-
Neurological Research and Practice Jun 2024This review specifically investigates ketamine's role in SRSE management. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This review specifically investigates ketamine's role in SRSE management.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to May 1st, 2023, for English-language literature. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies on SRSE in humans of all ages and genders treated with ketamine.
RESULTS
In this systematic review encompassing 19 studies with 336 participants, age ranged from 9 months to 86 years. Infections, anoxia, and metabolic issues emerged as the common causes of SRSE, while some cases had unknown origins, termed as NORSE (New Onset RSE) or FIRESs (Febrile Infection-Related Epilepsy Syndrome). Most studies categorized SRSE cases into convulsive (N = 105) and non-convulsive (N = 197). Ketamine was used after failed antiepileptics and anesthetics in 17 studies, while in others, it was a first or second line of treatment. Dosages varied from 0.5 mg/kg (bolus) and 0.2-15 mg/kg/hour (maintenance) in adults and 1-3 mg/kg (bolus) and 0.5-3 mg/kg/hour (maintenance) in pediatrics, lasting one to 30 days. Ketamine was concurrently used with other drugs in 40-100% of cases, most frequently propofol and midazolam. Seizure resolution rate varied from 53.3 to 91% and 40-100% in larger (N = 42-68) and smaller case series (N = 5-20) respectively. Seizure resolution occurred in every case of case report except in one in which the patient died. Burst suppression in EEG was reported in 12 patients from two case series and two case reports. Recurrence was reported in 11 patients from five studies. The reported all-cause mortality varied from 38.8 to 59.5% and 0-36.4% in larger and smaller case series., unrelated directly to ketamine dosage or duration.
SIGNIFICANCE
Ketamine demonstrates safety and effectiveness in SRSE, offering advantages over GABAergic drugs by acting on NMDA receptors, providing neuroprotection, and reducing vasopressor requirement.
PubMed: 38926769
DOI: 10.1186/s42466-024-00322-7 -
BMC Anesthesiology Jun 2024Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are commonly used sedatives in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and effectiveness of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are commonly used sedatives in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and effectiveness of sedation provided by dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam versus other sedatives including chloral hydrate, midazolam and other sedatives in pediatric sedation.
METHODS
The Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases, and Clinicaltrials.gov register of controlled trials were searched from inception to June 2022. All randomized controlled trials used dexmedetomidine-midazolam in pediatric sedation were enrolled. The articles search, data extraction, and quality assessment of included studies were performed independently by two researchers. The success rate of sedation was considered as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included onset time of sedation, recovery time of sedation and occurrence of adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 522 studies were screened and 6 RCTs were identified; 859 patients were analyzed. The administration of dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam was associated with a higher sedation success rate and a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, Auditory Brainstem Response test or fiberoptic bronchoscopy examinations than the other sedatives did (OR = 2.92; 95% CI: 1.39-6.13, P = 0.005, I = 51%; OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.07-0.68, P = 0.008, I = 0%, respectively). Two groups did not differ significantly in recovery time and the occurrence of adverse reactions (WMD = - 0.27, 95% CI: - 0.93 to - 0.39, P = 0.42; OR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.48-1.02, P = 0.06, I = 45%. respectively). However, the results of the subgroup analysis of ASA I-II children showed a quicker onset time in dexmedetomidine-midazolam group than the other sedatives (WMD=-3.08; 95% CI: -4.66 to - 1.49, P = 0.0001, I = 30%).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam group provided higher sedation success rates and caused a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in completing examinations, indicating a prospective outpatient clinical application for procedural sedation.
Topics: Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Child; Drug Therapy, Combination; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38907338
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-024-02570-1 -
Cureus May 2024Evidence shows tablet-based interactive distraction (TBID) is effective as a preoperative anxiolytic in pediatric patients. TBID involves age-appropriate video games... (Review)
Review
Evidence shows tablet-based interactive distraction (TBID) is effective as a preoperative anxiolytic in pediatric patients. TBID involves age-appropriate video games that have been preloaded onto a tablet (TAB) and subsequently given to a pediatric patient before the administration of anesthesia. The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive analysis of previous studies that have investigated the use of TBID to minimize preoperative anxiety. The literature criteria for this systematic review included randomized controlled trials and prospective studies that used TBID as a method to reduce preoperative anxiety in pediatric patients aged 1-12 years. Data extraction concentrated on the patient population to which the TABs were introduced, the method of TAB administration, how anxiety was evaluated, who completed the evaluations, and the results of each publication. This chosen data set is to systematically understand if TBID is effective and to identify the most practical ways to implement TBID. Collected data from the selected publications were entered into a table. For this systematic review, 27 publications from 2006 to 2023 were screened for eligibility. These studies were selected using a combination of MeSH terms and a Title-Abstract filter in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. These data represented 475 total patients (T) and 249 patients who implemented TAB use. The other 226 patients were used as various control groups. The outcome of each study is summarized and placed into a table. This study is expected to provide an overall assessment of the effectiveness of TBID and proposed guidelines for clinicians to incorporate TAB use into preoperative protocols. The time to give the TAB to the children impacts its efficiency. This review accentuates the effectiveness of utilizing TBID to mitigate preoperative anxiety in pediatric patients based on a comprehensive analysis of multiple prior studies conducted in diverse healthcare settings, including pediatric hospitals and surgical centers. TAB use demonstrated an effective reduction in perioperative anxiety, emergence of delirium, and time to discharge, increasing parental satisfaction compared to midazolam. These results are likely replicable across a broader range of clinical settings, provided the intervention parameters, such as the timing of TAB introduction and the personalization of content to patient interests, are carefully adapted to each situation. The anxiety evaluations of patients using TBID varied based on the evaluator. Therefore, future research should analyze if perceived anxiety in patients using TABs is consistent or not among the evaluators. The impact of this TBID review has the potential to set a new benchmark for managing pediatric preoperative anxiety, with significant implications for healthcare quality and patient satisfaction.
PubMed: 38872640
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.60274 -
Prehospital Emergency Care Jun 2024Intranasal (IN) medications offer a safe non-invasive way to rapidly deliver drugs in situations where intravenous (IV) access and intramuscular (IM) administration is...
OBJECTIVES
Intranasal (IN) medications offer a safe non-invasive way to rapidly deliver drugs in situations where intravenous (IV) access and intramuscular (IM) administration is challenging or not feasible. In the prehospital setting, this can be an essential alternative in time critical situations including trauma management, seizures, and agitated patients. However, there is a paucity of evidence summarizing its efficacy in this environment. This systematic review aims to assess the current evidence supporting the use of IN medicine (midazolam, ketamine, fentanyl, morphine, glucagon, and naloxone) in the prehospital setting alone.
METHODS
A systematic literature search (PROSPERO CRD42023440713) of PubMed, Web of Science, OVID Medline, "Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials," Cochrane reviews and Embase was performed from inception to June 2023 to identify studies where IN medications were administered to patients in the prehospital setting. All randomized controlled trials, observational cohort studies, case series, and case reports were included. Papers not written in English, review articles, abstracts, and non-published data (including letters to the editor) were excluded. The methodological quality of the included studies was interpreted using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. No funding was received.
RESULTS
From 4818 studies, 39 were included (seven for midazolam, five for ketamine, twelve for fentanyl, one for diamorphine, two for glucagon, and twelve for naloxone). A total of 24,097 patients were treated with IN medications across all the studies. There were five moderate quality, four low quality, and thirty very low quality studies. The potential efficacy of IN fentanyl and ketamine was demonstrated consistently throughout the studies with less clear evidence for midazolam, morphine, glucagon, and naloxone. This review was severely limited by the study quality, with most studies demonstrating "high concerns" for bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Prehospital IN medication administration has wide-ranging potential, particularly for administering analgesia. There are likely to be certain populations, for example, pediatrics, that will benefit the most, although conclusions are limited by the quality of evidence currently available. We encourage additional research in this area, particularly with robust prospective double-blind RCTs.
PubMed: 38848591
DOI: 10.1080/10903127.2024.2357598 -
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery Jul 2024Cerebellar mutism syndrome (CMS) is a serious complication of posterior fossa surgeries affecting mainly pediatric age group. The pathophysiology is still not fully... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Cerebellar mutism syndrome (CMS) is a serious complication of posterior fossa surgeries affecting mainly pediatric age group. The pathophysiology is still not fully understood. It adversely affects the recovery of patients. There is no definitive and standardized management for CMS. However pharmacological therapy has been used in reported cases with variable effectiveness. We aim through this review to summarize the available evidence on pharmacological agents used to treat CMS.
METHOD
A thorough systematic review until December 2022, was conducted using PubMed Central, Embase, and Web of Science, databases to identify case reports and case series of CMS patients who underwent posterior fossa surgery and received pharmacological treatment. Patients with pathologies other than posterior fossa lesions were excluded from the study.
RESULTS
Of 592 initial studies, 8 studies met our eligibility criteria for inclusion, with 3 more studies were added through manual search; reporting on 13 patients. The median age of 13 years (Standard deviation SD=10.60). The most frequent agent used was Bromocriptine. Other agents were fluoxetine, midazolam, zolpidem, and arpiprazole. Most patients recovered within 48 hours of initiating medical therapy. The median follow-up period was 4 months (SD=13.8). All patients showed complete recovery at the end of follow-up period.
CONCLUSION
Cerebellar mutism syndrome is reported after posterior fossa surgeries, despite attempts to identify risk factors, pathophysiology, and management of CMS, it remains a challenging condition with significant morbidity. Different Pharmacological treatments have been proposed with promising results. Further studies and formalized clinical trials are needed to evaluate available options and their effectiveness.
Topics: Humans; Mutism; Neurosurgical Procedures; Postoperative Complications; Cranial Fossa, Posterior; Cerebellar Diseases; Child; Adolescent
PubMed: 38823197
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2024.108352 -
Obesity Reviews : An Official Journal... May 2024To evaluate the impact of bariatric surgery on the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of orally administered medications and supplements. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the impact of bariatric surgery on the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of orally administered medications and supplements.
METHODS
Systematic searches of bibliographic databases were conducted to identify studies. Pooled effect estimates from different surgical procedures were calculated using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Quantitative data were synthesized from 58 studies including a total of 1985 participants. Whilst 40 medications and 6 supplements were evaluated across these studies, heterogeneity and missing information reduced the scope of the meta-analysis to the following medications and supplements: atorvastatin, paracetamol, omeprazole, midazolam, vitamin D, calcium, zinc, and iron supplements. There were no significant differences in PK parameters post-surgery for the drugs atorvastatin and omeprazole, and supplements calcium, ferritin, and zinc supplements. Paracetamol showed reduced clearance (mean difference [MD] = -15.56 L/hr, p = 0.0002, I = 67%), increased maximal concentration (MD = 6.90 μg/ml, p = 0.006, I = 92%) and increased terminal elimination half-life (MD = 0.49 hr, p < 0.0001, I = 3%) post-surgery. The remaining 36 medications and 2 supplements were included in a systematic review. Overall, 18 of the 53 drugs and supplements showed post-operative changes in PK parameters.
CONCLUSION
This study demonstrates heterogeneity in practice and could not reach conclusive findings for most PK parameters. Prospective studies are needed to inform best practice and enhance patient healthcare and safety following bariatric surgery.
PubMed: 38710656
DOI: 10.1111/obr.13759 -
Neurocritical Care Apr 2024The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal midazolam (in-MDZ) administration for antiseizure treatment in adults. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal midazolam (in-MDZ) administration for antiseizure treatment in adults.
METHODS
Embase and Medline literature databases were searched. We included randomized trials and cohort studies (excluding case series) of adult patients (≥ 18 years of age) examining in-MDZ administration for epilepsy, epileptic seizures, or status epilepticus published in English between 1985 and 2022. Studies were screened for eligibility based on predefined criteria. The primary outcome was the efficacy of in-MDZ administration, and the secondary outcome was its tolerability. Extracted data included study design, patient characteristics, intervention details, and outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies with 929 individuals treated with in-MDZ were included. Most studies were retrospective, with their number increasing over time. Administered in-MDZ doses ranged from 2.5 to 20 mg per single dose. The mean proportion of successful seizure termination after first in-MDZ administration was 72.7% (standard deviation [SD] 18%), and the proportion of seizure recurrence or persistent seizures ranged from 61 to 75%. Most frequent adverse reactions to in-MDZ were dizziness (mean 23.5% [SD 38.6%]), confusion (one study; 17.4%), local irritation (mean 16.6% [SD 9.6%]), and sedation (mean 12.7% [SD 9.7%]).
CONCLUSIONS
Administration of in-MDZ seems promising for the treatment of prolonged epileptic seizures and seizure clusters in adults. Limited evidence suggests that intranasal administration is safe. Further research is warranted because of the heterogeneity of cohorts, the variation in dosages, and the lack of uniformity in defining successful seizure termination.
PubMed: 38580802
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-024-01971-x -
Acute and Critical Care Feb 2024This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effects of ketamine in critically ill intensive care unit (ICU) patients.
BACKGROUND
This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effects of ketamine in critically ill intensive care unit (ICU) patients.
METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library; the search was performed initially in January but was repeated in December of 2023. We focused on ICU patients of any age. We included studies that compared ketamine with other traditional agents used in the ICU. We synthesized evidence using RevMan v5.4 and presented the results as forest plots. We also used trial sequential analysis (TSA) software v. 0.9.5.10 Beta and presented results as TSA plots. For synthesizing results, we used a random-effects model and reported differences in outcomes of two groups in terms of mean difference (MD), standardized MD, and risk ratio with 95% confidence interval. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB tool for RCTs. Our outcomes were mortality, pain, opioid and midazolam requirements, delirium rates, and ICU length of stay.
RESULTS
Twelve RCTs involving 805 ICU patients (ketamine group, n=398; control group, n=407) were included in the meta-analysis. The ketamine group was not superior to the control group in terms of mortality (in five studies with 318 patients), pain (two studies with 129 patients), mean and cumulative opioid consumption (six studies with 494 patients), midazolam consumption (six studies with 304 patients), and ICU length of stay (three studies with 270 patients). However, the model favored the ketamine group over the control group in delirium rate (four studies with 358 patients). This result is significant in terms of conventional boundaries (alpha=5%) but is not robust in sequential analysis. The applicability of the findings is limited by the small number of patients pooled for each outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis did not demonstrate differences between ketamine and control groups regarding any outcome except delirium rate, where the model favored the ketamine group over the control group. However, this result is not robust as sensitivity analysis and trial sequential analysis suggest that more RCTs should be conducted in the future.
PubMed: 38476062
DOI: 10.4266/acc.2023.00829 -
Clinics and Research in Hepatology and... Apr 2024This study aims to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for complex digestive endoscopy procedures, with the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for complex digestive endoscopy procedures, with the goal of offering comprehensive clinical evidence.
METHODS
Following predefined inclusion criteria, five databases were systematically searched, with a focus on identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam during complex digestive endoscopy procedures. The statistical software Stata 15.1 was employed for meticulous data analysis.
RESULTS
Sixteen RCTs were encompassed, involving a total of 1218 patients. In comparison to the midazolam group, dexmedetomidine administration was associated with a reduced risk of respiratory depression (RR=0.25, 95 %CI: 0.11-0.56) and hypoxemia (RR=0.22, 95 %CI: 0.12-0.39). Additionally, the dexmedetomidine group exhibited lower incidence rates of choking (RR=0.27, 95 %CI: 0.16-0.47), physical movement (RR=0.16, 95 %CI: 0.09-0.27), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR=0.56,95 %CI: 0.34-0.92). Patients and endoscopists in the dexmedetomidine group reported higher levels of satisfaction (patient satisfaction: SMD=0.73, 95 %CI: 0.26-1.21; endoscopist satisfaction: SMD=0.84, 95 %CI: 0.24-1.44). The incidence of hypotension and anesthesia recovery time did not significantly differ between the two groups (hypotension: RR=1.73,95 %CI:0.94-3.20; anesthesia recovery time: SMD=0.02, 95 %Cl: 0.44-0.49). It is noteworthy that the administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant increase in the incidence of bradycardia in patients.
CONCLUSION
Compared to midazolam, dexmedetomidine exhibits a favorable safety profile for use in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy by significantly reducing the risk of respiratory depression and hypoxemia. Despite this, dexmedetomidine is associated with a higher incidence of bradycardia. These findings underscore the need for further research through larger, multi-center studies to thoroughly investigate dexmedetomidine's safety and efficacy.
Topics: Humans; Midazolam; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Dexmedetomidine; Bradycardia; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Respiratory Insufficiency; Hypoxia; Hypotension
PubMed: 38467278
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinre.2024.102315 -
JAMA Neurology May 2024Multiple continuous intravenous anesthetic drugs (CIVADs) are available for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus (RSE). There is a paucity of data comparing...
IMPORTANCE
Multiple continuous intravenous anesthetic drugs (CIVADs) are available for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus (RSE). There is a paucity of data comparing the different types of CIVADs used for RSE.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and compare outcome measures associated with the initial CIVAD choice in RSE in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
Data sources included English and non-English articles using Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Web of Science (January 1994-June 2023) as well as manual search. Study selection included peer-reviewed studies of 5 or more patients and at least 1 patient older than 12 years with status epilepticus refractory to a benzodiazepine and at least 1 standard antiseizure medication, treated with continuously infused midazolam, ketamine, propofol, pentobarbital, or thiopental. Independent extraction of articles was performed using prespecified data items. The association between outcome variables and CIVAD was examined with an analysis of variance or χ2 test where appropriate. Binary logistic regressions were used to examine the association between outcome variables and CIVAD with etiology, change in mortality over time, electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring (continuous vs intermittent), and treatment goal (seizure vs burst suppression) included as covariates. Risk of bias was addressed by listing the population and type of each study.
FINDINGS
A total of 66 studies with 1637 patients were included. Significant differences among CIVAD groups in short-term failure, hypotension, and CIVAD substitution during treatment were observed. Non-epilepsy-related RSE (vs epilepsy-related RSE) was associated with a higher rate of CIVAD substitution (60 of 120 [50.0%] vs 11 of 43 [25.6%]; odds ratio [OR], 3.11; 95% CI, 1.44-7.11; P = .006) and mortality (98 of 227 [43.2%] vs 7 of 63 [11.1%]; OR, 17.0; 95% CI, 4.71-109.35; P < .001). Seizure suppression was associated with mortality (OR, 7.72; 95% CI, 1.77-39.23; P = .005), but only a small subgroup was available for analysis (seizure suppression: 17 of 22 [77.3%] from 3 publications vs burst suppression: 25 of 98 [25.5%] from 12 publications). CIVAD choice and EEG type were not predictors of mortality. Earlier publication year was associated with mortality, although the observation was no longer statistically significant after adjusting SEs for clustering.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Epilepsy-related RSE was associated with lower mortality compared with other RSE etiologies. A trend of decreasing mortality over time was observed, which may suggest an effect of advances in neurocritical care. The overall data are heterogeneous, which limits definitive conclusions on the choice of optimal initial CIVAD in RSE treatment.
Topics: Humans; Status Epilepticus; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Anticonvulsants
PubMed: 38466294
DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2024.0108