-
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 -
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 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Nov 2019Patient-centred outcomes are increasingly used in perioperative clinical trials. The Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative aims to define...
BACKGROUND
Patient-centred outcomes are increasingly used in perioperative clinical trials. The Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative aims to define which measures should be used in future research to facilitate comparison between studies and to enable robust evidence synthesis.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted to create a longlist of patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life, functional status, patient well-being, and life-impact measures for consideration. A three-stage Delphi consensus process involving 89 international experts was then conducted in order to refine this list into a set of recommendations.
RESULTS
The literature review yielded six patient-satisfaction measures, seven generic health-related quality-of-life measures, eight patient well-being measures, five functional-status measures, and five life-impact measures for consideration. The Delphi response rates were 92%, 87%, and 100% for Rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Three additional measures were added during the Delphi process as a result of contributions from the StEP group members. Firm recommendations have been made about one health-related quality-of-life measure (EuroQol 5 Dimension, five-level version with visual analogue scale), one functional-status measure (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule version 2.0, 12-question version), and one life-impact measure (days alive and out of hospital at 30 days after surgery). Recommendations with caveats have been made about the Bauer patient-satisfaction measure and two life-impact measures (days alive and out of hospital at 1 yr after surgery, and discharge destination).
CONCLUSIONS
Several patient-centred outcome measures have been recommended for use in future perioperative studies. We suggest that every clinical study should consider using at least one patient-centred outcome within a suite of endpoints.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Delphi Technique; Endpoint Determination; Humans; Patient Outcome Assessment; Patient Satisfaction; Perioperative Care; Psychometrics; Quality of Life; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 31493848
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.07.020 -
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 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Oct 2023The prevention of perioperative hypothermia after anesthesia induction is a critical concern in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. The effectiveness of various... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative effects of warming systems applied to different parts of the body on hypothermia in adults undergoing abdominal surgery: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
STUDY OBJECTIVE
The prevention of perioperative hypothermia after anesthesia induction is a critical concern in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. The effectiveness of various warming systems for preventing hypothermia and shivering when applied to specific areas of the body remains undetermined.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
SETTING
Operating room.
INTERVENTION
Five electronic databases were searched, including only randomized control trials (RCTs) reporting the effects of warming systems applied to specific body sites on the intraoperative core temperature and postoperative risk of shivering in adults undergoing abdominal surgery. A multivariate random-effects network meta-analysis with a frequentist framework was implemented for data analysis.
MEASUREMENTS
The primary outcome was the core body temperature 60 and 120 min after anesthesia induction for abdominal surgery. The secondary outcome was the incidence of postoperative shivering.
RESULTS
This review comprised a total of 24 RCTs including 1119 patients. At 60 and 120 min after anesthesia induction, a forced-air warming system applied to the upper body (0.3 °C and 95% confidence intervals = [0.3 to 0.4], 1.0 °C [0.7 to 1.3]), lower body (0.4 °C [0.3 to 0.5], 0.9 °C [0.5 to 1.2]), and underbody (0.5 °C [0.5 to 0.6], 1.2 °C [0.9 to 1.6]) was superior to passive insulation in terms of core body temperature regulation. Compared with passive insulation, the forced-air warming system applied to the lower body (odds ratio = 0.06) or underbody (0.44) and the electric heating blanket to the lower body (0.02) or the whole body (0.07) significantly reduced the risk of shivering.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this NMA revealed that forced-air warming with an underbody blanket effectively elevates core body temperatures in 60 and 120 min after induction of anesthesia and prevents shivering in patients recovering from abdominal surgery.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Hypothermia; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Body Temperature Regulation; Shivering; Anesthesia, General; Body Temperature
PubMed: 37390588
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111190 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Nov 2018Perioperative interventions aimed at decreasing costs and improving outcomes have become increasingly popular in recent years. Anesthesiologists are often faced with a...
Perioperative interventions aimed at decreasing costs and improving outcomes have become increasingly popular in recent years. Anesthesiologists are often faced with a choice among different treatment strategies with little data available on the comparative cost-effectiveness. We performed a systematic review of the English language literature between 1980 and 2014 to identify cost-effectiveness analyses of anesthesiology and perioperative medicine interventions. We excluded interventions related to critical care or pediatric anesthesiology, and articles on interventions not normally ordered or performed by anesthesiologists. Of the >5000 cost-effectiveness analyses published to date, only 28 were applicable to anesthesiology and perioperative medicine and met inclusion criteria. Multidisciplinary interventions were the most cost-effective overall; 8 of 8 interventions were "dominant" (improved outcomes, reduced cost) or cost-effective, including accelerated, standardized perioperative recovery pathways, and perioperative delirium prevention bundles. Intraoperative measures were dominant in 3 of 5 cases, including spinal anesthesia for benign abdominal hysterectomy. With regard to prevention of perioperative infection, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) decolonization was dominant or cost-effective in 2 of 2 studies. Three studies assessing various antibiotic prophylaxis regimens had mixed results. Autologous blood donation was not found to be cost-effective in 5 of 7 studies, and intraoperative cell salvage therapy was also not cost-effective in 2 of 2 reports. Overall, there remains a paucity of cost-effectiveness literature in anesthesiology, particularly relating to intraoperative interventions and multidisciplinary perioperative interventions. Based on the available studies, multidisciplinary perioperative optimization interventions such as accelerated, standardized perioperative recovery pathways, and perioperative delirium prevention bundles tended to be most cost-effective. Our review demonstrates that there is a need for more rigorous cost-effective analyses in many areas of anesthesiology and that anesthesiologists should continue to lead collaborative, multidisciplinary efforts in perioperative medicine.
Topics: Anesthesiology; Animals; Blood Transfusion; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Cost Savings; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Health Care Costs; Humans; Infection Control; Patient Care Team; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29570150
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003334 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Feb 2014Simulation has long been integrated in anaesthesiology training, yet a comprehensive review of its effectiveness is presently lacking. Using meta-analysis and critical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Simulation has long been integrated in anaesthesiology training, yet a comprehensive review of its effectiveness is presently lacking. Using meta-analysis and critical narrative analysis, we synthesized the evidence for the effectiveness of simulation-based anaesthesiology training. We searched MEDLINE, ERIC, and SCOPUS through May 2011 and included studies using simulation to train health professional learners. Data were abstracted independently and in duplicate. We included 77 studies (6066 participants). Compared with no intervention (52 studies), simulation was associated with moderate to large pooled effect sizes (ESs) for all outcomes (ES range 0.60-1.05) except for patient effects (ES -0.39). Compared with non-simulation instruction (11 studies), simulation was associated with moderate effects for satisfaction and skills (ES 0.39 and 0.42, respectively), large effect for behaviours (1.77), and small effects for time, knowledge, and patient effects (-0.18 to 0.23). In 17 studies comparing alternative simulation interventions, training in non-technical skills (e.g. communication) and medical management compared with training in medical management alone was associated with negligible effects for knowledge and skills (four studies, ES range 0.14-0.15). Debriefing using multiple vs single information sources was associated with negligible effects for time and skills (three studies, ES range -0.07 to 0.09). Our critical analysis showed inconsistency in measurement of non-technical skills and consistency in the (ineffective) design of debriefing. Simulation in anaesthesiology appears to be more effective than no intervention (except for patient outcomes) and non-inferior to non-simulation instruction. Few studies have clarified the key instructional designs for simulation-based anaesthesiology training.
Topics: Anesthesiology; Computer Simulation; Education, Medical; Humans
PubMed: 24368556
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aet414 -
BMC Anesthesiology Jan 2021Scientometrics is used to assess the impact of research in several health fields, including Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine. The purpose of this study was to...
BACKGROUND
Scientometrics is used to assess the impact of research in several health fields, including Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine. The purpose of this study was to identify contributors to highly-cited African Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine research.
METHODS
The authors searched Web of Science from inception to May 4, 2020, for articles on and about Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine in Africa with ≥2 citations. Quantitative (H-index) and qualitative (descriptive analysis of yearly publications and interpretation of document, co-authorship, author country, and keyword) bibliometric analyses were done.
RESULTS
The search strategy returned 116 articles with a median of 5 (IQR: 3-12) citations on Web of Science. Articles were published in Anesthesia and Analgesia (18, 15.5%), World Journal of Surgery (13, 11.2%), and South African Medical Journal (8, 6.9%). Most (74, 63.8%) articles were published on or after 2013. Seven authors had more than 1 article in the top 116 articles: Epiu I (3, 2.6%), Elobu AE (2, 1.7%), Fenton PM (2, 1.7%), Kibwana S (2, 1.7%), Rukewe A (2, 1.7%), Sama HD (2, 1.7%), and Zoumenou E (2, 1.7%). The bibliometric coupling analysis of documents highlighted 10 clusters, with the most significant nodes being Biccard BM, 2018; Baker T, 2013; Llewellyn RL, 2009; Nigussie S, 2014; and Aziato L, 2015. Dubowitz G (5) and Ozgediz D (4) had the highest H-indices among the authors referenced by the most-cited African Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine articles. The U.S.A., England, and Uganda had the strongest collaboration links among the articles, and most articles focused on perioperative care.
CONCLUSION
This study highlighted trends in top-cited African articles and African and non-African academic institutions' contributions to these articles.
Topics: Africa; Anesthesia; Anesthesiology; Bibliometrics; Critical Care; Humans
PubMed: 33478391
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-021-01246-4 -
Indian Journal of Critical Care... Aug 2022This systematic review aimed to investigate the drugs used and their potential effect on noninvasive ventilation (NIV).
AIM
This systematic review aimed to investigate the drugs used and their potential effect on noninvasive ventilation (NIV).
BACKGROUND
NIV is used increasingly in acute respiratory failure (ARF). Sedation and analgesia are potentially beneficial in NIV, but they can have a deleterious impact. Proper guidelines to specifically address this issue and the recommendations for or against it are scarce in the literature. In the most recent guidelines published in 2017 by the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society (ERS/ATS) relating to NIV use in patients having ARF, the well-defined recommendation on the selective use of sedation and analgesia is missing. Nevertheless, some national guidelines suggested using sedation for agitation.
METHODS
Electronic databases (PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library) from January 1999 to December 2019 were searched systematically for research articles related to sedation and analgosedation in NIV. A brief review of the existing literature related to sedation and analgesia was also done.
REVIEW RESULTS
Sixteen articles (five randomized trials) were analyzed. Other trials, guidelines, and reviews published over the last two decades were also discussed. The present review analysis suggests dexmedetomidine as the emerging sedative agent of choice based on the most recent trials because of better efficacy with an improved and predictable cardiorespiratory profile.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence suggests that sedation has a potentially beneficial role in patients at risk of NIV failure due to interface intolerance, anxiety, and pain. However, more randomized controlled trials are needed to comment on this issue and formulate strong evidence-based recommendations.
HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE
Karim HMR, Šarc I, Calandra C, Spadaro S, Mina B, Ciobanu LD, et al. Role of Sedation and Analgesia during Noninvasive Ventilation: Systematic Review of Recent Evidence and Recommendations. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(8):938-948.
PubMed: 36042773
DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23950 -
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