-
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders Mar 2024Postoperative delirium is a common and debilitating complication that significantly affects patients and their families. The purpose of this study is to investigate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Postoperative delirium is a common and debilitating complication that significantly affects patients and their families. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether there is an effective sedative that can prevent postoperative delirium while also examining the safety of using sedatives during the perioperative period.
METHODS
The net-meta analysis was used to compare the incidence of postoperative delirium among four sedatives: sevoflurane, propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam. Interventions were ranked according to their surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).
RESULTS
A total of 41 RCT studies involving 6679 patients were analyzed. Dexmedetomidine can effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium than propofol (OR 0.47 95% CI 0.25-0.90), midazolam (OR 0.42 95% CI 0.17-1.00), normal saline (OR 0.42 95% CI 0.33-0.54) and sevoflurane (OR 0.39 95% CI 0.18-0.82). The saline group showed a significantly lower incidence of bradycardia compared to the group receiving dexmedetomidine (OR 0.55 95% CI 0.37-0.80). In cardiac surgery, midazolam (OR 3.34 95%CI 2.04-5.48) and normal saline (OR 2.27 95%CI 1.17-4.39) had a higher rate of postoperative delirium than dexmedetomidine, while in non-cardiac surgery, normal saline (OR 1.98 95%CI 1.44-2.71) was more susceptible to postoperative delirium than dexmedetomidine.
CONCLUSION
Our analysis suggests that dexmedetomidine is an effective sedative in preventing postoperative delirium whether in cardiac surgery or non-cardiac surgery. The preventive effect of dexmedetomidine on postoperative delirium becomes more apparent with longer surgical and extubation times. However, it should be administered with caution as it was found to be associated with bradycardia.
Topics: Humans; Anesthetics; Bradycardia; Dexmedetomidine; Emergence Delirium; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Propofol; Saline Solution; Sevoflurane; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 38448835
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-024-03783-5 -
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Nov 2022An ever-growing body of evidence supports the impact of cytokine modulation on the patient's phenotypic drug response. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze... (Review)
Review
The Cytokine Release Syndrome and/or the Proinflammatory Cytokines as Underlying Mechanisms of Downregulation of Drug Metabolism and Drug Transport: A Systematic Review of the Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Victim Drugs of this Drug-Disease Interaction Under Different Clinical Conditions.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
An ever-growing body of evidence supports the impact of cytokine modulation on the patient's phenotypic drug response. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the clinical studies that assessed the pharmacokinetics of victim drugs of this drug-disease interaction in the presence of different scenarios of cytokine modulation in comparison with baseline conditions.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review by searching the PubMed-MEDLINE database from inception until February 2022 to retrieve prospective and/or retrospective observational studies, population pharmacokinetic studies, phase I studies, and/or case series/reports that investigated the impact of cytokine modulation on the pharmacokinetic behavior of victim drugs. Only studies providing quantitative pharmacokinetic data of victim drugs by comparing normal status versus clinical conditions with documented cytokine modulation or by assessing the influence of anti-inflammatory biological agents on metabolism and/or transport of victim drugs were included.
RESULTS
Overall, 26 studies were included. Rheumatoid arthritis (6/26; 23.1%) and sepsis (5/26; 19.2%) were the two most frequently investigated pro-inflammatory clinical scenarios. The victim drug most frequently assessed was midazolam (14/26; 53.8%; as a probe for cytochrome P450 [CYP] 3A4). Cytokine modulation showed a moderate inhibitory effect on CYP3A4-mediated metabolism (area under the concentration-time curve increase and/or clearance decrease between 1.98-fold and 2.59-fold) and a weak-to-moderate inhibitory effect on CYP1A2, CYP2C9, and CYP2C19-mediated metabolism (in the area under the concentration-time curve increase or clearance decrease between 1.29-fold and 1.97-fold). Anti-interleukin-6 agents showed remarkable activity in counteracting downregulation of CYP3A4-mediated activity (increase in the area under the concentration-time curve between 1.75-fold and 2.56-fold).
CONCLUSIONS
Cytokine modulation may cause moderate or weak-to-moderate downregulation of metabolism/transport of victim drugs, and this may theoretically have relevant clinical consequences.
Topics: Humans; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A; Cytokine Release Syndrome; Cytokines; Down-Regulation; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Drug Interactions
PubMed: 36059001
DOI: 10.1007/s40262-022-01173-8 -
Neurotrauma Reports 2020Intravenous propofol, fentanyl, and midazolam are utilized commonly in critical care for metabolic suppression and anesthesia. The impact of propofol, fentanyl, and...
Intravenous propofol, fentanyl, and midazolam are utilized commonly in critical care for metabolic suppression and anesthesia. The impact of propofol, fentanyl, and midazolam on cerebrovasculature and cerebral blood flow (CBF) is unclear in traumatic brain injury (TBI) and may carry important implications, as care is shifting to focus on cerebrovascular reactivity monitoring/directed therapies. The aim of this study was to perform a scoping review of the literature on the cerebrovascular/CBF effects of propofol, fentanyl, and midazolam in human patients with moderate/severe TBI and animal models with TBI. A search of MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, Global Health, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library from inception to May 2020 was performed. All articles were included pertaining to the administration of propofol, fentanyl, and midazolam, in which the impact on CBF/cerebral vasculature was recorded. We identified 14 studies: 8 that evaluated propofol, 5 that evaluated fentanyl, and 2 that evaluated midazolam. All studies suffered from significant limitations, including: small sample size, and heterogeneous design and measurement techniques. In general, there was no significant change seen in CBF/cerebrovascular response to administration of propofol, fentanyl, or midazolam during experiments where PCO and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were controlled. This review highlights the current knowledge gap surrounding the impact of commonly utilized sedative drugs in TBI care. This work supports the need for dedicated studies, both experimental and human-based, evaluating the impact of these drugs on CBF and cerebrovascular reactivity/response in TBI.
PubMed: 33251530
DOI: 10.1089/neur.2020.0040 -
AAS Open Research 2021Some patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been reported to exhibit neurological symptoms such as seizures and impaired...
Some patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been reported to exhibit neurological symptoms such as seizures and impaired consciousness. Our study reviews reported cases to assess the pharmacological approach to managing seizures in SARS-CoV-2 patients and associated outcomes. A systematic review of case reports on the incidence of seizures following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among patients that reported use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in management was performed by using the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis) guidelines. Databases used included EMBASE, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar. Data was presented as qualitative and descriptive data. In total, 67 articles were selected for full-text assessment, of which 18 were included in the final review. Patients had a median age of 54 years, most of whom were male. Remdisivir, dexamethasone, Laninamivir, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and Lopinavir-ritonavir were common agents used in the management of COVID-19. Most patients presented with either generalized tonic-clonic seizures or status epilepticus. Most patients received levetiracetam as drug choice or as part of their regimen. Other AEDs commonly prescribed included midazolam and sodium valproate. Some patients received no antiepileptic drug therapy. Most of the patients who died had more than one comorbidity. Also, most of the patients who died received COVID-19 treatment drugs. None of the patients who received midazolam as drug choice or as part of their regimen developed recurrent seizures in contrast to patients who received levetiracetam and sodium valproate as drug choice or as part of their regimen. Interestingly, none of the patients who received no AEDs suffered recurrent seizures or died. Standard guidelines for managing seizures in COVID-19 patients may be required. A limitation of this review is that it involved the use of case reports with no controls and a small number of patients.
PubMed: 36419542
DOI: 10.12688/aasopenres.13224.2 -
Cureus Apr 2023Status epilepticus is a neurological emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality with fatal outcomes if not treated well. The goal of this study was to... (Review)
Review
Status epilepticus is a neurological emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality with fatal outcomes if not treated well. The goal of this study was to compare the intramuscular and intravenous treatment of individuals with status epilepticus. A search was performed on Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for articles published in the English language in peer-reviewed publications up to March 1, 2023. Studies were included if the treatment of status epileptics was compared either directly or indirectly between intramuscular and intravenous methods. In addition, relevant papers were manually screened for in the reference lists of the included studies. Non-duplicate articles were identified. Finally, five articles were included in the analysis, of which four were randomized controlled trials and one was a retrospective cohort study. The intramuscular midazolam group's time until the first seizure stopped was significantly shorter than the intravenous diazepam group's time (7.8 versus 11.2 minutes, respectively; p = 0.047). Moreover, the percentage of patients admitted was significantly lower in the intramuscular group than in the intravenous group (p = 0.01), but the lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and the hospital did not differ significantly between the groups. Regarding seizure recurrence, the intramuscular group had fewer incidences of recurrent seizures. Finally, there were no appreciable differences in safety outcomes between the two treatment arms. During the analysis, different outcomes reported after the use of intramuscular and intravenous treatments in managing patients with status epilepticus were categorized. This categorization led to a clear view of the efficacy and safety of intramuscular versus intravenous treatments in managing status epilepticus patients. The information at hand indicates that intramuscular therapy is just as successful as intravenous therapy in treating people with status epilepticus. The availability, adverse effect profile, logistics of administration, cost, and whether it is included in hospital formularies are some of the factors to be taken into consideration when choosing the drug administration technique.
PubMed: 37252570
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.38212 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Mar 2021Although not approved, the α-adrenoceptor agonist clonidine is considered an option for long-term sedation protocols in paediatric intensive care. We reviewed adverse... (Review)
Review
AIM
Although not approved, the α-adrenoceptor agonist clonidine is considered an option for long-term sedation protocols in paediatric intensive care. We reviewed adverse effects of clonidine occurring in this indication.
METHODS
Relevant literature was systematically identified from PubMed and Embase. We included interventional and observational studies on paediatric patients admitted to intensive care units and systemically long-term sedated with clonidine-containing regimes. In duplicates, we conducted standardised and independent full-text assessment and extraction of safety data.
RESULTS
Data from 11 studies with 909 patients were analysed. The studies were heterogeneous regarding patient characteristics (age groups, comorbidity, or comedication) and sedation regimes (dosage, route, duration, or concomitant sedatives). Just four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one observational study had comparison groups, using placebo or midazolam. For safety outcomes, our validity evaluation showed low risk of bias only in three studies. All studies focused on haemodynamic problems, particularly bradycardia and hypotension. Observed incidences or subsequent interventions never caused concerns. However, only two RCTs allowed meaningful comparisons with control groups. Odds ratios showed no significant difference between the groups, but small sample sizes (50 and 125 patients) must be considered; pooled analyses were not reasonable.
CONCLUSION
All evaluated studies concluded that the use of clonidine in paediatric intensive care units is safe. However, a valid characterisation of the safety profile remains challenging due to limited, biased and heterogeneous data and missing investigation of long-term effects. This evaluation demonstrates the lack of data, which prevents reliable conclusions on the safety of clonidine for long-term sedation in critically ill children. For an evidence-based use, further studies are needed.
Topics: Child; Clonidine; Critical Care; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Intensive Care Units; Midazolam; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 33368604
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14552 -
World Journal of Gastrointestinal... Aug 2020Patients with cirrhosis frequently require sedation for elective endoscopic procedures. Several sedation protocols are available, but choosing an appropriate sedative in...
BACKGROUND
Patients with cirrhosis frequently require sedation for elective endoscopic procedures. Several sedation protocols are available, but choosing an appropriate sedative in patients with cirrhosis is challenging.
AIM
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare propofol and midazolam for sedation in patients with cirrhosis during elective endoscopic procedures in an attempt to understand the best approach.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, LILACS databases. Only randomized control trials (RCTs) were included. The outcomes studied were procedure time, recovery time, discharge time, and adverse events (bradycardia, hypotension, and hypoxemia). The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADEpro. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager.
RESULTS
The search yielded 3,576 records. Out of these, 8 RCTs with a total of 596 patients (302 in the propofol group and 294 in the midazolam group) were included for the final analysis. Procedure time was similar between midazolam and propofol groups (MD: 0.25, 95%CI: -0.64 to 1.13, = 0.59). Recovery time (MD: -8.19, 95%CI: -10.59 to -5.79, < 0.00001). and discharge time were significantly less in the propofol group (MD: -12.98, 95%CI: -18.46 to -7.50, < 0.00001). Adverse events were similar in both groups (RD: 0.02, 95%CI: 0-0.04, = 0.58). Moreover, no significant difference was found for bradycardia (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, = 0.16), hypotension (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, = 0.17), and hypoxemia (RD: 0.00, 95%CI: -0.04 to 0.04, = 0.93). Five studies had low risk of bias, two demonstrated some concerns, and one presented high risk. The quality of the evidence was very low for procedure time, recovery time, and adverse events; while low for discharge time.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis based on RCTs show that propofol has shorter recovery and patient discharge time as compared to midazolam with a similar rate of adverse events. These results suggest that propofol should be the preferred agent for sedation in patients with cirrhosis.
PubMed: 32879659
DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v12.i8.241 -
BMC Anesthesiology Nov 2023Emergence agitation (EA) is a prevalent complication in children following general anesthesia. Several studies have assessed the relationship between melatonin or its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Emergence agitation (EA) is a prevalent complication in children following general anesthesia. Several studies have assessed the relationship between melatonin or its analogs and the incidence of pediatric EA, yielding conflicting results. This meta-analysis aims to assess the effects of premedication with melatonin or its analogs on preventing EA in children after general anesthesia.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, clinicaltrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched until 25 November 2022. We included randomized controlled trials that assessed EA in patients less than 18 years old who underwent general anesthesia. We excluded studies that did not use a specific evaluation to assess EA.
RESULTS
Nine studies (951 participants) were included in this systematic review. Melatonin significantly reduced the incidence of EA compared with placebos (risk ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.61, P < 0.01) and midazolam (risk ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.73, P < 0.01). Dexmedetomidine remarkably decreased the incidence of EA compared with melatonin (risk ratio 2.04, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.73, P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
Melatonin premedication significantly decreases the incidence of EA compared with placebos and midazolam. Dexmedetomidine premedication has a stronger effect than melatonin in preventing EA. Nevertheless, further studies are warranted to reinforce and validate the conclusion on the efficacy of melatonin premedication in mitigating EA in pediatric patients.
Topics: Child; Humans; Adolescent; Midazolam; Dexmedetomidine; Emergence Delirium; Melatonin; Sevoflurane; Methyl Ethers; Premedication
PubMed: 38037000
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02356-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Glutamergic system dysfunction has been implicated in the pathophysiology of bipolar depression. This is an update of the 2015 Cochrane Review for the use of glutamate... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Glutamergic system dysfunction has been implicated in the pathophysiology of bipolar depression. This is an update of the 2015 Cochrane Review for the use of glutamate receptor modulators for depression in bipolar disorder.
OBJECTIVES
1. To assess the effects of ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators in alleviating the acute symptoms of depression in people with bipolar disorder. 2. To review the acceptability of ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators in people with bipolar disorder who are experiencing depressive symptoms.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO all years to July 2020. We did not apply any restrictions to date, language or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs comparing ketamine or other glutamate receptor modulators with other active psychotropic drugs or saline placebo in adults with bipolar depression.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Primary outcomes were response rate and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included remission rate, depression severity change scores, suicidality, cognition, quality of life, and dropout rate. The GRADE framework was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten studies (647 participants) were included in this review (an additional five studies compared to the 2015 review). There were no additional studies added to the comparisons identified in the 2015 Cochrane review on ketamine, memantine and cytidine versus placebo. However, three new comparisons were found: ketamine versus midazolam, N-acetylcysteine versus placebo, and riluzole versus placebo. The glutamate receptor modulators studied were ketamine (three trials), memantine (two), cytidine (one), N-acetylcysteine (three), and riluzole (one). Eight of these studies were placebo-controlled and two-armed. In seven trials the glutamate receptor modulators had been used as add-on drugs to mood stabilisers. Only one trial compared ketamine with an active comparator, midazolam. The treatment period ranged from a single intravenous administration (all ketamine studies), to repeated administration for riluzole, memantine, cytidine, and N-acetylcysteine (with a follow-up of eight weeks, 8 to 12 weeks, 12 weeks, and 16 to 20 weeks, respectively). Six of the studies included sites in the USA, one in Taiwan, one in Denmark, one in Australia, and in one study the location was unclear. All participants had a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder and were experiencing an acute bipolar depressive episode, diagnosed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition (IV) or fourth edition text revision (IV-TR). Among all glutamate receptor modulators included in this review, only ketamine appeared to be more efficacious than placebo 24 hours after infusion for response rate (odds ratio (OR) 11.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 107.74; P = 0.03; participants = 33; studies = 2; I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence). Ketamine seemed to be more effective in reducing depression rating scale scores (MD -11.81, 95% CI -20.01 to -3.61; P = 0.005; participants = 32; studies = 2; I = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of ketamine's efficacy in producing remission over placebo at 24 hours (OR 5.16, 95% CI 0.51 to 52.30; P = 0.72; participants = 33; studies = 2; I = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). Evidence on response, remission or depression rating scale scores between ketamine and midazolam was uncertain at 24 hours due to very low-certainty evidence (OR 3.20, 95% CI 0.23 to 45.19). In the one trial assessing ketamine and midazolam, there were no dropouts due to adverse effects or for any reason (very low-certainty evidence). Placebo may have been more effective than N-acetylcysteine in reducing depression rating scale scores at three months, although this was based on very low-certainty evidence (MD 1.28, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.31; participants = 58; studies = 2). Very uncertain evidence found no difference in response at three months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.14; participants = 69; studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for remission or acceptability. Extremely limited data were available for riluzole vs placebo, finding only very-low certainty evidence of no difference in dropout rates (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 12.84; P = 0.46; participants = 19; studies = 1; I = 0%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is difficult to draw reliable conclusions from this review due to the certainty of the evidence being low to very low, and the relatively small amount of data usable for analysis in bipolar disorder, which is considerably less than the information available for unipolar depression. Nevertheless, we found uncertain evidence in favour of a single intravenous dose of ketamine (as add-on therapy to mood stabilisers) over placebo in terms of response rate up to 24 hours, however ketamine did not show any better efficacy for remission in bipolar depression. Even though ketamine has the potential to have a rapid and transient antidepressant effect, the efficacy of a single intravenous dose may be limited. We did not find conclusive evidence on adverse events with ketamine, and there was insufficient evidence to draw meaningful conclusions for the remaining glutamate receptor modulators. However, ketamine's psychotomimetic effects (such as delusions or delirium) may have compromised study blinding in some studies, and so we cannot rule out the potential bias introduced by inadequate blinding procedures. To draw more robust conclusions, further methodologically sound RCTs (with adequate blinding) are needed to explore different modes of administration of ketamine, and to study different methods of sustaining antidepressant response, such as repeated administrations.
Topics: Adult; Bipolar Disorder; Depression; Humans; Ketamine; Quality of Life; Receptors, Glutamate
PubMed: 34623633
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011611.pub3 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2021A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of smartphone interventions on the anxiety of the pediatric subjects at induction on the day of surgery compared to...
A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of smartphone interventions on the anxiety of the pediatric subjects at induction on the day of surgery compared to oral midazolam or standard care as control. A systematic literature search up to June 2021 was performed and nine studies selected 785 pediatric subjects on the day of surgery at the start of the study; 390 of them were using smartphone interventions, 192 were control, and 203 were using oral midazolam. They were reporting relationships between the effects of smartphone interventions on the anxiety of the pediatric subjects at induction on the day of surgery compared to oral midazolam or control. The mean difference (MD) with its 95% CIs was calculated to assess the effect of smartphone interventions on the anxiety of the pediatric subjects at induction on the day of surgery compared to oral midazolam or control using the continuous method with a fixed or a random-effects model. Smartphone interventions in pediatric subjects were significantly related to lower anxiety at induction on the day of surgery (MD, -19.74; 95% CI, -29.87 to -9.61, < 0.001) compared to control and significantly related to lower anxiety at induction on the day of surgery (MD, -7.81; 95% CI, -14.49 to -1.14, = 0.02) compared to oral midazolam. Smartphone interventions in pediatric subjects on the day of surgery may have lower anxiety at induction compared to control and oral midazolam. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.
PubMed: 34977139
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.759958