-
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Nov 2023To evaluate all available evidence thus far on opioid based versus opioid-free anesthesia and its effect on acute and chronic postoperative pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
To evaluate all available evidence thus far on opioid based versus opioid-free anesthesia and its effect on acute and chronic postoperative pain.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
SETTING
Operating room, postoperative recovery room and ward.
PATIENTS
Patients undergoing general anesthesia.
INTERVENTIONS
After consulting MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane database, studies which compared opioid free anesthesia (OFA) with opioid based anesthesia (OBA) were included (last search April 15th 2022).
MEASUREMENTS
Primary outcomes were acute and chronic pain scores in NRS or VAS. Secondary outcomes were quality of recovery and postoperative opioid consumption. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 tool and a random effects model for the meta-analysis was conducted.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 1245 citations, of which 38 studies met our inclusion criteria. There is moderate quality evidence showing no clinically relevant difference of Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores or opioid consumption in the postoperative period (pooled mean difference of 0.39 points with a CI of 0.19-0.59 and 4.02 MME with a CI of 1.73-6.30). We found only one small-sized study reporting no effect of opioid-free anesthesia on chronic pain. The quality of recovery was superior in patients with opioid-free anesthesia (mean difference of 8.26 points), however, this pooled analysis was comprised of only two studies. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occurred less in opioid-free anesthesia, but bradycardia was more frequent.
CONCLUSIONS
We concluded that we cannot recommend one strategy over the other. Future studies could focus on quality of recovery as outcome measure and adequately powered studies on the effects of opioid-free anesthesia on chronic pain are eagerly awaited.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Chronic Pain; Pain, Postoperative; Anesthesia, General; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 37515877
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111215 -
BMC Sports Science, Medicine &... Aug 2023The effectiveness of strength training with free-weight vs. machine equipment is heavily debated. Thus, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to summarize the data on...
BACKGROUND
The effectiveness of strength training with free-weight vs. machine equipment is heavily debated. Thus, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to summarize the data on the effect of free-weight versus machine-based strength training on maximal strength, jump height and hypertrophy.
METHODS
The review was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the systematic search of literature was conducted up to January 1, 2023. Studies that directly compared free-weight vs. machine-based strength training for a minimum of 6 weeks in adults (18-60 yrs.) were included.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies (outcomes: maximal strength [n = 12], jump performance [n = 5], muscle hypertrophy [n = 5]) with a total sample of 1016 participants (789 men, 219 women) were included. Strength in free-weight tests increased significantly more with free-weight training than with machines (SMD: -0.210, CI: -0.391, -0.029, p = 0.023), while strength in machine-based tests tended to increase more with machine training than with free-weights (SMD: 0.291, CI: -0.017, 0.600, p = 0.064). However, no differences were found between modalities in direct comparison (free-weight strength vs. machine strength) for dynamic strength (SMD: 0.084, CI: -0.106, 0.273, p = 0.387), isometric strength (SMD: -0.079, CI: -0.432, 0.273, p = 0.660), countermovement jump (SMD: -0.209, CI: -0.597, 0.179, p = 0.290) and hypertrophy (SMD: -0.055, CI: -0.397, 0.287, p = 0.751).
CONCLUSION
No differences were detected in the direct comparison of strength, jump performance and muscle hypertrophy. Current body of evidence indicates that strength changes are specific to the training modality, and the choice between free-weights and machines are down to individual preferences and goals.
PubMed: 37582807
DOI: 10.1186/s13102-023-00713-4 -
Journal of Critical Care Apr 2024The role of corticosteroids in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains uncertain. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to investigate the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The role of corticosteroids in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains uncertain. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to investigate the effectiveness and potential effect modifiers of adjunctive corticosteroids in patients with CAP.
METHODS
The protocol of this meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022354920). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and trial registers from inception till March 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating corticosteroids in adult patients with CAP. Our primary outcome was the risk of all-cause mortality within 30 days after randomization (if not reported at day 30, we extracted the outcome closest to 30 days). Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MDs) were pooled under a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Fifteen RCTs (n = 3252 patients) were included in this review. Corticosteroids reduced the risk of all-cause mortality in CAP patients (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53-0.89; high certainty). This significant result was restricted to hydrocortisone therapy and patients with severe CAP. Additionally, younger patients demonstrated a greater reduction in mortality. Corticosteroids reduced the incidence of shock and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV), and decreased the length of hospital and ICU stay (moderate certainty).
CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids reduce the risk of all-cause mortality, especially in younger patients receiving hydrocortisone, and probably decrease the need for MV, the incidence of shock, and the length of hospital and ICU stay in patients with CAP. Our findings indicate that patients with CAP, especially severe CAP, will benefit from adjunctive corticosteroid therapy.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Community-Acquired Infections; Hydrocortisone; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38128217
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2023.154507 -
European Respiratory Review : An... Jun 2023The effect of noninvasive respiratory support (NRS), including high-flow nasal oxygen, bi-level positive airway pressure and continuous positive airway pressure... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The effect of noninvasive respiratory support (NRS), including high-flow nasal oxygen, bi-level positive airway pressure and continuous positive airway pressure (noninvasive ventilation (NIV)), for preventing and treating post-extubation respiratory failure is still unclear. Our objective was to assess the effects of NRS on post-extubation respiratory failure, defined as re-intubation secondary to post-extubation respiratory failure (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), discomfort, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and time to re-intubation. Subgroup analyses considered "prophylactic" "therapeutic" NRS application and subpopulations (high-risk, low-risk, post-surgical and hypoxaemic patients).
METHODS
We undertook a systematic review and network meta-analysis (Research Registry: reviewregistry1435). PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus and Web of Science were searched (from inception until 22 June 2022). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of NRS after extubation in ICU adult patients were included.
RESULTS
32 RCTs entered the quantitative analysis (5063 patients). Compared with conventional oxygen therapy, NRS overall reduced re-intubations and VAP (moderate certainty). NIV decreased hospital mortality (moderate certainty), and hospital and ICU LOS (low and very low certainty, respectively), and increased discomfort (moderate certainty). Prophylactic NRS did not prevent extubation failure in low-risk or hypoxaemic patients.
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic NRS may reduce the rate of post-extubation respiratory failure in ICU patients.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Airway Extubation; Network Meta-Analysis; Respiration, Artificial; Noninvasive Ventilation; Respiratory Insufficiency; Oxygen; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37019458
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0196-2022 -
JAMA Network Open Oct 2023Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common and serious complication after surgery. Various predisposing factors are associated with POD, but their magnitude and importance... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common and serious complication after surgery. Various predisposing factors are associated with POD, but their magnitude and importance using an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis have not been assessed.
OBJECTIVE
To identify perioperative factors associated with POD and assess their relative prognostic value among adults undergoing noncardiac surgery.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception to May 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies were included that (1) enrolled adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, (2) assessed perioperative risk factors for POD, and (3) measured the incidence of delirium (measured using a validated approach). Data were analyzed in 2020.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Individual patient data were pooled from 21 studies and 1-stage meta-analysis was performed using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression after a multivariable imputation via chained equations model to impute missing data.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The end point of interest was POD diagnosed up to 10 days after a procedure. A wide range of perioperative risk factors was considered as potentially associated with POD.
RESULTS
A total of 192 studies met the eligibility criteria, and IPD were acquired from 21 studies that enrolled 8382 patients. Almost 1 in 5 patients developed POD (18%), and an increased risk of POD was associated with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status 4 (odds ratio [OR], 2.43; 95% CI, 1.42-4.14), older age (OR for 65-85 years, 2.67; 95% CI, 2.16-3.29; OR for >85 years, 6.24; 95% CI, 4.65-8.37), low body mass index (OR for body mass index <18.5, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.64-3.09), history of delirium (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.69-5.66), preoperative cognitive impairment (OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.94-5.43), and preoperative C-reactive protein levels (OR for 5-10 mg/dL, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.59-3.50; OR for >10 mg/dL, 3.56; 95% CI, 2.46-5.17). Completing a college degree or higher was associated with a decreased likelihood of developing POD (OR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.72).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data, several important factors associated with POD were found that may help identify patients at high risk and may have utility in clinical practice to inform patients and caregivers about the expected risk of developing delirium after surgery. Future studies should explore strategies to reduce delirium after surgery.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Emergence Delirium; Delirium; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors; Patients
PubMed: 37819663
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.37239 -
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and... Oct 2023We aimed to create a multidisciplinary consensus clinical guideline for best practice in the diagnosis, investigation and management of spontaneous intracranial...
BACKGROUND
We aimed to create a multidisciplinary consensus clinical guideline for best practice in the diagnosis, investigation and management of spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH) due to cerebrospinal fluid leak based on current evidence and consensus from a multidisciplinary specialist interest group (SIG).
METHODS
A 29-member SIG was established, with members from neurology, neuroradiology, anaesthetics, neurosurgery and patient representatives. The scope and purpose of the guideline were agreed by the SIG by consensus. The SIG then developed guideline statements for a series of question topics using a modified Delphi process. This process was supported by a systematic literature review, surveys of patients and healthcare professionals and review by several international experts on SIH.
RESULTS
SIH and its differential diagnoses should be considered in any patient presenting with orthostatic headache. First-line imaging should be MRI of the brain with contrast and the whole spine. First-line treatment is non-targeted epidural blood patch (EBP), which should be performed as early as possible. We provide criteria for performing myelography depending on the spine MRI result and response to EBP, and we outline principles of treatments. Recommendations for conservative management, symptomatic treatment of headache and management of complications of SIH are also provided.
CONCLUSIONS
This multidisciplinary consensus clinical guideline has the potential to increase awareness of SIH among healthcare professionals, produce greater consistency in care, improve diagnostic accuracy, promote effective investigations and treatments and reduce disability attributable to SIH.
Topics: Humans; Intracranial Hypotension; Cerebrospinal Fluid Leak; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Headache; Diagnosis, Differential
PubMed: 37147116
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2023-331166 -
Critical Care (London, England) Sep 2023Cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury (CSA-AKI) is frequent. While two network meta-analyses assessed the impact of pharmacological interventions to prevent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury (CSA-AKI) is frequent. While two network meta-analyses assessed the impact of pharmacological interventions to prevent CSA-AKI, none focused on non-pharmacological interventions. We aim to assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the incidence of CSA-AKI.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Central and clinical trial registries from January 1, 2004 (first consensus definition of AKI) to July 1, 2023. Additionally, we conducted manual screening of abstracts of major anesthesia and intensive care conferences over the last 5 years and reference lists of relevant studies. We selected all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing a non-pharmacological intervention to reduce the incidence of CSA-AKI, without language restriction. We excluded RCTs of heart transplantation or involving a pediatric population. The primary outcome variable was CSA-AKI. Two reviewers independently identified trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to assess the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
We included 86 trials (25,855 patients) evaluating 10 non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the incidence of CSA-AKI. No intervention had high-quality evidence to reduce CSA-AKI. Two interventions were associated with a significant reduction in CSA-AKI incidence, with moderate quality of evidence: goal-directed perfusion (RR, 0.55 [95% CI 0.40-0.76], I = 0%; P = 0.44) and remote ischemic preconditioning (RR, 0.86 [0.78-0.95]; I = 23%; P = 0.07). Pulsatile flow during cardiopulmonary bypass was associated with a significant reduction in CSA-AKI incidence but with very low quality of evidence (RR = 0.69 [0.48; 0.99]; I = 53%; P < 0.01). We found high quality of evidence for lack of effect of restrictive transfusion strategy (RR, 1.02 [95% CI 0.92; 1.12; P = 0.67; I = 3%) and tight glycemic control (RR, 0.86 [95% CI 0.55; 1.35]; P = 0.25; I = 26%).
CONCLUSIONS
Two non-pharmacological interventions are likely to reduce CSA-AKI incidence, with moderate quality of evidence: goal-directed perfusion and remote ischemic preconditioning.
Topics: Child; Humans; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Acute Kidney Injury; Anesthesia; Anesthesiology; Cardiopulmonary Bypass
PubMed: 37700297
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04640-1 -
Medicine Sep 2023To provide evidence for medical management of tinnitus based on an assessment of the evidence concerning the effectiveness of acupuncture as a treatment for tinnitus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To provide evidence for medical management of tinnitus based on an assessment of the evidence concerning the effectiveness of acupuncture as a treatment for tinnitus using network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature review by searching 8 national and international databases (inception to February 2023) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for tinnitus. Only RCTs that recruited participants aged over 18 and diagnosed with tinnitus, and that evaluated acupuncture or acupuncture in combination with conventional western medical therapy were included. We used response rate and tinnitus handicap inventory (THI) to examine efficacy. We conducted NMA with random effects, and the rate ratio or mean difference with its 95% credible interval was calculated. In addition, we ranked all treatments via their SUCRA and assessed the quality of evidence according to the GRADE criteria.
RESULTS
A total of 2575 patients were included in the study. The main findings of the current NMA were that acupoint injection combined with warm acupuncture was the most effective for response rate, followed by warm acupuncture and acupoint injection combined with western medical treatment. Acupuncture combined with western medical treatment was the most effective for THI, followed by electroacupuncture combined with warm acupuncture and acupuncture combined with moxibustion.
CONCLUSION
Acupuncture seems to be a better trend treatment for tinnitus. Further rigorous RCT studies that include direct comparisons for different acupuncture-related treatments are encouraged to provide the most promising evidence for patients with tinnitus.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
CRD42023398745.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Adult; Tinnitus; Network Meta-Analysis; Acupuncture Therapy; Electroacupuncture; Moxibustion
PubMed: 37773876
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000035019 -
Chest Oct 2023IV fluids are recommended for adults with sepsis. However, the optimal strategy for IV fluid management in sepsis is unknown, and clinical equipoise exists.
BACKGROUND
IV fluids are recommended for adults with sepsis. However, the optimal strategy for IV fluid management in sepsis is unknown, and clinical equipoise exists.
RESEARCH QUESTION
Do lower vs higher fluid volumes improve patient-important outcomes in adult patients with sepsis?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
We updated a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials assessing lower vs higher IV fluid volumes in adult patients with sepsis. The coprimary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. We followed the recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Primary conclusions were based on trials with low risk of bias if available.
RESULTS
We included 13 trials (N = 4,006) with four trials (n = 3,385) added to this update. The meta-analysis of all-cause mortality in eight trials with low risk of bias showed a relative risk of 0.99 (97% CI, 0.89-1.10; moderate certainty evidence). Six trials with predefined definitions of serious adverse events showed a relative risk of 0.95 (97% CI, 0.83-1.07; low certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life was not reported.
INTERPRETATION
Among adult patients with sepsis, lower IV fluid volumes probably result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality compared with higher IV fluid volumes, but the interpretation is limited by imprecision in the estimate, which does not exclude potential benefit or harm. Similarly, the evidence suggests lower IV fluid volumes result in little to no difference in serious adverse events. No trials reported on health-related quality of life.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO; No.: CRD42022312572; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.
PubMed: 37142091
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.04.036 -
BMJ Open Jan 2024The objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of opioids and cannabis for medical use for chronic non-cancer pain. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of opioids and cannabis for medical use for chronic non-cancer pain.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to March 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised trials comparing any type of cannabis for medical use or opioids, against each other or placebo, with patient follow-up ≥4 weeks.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Paired reviewers independently extracted data. We used Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence and communicate our findings.
RESULTS
Ninety trials involving 22 028 patients were eligible for review, among which the length of follow-up ranged from 28 to 180 days. Moderate certainty evidence showed that opioids provide small improvements in pain, physical functioning and sleep quality versus placebo; low to moderate certainty evidence supported similar effects for cannabis versus placebo. Neither was more effective than placebo for role, social or emotional functioning (all high to moderate certainty evidence). Moderate certainty evidence showed there is probably little to no difference between cannabis for medical use and opioids for physical functioning (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.47 on the 100-point 36-item Short Form Survey physical component summary score, 95% credible interval (CrI) -1.97 to 2.99), and cannabis resulted in fewer discontinuations due to adverse events versus opioids (OR 0.55, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.83). Low certainty evidence suggested little to no difference between cannabis and opioids for pain relief (WMD 0.23 cm on a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), 95% CrI -0.06 to 0.53) or sleep quality (WMD 0.49 mm on a 100 mm VAS, 95% CrI -4.72 to 5.59).
CONCLUSIONS
Cannabis for medical use may be similarly effective and result in fewer discontinuations than opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020185184.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Bayes Theorem; Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists; Cannabis; Chronic Pain; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38171632
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068182