-
Health Technology Assessment... Jul 2014Eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD) is the inability of the Eustachian tube (ET) to adequately perform at least one of its functions: to protect the middle ear from... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD) is the inability of the Eustachian tube (ET) to adequately perform at least one of its functions: to protect the middle ear from sources of disease, to ventilate the middle ear, and to help drain secretions away from the middle ear. There are a number of treatment options for ETD, but there is little consensus about management.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical effectiveness of interventions for adult ETD and to identify gaps in the evidence to inform future research.
DATA SOURCES
Twelve databases were searched up to October 2012 for published and unpublished studies in English (e.g. MEDLINE from 1946, EMBASE from 1974, Biosis Previews from 1969 and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception). References of included studies, relevant systematic reviews and regulatory agency websites were checked.
REVIEW METHODS
A systematic review was undertaken. Controlled studies evaluating prespecified treatments for adult patients diagnosed with ETD were eligible. Uncontrolled studies with at least 10 participants were included for interventions where no controlled studies were found. Outcomes included change in symptoms severity/frequency (primary outcome), quality of life, middle ear function, hearing, clearance of middle ear effusion, early ventilation tube extrusion, additional treatment, adverse events and complications. All aspects of the review process were performed using methods to reduce reviewer error and bias. Owing to heterogeneous data, a quantitative synthesis could not be performed, and results were reported in a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies were included: three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and two non-RCTs evaluating pharmacological interventions or mechanical devices for middle ear pressure equalisation; and 13 case series and one retrospective controlled before-and-after study evaluating surgical interventions. None was conducted in the UK. All studies were small (11 to 108 participants). Most non-surgical studies reported including mixed populations of adults and children. All except two studies were at high risk of bias, and subject to multiple limitations. Based on a single RCT, nasal steroids showed no improvement in symptoms or middle ear function for patients with otitis media with effusion and/or negative middle ear pressure. Very short-term improvements in middle ear function were observed in patients receiving directly applied topical decongestants or a combination of antihistamine and ephedrine. Single trials found two pressure equalisation devices were each associated with significant short-term improvements in symptoms, middle ear function and/or hearing. Eustachian tuboplasty (seven case series) and balloon dilatation (three case series) were associated with improved outcomes. Positive results were also reported for myringotomy (two case series), directly applied topical steroids (one case series) and laser point coagulation (one controlled before-and-after study). High rates of co-interventions were documented. Minor complications of surgery and pharmacological treatments but no serious adverse effects were reported.
LIMITATIONS
The evidence was limited in quantity and overall was of poor quality. No data were identified on several interventions despite extensive searches.
CONCLUSIONS
It is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of any of the interventions for the treatment of adults with an ETD diagnosis, and there is insufficient evidence to recommend a trial of any particular intervention. Further research is needed to address lack of consensus on several issues, including the definition of ETD in adults, its relation to broader middle ear ventilation problems and clear diagnostic criteria.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003035.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Eustachian Tube; Female; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Male; Middle Ear Ventilation; Nasal Decongestants; Otitis Media with Effusion; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25029951
DOI: 10.3310/hta18460 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Many treatments for the common cold exist and are sold over-the-counter. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants is limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many treatments for the common cold exist and are sold over-the-counter. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants is limited.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, and short- and long-term safety, of nasal decongestants used in monotherapy to alleviate symptoms of the common cold in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 6, June 2016), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to July 2016), Embase (2010 to 15 July 2016), CINAHL (1981 to 15 July 2016), LILACS (1982 to July 2016), Web of Science (1955 to July 2016) and clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating the effectiveness and adverse effects of nasal decongestants compared with placebo for treating the common cold in adults and children. We excluded quasi-RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted and summarised data on subjective measures of nasal congestion, overall patient well-being score, objective measures of nasal airway resistance, adverse effects and general recovery. One review author acted as arbiter in cases of disagreement. We categorised trials as single and multi-dose and analysed data both separately and together. We also analysed studies using an oral or topical nasal decongestant separately and together.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials with 1838 participants. Fourteen studies included adult participants only (aged 18 years and over). In six studies the intervention was a single dose and in nine studies multiple doses were used. Nine studies used pseudoephedrine and three studies used oxymetazoline. Other decongestants included phenylpropanolamine, norephedrine and xylometazoline. Phenylpropanolamine (or norephedrine) is no longer available on the market therefore we did not include the results of these studies in the meta-analyses. Eleven studies used oral decongestants; four studies used topical decongestants.Participants were included after contracting the common cold. The duration of symptoms differed among studies; in 10 studies participants had symptoms for less than three days, in three studies symptoms were present for less than five days, one study counted the number of colds over one year, and one study experimentally induced the common cold. In the single-dose studies, the effectiveness of a nasal decongestant was measured on the same day, whereas the follow-up in multi-dose studies ranged between one and 10 days.Most studies were conducted in university settings (N = eight), six at a specific university common cold centre. Three studies were conducted at a university in collaboration with a hospital and two in a hospital only setting. In two studies the setting was unclear.There were large differences in the reporting of outcomes and the reporting of methods in most studies was limited. Therefore, we judged most studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias. Pooling was possible for a limited number of studies only; measures of effect are expressed as standardised mean differences (SMDs). A positive SMD represents an improvement in congestion. There is no defined minimal clinically important difference for measures of subjective improvement in nasal congestion, therefore we used the SMDs as a guide to assess whether an effect was small (0.2 to 0.49), moderate (0.5 to 0.79) or large (≥ 0.8).Single-dose decongestant versus placebo: 10 studies compared a single dose of nasal decongestant with placebo and their effectiveness was tested between 15 minutes and 10 hours after dosing. Seven of 10 studies reported subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion; none reported overall patient well-being. However, pooling was not possible due to the large diversity in the measurement and reporting of symptoms of congestion. Two studies recorded adverse events. Both studies used an oral decongestant and each of them showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group versus the placebo group.Multi-dose decongestant versus placebo: nine studies compared multiple doses of nasal decongestants with placebo, but only five reported on the primary outcome, subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion. Only one study used a topical decongestant; none reported overall patient well-being. Subjective measures of congestion were significantly better for the treatment group compared with placebo approximately three hours after the last dose (SMD 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.92; P = 0.02; GRADE: low-quality evidence). However, the SMD of 0.49 only indicates a small clinical effect. Pooling was based on two studies, one oral and one topical, therefore we were unable to assess the effects of oral and topical decongestants separately. Seven studies reported adverse events (six oral and one topical decongestant); meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group (125 per 1000) compared to the placebo group (126 per 1000). The odds ratio (OR) for adverse events in the treatment group was 0.98 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.40; P = 0.90; GRADE: low-quality evidence). The results remained the same when we only considered studies using an oral decongestant (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.39; P = 0.80; GRADE: low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We were unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of single-dose nasal decongestants due to the limited evidence available. For multiple doses of nasal decongestants, the current evidence suggests that these may have a small positive effect on subjective measures of nasal congestion in adults with the common cold. However, the clinical relevance of this small effect is unknown and there is insufficient good-quality evidence to draw any firm conclusions. Due to the small number of studies that used a topical nasal decongestant, we were also unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of oral versus topical decongestants. Nasal decongestants do not seem to increase the risk of adverse events in adults in the short term. The effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants in children and the clinical relevance of their small effect in adults is yet to be determined.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adult; Child; Common Cold; Humans; Imidazoles; Nasal Decongestants; Oxymetazoline; Phenylpropanolamine; Pseudoephedrine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27748955
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009612.pub2 -
Advances in Wound Care Oct 2023Pressure injury (PI) is a common critical presentation in intensive care units (ICU) and is an important clinical concern in critical care settings. Some developing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Pressure injury (PI) is a common critical presentation in intensive care units (ICU) and is an important clinical concern in critical care settings. Some developing data support the vasoconstrictor agent administration as a potential risk factor; however, synthesis of available evidence has not been completed. Comprehensive tactics were employed to search electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid Embase for data on vasoconstrictor agent administration associated with PI in ICU patients. Extraction was limited to studies that matched the inclusion criteria. The pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. Twenty-six studies were included, involving 50,192 patients who matched the selection criteria. Around 5.8% of patients (2,523/43,210) got PI in total. PI occurred in 10.9% (1,496/13,675) of the vasoconstrictor agent administration population and 3.5% (1,027/29,503) of the drug-free population. The pooled unadjusted odds ratio was 2.83 (95% CI = 2.21-3.64, < 0.001). The adjusted odds ratio was 1.83 (95% CI = 1.26-2.68, = 0.002). Subgroup analysis and meta-regression found that the risk of PI did not vary with research design, time of occurrence, patient age, or male proportion. Vasoconstrictor agent administration raised the risk of PI in critical care patients by nearly twofold. More emphasis should be placed on the timely prevention of PI in patients receiving vasoconstrictor agent administration in the ICU.
Topics: Humans; Male; Pressure Ulcer; Critical Care; Intensive Care Units; Risk Factors
PubMed: 36448592
DOI: 10.1089/wound.2022.0081 -
JAMA May 2018Vasopressin is an alternative to catecholamine vasopressors for patients with distributive shock-a condition due to excessive vasodilation, most frequently from severe... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Association of Vasopressin Plus Catecholamine Vasopressors vs Catecholamines Alone With Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Distributive Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
IMPORTANCE
Vasopressin is an alternative to catecholamine vasopressors for patients with distributive shock-a condition due to excessive vasodilation, most frequently from severe infection. Blood pressure support with a noncatecholamine vasopressor may reduce stimulation of adrenergic receptors and decrease myocardial oxygen demand. Atrial fibrillation is common with catecholamines and is associated with adverse events, including mortality and increased length of stay (LOS).
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether treatment with vasopressin + catecholamine vasopressors compared with catecholamine vasopressors alone was associated with reductions in the risk of adverse events.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to February 2018. Experts were asked and meta-registries searched to identify ongoing trials.
STUDY SELECTION
Pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing vasopressin in combination with catecholamine vasopressors to catecholamines alone for patients with distributive shock.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers abstracted data independently. A random-effects model was used to combine data.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was atrial fibrillation. Other outcomes included mortality, requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT), myocardial injury, ventricular arrhythmia, stroke, and LOS in the intensive care unit and hospital. Measures of association are reported as risk ratios (RRs) for clinical outcomes and mean differences for LOS.
RESULTS
Twenty-three randomized clinical trials were identified (3088 patients; mean age, 61.1 years [14.2]; women, 45.3%). High-quality evidence supported a lower risk of atrial fibrillation associated with vasopressin treatment (RR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.88]; risk difference [RD], -0.06 [95% CI, -0.13 to 0.01]). For mortality, the overall RR estimate was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.97; RD, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to 0.00]); however, when limited to trials at low risk of bias, the RR estimate was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.11). The overall RR estimate for RRT was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; RD, -0.07 [95% CI, -0.12 to -0.01]). However, in an analysis limited to trials at low risk of bias, RR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92, P for interaction = .77). There were no significant differences in the pooled risks for other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the addition of vasopressin to catecholamine vasopressors compared with catecholamines alone was associated with a lower risk of atrial fibrillation. Findings for secondary outcomes varied.
Topics: Atrial Fibrillation; Catecholamines; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Publication Bias; Shock; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Vasopressins
PubMed: 29801010
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.4528 -
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) Nov 2014Calcium channel blocker poisoning is a common and sometimes life-threatening ingestion. (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Calcium channel blocker poisoning is a common and sometimes life-threatening ingestion.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the reported effects of treatments for calcium channel blocker poisoning. The primary outcomes of interest were mortality and hemodynamic parameters. The secondary outcomes included length of stay in hospital, length of stay in intensive care unit, duration of vasopressor use, functional outcomes, and serum calcium channel blocker concentrations.
METHODS
Medline/Ovid, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, TOXLINE, International pharmaceutical abstracts, Google Scholar, and the gray literature up to December 31, 2013 were searched without time restriction to identify all types of studies that examined effects of various treatments for calcium channel blocker poisoning for the outcomes of interest. The search strategy included the following Keywords: [calcium channel blockers OR calcium channel antagonist OR calcium channel blocking agent OR (amlodipine or bencyclane or bepridil or cinnarizine or felodipine or fendiline or flunarizine or gallopamil or isradipine or lidoflazine or mibefradil or nicardipine or nifedipine or nimodipine or nisoldipine or nitrendipine or prenylamine or verapamil or diltiazem)] AND [overdose OR medication errors OR poisoning OR intoxication OR toxicity OR adverse effect]. Two reviewers independently selected studies and a group of reviewers abstracted all relevant data using a pilot-tested form. A second group analyzed the risk of bias and overall quality using the STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) checklist and the Thomas tool for observational studies, the Institute of Health Economics tool for Quality of Case Series, the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines, and the modified NRCNA (National Research Council for the National Academies) list for animal studies. Qualitative synthesis was used to summarize the evidence. Of 15,577 citations identified in the initial search, 216 were selected for analysis, including 117 case reports. The kappa on the quality analysis tools was greater than 0.80 for all study types.
RESULTS
The only observational study in humans examined high-dose insulin and extracorporeal life support. The risk of bias across studies was high for all interventions and moderate to high for extracorporeal life support. High-dose insulin. High-dose insulin (bolus of 1 unit/kg followed by an infusion of 0.5-2.0 units/kg/h) was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and lower mortality, at the risks of hypoglycemia and hypokalemia (low quality of evidence). Extracorporeal life support. Extracorporeal life support was associated with improved survival in patients with severe shock or cardiac arrest at the cost of limb ischemia, thrombosis, and bleeding (low quality of evidence). Calcium, dopamine, and norepinephrine. These agents improved hemodynamic parameters and survival without documented severe side effects (very low quality of evidence). 4-Aminopyridine. Use of 4-aminopyridine was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and survival in animal studies, at the risk of seizures. Lipid emulsion therapy. Lipid emulsion was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and survival in animal models of intravenous verapamil poisoning, but not in models of oral verapamil poisoning. Other studies. Studies on decontamination, atropine, glucagon, pacemakers, levosimendan, and plasma exchange reported variable results, and the methodologies used limit their interpretation. No trial was documented in humans poisoned with calcium channel blockers for Bay K8644, CGP 28932, digoxin, cyclodextrin, liposomes, bicarbonate, carnitine, fructose 1,6-diphosphate, PK 11195, or triiodothyronine. Case reports were only found for charcoal hemoperfusion, dialysis, intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella device and methylene blue.
CONCLUSIONS
The treatment for calcium channel blocker poisoning is supported by low-quality evidence drawn from a heterogeneous and heavily biased literature. High-dose insulin and extracorporeal life support were the interventions supported by the strongest evidence, although the evidence is of low quality.
Topics: Animals; Calcium Channel Blockers; Disease Models, Animal; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Overdose; Guidelines as Topic; Hospitalization; Humans; Insulin; Length of Stay; Observational Studies as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 25283255
DOI: 10.3109/15563650.2014.965827 -
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 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver... Mar 2021Vasoactive agents with endoscopic therapy are used to treat acute variceal bleeding (AVB). There are two main groups of vasoactive agents: terlipressin and vasopressin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Vasoactive agents with endoscopic therapy are used to treat acute variceal bleeding (AVB). There are two main groups of vasoactive agents: terlipressin and vasopressin (T-V), and octreotide and somatostatin (O-S). However, the benefit/harm balance is unclear. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of T-V versus O-S for the management of AVB.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, Scopus, and CENTRAL. Our main outcomes were mortality and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were bleeding control, rebleeding, blood transfusion, hospital stay. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology.
RESULTS
We included 21 RCTs. The risk of mortality (RR: 1.01; 95%CI: 0.83-1.22), bleeding control (RR: 0.96; 95%CI: 0.91-1.02; I 2 =53%), early rebleeding (RR: 0.91; 95%CI: 0.66-1.24: I 2 =0%), late rebleeding (RR: 0.94; 95 CI: 0.56-1.60; I 2 =0%), blood transfusion (MD: 0.04; 95%CI: -0.31-0.39; I 2 =68%) and hospital stay (MD: -1.06; 95%CI: -2.80-0.69; I 2 =0%) were similar between T-V and O-S groups. Only 15 studies reported adverse events, which were significantly higher in the T-V compared to the O-S group (RR 2.39; 95%CI: 1.58-3.63; I 2 =57%). The certainty of evidence was moderate for the main outcomes, and low or very low for others.
CONCLUSIONS
In cirrhotic patients with AVB, those treated with T-V had similar mortality risk compared to O-S. However, the use of T-V showed an increased risk of adverse events compared to O-S.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Blood Transfusion; Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Female; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Length of Stay; Liver Cirrhosis; Male; Middle Aged; Octreotide; Recurrence; Somatostatin; Terlipressin; Treatment Outcome; Vasopressins
PubMed: 33723542
DOI: 10.15403/jgld-3191 -
Critical Care (London, England) Apr 2021It is unclear whether vasopressors can be safely administered through a peripheral intravenous (PIV). Systematic review and meta-analysis methodology was used to examine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is unclear whether vasopressors can be safely administered through a peripheral intravenous (PIV). Systematic review and meta-analysis methodology was used to examine the incidence of local anatomic adverse events associated with PIV vasopressor administration in patients of any age cared for in any acute care environment.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched without restriction from inception to October 2019. References of included studies and related reviews, as well as relevant conference proceedings were also searched. Studies were included if they were: (1) cohort, quasi-experimental, or randomized controlled trial study design; (2) conducted in humans of any age or clinical setting; and (3) reported on local anatomic adverse events associated with PIV vasopressor administration. Risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials or the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for prevalence studies where appropriate. Incidence estimates were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were used to explore sources of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies were included in the systematic review, of which 16 and 7 described adults and children, respectively. Meta-analysis from 11 adult studies including 16,055 patients demonstrated a pooled incidence proportion of adverse events associated with PIV vasopressor administration as 1.8% (95% CI 0.1-4.8%, I = 93.7%). In children, meta-analysis from four studies and 388 patients demonstrated a pooled incidence proportion of adverse events as 3.3% (95% CI 0.0-10.1%, I = 82.4%). Subgroup analyses did not detect any statistically significant effects associated with stratification based on differences in clinical location, risk of bias or design between studies, PIV location and size, or vasopressor type or duration. Most studies had high or some concern for risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
The incidence of adverse events associated with PIV vasopressor administration is low. Additional research is required to examine the effects of PIV location and size, vasopressor type and dose, and patient characteristics on the safety of PIV vasopressor administration.
Topics: Catheterization, Peripheral; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 33863361
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-021-03553-1 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2011Bronchiolitis is the most common lower respiratory tract infection in infants, occurring in a seasonal pattern, with highest incidence in the winter in temperate... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Bronchiolitis is the most common lower respiratory tract infection in infants, occurring in a seasonal pattern, with highest incidence in the winter in temperate climates and in the rainy season in warmer countries. Bronchiolitis is a common reason for attendance at and admission to hospital.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of prophylactic interventions for bronchiolitis in high-risk children? What are the effects of measures to prevent transmission of bronchiolitis in hospital? What are the effects of treatments for children with bronchiolitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 59 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics, bronchodilators (oral, inhaled salbutamol, inhaled adrenaline [epinephrine], hypertonic saline), chest physiotherapy, continuous positive airway pressure, corticosteroids, fluid management, heliox, montelukast, nasal decongestants, nursing interventions (cohort segregation, hand washing, gowns, masks, gloves, and goggles), oxygen, respiratory syncytial virus immunoglobulins, pooled immunoglobulins, or palivizumab (monoclonal antibody), ribavirin, or surfactants.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Inhalation; Albuterol; Bronchiolitis; Bronchodilator Agents; Double-Blind Method; Epinephrine; Humans; Infant
PubMed: 21486501
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2011Each year, children suffer up to 5 colds and adults have two to three infections, leading to time off school or work, and considerable discomfort. Most symptoms resolve... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Each year, children suffer up to 5 colds and adults have two to three infections, leading to time off school or work, and considerable discomfort. Most symptoms resolve within 1 week, but coughs often persist for longer.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for common cold? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to January 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 21 systematic reviews and RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: analgesics or anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics, antihistamines, decongestants for short-term and for long-term relief, decongestants plus antihistamines, echinacea, steam inhalation, vitamin C, and zinc (intranasal gel or lozenges).
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Ascorbic Acid; Common Cold; Echinacea; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; Nonprescription Drugs
PubMed: 21406124
DOI: No ID Found