = .18 and RR =2.21 [95% CI: 0.34-14.36], p = .41, respectively). No differences regarding other outcomes were observed. No study reported postoperative renal outcomes. Esmolol seems promising for the prevention of perioperative myocardial ischaemia. However, the association with bradycardia and hypotension remains unclear. Randomized trials investigating the effect of β1-selective blockade on clinically relevant outcomes and non-cardiac vital organs are warranted. Key messages Short-acting cardioselective esmolol seems efficient in the prevention of perioperative myocardial ischaemia. The possibly increased risk of bradycardia and hypotension with short-acting intravenous beta blockade could not be confirmed or refuted by available data. Future adequately powered trials investigating the effect of β1-selective blockade on clinically relevant outcomes and non-cardiac vital organs are warranted.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Administration, Intravenous; Adrenergic beta-1 Receptor Antagonists; Bradycardia; Female; Heart; Heart Diseases; Hemodynamics; Humans; Hypotension; Male; Myocardial Infarction; Myocardial Ischemia; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Propanolamines; Protective Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Safety
PubMed: 30346213
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2018.1538565 -
PloS One 2019Headaches are a common source of pain and suffering. The study's purpose was to assess beta-blockers efficacy in preventing migraine and tension-type headache. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Headaches are a common source of pain and suffering. The study's purpose was to assess beta-blockers efficacy in preventing migraine and tension-type headache.
METHODS
Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; EMBASE; ISI Web of Science, clinical trial registries, CNKI, Wanfang and CQVIP were searched through 21 August 2018, for randomized trials in which at least one comparison was a beta-blocker for the prevention of migraine or tension-type headache in adults. The primary outcome, headache frequency per month, was extracted in duplicate and pooled using random effects models.
DATA SYNTHESIS
This study included 108 randomized controlled trials, 50 placebo-controlled and 58 comparative effectiveness trials. Compared to placebo, propranolol reduced episodic migraine headaches by 1.5 headaches/month at 8 weeks (95% CI: -2.3 to -0.65) and was more likely to reduce headaches by 50% (RR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1-1.7). Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) found that these outcomes were unlikely to be due to a Type I error. A network analysis suggested that beta-blocker's benefit for episodic migraines may be a class effect. Trials comparing beta-blockers to other interventions were largely single, underpowered trials. Propranolol was comparable to other medications known to be effective including flunarizine, topiramate and valproate. For chronic migraine, propranolol was more likely to reduce headaches by at least 50% (RR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.0-4.3). There was only one trial of beta-blockers for tension-type headache.
CONCLUSIONS
There is high quality evidence that propranolol is better than placebo for episodic migraine headache. Other comparisons were underpowered, rated as low-quality based on only including single trials, making definitive conclusions about comparative effectiveness impossible. There were few trials examining beta-blocker effectiveness for chronic migraine or tension-type headache though there was limited evidence of benefit.
REGISTRATION
Prospero (ID: CRD42017050335).
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Clinical Trials as Topic; Female; Humans; Male; Migraine Disorders; Propranolol; Tension-Type Headache; Topiramate; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 30893319
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212785 -
Heart Failure Reviews May 2019Some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have tested the efficacy of beta-blockers as prophylactic agents on cancer therapy-induced cardiotoxicity; however, the quality... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have tested the efficacy of beta-blockers as prophylactic agents on cancer therapy-induced cardiotoxicity; however, the quality of this evidence remains undetermined. This systematic review and meta-analysis study aims to evaluate the prophylactic effects of beta-blockers, especially carvedilol, on chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity. RCTs were identified by searching the MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (OvidSP), Cochrane CENTRAL (OvidSP), etc., until December 2017. Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trial and adult cancer patients started beta-blockers before chemotherapy. We evaluated the mean differences (MD) by fixed- or random-effects model and the odds ratio by Peto's method. Primary outcome was the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of patients after chemotherapy, and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinically overt cardiotoxicity, and other echocardiographic measurements. In total, we included six RCTs that used carvedilol as a prophylactic agent in patients receiving chemotherapy. The LVEF was not significantly distinct between those using carvedilol and placebo after chemotherapy (MD, 1.74; 95% confidence interval (CI), - 0.18 to 3.66; P = 0.08). The incidence of clinically overt cardiotoxicity was lower in the carvedilol group compared with the control group (Peto OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.89; P = 0.02). Furthermore, after chemotherapy, the LV end-diastolic diameter did not increase in the carvedilol group compared with the placebo group (MD, - 1.41; 95% CI, - 2.32 to - 0.50; P = 0.002). The prophylactic use of carvedilol exerted no impact on the early asymptomatic LVEF decrease but seemed to attenuate the frequency of clinically overt cardiotoxicity and prevent ventricular remodeling.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Cardiotoxicity; Carvedilol; Echocardiography; Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Protective Agents; Stroke Volume; Treatment Outcome; Ventricular Function, Left; Ventricular Remodeling; Young Adult
PubMed: 30523513
DOI: 10.1007/s10741-018-9755-3 -
Medicine Dec 2018In this study, we aimed to review the literature on phenytoin intoxication induced by compound phenytoin sodium, ephedrine hydrochloride and theophylline tablets...
OBJECTIVE
In this study, we aimed to review the literature on phenytoin intoxication induced by compound phenytoin sodium, ephedrine hydrochloride and theophylline tablets (CPEHTT).
METHOD
A literature search was performed in the following databases: WANFANG DATA, HowNet, National Library Reference and Consultation Alliance, Full-text Database of Foreign Medical Journals, PubMed and Ovid. The search terms were "Compound Phenytoin Sodium, ephedrine Hydrochloride and Theophylline Tablets," and "poisoning," or "toxicity," in Chinese and in English.
RESULT
Ten articles including 104 patients with CPEHTT intoxication were identified. The ages of the patients ranged from 52 to 82 years. Sixty-seven patients were male and thirty-seven patients were female (the male/female ratio, approximately 2:1). The most common clinical manifestations were dizziness (85%) and ataxia (85%), followed by limb weakness (65%), diplopia (25%), binocular horizontal nystagmus (24%), limb numbness (13%), nausea and vomiting (12%), somnolence (10%), tremor and high muscle tension (7%), lag in response (5%), dysarthria (6%), choking cough (2%), auditory hallucination and visual fantasy (1%), and involuntary movement (1%). All patients had chronic lung disease, and the most common disease was chronic bronchitis. The dosage ranged 4 to 15 tablets per day with medication duration of more than 1 year for most patients.
CONCLUSION
The CPEHTT intoxication caused by phenytoin toxicity represents a drug safety problem in China. The common clinical manifestations, serum phenytoin concentrations, and associated factors of CPEHTT intoxication are important for diagnosis and prevention. These findings may help guide clinicians to correctly attend to the use of CPEHTT and avoid its toxicity.
Topics: Bronchodilator Agents; China; Drug Combinations; Ephedrine; Humans; Phenytoin; Tablets; Theophylline
PubMed: 30572493
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013689 -
BMJ Open Oct 2020Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a potentially lethal and morbid complication after open heart surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a potentially lethal and morbid complication after open heart surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate metoprolol compared with other treatments for prophylaxis against POAF.
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial registries for randomised controlled trials that evaluated metoprolol for preventing the occurrence of POAF after surgery against other treatments or placebo. Random-effects model was used for estimating the risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Nine trials involving 1570 patients showed metoprolol reduced POAF compared with placebo (416 patients; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.66; I²=21%; risk difference (RD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.10). However, metoprolol increased the risk of POAF compared with carvedilol (159 patients; RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.12; I²=4%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.20). There was no difference when compared with sotalol or amiodarone. The occurrence of cardiovascular conditions after drugs administration or death between the groups was not different. The overall quality of evidence was moderate to high. Subgroup analysis and funnel plot were not performed.
CONCLUSIONS
Metoprolol is effective in preventing POAF compared with placebo and showed no difference with class III antiarrhythmic drugs. Death and thromboembolism are associated with open heart surgery, but not significant in relation to the use of metoprolol.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019131585.
Topics: Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Humans; Metoprolol; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 33130564
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038364 -
Orthopaedic Surgery Dec 2023Hip fractures are the most common fractures among older adults, with most patients undergoing surgery. The debate regarding the type of anesthetic technique for hip... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Hip fractures are the most common fractures among older adults, with most patients undergoing surgery. The debate regarding the type of anesthetic technique for hip fracture surgery is still ongoing. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of spinal and general anesthesia in older patients undergoing hip fracture surgery.
METHODS
Eligible studies that compared the effects of spinal and general anesthesia were systematically searched from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library until May 27, 2022. The intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of the two anesthesia techniques were compared. Quality assessment, heterogeneity analysis, and publication bias of the studies were also assessed.
RESULTS
Nine articles of methodological quality were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results revealed that there were significant differences in hypotension (risk ratio [RR] (95% confidence interval [CI]) = 0.81 (0.68, 0.97), p = 0.02) and ephedrine dose (weighted mean difference [WMD] [95%CI] = -20.94 [-37.50, -4.37] mg, p = 0.01) between the spinal and general anesthesia groups. However, no significant differences were observed in the use of ephedrine (RR [95% CI] = 0.77 [0.19, 3.05]), blood loss (WMD [95%CI] = -34.38 [-89.56, 20.80) mL], myocardial infarction (RR [95% CI] = 0.78 [0.31, 1.94] mL), heart failure (RR [95% CI] = 0.87 [0.17, 4.36] mL), stroke (RR [95%CI) = 0.65 [0.22, 1.95] mL), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR [95% CI] = 0.88 [0.17, 4.35] mL), delirium (RR [95% CI] = 1.08 [0.89, 1.31] mL), and mortality (RR [95% CI] = 1.10 [0.72, 1.68] mL) (all p < 0.05). No publication bias was observed in any of the included studies.
CONCLUSION
Compared to general anesthesia, spinal anesthesia was associated with a lower risk of intraoperative hypotension and lower doses of ephedrine in older patients undergoing hip fracture surgery.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Ephedrine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anesthesia, General; Hip Fractures; Hypotension; Anesthesia, Spinal
PubMed: 37753546
DOI: 10.1111/os.13895 -
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