-
Anaesthesia Mar 2023The effects of dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing cardiac surgery are inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyse the effects of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The effects of dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing cardiac surgery are inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyse the effects of peri-operative dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing cardiac surgery. We searched MEDLINE via Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane for relevant randomised controlled trials between 1 January 1990 and 1 March 2022. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology checklist to assess study quality and the GRADE approach to certainty of evidence. We assessed the sensitivity of results to false data. We used random-effects meta-analyses to analyse the primary outcomes: durations of intensive care and tracheal intubation. We included 48 trials of 6273 participants. Dexmedetomidine reduced the mean (95%CI) duration of intensive care by 5.0 (2.2-7.7) h, p = 0.001, and tracheal intubation by 1.6 (0.6-2.7) h, p = 0.003. The relative risk (95%CI) for postoperative delirium was 0.58 (0.43-0.78), p = 0.001; 0.76 (0.61-0.95) for atrial fibrillation, p = 0.015; and 0.49 (0.25-0.97) for short-term mortality, p = 0.041. Bradycardia and hypotension were not significantly affected. Trial sequential analysis was consistent with the primary meta-analysis. Adjustments for possible false data reduced the mean (95%CI) reduction in duration of intensive care and tracheal intubation by dexmedetomidine to 3.6 (1.8-5.4) h and 0.8 (0.2-1.4) h, respectively. Binary adjustment for methodological quality at a Joanna Briggs Institute score threshold of 10 did not alter the results significantly. In summary, peri-operative dexmedetomidine reduced the durations of intensive care and tracheal intubation and the incidence of short-term mortality after adult cardiac surgery. The reductions in intensive care stay and tracheal intubation may or may not be considered clinically useful, particularly after adjustment for possible false data.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Emergence Delirium; Critical Care; Bradycardia
PubMed: 36535747
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15947 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Oct 2022Guidelines have recommended the use of dexmedetomidine or propofol for sedation after cardiac surgery, and propofol monotherapy for other patients. Further outcome data... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Outcomes of dexmedetomidine versus propofol sedation in critically ill adults requiring mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Guidelines have recommended the use of dexmedetomidine or propofol for sedation after cardiac surgery, and propofol monotherapy for other patients. Further outcome data are required for these drugs.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was prospectively registered on PROSPERO. The primary outcome was ICU length of stay. Secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU delirium, all-cause mortality, and haemodynamic effects. Intensive care patients were analysed separately as cardiac surgical, medical/noncardiac surgical, those with sepsis, and patients in neurocritical care. Subgroup analyses based on age and dosage were conducted.
RESULTS
Forty-one trials (N=3948) were included. Dexmedetomidine did not significantly affect ICU length of stay across any ICU patient subtype when compared with propofol, but it reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -0.67 h; 95% confidence interval: -1.31 to -0.03 h; P=0.041; low certainty) and the risk of ICU delirium (risk ratio 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.29-0.87; P=0.019; high certainty) across cardiac surgical patients. Dexmedetomidine was also associated with a greater risk of bradycardia across a variety of ICU patients. Subgroup analyses revealed that age might affect the incidence of haemodynamic side-effects and mortality among cardiac surgical and medical/other surgical patients.
CONCLUSION
Dexmedetomidine did not significantly impact ICU length of stay compared with propofol, but it significantly reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation and the risk of delirium in cardiac surgical patients. It also significantly increased the risk of bradycardia across ICU patient subsets.
Topics: Adult; Bradycardia; Critical Illness; Delirium; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Intensive Care Units; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 35961815
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.06.020 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Jul 2020Before the COVID-19 pandemic, coronaviruses caused two noteworthy outbreaks: severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), starting in 2002, and Middle East respiratory... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations associated with severe coronavirus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis with comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic.
BACKGROUND
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, coronaviruses caused two noteworthy outbreaks: severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), starting in 2002, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), starting in 2012. We aimed to assess the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases (from their inception until March 18, 2020), and medRxiv, bioRxiv, and PsyArXiv (between Jan 1, 2020, and April 10, 2020) were searched by two independent researchers for all English-language studies or preprints reporting data on the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations of individuals with suspected or laboratory-confirmed coronavirus infection (SARS coronavirus, MERS coronavirus, or SARS coronavirus 2). We excluded studies limited to neurological complications without specified neuropsychiatric presentations and those investigating the indirect effects of coronavirus infections on the mental health of people who are not infected, such as those mediated through physical distancing measures such as self-isolation or quarantine. Outcomes were psychiatric signs or symptoms; symptom severity; diagnoses based on ICD-10, DSM-IV, or the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (third edition) or psychometric scales; quality of life; and employment. Both the systematic review and the meta-analysis stratified outcomes across illness stages (acute vs post-illness) for SARS and MERS. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis, and the meta-analytical effect size was prevalence for relevant outcomes, I statistics, and assessment of study quality.
FINDINGS
1963 studies and 87 preprints were identified by the systematic search, of which 65 peer-reviewed studies and seven preprints met inclusion criteria. The number of coronavirus cases of the included studies was 3559, ranging from 1 to 997, and the mean age of participants in studies ranged from 12·2 years (SD 4·1) to 68·0 years (single case report). Studies were from China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Canada, Saudi Arabia, France, Japan, Singapore, the UK, and the USA. Follow-up time for the post-illness studies varied between 60 days and 12 years. The systematic review revealed that during the acute illness, common symptoms among patients admitted to hospital for SARS or MERS included confusion (36 [27·9%; 95% CI 20·5-36·0] of 129 patients), depressed mood (42 [32·6%; 24·7-40·9] of 129), anxiety (46 [35·7%; 27·6-44·2] of 129), impaired memory (44 [34·1%; 26·2-42·5] of 129), and insomnia (54 [41·9%; 22·5-50·5] of 129). Steroid-induced mania and psychosis were reported in 13 (0·7%) of 1744 patients with SARS in the acute stage in one study. In the post-illness stage, depressed mood (35 [10·5%; 95% CI 7·5-14·1] of 332 patients), insomnia (34 [12·1%; 8·6-16·3] of 280), anxiety (21 [12·3%; 7·7-17·7] of 171), irritability (28 [12·8%; 8·7-17·6] of 218), memory impairment (44 [18·9%; 14·1-24·2] of 233), fatigue (61 [19·3%; 15·1-23·9] of 316), and in one study traumatic memories (55 [30·4%; 23·9-37·3] of 181) and sleep disorder (14 [100·0%; 88·0-100·0] of 14) were frequently reported. The meta-analysis indicated that in the post-illness stage the point prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder was 32·2% (95% CI 23·7-42·0; 121 of 402 cases from four studies), that of depression was 14·9% (12·1-18·2; 77 of 517 cases from five studies), and that of anxiety disorders was 14·8% (11·1-19·4; 42 of 284 cases from three studies). 446 (76·9%; 95% CI 68·1-84·6) of 580 patients from six studies had returned to work at a mean follow-up time of 35·3 months (SD 40·1). When data for patients with COVID-19 were examined (including preprint data), there was evidence for delirium (confusion in 26 [65%] of 40 intensive care unit patients and agitation in 40 [69%] of 58 intensive care unit patients in one study, and altered consciousness in 17 [21%] of 82 patients who subsequently died in another study). At discharge, 15 (33%) of 45 patients with COVID-19 who were assessed had a dysexecutive syndrome in one study. At the time of writing, there were two reports of hypoxic encephalopathy and one report of encephalitis. 68 (94%) of the 72 studies were of either low or medium quality.
INTERPRETATION
If infection with SARS-CoV-2 follows a similar course to that with SARS-CoV or MERS-CoV, most patients should recover without experiencing mental illness. SARS-CoV-2 might cause delirium in a significant proportion of patients in the acute stage. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of depression, anxiety, fatigue, post-traumatic stress disorder, and rarer neuropsychiatric syndromes in the longer term.
FUNDING
Wellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and University College London.
Topics: COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Fatigue; Humans; Mental Disorders; Nervous System Diseases; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
PubMed: 32437679
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30203-0 -
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 -
European Journal of Medical Research Mar 2023Studies suggest that high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) can prevent reintubation in critically ill patients with a low risk of extubation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in patients at high risk of extubation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Studies suggest that high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) can prevent reintubation in critically ill patients with a low risk of extubation failure. However, the safety and effectiveness in patients at high risk of extubation failure are still debated. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacies of HFNC and NIV in high-risk patients.
METHODS
We searched eight databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan-Fang Database, and Chinese Biological Medical Database) with reintubation as a primary outcome measure. The secondary outcomes included mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), incidence of adverse events, and respiratory function indices. Statistical data analysis was performed using RevMan software.
RESULTS
Thirteen randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 1457 patients were included. The HFNC and NIV groups showed no differences in reintubation (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87-1.40, I = 0%, P = 0.42), mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82-1.46, I = 0%, P = 0.54), and respiratory function indices (partial pressure of carbon dioxide [PaCO]: MD - 1.31, 95% CI - 2.76-0.13, I = 81%, P = 0.07; oxygenation index [P/F]: MD - 2.18, 95% CI - 8.49-4.13, I = 57%, P = 0.50; respiratory rate [Rr]: MD - 0.50, 95% CI - 1.88-0.88, I = 80%, P = 0.47). However, HFNC reduced adverse events (abdominal distension: RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04-0.24, I = 0%, P < 0.01; aspiration: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09-1.07, I = 0%, P = 0.06; facial injury: RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.88, I = 0%, P = 0.03; delirium: RR 0.30, 95%CI 0.07-1.39, I = 0%, P = 0.12; pulmonary complications: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.99, I = 0%, P = 0.05; intolerance: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.57, I = 0%, P < 0.01) and may have shortened LOS (MD - 1.03, 95% CI - 1.86-- 0.20, I = 93%, P = 0.02). Subgroup analysis by language, extubation method, NIV parameter settings, and HFNC flow rate revealed higher heterogeneity in LOS, PaCO, and Rr.
CONCLUSIONS
In adult patients at a high risk of extubation failure, HFNC reduced the incidence of adverse events but did not affect reintubation and mortality. Consequently, whether or not HFNC can reduce LOS and improve respiratory function remains inconclusive.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Cannula; Noninvasive Ventilation; Airway Extubation; Intensive Care Units; Intubation, Intratracheal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36915204
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-023-01076-9 -
Age and Ageing Jun 2023Postoperative delirium (POD) is a frequent complication in older adults, characterised by disturbances in attention, awareness and cognition, and associated with...
BACKGROUND
Postoperative delirium (POD) is a frequent complication in older adults, characterised by disturbances in attention, awareness and cognition, and associated with prolonged hospitalisation, poor functional recovery, cognitive decline, long-term dementia and increased mortality. Early identification of patients at risk of POD can considerably aid prevention.
METHODS
We have developed a preoperative POD risk prediction algorithm using data from eight studies identified during a systematic review and providing individual-level data. Ten-fold cross-validation was used for predictor selection and internal validation of the final penalised logistic regression model. The external validation used data from university hospitals in Switzerland and Germany.
RESULTS
Development included 2,250 surgical (excluding cardiac and intracranial) patients 60 years of age or older, 444 of whom developed POD. The final model included age, body mass index, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score, history of delirium, cognitive impairment, medications, optional C-reactive protein (CRP), surgical risk and whether the operation is a laparotomy/thoracotomy. At internal validation, the algorithm had an AUC of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.77-0.82) with CRP and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.77-0.82) without CRP. The external validation consisted of 359 patients, 87 of whom developed POD. The external validation yielded an AUC of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.68-0.80).
CONCLUSIONS
The algorithm is named PIPRA (Pre-Interventional Preventive Risk Assessment), has European conformity (ce) certification, is available at http://pipra.ch/ and is accepted for clinical use. It can be used to optimise patient care and prioritise interventions for vulnerable patients and presents an effective way to implement POD prevention strategies in clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Emergence Delirium; Delirium; Risk Factors; Postoperative Complications; Risk Assessment; C-Reactive Protein
PubMed: 37290122
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afad086 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Although delirium is typically an acute reversible cognitive impairment, its presence is associated with devastating impact on both short-term and long-term outcomes for...
BACKGROUND
Although delirium is typically an acute reversible cognitive impairment, its presence is associated with devastating impact on both short-term and long-term outcomes for critically ill patients. Advances in our understanding of the negative impact of delirium on patient outcomes have prompted trials evaluating multiple pharmacological interventions. However, considerable uncertainty surrounds the relative benefits and safety of available pharmacological interventions for this population.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective1. To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for treatment of delirium on duration of delirium in critically ill adults with confirmed or documented high risk of deliriumSecondary objectivesTo assess the following:1. effects of pharmacological interventions on delirium-free and coma-free days; days with coma; delirium relapse; duration of mechanical ventilation; intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay; mortality; and long-term outcomes (e.g. cognitive; discharge disposition; health-related quality of life); and2. the safety of such treatments for critically ill adult patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases from their inception date to 21 March 2019: Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid MEDLINE® In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase Classic+Embase, and PsycINFO using the Ovid platform. We also searched the Cochrane Library on Wiley, the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Science. We performed a grey literature search of relevant databases and websites using the resources listed in Grey Matters developed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). We also searched trial registries and abstracts from annual scientific critical care and delirium society meetings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including quasi-RCTs, of any pharmacological (drug) for treatment of delirium in critically ill adults. The drug intervention was to be compared to another active drug treatment, placebo, or a non-pharmacological intervention (e.g. mobilization). We did not apply any restrictions in terms of drug class, dose, route of administration, or duration of delirium or drug exposure. We defined critically ill patients as those treated in an ICU of any specialty (e.g. burn, cardiac, medical, surgical, trauma) or high-dependency unit.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified studies from the search results; four review authors (in pairs) performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias independently. We performed data synthesis through pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA). Our hypothetical network structure was designed to be analysed at the drug class level and illustrated a network diagram of 'nodes' (i.e. drug classes) and 'edges' (i.e. comparisons between different drug classes from existing trials), thus describing a treatment network of all possible comparisons between drug classes. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate, or high.
MAIN RESULTS
We screened 7674 citations, from which 14 trials with 1844 participants met our inclusion criteria. Ten RCTs were placebo-controlled, and four reported comparisons of different drugs. Drugs examined in these trials were the following: antipsychotics (n = 10), alpha agonists (n = 3; all dexmedetomidine), statins (n = 2), opioids (n = 1; morphine), serotonin antagonists (n = 1; ondansetron), and cholinesterase (CHE) inhibitors (n = 1; rivastigmine). Only one of these trials consistently used non-pharmacological interventions that are known to improve patient outcomes in both intervention and control groups.Eleven studies (n = 1153 participants) contributed to analysis of the primary outcome. Results of the NMA showed that the intervention with the smallest ratio of means (RoM) (i.e. most preferred) compared with placebo was the alpha agonist dexmedetomidine (0.58; 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.26 to 1.27; surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) 0.895; moderate-quality evidence). In order of descending SUCRA values (best to worst), the next best interventions were atypical antipsychotics (RoM 0.80, 95% CrI 0.50 to 1.11; SUCRA 0.738; moderate-quality evidence), opioids (RoM 0.88, 95% CrI 0.37 to 2.01; SUCRA 0.578; very-low quality evidence), and typical antipsychotics (RoM 0.96, 95% CrI 0.64 to1.36; SUCRA 0.468; high-quality evidence).The NMAs of multiple secondary outcomes revealed that only the alpha agonist dexmedetomidine was associated with a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (RoM 0.55, 95% CrI 0.34 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence), and the CHE inhibitor rivastigmine was associated with a longer ICU stay (RoM 2.19, 95% CrI 1.47 to 3.27; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events often were not reported in these trials or, when reported, were rare; pair-wise analysis of QTc prolongation in seven studies did not show significant differences between antipsychotics, ondansetron, dexmedetomidine, and placebo.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We identified trials of varying quality that examined six different drug classes for treatment of delirium in critically ill adults. We found evidence that the alpha agonist dexmedetomidine may shorten delirium duration, although this small effect (compared with placebo) was seen in pairwise analyses based on a single study and was not seen in the NMA results. Alpha agonists also ranked best for duration of mechanical ventilation and length of ICU stay, whereas the CHE inhibitor rivastigmine was associated with longer ICU stay. We found no evidence of a difference between placebo and any drug in terms of delirium-free and coma-free days, days with coma, physical restraint use, length of stay, long-term cognitive outcomes, or mortality. No studies reported delirium relapse, resolution of symptoms, or quality of life. The ten ongoing studies and the six studies awaiting classification that we identified, once published and assessed, may alter the conclusions of the review.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Critical Illness; Delirium; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31479532
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011749.pub2 -
The American Journal of Emergency... Jan 2022Safe and effective tranquilization of the acutely agitated patient is challenging, and head-to-head comparisons of medications are limited. We aimed to identify the most... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Safe and effective tranquilization of the acutely agitated patient is challenging, and head-to-head comparisons of medications are limited. We aimed to identify the most optimal agent(s) for rapid tranquilization of the severely agitated patient in the emergency department (ED).
METHODS
The protocol for systematic review was registered (PROSPERO; CRD42020212534). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Database/CENTRAL from inception to June 2, 2021. We limited studies to randomized controlled trials that enrolled adult ED patients with severe agitation and compared drugs for rapid tranquilization. Predetermined outcomes were: 1) Adequate sedation within 30 min (effectiveness), 2) Immediate, serious adverse event - cardiac arrest, ventricular tachydysrhythmia, endotracheal intubation, laryngospasm, hypoxemia, hypotension (safety), and 3) Time to adequate sedation (effect onset). We extracted data according to PRISMA-NMA and appraised trials using Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo method with random-effects model and vague prior distribution to calculate odds ratios with 95% credible intervals for dichotomous outcomes and frequentist NMA to calculate mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for continuous outcomes. We assessed confidence in results using CINeMA. We used surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves to rank agent(s) for each outcome.
RESULTS
Eleven studies provided data for effectiveness (1142 patients) and safety (1147 patients). Data was insufficient for effect onset. The NMA found that ketamine (SUCRA = 93.0%) is most likely to have superior effectiveness; droperidol-midazolam (SUCRA = 78.8%) is most likely to be safest. There are concerns with study quality and imprecision. Quality of the point estimates varied for effectiveness but mostly rated "very low" for safety.
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence suggests that ketamine and droperidol have intermediate effectiveness for rapid tranquilization of the severely agitated patient in the ED. There is insufficient evidence to definitively determine which agent(s) may be safest or fastest-acting. Further, direct-comparison study of ketamine and droperidol is recommended.
Topics: Adult; Droperidol; Emergence Delirium; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Ketamine; Network Meta-Analysis; Psychomotor Agitation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34823192
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.11.011 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2023Perioperative disorders of neurocognitive function are a set of heterogeneous conditions, which include transient post-operative delirium (POD) and more prolonged... (Review)
Review
Perioperative disorders of neurocognitive function are a set of heterogeneous conditions, which include transient post-operative delirium (POD) and more prolonged post-operative cognitive dysfunction (POCD). Since the number of annually performed surgical procedures is growing, we should identify which type of anesthesia is safer for preserving neurocognitive function. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of general anesthesia (GA) and regional anesthesia (RA) in patients undergoing surgical procedures under general anesthesia and regional anesthesia. We searched for randomized controlled studies, which studied post-operative cognitive outcomes after general and regional anesthesia in the adult patient population. Thirteen articles with 3633 patients: the RA group consisted of 1823 patients, and the GA group of 1810 patients, who were selected for meta-analysis. The overall effect of the model shows no difference between these two groups in terms of risk for post-operative delirium. The result is insensitive to the exclusion of any study. There was no difference between RA and GA in terms of post-operative cognitive dysfunction. There was no statistically significant difference between GA and RA in the incidence of POD. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of POCD per-protocol analysis, psychomotor/attention tests (preoperative/baseline, post-operative), memory tests (postoperatively, follow up), mini-mental state examination score 24 h postoperatively, post-operative reaction time three months postoperatively, controlled oral word association test, and digit copying test. There were no differences in the incidence of POCD in general and regional anesthesia at one week postoperatively, three months postoperatively, or total events (one week or three months). The incidence of post-operative mortality also did not differ between two groups.
PubMed: 37240655
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12103549 -
Therapeutic Advances in... 2023As an atypical antipsychotic drug, olanzapine is one of the most commonly used drugs for delirium control. There are no systematic evaluations or meta-analyses of the...
BACKGROUND
As an atypical antipsychotic drug, olanzapine is one of the most commonly used drugs for delirium control. There are no systematic evaluations or meta-analyses of the efficacy and safety of olanzapine for delirium control in critically ill adults.
OBJECTIVES
In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of olanzapine for delirium control in critically ill adults in the intensive care unit (ICU).
DATA SOURCES AND METHODS
From inception to October 2022, 12 electronic databases were searched. We retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies of critically ill adults with delirium that compared the effects of olanzapine and other interventions, including routine care (no intervention), nonpharmaceutical interventions and pharmaceutical interventions. The main outcome measures were the (a) relief of delirium symptoms and (b) a decrease in delirium duration. Secondary outcomes were ICU and in-hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, incidence of adverse events, cognitive function, sleep quality, quality of life, mechanical ventilation time, endotracheal intubation rate and delirium recurrence rate. We applied a random effects model.
RESULTS
Data from 10 studies (four RCTs and six retrospective cohort studies) involving 7076 patients (2459 in the olanzapine group and 4617 in the control group) were included. Olanzapine did not effectively relieve delirium symptoms (OR = 1.36, 95% CI [0.83, 2.28], = 0.21), nor did it shorten the duration of delirium [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.04, 1.09], = 0.97] when compared with other interventions. Pooled data from three studies showed that the use of olanzapine reduced the incidence of hypotension (OR = 0.44, 95% CI [0.20, 0.95], = 0.04) compared with other pharmaceuticals. There was no significant difference in other secondary outcomes, including ICU or hospital length of stay, in-hospital mortality, extrapyramidal reactions, QTc interval prolongation, or overall incidence of other adverse reactions. The number of included studies was not sufficient for performing a comparison between olanzapine and no intervention.
CONCLUSION
Compared with other interventions, olanzapine has no advantage in alleviating delirium symptoms and shortening delirium duration in critically ill adults. However, there is some evidence that the rate of hypotension was lower in patients who received olanzapine than in those who received other pharmaceutical interventions. There was a nonsignificant difference in the length of ICU or hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, and other adverse reactions. This study provides reference data for delirium research and clinical drug intervention strategies in critically ill adults.
REGISTRATION
Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42021277232).
PubMed: 36845642
DOI: 10.1177/20451253231152113