-
Cardiovascular Therapeutics 2023Optimal antithrombotic therapy during the chronic maintenance period in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is unknown. We compared five kinds of mainstream... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Optimal antithrombotic therapy during the chronic maintenance period in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is unknown. We compared five kinds of mainstream chronic maintenance antithrombotic strategies at least one year after the acute phase: aspirin alone, clopidogrel alone, ticagrelor alone, continued dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for a period of time, and maintenance with aspirin combined with a low-dose anticoagulant such as rivaroxaban.
METHODS
Ten randomized, controlled trials were selected using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library through February 2023. The primary outcome was main adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and secondary outcomes include net adverse clinical events (NACEs), cardiac death, all-cause death, ischemic stroke, stent thrombosis, total bleeding, and major bleeding. A network meta-analysis was conducted with a random-effects model. Data extraction was performed by three independent reviewers.
RESULTS
Our search identified ten eligible randomized controlled trials enrolling a total of 82,084 patients comparing different chronic maintenance antithrombotic strategies. As for the primary endpoint, there was no statistical difference in MACE outcomes between any two of the five methods. As for the secondary endpoint, there was no statistical difference in NACE, major bleeding, all-cause death, cardiac death, and stent thrombosis between any two methods. The aspirin plus low-dose rivaroxaban group had a lower incidence of ischemic stroke compared to the aspirin group (OR = 0.49, 95% CrI 0.26-0.91). And the prolonged DAPT group had a higher total bleeding rate compared to aspirin group (OR = 2.4, 95% CrI 1.1-5.9).
CONCLUSIONS
In terms of MACE, NACE, all-cause death, cardiac death, stent thrombosis, and major bleeding, there were no significant differences between using aspirin alone, clopidogrel alone, and ticagrelor alone; extending DAPT duration; and using aspirin combined with low-dose rivaroxaban for chronic maintenance antithrombotic regimens. However, choosing aspirin combined with low-dose rivaroxaban can reduce the incidence of ischemic stroke, and prolonged DAPT may have a higher rate of total bleeding. However, it is important to note that this study is based on indirect comparisons, and there is currently a lack of direct evidence comparing various maintenance antiplatelet therapy regimens. Further high-quality studies are needed to address this gap and provide more conclusive evidence on the comparative effectiveness of different maintenance antiplatelet strategies.
Topics: Humans; Coronary Artery Disease; Network Meta-Analysis; Rivaroxaban; Clopidogrel; Fibrinolytic Agents; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Ticagrelor; Ischemic Stroke; Aspirin
PubMed: 37636560
DOI: 10.1155/2023/5446271 -
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Jan 2024The aetiology of gastroschisis is considered multifactorial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether the use of medications during... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The aetiology of gastroschisis is considered multifactorial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether the use of medications during pregnancy, is associated with the risk of gastroschisis in offspring.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched from 1st January 1990 to 31st December 2020 to identify observational studies examining the association between medication use during pregnancy and the risk of gastroschisis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for the quality assessment of the individual studies. We pooled adjusted measures using a random-effect model to estimate relative risk [RR] and the 95% confidence interval [CI]. I statistic for heterogeneity and publication bias was calculated.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies providing data on 751,954 pregnancies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled RRs showed significant associations between aspirin (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.16-2.38; I = 58.3%), oral contraceptives (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.21-1.92; I = 22.0%), pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.16-1.97; I = 33.2%), ibuprofen (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.26-1.60; I = 0.0%), and gastroschisis. No association was observed between paracetamol and gastroschisis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.96-1.41; I = 39.4%).
CONCLUSIONS
These results suggest that the exposure in the first trimester of pregnancy to over the counter medications (OTC) such as aspirin, ibuprofen, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine as well as to oral contraceptives, was associated with an increased risk of gastroschisis. However, these associations are significant only in particular subgroups defined by geographic location, adjustment variables and type of control. Therefore, further research is needed to investigate them as potential risk factors for gastroschisis, to assess their safety in pregnancy and to develop treatment strategies to reduce the risk of gastroschisis in offspring. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021287529.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Aspirin; Contraceptives, Oral; Gastroschisis; Ibuprofen; Phenylpropanolamine; Pseudoephedrine; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 38287353
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-023-02992-z -
Cancer Medicine Mar 2024Due to encouraging pre-clinical data and supportive observational studies, there has been growing interest in applying cardiovascular drugs (including aspirin,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Due to encouraging pre-clinical data and supportive observational studies, there has been growing interest in applying cardiovascular drugs (including aspirin, angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors, statins, and metformin) approved to treat diseases such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus to the field of oncology. Moreover, given growing costs with cancer care, these medications have offered a potentially more affordable avenue to treat or prevent recurrence of cancer. We sought to investigate the anti-cancer effects of drugs repurposed from cardiology or anti-inflammatories to treat cancer. We specifically evaluated the following drug classes: HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors, aspirin, metformin, and both angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. We also included non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) because they exert a similar mechanism to aspirin by blocking prostaglandins and reducing inflammation that is thought to promote the development of cancer.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review using PubMed and Web of Science with search terms including "aspirin," "NSAID," "statin" (including specific statin drug names), "metformin," "ACE inhibitors," and "ARBs" (including specific anti-hypertensive drug names) in combination with "cancer." Searches were limited to human studies published between 2000 and 2023.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The number and percentage of studies reported positive results and pooled estimates of overall survival, progression-free survival, response, and disease-free survival.
RESULTS
We reviewed 3094 titles and included 67 randomized clinical trials. The most common drugs that were tested were metformin (n = 21; 30.9%), celecoxib (n = 20; 29.4%), and simvastatin (n = 8; 11.8%). There was only one study that tested cardiac glycosides and none that studied ACE inhibitors. The most common tumor types were non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 19; 27.9%); breast (n = 8; 20.6%), colorectal (n = 7; 10.3%), and hepatocellular (n = 6; 8.8%). Most studies were conducted in a phase II trial (n = 38; 55.9%). Most studies were tested in metastatic cancers (n = 49; 72.1%) and in the first-line setting (n = 36; 521.9%). Four studies (5.9%) were stopped early because of difficulty with accrual. The majority of studies did not demonstrate an improvement in either progression-free survival (86.1% of studies testing progression-free survival) or in overall survival (94.3% of studies testing overall survival). Progression-free survival was improved in five studies (7.4%), and overall survival was improved in three studies (4.4%). Overall survival was significantly worse in two studies (3.8% of studies testing overall survival), and progression-free survival was worse in one study (2.8% of studies testing progression-free survival).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Despite promising pre-clinical and population-based data, cardiovascular drugs and anti-inflammatory medications have overall not demonstrated benefit in the treatment or preventing recurrence of cancer. These findings may help guide future potential clinical trials involving these medications when applied in oncology.
Topics: Humans; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Lung Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Aspirin; Antihypertensive Agents; Metformin
PubMed: 38491813
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.7049 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause thrombotic events that lead to severe complications or death. Antiplatelet agents, such as acetylsalicylic acid,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause thrombotic events that lead to severe complications or death. Antiplatelet agents, such as acetylsalicylic acid, have been shown to effectively reduce thrombotic events in other diseases: they could influence the course of COVID-19 in general.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of antiplatelets given with standard care compared to no treatment or standard care (with/without placebo) for adults with COVID-19.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to December 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antiplatelet agents for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, gender or ethnicity.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Antiplatelets plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 We included four studies (17,541 participants) that recruited hospitalised people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. A total of 8964 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (either with cyclooxygenase inhibitors or P2Y12 inhibitors) and 8577 participants in the control arm. Most people were older than 50 years and had comorbidities such as hypertension, lung disease or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05; 3 studies, 17,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every 177 deaths per 1000 people not receiving antiplatelets, there were 168 deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 151 to 186 per 1000 people); - probably result in little to no difference in worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.01; 2 studies, 15,266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in little to no difference in improvement (participants discharged alive up to day 28) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 studies, 15,454 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in a slight reduction of thrombotic events at longest follow-up (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 4 studies, 17,518 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events at longest follow-up (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 5.14; 1 study, 1815 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events during study treatment were not reported; - probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events at longest follow-up (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.19; 4 studies, 17,527 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included two RCTs allocating participants, of whom 4209 had confirmed mild COVID-19 and were not hospitalised. A total of 2109 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (treated with acetylsalicylic acid) and 2100 participants in the control arm. No study included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality at day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.22; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may slightly decrease the incidence of new thrombotic events up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may make little or no difference to the incidence of serious adverse events up to day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.64; 1 study, 3881 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events were not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antiplatelets on the following outcomes (compared to standard care plus placebo): - admission to hospital or death up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10; 2 studies, 4209 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - major bleeding events up to longest follow-up (no event occurred in 328 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and adverse events during study treatment were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease, we found moderate-certainty evidence that antiplatelets probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, but probably result in a slight reduction in thrombotic events. They probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that antiplatelets may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events. In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms, we found low-certainty evidence that antiplatelets may result in little to no difference in 45-day mortality and serious adverse events, and may slightly reduce thrombotic events. The effects on the combined outcome admission to hospital or death up to day 45 and major bleeding events are very uncertain. Quality of life was not reported. Included studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income settings using antiplatelets prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, adverse events and people with asymptomatic infection. The 14 ongoing and three completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Aspirin; Asymptomatic Infections
PubMed: 37489818
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015078 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Mar 2024Despite being a commonly performed surgical procedure, pain management for appendicectomy is often neglected because of insufficient evidence on the most effective...
BACKGROUND
Despite being a commonly performed surgical procedure, pain management for appendicectomy is often neglected because of insufficient evidence on the most effective treatment options.
OBJECTIVE
To provide evidence-based recommendations by assessing the available literature for optimal pain management after appendicectomy.
DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES
This systematic review-based guideline was conducted according to the PROSPECT methodology. Relevant randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the English language from January 1999 to October 2022 were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases using PRISMA search protocols.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included studies on adults and children. If articles reported combined data from different surgeries, they had to include specific information about appendicectomies. Studies needed to measure pain intensity using a visual analogue scale (VAS) or a numerical rating scale (NRS). Studies that did not report the precise appendicectomy technique were excluded.
RESULTS
Out of 1388 studies, 94 met the inclusion criteria. Based on evidence and consensus, the PROSPECT members agreed that basic analgesics [paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)] should be administered perioperatively for open and laparoscopic appendicectomies. A laparoscopic approach is preferred because of lower pain scores. Additional recommendations for laparoscopic appendicectomies include a three-port laparoscopic approach and the instillation of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic. For open appendicectomy, a preoperative unilateral transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block is recommended. If not possible, preincisional infiltration with local anaesthetics is an alternative. Opioids should only be used as rescue analgesia. Limited evidence exists for TAP block in laparoscopic appendicectomy, analgesic adjuvants for TAP block, continuous wound infiltration after open appendicectomy and preoperative ketamine and dexamethasone. Recommendations apply to children and adults.
CONCLUSION
This review identified an optimal analgesic regimen for open and laparoscopic appendicectomy. Further randomised controlled trials should evaluate the use of regional analgesia and wound infiltrations with adequate baseline analgesia, especially during the recommended conventional three-port approach.
REGISTRATION
The protocol for this study was registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration No. CRD42023387994).
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesics; Acetaminophen; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anesthetics, Local
PubMed: 38214556
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001953 -
Perioperative Medicine (London, England) Nov 2023Lumbar spine disorders have become an increasingly common health problem in recent years. Modern clinical studies have shown that perioperative analgesia at certain... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Lumbar spine disorders have become an increasingly common health problem in recent years. Modern clinical studies have shown that perioperative analgesia at certain doses can reduce postoperative pain by inhibiting the process of peripheral sensitization and central sensitization, which is also known as "preemptive analgesia," Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a class of drugs that achieve antipyretic and analgesic effects by inhibiting cyclooxygenase (COX) and affecting the production of prostaglandins. Our meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of perioperative preemptive analgesia with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with lumbar spine surgery.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met the inclusion criteria. A total of 12 clinical studies were included to assess the efficacy and safety of perioperative NSAIDs preemptive analgesia for lumbar spine surgery.
RESULT
Twelve studies, including 845 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The results showed that perioperative receipt of NSAIDs for preemptive analgesia was effective and safe. Patient's postoperative morphine consumption (P < 0.05), visual analog scale (P < 0.05), and numerical rating scale (P < 0.05) were not statistically associated with postoperative complications (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Our findings suggest that NSAIDs are effective and safe for preemptive analgesia in the perioperative period of lumbar spine surgery and that more and better quality RCTs and more in-depth studies of pain mechanics are still needed.
PubMed: 37996936
DOI: 10.1186/s13741-023-00347-7 -
BMJ Evidence-based Medicine May 2024To compare dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) de-escalation with five alternative DAPT strategies in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
De-escalation of dual antiplatelet therapy for patients with acute coronary syndrome after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To compare dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) de-escalation with five alternative DAPT strategies in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
DESIGN
We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Parallel-arm randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DAPT strategies were included and arms of interest were compared via NMA. Partial ranking of each identified arm and for each investigated endpoint was also performed.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
Adult patients with ACS (≥18 years) undergoing PCI with indications for DAPT.
SEARCH METHODS
A comprehensive search covered several databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, Conference Proceeding Citation Index-Science) from inception to 15 October 2023. Medical subject headings and keywords related to ACS, PCI and DAPT interventions were used. Reference lists of included studies were screened. Clinical trials registers were searched for ongoing or unpublished trials.
INTERVENTIONS
Six strategies were assessed: T1 arm: acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and prasugrel for 12 months; T2 arm: ASA and low-dose prasugrel for 12 months; T3 arm: ASA and ticagrelor for 12 months; T4 arm: DAPT de-escalation (ASA+P2Y12 inhibitor for 1-3 months, then single antiplatelet therapy with potent P2Y12 inhibitor or DAPT with clopidogrel); T5 arm: ASA and clopidogrel for 12 months; T6 arm: ASA and clopidogrel for 3-6 months.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Primary outcome: Cardiovascular mortality.
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
bleeding events (all, major, minor), stent thrombosis (ST), stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
RESULTS
23 RCTs (75 064 patients with ACS) were included. No differences in cardiovascular mortality, all-cause death, recurrent MI or MACE were found when the six strategies were compared, although with different levels of certainty of evidence. ASA and clopidogrel for 12 or 3-6 months may result in a large increase of ST risk versus ASA plus full-dose prasugrel (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.12, and OR 3.42, 95% CI 1.33 to 7.26, respectively; low certainty evidence for both comparisons). DAPT de-escalation probably results in a reduced risk of all bleedings compared with ASA plus full-dose 12-month prasugrel (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.81, moderate-certainty evidence) and ASA plus 12-month ticagrelor (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.75), while it may not increase the risk of ST. ASA plus 12-month clopidogrel may reduce all bleedings versus ASA plus full-dose 12-month prasugrel (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.94, low certainty) and ASA plus 12-month ticagrelor (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89).
CONCLUSIONS
DAPT de-escalation and ASA-clopidogrel regimens may reduce bleeding events compared with 12 months ASA and potent P2Y12 inhibitors. 3-6 months or 12-month aspirin-clopidogrel may increase ST risk compared with 12-month aspirin plus potent P2Y12 inhibitors, while DAPT de-escalation probably does not.
Topics: Humans; Acute Coronary Syndrome; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Network Meta-Analysis; Dual Anti-Platelet Therapy; Aspirin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Hemorrhage; Prasugrel Hydrochloride
PubMed: 38242567
DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112476 -
Journal of Periodontal Research Dec 2023Periodontitis is one of the most common dental diseases with a range of treatment approaches, including pathogenetically reasonable use of various host immune... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Periodontitis is one of the most common dental diseases with a range of treatment approaches, including pathogenetically reasonable use of various host immune modulators. One such approach is the use of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in combination with low-dose aspirin. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the standard treatment alone and adjunctive use of omega-3 PUFAs in combination with low-dose aspirin with or without standard treatment in patients with periodontitis. A systematic review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Central and Google Scholar databases. Selection criteria included the following: randomized controlled trials in subjects with periodontitis in the age group above 18 years old, with follow-up periods ranging from 6 weeks to 6 months. The meta-analysis was performed using standard methodological procedures according to Cochrane recommendations, including assessment of risk-of-bias and level of evidence (GRADE). Meta-analysis was performed for such clinical outcomes as plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment loss (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP) and bleeding index (BI) based on data from seven randomized clinical trials conducted between 2010 and 2020. It was shown that adjunctive use of omega-3 PUFAs in combination with low-dose aspirin results in significant clinical improvement in PD, CAL and GI during both short and prolonged follow-up periods. The use of omega-3 PUFAs and low-dose aspirin in periodontitis patients may be promising as an adjunct therapy, however, due to a limited number of patients and significant heterogeneity, further studies need to be conducted.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Periodontitis; Aspirin; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Periodontal Index; Immunologic Factors
PubMed: 37787044
DOI: 10.1111/jre.13191 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Oct 2023Pain after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy can be difficult to treat, and if inadequately managed can lead to respiratory complications, prolonged hospital stays...
BACKGROUND
Pain after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy can be difficult to treat, and if inadequately managed can lead to respiratory complications, prolonged hospital stays and chronic pain.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy.
DESIGN
A systematic review using PROcedure-SPECific Pain Management (PROSPECT) methodology.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in the English language until November 2020 assessing postoperative pain after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Databases.
RESULTS
Of 319 eligible studies, 209 randomised controlled trials and three systematic reviews were included in the final analysis. Pre-operative, intra-operative and postoperative interventions that reduced postoperative pain included paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous magnesium, intravenous dexmedetomidine and parasternal block/infiltration.
CONCLUSIONS
The analgesic regimen for cardiac surgery via sternotomy should include paracetamol and NSAIDs, unless contraindicated, administered intra-operatively and continued postoperatively. Intra-operative magnesium and dexmedetomidine infusions may be considered as adjuncts particularly when basic analgesics are not administered. It is not clear if combining dexmedetomidine and magnesium would provide superior pain relief compared with either drug alone. Parasternal block/surgical site infiltration is also recommended. However, no basic analgesics were used in the studies assessing these interventions. Opioids should be reserved for rescue analgesia. Other interventions, including cyclo-oxygenase-2 specific inhibitors, are not recommended because there was insufficient, inconsistent or no evidence to support their use and/or due to safety concerns.
Topics: Humans; Pain Management; Acetaminophen; Sternotomy; Dexmedetomidine; Magnesium; Analgesics; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesics, Opioid; Cardiac Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 37501517
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001881 -
Thrombosis and Haemostasis Aug 2023Guideline-recommended dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; aspirin plus prasugrel/ticagrelor) for 12 months in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients increases bleeding,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Guideline-recommended dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; aspirin plus prasugrel/ticagrelor) for 12 months in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients increases bleeding, with East Asians (EAs) exhibiting higher bleeding and lower ischemic risk, compared with non-East Asians (nEAs). We sought to compare DAPT "de-escalation" strategies in EA and nEA populations.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing reduction of DAPT intensity or duration in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, in EA and nEA, was performed using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Twenty-three trials assessed reduction of DAPT intensity ( = 12) or duration ( = 11). Overall, reduced DAPT intensity attenuated major bleeding (odds ratio [OR]: 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.94, = 0.009), without impacting net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE) or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). In nEA, this increased MACE (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.09-1.31, < 0.0001) without impacting NACE or bleeding; while in EA, it reduced major bleeding (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.53-0.95, = 0.02) without affecting NACE or MACE. Overall, abbreviation of DAPT duration reduced NACE (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.82-0.99, = 0.03) due to major bleeding (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53-0.99, = 0.006), without impacting MACE. In nEA, this strategy did not impact NACE, MACE, or major bleeding; while in EA, it reduced major bleeding (OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.4-0.91, = 0.02) without impacting NACE or MACE.
CONCLUSION
In EA, reduction of DAPT intensity or duration can minimize bleeding, without safety concerns. In nEA, reduction of DAPT intensity may incur an ischemic penalty, while DAPT abbreviation has no overall benefit.
Topics: Humans; Acute Coronary Syndrome; Aspirin; Hemorrhage; Ischemia; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome; Dual Anti-Platelet Therapy
PubMed: 37072035
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-57030