-
Cureus Nov 2023Nasal congestion is a common issue stemming from various factors such as allergies and anatomical variations. Allergic rhinitis frequently leads to nasal congestion. The... (Review)
Review
Nasal congestion is a common issue stemming from various factors such as allergies and anatomical variations. Allergic rhinitis frequently leads to nasal congestion. The pathophysiology involves inflammation, swelling, and mucus production in the nasal mucosa. Multiple treatments are available, including oral phenylephrine, an over-the-counter or prescription option. However, the effectiveness and safety of phenylephrine have been subjects of debate. This systematic review aims to provide an updated perspective on the efficacy of oral phenylephrine versus placebo in addressing nasal congestion in adults. We conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, a systematic review involving searches on PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were defined to identify high-quality studies. The focus was on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control studies published in English between 1998 and 2023, involving adult populations. The interventions compared oral phenylephrine with placebo or standard care, with outcomes centering on changes in nasal congestion symptoms and nasal airway resistance. We identified four articles that met the criteria. These studies exhibited varied designs and populations. The findings consistently indicated that phenylephrine was not more effective than a placebo in relieving nasal congestion. This systematic review demonstrates that oral phenylephrine did not offer substantial relief from nasal congestion compared to a placebo in adults. The studies featured diverse designs, yet the prevailing conclusion was that phenylephrine's efficacy was limited. Safety assessments showed no life-threatening adverse events, with common side effects including headaches and mild discomfort. In summary, this systematic review indicates that oral phenylephrine is not significantly more effective than a placebo in alleviating nasal congestion in adults. Clinicians should explore alternative treatment options, considering the review's limitations. Additional research may be needed to clarify the role of oral phenylephrine in managing nasal congestion.
PubMed: 38125218
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.49074 -
PloS One 2015International guidelines recommend dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor agents in septic shock. Phenylephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin and terlipressin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
International guidelines recommend dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor agents in septic shock. Phenylephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin and terlipressin are considered second-line agents. Our objective was to assess the evidence for the efficiency and safety of all vasopressors in septic shock.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched electronic database of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, LILACS and conference proceedings up to June 2014. We included randomized controlled trials comparing different vasopressors for the treatment of adult patients with septic shock. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Other clinical and hemodynamic measurements were extracted as secondary outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled.
RESULTS
Thirty-two trials (3,544 patients) were included. Compared to dopamine (866 patients, 450 events), norepinephrine (832 patients, 376 events) was associated with decreased all-cause mortality, RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.81-0.98), corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 11% and number needed to treat of 9. Norepinephrine was associated with lower risk for major adverse events and cardiac arrhythmias compared to dopamine. No other mortality benefit was demonstrated for the comparisons of norepinephrine to epinephrine, phenylephrine and vasopressin / terlipressin. Hemodynamic data were similar between the different vasopressors, with some advantage for norepinephrine in central venous pressure, urinary output and blood lactate levels.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests a survival benefit, better hemodynamic profile and reduced adverse events rate for norepinephrine over dopamine. Norepinephrine should be regarded as the first line vasopressor in the treatment of septic shock.
Topics: Epinephrine; Hemodynamics; Humans; Lypressin; Norepinephrine; Phenylephrine; Shock, Septic; Terlipressin; Treatment Outcome; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Vasopressins
PubMed: 26237037
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129305 -
Emergency Medicine Australasia : EMA Apr 2020Vasopressor medications have traditionally been administered via central venous catheters (CVCs), primarily due to concerns of peripheral extravasation of...
OBJECTIVE
Vasopressor medications have traditionally been administered via central venous catheters (CVCs), primarily due to concerns of peripheral extravasation of vasoconstrictive medications. Recent studies have suggested that vasopressor administration via peripheral intravenous catheters (PiVCs) may be a feasible and safe alternative. This systematic review evaluates the safety of delivering vasopressor medications via PiVCs.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review to assess the frequency of complications associated with the delivery of vasopressors via PiVCs. A literature search for prospective and retrospective studies of vasopressor infusions in adults was performed. We included studies of continuous infusions of vasopressor medications (noradrenaline, adrenaline, metaraminol, phenylephrine, dopamine and vasopressin) delivered via a PiVCs that included at least 20 patients. Data on patient factors, cannulation approach, monitoring protocols, vasopressor dosing and dilutions and adverse events were collected and summarised.
RESULTS
Seven studies were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including 1382 patients. No study fulfilled all of the validity criteria. Noradrenaline was the most commonly administered agent (n = 702 episodes of administration), followed by phenylephrine (n = 546), dopamine (n = 108), metaraminol (n = 74) and vasopressin and adrenaline (<5 patients). Mean duration of infusion was 22 h (95% confidence interval [CI] 8-36 h). Extravasation occurred in 3.4% (95% CI 2.5-4.7%) of patients. There were no reported episodes of tissue necrosis or limb ischaemia. All extravasation events were successfully managed conservatively or with vasodilatory medications.
CONCLUSIONS
Reports of the administration of vasopressors via PiVCs, when given for a limited duration, under close observation, suggest that extravasation is uncommon and is unlikely to lead to major complications.
Topics: Adult; Catheterization, Peripheral; Humans; Hypotension; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 31698544
DOI: 10.1111/1742-6723.13406 -
Anaesthesia Jan 2020Spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section commonly causes maternal hypotension. This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared methods to prevent hypotension... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section commonly causes maternal hypotension. This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared methods to prevent hypotension in women receiving spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We selected randomised controlled trials that compared an intervention to prevent hypotension with another intervention or inactive control by searching MEDLINE and Embase, Web of Science to December 2018. There was no language restriction. Two reviewers extracted data on trial characteristics, methods and outcomes. We assessed risk of bias for individual trials (Cochrane tool) and quality of evidence (GRADE checklist). We assessed 109 trials (8561 women) and 12 different methods that resulted in 30 direct comparisons. Methods ranked by OR (95%CI) from most effective to least effective were: metaraminol 0.11 (0.04-0.26); norepinephrine 0.13 (0.06-0.28); phenylephrine 0.18 (0.11-0.29); leg compression 0.25 (0.14-0.43); ephedrine 0.28 (0.18-0.43); colloid given before induction of anaesthesia 0.38 (0.24-0.61); angiotensin 2, 0.12 (0.02-0.75); colloid given after induction of anaesthesia 0.52 (0.30-0.90); mephentermine 0.09 (0.01-1.30); crystalloid given after induction of anaesthesia 0.78 (0.46-1.31); and crystalloid given before induction of anaesthesia 1.16 (0.76-1.79). Phenylephrine caused maternal bradycardia compared with control, OR (95%CI) 0.23 (0.07-0.79). Ephedrine lowered umbilical artery pH more than phenylephrine, standardised mean difference (95%CI) 0.78 (0.47-1.49). We conclude that vasopressors should be given to healthy women to prevent hypotension during caesarean section with spinal anaesthesia.
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Spinal; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Hypotension; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 31531852
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14841 -
JAMA Ophthalmology Jun 2015Topical phenylephrine hydrochloride is routinely administered with few safety precautions, but evidence regarding its systemic safety to date is controversial. As even... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
Topical phenylephrine hydrochloride is routinely administered with few safety precautions, but evidence regarding its systemic safety to date is controversial. As even short-term variations in 24-hour blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) can adversely affect cardiovascular health, better evidence on phenylephrine's effects on HR and BP is required.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a meta-analysis of available evidence regarding cardiovascular adverse effects of topical phenylephrine.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Clinical Trials were searched for relevant literature from January 1, 1970, to January 1, 2014, using a combination of the following search terms: topical, ocular, ophthalmic, phenylephrine, tropicamide, cardiovascular effect, side effect, blood pressure, heart rate, mydriatic, and eye drops. A total of 70 articles related to the topic were identified and all full texts were retrieved.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials reporting change in BP and HR for adults were included in this review. All studies reporting results for neonates or infants, not reporting standard deviations, or not specifying the time of measurement or the concentration of phenylephrine used were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data from randomized clinical trials that reported BP and/or HR as well as the time following administration of topical phenylephrine at which measurements were obtained by concentration of phenylephrine as a mean change and its standard deviation were extracted. Data were synthesized by concentration of phenylephrine and time of measurement following topical application using random-effects models with inverse variance weighting to account for heterogeneity across studies.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Difference in BP and HR after topical administration of phenylephrine.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs with a total of 916 participants were included. Data were available for phenylephrine, 2.5%, at 20 to 30 minutes and 60 minutes or longer after administration, and neither BP nor HR changed at either time. Following application of phenylephrine, 10%, BP increased at 5 and 10 minutes (mean difference for both, +15 mm Hg; 95% CI, 11.94-18.54; P < .001) but decreased at 20 to 30 minutes and 60 minutes or longer with no changes detected against baseline. A mean increase in HR by 4.48 beats/min (95% CI, 1.09-7.88; P = .01) was present at 20 to 30 minutes following application of phenylephrine, 10%, and HR decreased by 60 minutes or longer with no changes detected compared with baseline.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Phenylephrine, 2.5%, leads to no clinically relevant change in BP or HR, and the changes in BP and HR seen with phenylephrine, 10%, are short lived. Thus, phenylephrine, 2.5%, is safe to use in clinical routine.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-1 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Blood Pressure; Cardiovascular Diseases; Female; Heart Rate; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Ophthalmic Solutions; Phenylephrine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 25789577
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.0325 -
Anaesthesia Feb 2014We conducted a systematic review to determine the harm and benefit associated with prophylactic phenylephrine for caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. We included... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We conducted a systematic review to determine the harm and benefit associated with prophylactic phenylephrine for caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. We included 21 randomised controlled trials with 1504 women. The relative risk (95% CI) of hypotension with phenylephrine infusion – as defined by authors – before delivery was 0.36 (0.18–0.73) vs placebo, p = 0.004; 0.58 (0.39–0.88) vs an ephedrine infusion, p = 0.009; and 0.73 (0.55–0.96) when added to an ephedrine infusion, p = 0.02. After delivery, the relative risks of hypotension and nausea and vomiting with phenylephrine compared with placebo were 0.37 (0.19–0.71), p = 0.003, and 0.39 (0.17–0.91), p = 0.03, respectively. There was no evidence that hypertension, bradycardia or neonatal endpoints were affected. Phenylephrine reduced the risk for hypotension and nausea and vomiting after spinal doses of bupivacaine generally exceeding 8 mg, but there was no evidence that it reduced other maternal or neonatal morbidities.
Topics: Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Spinal; Cardiotonic Agents; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Hypotension; Phenylephrine; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24588024
DOI: 10.1111/anae.12445 -
Survey of Ophthalmology 2022Intracameral phenylephrine is commonly used in ophthalmic surgery as an alternative or supplement to mydriatic eye drops; hence, the importance of an evidence-based... (Review)
Review
Intracameral phenylephrine is commonly used in ophthalmic surgery as an alternative or supplement to mydriatic eye drops; hence, the importance of an evidence-based understanding of its risk-benefit profile is vital. We performed a comprehensive search in the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases for published studies and case reports relating to the use of intracameral phenylephrine. Articles from 1958 to 2021 with the following keywords were used: "intracameral phenylephrine," "intracameral mydriatics," "phenylephrine," "pupil dilation," "complications." Intracameral phenylephrine was first used in 2003 as an alternative to topical mydriatics. Since then, it is being increasingly used with a variety of benefits, including rapid onset of mydriasis, and cost-effectiveness. There are various case reports, however, of ocular and systemic complications associated with intracameral phenylephrine such as generation of free radicals, toxic anterior segment syndrome, inconsistent pupillary dilation during surgery, and ventricular fibrillation. Alternatives to intracameral phenylephrine such as iris hooks, a Malyugin ring, intracameral epinephrine, and intracameral tropicamide were compared with intracameral phenylephrine. Intracameral phenylephrine appears to have a good safety profile.
Topics: Humans; Lidocaine; Mydriatics; Ophthalmic Solutions; Phacoemulsification; Phenylephrine; Pupil
PubMed: 35691387
DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2022.06.002 -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Mar 2007Oral phenylephrine is used as a decongestant, yet there has been no previously published systematic review supporting its efficacy and safety. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Oral phenylephrine is used as a decongestant, yet there has been no previously published systematic review supporting its efficacy and safety.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy and safety of oral phenylephrine as a nonprescription decongestant.
METHODS
MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and the Federal Register were searched for English and non-English-language studies published through January 2007 that measured the effects of oral phenylephrine on nasal airway resistance (NAR) in patients with nasal congestion. The retrieved studies were supplemented with information from our personal files and by hand searches of the references in any of the studies. Additionally, a Web of Science Search was conducted using the Cited Reference function for all published clinical trials identified. Studies included in the analysis were randomized, placebo-controlled trials; studies of combination products were excluded. Two investigators independently extracted data on NAR, self-reported decongestant effects, and cardiovascular effects (ie, heart rate, blood pressure) from each of the included studies. Meta-analyses were performed for NAR and cardiovascular effects using a random effects model. Subjective decongestant effects were summarized.
RESULTS
Based on 8 unpublished studies that included 138 patients, phenylephrine 10 mg did not affect NAR more than placebo; the mean maximal difference in relative change from baseline between phenylephrine and placebo was 10.1% (95% CI -3.8% to 23.9%). Eight unpublished studies on phenylephrine 25 mg showed a significant reduction of maximal NAR compared with placebo of 27.6% (95% CI 17.5% to 37.7%). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies included in this analysis, which was partially attributable to different laboratories and methods used. Patient-reported decongestion was not consistently better for any phenylephrine dose compared with placebo, and NAR was a more sensitive measurement of efficacy. Phenylephrine showed no consistent effect on heart rate or blood pressure for doses of 25 mg or less.
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence that oral phenylephrine is effective for nonprescription use as a decongestant. The Food and Drug Administration should require additional studies to show the safety and efficacy of phenylephrine.
Topics: Airway Resistance; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; Nasal Obstruction; Phenylephrine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 17264159
DOI: 10.1345/aph.1H679 -
International Journal of Obstetric... Aug 2021Spinal anesthesia is the standard for elective cesarean section but spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension remains an important problem. Accurate prediction of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Spinal anesthesia is the standard for elective cesarean section but spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension remains an important problem. Accurate prediction of hypotension could enhance clinical decision-making, alter management, and facilitate early intervention. We performed a systematic review of predictors of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension and their predictive value during cesarean section.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of predictors of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension in elective cesarean section. The quality of studies was assessed and predictors were grouped in domains based on the type of predictor.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight studies (n=3086 patients) were included. In most studies, patients received 500-1000 mL crystalloid preload or 500-2000 mL crystalloid coload. Vasopressors for post-spinal hypotension were boluses of ephedrine 5-15 mg and/or phenylephrine 25-100 µg in most studies. The hypotension rate varied from 29% to 80% based on the definition. For analysis, >30 predictors were classified into seven domains: demographic characteristics, baseline hemodynamic variables, baseline sympathovagal balance, postural stress testing, peripheral perfusion indices, blood volume and fluid responsiveness indices, and genetic polymorphism.
CONCLUSIONS
Environmental and individual factors increased outcome variability, which restricted the value of the autonomic nervous system and peripheral perfusion indices for prediction of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension. Supine stress tests may reflect parturients' cardiovascular tolerance during hemodynamic fluctuations and may optimize the predictive value of static state predictors. Future research for predicting spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension should focus on composite and dynamic parameters during the supine stress tests.
Topics: Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Spinal; Cesarean Section; Colloids; Female; Humans; Hypotension; Hypotension, Controlled; Observational Studies as Topic; Phenylephrine; Pregnancy; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 34034957
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2021.103175 -
The Journal of Obstetrics and... Jul 2023The aim of this study is to perform a Bayesian network meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of prophylactic bolus of different doses of ephedrine,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
The aim of this study is to perform a Bayesian network meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of prophylactic bolus of different doses of ephedrine, phenylephrine, and norepinephrine for the prevention of spinal hypotension during cesarean section.
METHODS
The Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library were searched until to May 20, 2022. The indicators included incidence of hypotension, reactive hypertension, bradycardia, nausea and vomiting, umbilical artery pH, and Apgar scores.
RESULTS
About 3125 related records were obtained and 17 RCTs met our eligibility criteria. Based on the results, prophylactic bolus injection of 21-30 mg ephedrine (82%) was the best efficacious option for preventing hypotension, followed by 13-16 μg norepinephrine and 81-120 mg phenylephrine; 121-150 μg phenylephrine had the highest probability (62%) caused reactive hypertension, followed by 11-30 mg ephedrine; phenylephrine was most likely to cause bradycardia in a dose-dependent manner; 81-120 μg phenylephrine had the highest probability (37%) which associated with IONV; 6-12 μg norepinephrine (31%) had the lowest influence on IONV and had highest probability (34%) associated with improving umbilical arterial pH; 13-16 μg norepinephrine had highest probability (67% at 1 min, 49% at 5 min) which associated with improving Apgar scores.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this study, 5-10 mg ephedrine and 13-16 μg norepinephrine prophylactic bolus injection may be the optimum dosage of three drugs prevent spinal-induced hypotension, which has the least impact on maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Humans; Female; Phenylephrine; Ephedrine; Norepinephrine; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Cesarean Section; Bradycardia; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Anesthesia, Spinal; Hypotension; Hypertension; Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Double-Blind Method
PubMed: 37170779
DOI: 10.1111/jog.15671