-
Systematic Reviews Jan 2022Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) has gained popularity among the general population, but its acceptance and use among medical specialists have been...
BACKGROUND
Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) has gained popularity among the general population, but its acceptance and use among medical specialists have been inconclusive. This systematic review aimed to identify relevant studies and synthesize survey data on the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Scopus databases for the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists. Each article was assessed by two screeners. Only survey studies relevant to the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists were reviewed. The pooled prevalence estimates were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. This review followed both PRISMA and SWiM guidelines.
RESULTS
Of 5628 articles published between 2002 and 2017, 25 fulfilled the selection criteria. Ten medical specialties were included: Internal Medicine (11 studies), Pediatrics (6 studies), Obstetrics and Gynecology (6 studies), Anesthesiology (4 studies), Surgery (3 studies), Family Medicine (3 studies), Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (3 studies), Psychiatry and Neurology (2 studies), Otolaryngology (1 study), and Neurological Surgery (1 study). The overall acceptance of CAM was 52% (95%CI, 42-62%). Family Medicine reported the highest acceptance, followed by Psychiatry and Neurology, Neurological Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatrics, Anesthesiology, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Internal Medicine, and Surgery. The overall use of CAM was 45% (95% CI, 37-54%). The highest use of CAM was by the Obstetrics and Gynecology, followed by Family Medicine, Psychiatry and Neurology, Pediatrics, Otolaryngology, Anesthesiology, Internal Medicine, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and Surgery. Based on the studies, meta-regression showed no statistically significant difference across geographic regions, economic levels of the country, or sampling methods.
CONCLUSION
Acceptance and use of CAM varied across medical specialists. CAM was accepted and used the most by Family Medicine but the least by Surgery. Findings from this systematic review could be useful for strategic harmonization of CAM and conventional medicine practice.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019125628.
Topics: Child; Complementary Therapies; Humans; Neurology; Obstetrics; Psychiatry
PubMed: 35027078
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01882-4 -
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Feb 2024The optimal dose of dexamethasone for severe/critical COVID-19 is uncertain. We compared higher versus standard doses of dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The optimal dose of dexamethasone for severe/critical COVID-19 is uncertain. We compared higher versus standard doses of dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and hypoxia.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and trial registers until 23 June 2023 for randomised clinical trials comparing higher (>6 mg) versus standard doses (6 mg) of dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and hypoxia. The primary outcome was mortality at 1 month. Secondary outcomes were mortality closest to 90 days; days alive without life support; and the occurrence of serious adverse events/reactions (SAEs/SARs) closest to 1 month. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB2 tool, risk of random errors using trial sequential analysis, and certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
RESULTS
We included eight trials (2478 participants), of which four (1293 participants) had low risk of bias. Higher doses of dexamethasone probably resulted in little to no difference in mortality at 1 month (relative risk [RR] 0.97, 95% CI: 0.79-1.19), mortality closest to Day 90 (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86-1.20), and SAEs/SARs (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.97-1.02). Higher doses of dexamethasone probably increased the number of days alive without invasive mechanical ventilation and circulatory support but had no effect on days alive without renal replacement therapy.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on low to moderate certainty evidence, higher versus standard doses of dexamethasone probably result in little to no difference in mortality, SAEs/SARs, and days alive without renal replacement therapy, but probably increase the number of days alive without invasive mechanical ventilation and circulatory support.
Topics: Adult; Humans; COVID-19; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Patients; Dexamethasone; Hypoxia
PubMed: 37881881
DOI: 10.1111/aas.14346 -
Anaesthesia Sep 2023Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic drug that is widely used during surgery, but there are concerns about its thromboembolic effects. We aimed to investigate the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic drug that is widely used during surgery, but there are concerns about its thromboembolic effects. We aimed to investigate the effect of prophylactic intravenous tranexamic acid on thromboembolic outcomes in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous tranexamic acid with placebo or no treatment in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery were included. The primary outcome was a composite of peri-operative cardiovascular thromboembolic events, defined as any deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial ischaemia/infarction or cerebral ischaemia/infarction. A total of 191 randomised controlled trials (40,621 patients) were included in the review. The primary outcome occurred in 4.5% of patients receiving intravenous tranexamic acid compared with 4.9% of patients in the control group. Our analysis showed that there was no difference between groups for composite cardiovascular thromboembolic events (risk ratio 1.02, 95%CI 0.94-1.11, p = 0.65, I 0%, n = 37,512). This finding remained robust when sensitivity analysis was performed with continuity correction and in studies with a low risk of bias. However, in trial sequential analysis, our meta-analysis only achieved 64.6% of the required information size. There was no association between intravenous tranexamic acid and seizure rate or mortality rate within 30 days. Intravenous tranexamic acid was associated with a reduced blood transfusion rate compared with control (9.9% vs. 19.4%, risk ratio 0.46, 95%CI 0.41-0.51, p < 0.0001). It was encouraging to see the evidence that the administration of intravenous tranexamic in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery was not associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic outcomes. However, our trial sequential analysis demonstrated that currently available evidence is not yet sufficient to reach a firm conclusion.
Topics: Humans; Tranexamic Acid; Antifibrinolytic Agents; Thromboembolism; Blood Transfusion; Myocardial Infarction; Blood Loss, Surgical
PubMed: 37314744
DOI: 10.1111/anae.16058 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Dec 2022Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is associated with perioperative stroke in noncardiac surgery. The magnitude of this association was assessed in a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is associated with perioperative stroke in noncardiac surgery. The magnitude of this association was assessed in a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched up to June 2022 for studies assessing the association between patent foramen ovale and perioperative stroke in adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. The primary analysis was limited to studies reporting effect estimates adjusted for significant clinical confounders. We calculated the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
We included nine retrospective and two prospective observational studies, including 21 257 082 patients. The presence of a patent foramen ovale was independently associated with stroke at 30 days after surgery (aOR=6.68 [95% CI: 3.51-12.73]; P<0.001) and at longest follow-up available (aOR=7.36 [95% CI: 3.56-15.21]; P<0.001). The odds of stroke at 30 days varied according to surgical specialty: neurosurgery (aOR=4.52 [95% CI: 3.17-6.43]), vascular surgery (aOR=7.15 [95% CI: 2.52-20.22]), thoracic surgery (aOR=10.64 [95% CI: 5.97-18.98]), orthopaedic surgery (aOR=11.85 [95% CI: 5.38-26.08]), general surgery (aOR=14.40 [95% CI: 10.88-19.06]), and genitourinary surgery (aOR=17.28 [95% CI: 10.36-28.84]).
CONCLUSIONS
The presence of a patent foramen ovale is associated with a large and consistent increase in odds of stroke across all explored surgical settings. Prospective trials should further explore this association by systematically assessing patent foramen ovale and stroke prevalence and identifying a specific population at risk. This is crucial for the elaboration of prevention plans and may improve perioperative outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Foramen Ovale, Patent; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Stroke; Neurosurgical Procedures; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 35987705
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.06.036 -
Anesthesiology Dec 2023Postsurgical pain is a key component of surgical recovery. However, the genetic drivers of postsurgical pain remain unclear. A broad review and meta-analyses of variants... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postsurgical pain is a key component of surgical recovery. However, the genetic drivers of postsurgical pain remain unclear. A broad review and meta-analyses of variants of interest will help investigators understand the potential effects of genetic variation.
METHODS
This article is a systematic review of genetic variants associated with postsurgical pain in humans, assessing association with postsurgical pain scores and opioid use in both acute (0 to 48 h postoperatively) and chronic (at least 3 months postoperatively) settings. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 2000 to 2022 for studies using search terms related to genetic variants and postsurgical pain in humans. English-language studies in adult patients examining associations of one or more genetic variants with postsurgical pain were included. The primary outcome was association of genetic variants with either acute or chronic postsurgical pain. Pain was measured by patient-reported pain score or analgesic or opioid consumption.
RESULTS
A total of 163 studies were included, evaluating 129 unique genes and 594 unique genetic variants. Many of the reported significant associations fail to be replicated in other studies. Meta-analyses were performed for seven variants for which there was sufficient data (OPRM1 rs1799971; COMT rs4680, rs4818, rs4633, and rs6269; and ABCB1 rs1045642 and rs2032582). Only two variants were associated with small differences in postsurgical pain: OPRM1 rs1799971 (for acute postsurgical opioid use standard mean difference = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.35; cohort size, 8,227; acute postsurgical pain score standard mean difference = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.31; cohort size, 4,619) and COMT rs4680 (chronic postsurgical pain score standard mean difference = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.44; cohort size, 1,726).
CONCLUSIONS
Despite much published data, only two alleles have a small association with postsurgical pain. Small sample sizes, potential confounding variables, and inconsistent findings underscore the need to examine larger cohorts with consistent outcome measures.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesics
PubMed: 37774411
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000004677 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. So far, systemic corticosteroids are one of the few treatment options for COVID-19. Nonetheless, size of effect, certainty of the evidence, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 16 April 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, participant age, gender or ethnicity. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids. We included the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo), dose comparisons, timing comparisons (early versus late), different types of corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome or Middle East respiratory syndrome), corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, ventilator-free days, new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events, and hospital-acquired infections.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 RCTs in 8075 participants, of whom 7041 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 3072 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 2322). We also identified 42 ongoing studies and 16 studies reported as being completed or terminated in a study registry, but without results yet. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 10 RCTs (7989 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analysis included outcome data from nine studies. All-cause mortality (at longest follow-up available): systemic corticosteroids plus standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality slightly in people with COVID-19 compared to standard care alone (median 28 days: risk difference of 30 in 1000 participants fewer than the control group rate of 275 in 1000 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.00; 9 RCTs, 7930 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Ventilator-free days: corticosteroids may increase ventilator-free days (MD 2.6 days more than control group rate of 4 days, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.53; 1 RCT, 299 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ventilator-free days have inherent limitations as a composite endpoint and should be interpreted with caution. New need for invasive ventilation: the evidence is of very low certainty. Because of high risk of bias arising from deaths that occurred before ventilation we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics. Quality of life/neurological outcome: no data were available. Serious adverse events: we included data on two RCTs (678 participants) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids compared to standard care (plus/minus placebo); for adverse events and hospital-acquired infections, we included data on five RCTs (660 participants). Because of high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics (very low-certainty evidence). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one study that compared methylprednisolone with dexamethasone. The evidence for mortality and new need for invasive mechanical ventilation is very low certainty due to the small number of participants (n = 86). No data were available for the other outcomes. We did not identify comparisons of different dosages or timing. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease Currently, there are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may also be a reduction in ventilator-free days. Since we are unable to adjust for the impact of early death on subsequent endpoints, the findings for ventilation outcomes and harms have limited applicability to inform treatment decisions. Currently, there is no evidence for asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). There is an urgent need for good-quality evidence for specific subgroups of disease severity, for which we propose level of respiratory support at randomisation. This applies to the comparison or subgroups of different types and doses of corticosteroids, too. Outcomes apart from mortality should be measured and analysed appropriately taking into account confounding through death if applicable. We identified 42 ongoing and 16 completed but not published RCTs in trials registries suggesting possible changes of effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future. Most ongoing studies target people who need respiratory support at baseline. With the living approach of this review, we will continue to update our search and include eligible trials and published data.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; COVID-19; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34396514
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014963 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Apr 2022The relicensing of aprotinin in Europe and Canada has stimulated discussions on its usefulness in paediatric cardiac surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The relicensing of aprotinin in Europe and Canada has stimulated discussions on its usefulness in paediatric cardiac surgery.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically evaluate the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of aprotinin in paediatric cardiac surgery.
DESIGN
Systematic review of all randomised and observational studies comparing aprotinin with tranexamic acid, epsilon aminocaproic acid, placebo or no drug in paediatric cardiac surgery. Meta-analyses were performed on efficacy and safety outcomes.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and Embase were searched from January 2000 to March 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Studies that enrolled children under 18 years undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies enrolling a total of 63 894 paediatric cardiac procedures were included. Aprotinin significantly reduced total blood loss [mean difference -4.70 ml kg-1, 95% confidence interval (CI), -7.88 to -1.53; P = 0.004], postoperative transfusion requirements and the incidence of surgical re-exploration for bleeding [odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97; P = 0.03]. Aprotinin had no effects on 30-day mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.11; P = 0.73) and on other safety outcomes, except for the incidence of renal replacement therapy (RRT), which was significantly increased in patients given aprotinin (OR 1.29, 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.54; P = 0.006). Findings from observational and randomised controlled trials did not largely differ. A sub-group analysis in neonates showed that aprotinin significantly reduced packed red blood cell transfusions and the incidence of postoperative surgical re-exploration for bleeding and/or tamponade. When compared with lysine analogues, aprotinin was more effective at reducing bleeding and transfusion without increasing the risk of side effects.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis suggests that aprotinin is effective and well tolerated in paediatric cardiac surgery. Given the large heterogeneity of the results and the risk of selection bias in observational studies, large randomised controlled trials are warranted.
Topics: Adolescent; Antifibrinolytic Agents; Aprotinin; Blood Loss, Surgical; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Child; Humans; Tranexamic Acid
PubMed: 34783684
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001632 -
BJA Open Jun 2024Local anaesthetics are widely used for their analgesic and anaesthetic properties in the perioperative setting, including surgical procedures to excise malignant... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Local anaesthetics are widely used for their analgesic and anaesthetic properties in the perioperative setting, including surgical procedures to excise malignant tumours. Simultaneously, chemotherapeutic agents remain a cornerstone of cancer treatment, targeting rapidly dividing cancer cells to inhibit tumour growth. The potential interactions between these two drug classes have drawn increasing attention and there are oncological surgical contexts where their combined use could be considered. This review examines existing evidence regarding the interactions between local anaesthetics and chemotherapeutic agents, including biological mechanisms and clinical implications.
METHODS
A systematic search of electronic databases was performed as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Selection criteria were designed to capture , , and clinical studies assessing interactions between local anaesthetics and a wide variety of chemotherapeutic agents. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The data were synthesised using a narrative approach because of the anticipated heterogeneity of included studies.
RESULTS
Initial searches yielded 1225 relevant articles for screening, of which 43 met the inclusion criteria. The interactions between local anaesthetics and chemotherapeutic agents were diverse and multifaceted. studies frequently demonstrated altered cytotoxicity profiles when these agents were combined, with variations depending on the specific drug combination and cancer cell type. Mechanistically, some interactions were attributed to modifications in efflux pump activity, tumour suppressor gene expression, or alterations in cellular signalling pathways associated with tumour promotion. A large majority of studies report potentially beneficial effects of local anaesthetics in terms of enhancing the antineoplastic activity of chemotherapeutic agents. In animal models, the combined administration of local anaesthetics and chemotherapeutic agents showed largely beneficial effects on tumour growth, metastasis, and overall survival. Notably, no clinical study examining the possible interactions of local anaesthetics and chemotherapy on cancer outcomes has been reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Reported preclinical interactions between local anaesthetics and chemotherapeutic agents are complex and encompass a spectrum of effects which are largely, although not uniformly, additive or synergistic. The clinical implications of these interactions remain unclear because of the lack of prospective trials. Nonetheless, the modulation of chemotherapy effects by local anaesthetics warrants further clinical investigation in the context of cancer surgery where they could be used together.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
Open Science Framework (OSF, project link: https://osf.io/r2u4z).
PubMed: 38741694
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjao.2024.100284 -
BMJ Open Sep 2021Overview on risks of acupuncture-related adverse events (AEs). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Overview on risks of acupuncture-related adverse events (AEs).
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analyses of prospective studies.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Scopus and Embase from inception date to 15 September 2019.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Prospective studies assessing AEs caused by needle acupuncture in humans as primary outcome published in English or German.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two independent researchers selected articles, extracted the data and assessed study quality. Overall risks and risks for different AE categories were obtained from random effects meta-analyses.
MAIN OUTCOMES
Overall risk of minor AEs and serious adverse events (SAEs) per patients and per treatments.
RESULTS
A total of 7679 publications were identified. Twenty-two articles reporting on 21 studies were included. Meta-analyses suggest at least one AE occurring in 9.31% (95% CI 5.10% to 14.62%, 11 studies) of patients undergoing an acupuncture series and in 7.57% (95% CI 1.43% to 17.95%, 5 studies) of treatments. Summary risk estimates for SAEs were 1.01 (95% CI 0.23 to 2.33, 11 studies) per 10 000 patients and 7.98 (95% CI 1.39 to 20.00, 14 studies) per one million treatments, for AEs requiring treatment 1.14 (95% CI 0.00 to 7.37, 8 studies) per 1000 patients. Heterogeneity was substantial (I >80%). On average, 9.4 AEs occurred in 100 treatments. Half of the AEs were bleeding, pain or flare at the needle site that are argued to represent intended acupuncture reaction. AE definitions and assessments varied largely.
CONCLUSION
Acupuncture can be considered among the safer treatments in medicine. SAEs are rare, and the most common minor AEs are very mild. AEs requiring medical management are uncommon but necessitate medical competence to assure patient safety. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity call for standardised AE assessments tools, clear criteria for differentiating acupuncture-related AEs from therapeutically desired reactions, and identification of patient-related risk factors for AEs.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020151930.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Humans; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 34489268
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045961 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jan 2023Sedation techniques and drugs are increasingly used in children undergoing imaging procedures. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we present an overview of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sedation techniques and drugs are increasingly used in children undergoing imaging procedures. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we present an overview of literature concerning sedation of children aged 0-8 yr for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedures using needle-free pharmacological techniques.
METHODS
Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies on the use of needle-free pharmacological sedation techniques for MRI procedures in children aged 0-8 yr. Studies using i.v. or i.m. medication or advanced airway devices were excluded. We performed a meta-analysis on sedation success rate. Secondary outcomes were onset time, duration, recovery, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Sixty-seven studies were included, with 22 380 participants. The pooled success rate for oral chloral hydrate was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-0.96); for oral chloral hydrate and intranasal dexmedetomidine 95% (95% CI: 0.92-0.97); for rectal, oral, or intranasal midazolam 36% (95% CI: 0.14-0.65); for oral pentobarbital 99% (95% CI: 0.90-1.00); for rectal thiopental 92% (95% CI: 0.85-0.96); for oral melatonin 75% (95% CI: 0.54-0.89); for intranasal dexmedetomidine 62% (95% CI: 0.38-0.82); for intranasal dexmedetomidine and midazolam 94% (95% CI: 0.78-0.99); and for inhaled sevoflurane 98% (95% CI: 0.97-0.99).
CONCLUSIONS
We found a large variation in medication, dosage, and route of administration for needle-free sedation. Success rates for sedation techniques varied between 36% and 98%.
Topics: Child; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Dexmedetomidine; Administration, Oral; Chloral Hydrate; Administration, Intranasal; Conscious Sedation
PubMed: 36283870
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.09.007