-
BMC Anesthesiology Feb 2023Dexmedetomidine (DEX) has been thought to be an effective adjuvant to local anesthetics (LAs) in erector spinae plane block (ESPB), however, this method of use is not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The effect and safety of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to local anesthetics in erector spinae plane block: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine (DEX) has been thought to be an effective adjuvant to local anesthetics (LAs) in erector spinae plane block (ESPB), however, this method of use is not recorded in the drug instructions. Hence, our meta-analysis will evaluate its efficacy and safety for the first time.
METHODS
A systematic search of published articles was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane Library databases up to July 17, 2022, using specific keywords related to our aims. The time first to request rescue analgesia, number of patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) presses, rate of rescue analgesia use, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), arrhythmia, and hypotension were calculated by using random-effect models. This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022345488).
RESULTS
Numerous electronic databases were searched and finally 8 studies with a total of 570 patients, 303 in the DEX arm, 267 in the control arm were included. As an adjuvant to LAs, DEX significantly increased the time to first request of rescue analgesia (mean difference [MD] = 8.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.70-12.10, P < 0.00001), reduced the number of PCIA presses (MD = -4.12, 95% CI = -7.79 to -0.45, P = 0.03) and the rate of rescue analgesia (odds ratio [OR] = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.17-0.65, P = 0.002). Moreover, the combination reduced the risk of PONV (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.36-0.91, P = 0.02). In addition, there was no difference in the incidence of hypotension (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.37-2.74, P = 0.99) and arrhythmia (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.19-3.07, P = 0.70).
CONCLUSION
DEX can reduce analgesic requirements after various surgical procedures when used as an adjuvant to LAs for ESPB. Moreover, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of safety indicators (arrhythmia, hypotension).
Topics: Humans; Anesthetics, Local; Dexmedetomidine; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Hypotension; Nerve Block
PubMed: 36849910
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02019-x -
Journal of Surgical Oncology May 2023We aim to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) for postoperative analgesia in breast cancer surgeries. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
We aim to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) for postoperative analgesia in breast cancer surgeries.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, CBM, Embase, Cochrane, Wanfang, VIPP, and CNKI were searched to identify published eligible randomized controlled trials. The primary results were the postoperative 24 h morphine consumption and pain scores, while the secondary outcomes included pain scores at other times, press times of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA), times to request for first rescue analgesia, the incidence of request for rescue analgesia, opioid-related complications, nerve blocks related complications and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS
We included 20 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, which involved 1293 participants. The morphine consumption and the pain scores during 24 h postoperatively were significantly decreased in the ESPB group versus the control group (p < 0.00001). Furthermore, ESPB also reduced pain scores at other time points, press times of PCIA, and times to first rescue analgesia requirement. Meanwhile, there was a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and skin pruritus in the ESPB group than in the control group.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to general anesthesia alone, ESPB combined with general anesthesia can effectively reduce the postoperative pain intensity within 48 h and opioid consumption within 24 h after breast cancer surgery, and reduce the incidence of opioid and nerve blocks related complications.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Morphine Derivatives
PubMed: 36826370
DOI: 10.1002/jso.27221 -
Medicine Feb 2023Patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery usually suffer from moderate to severe acute pain. Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been applied to relieve acute pain in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery usually suffer from moderate to severe acute pain. Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been applied to relieve acute pain in various surgeries and improve postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to further identify the efficacy and safety of erector spinae plane block in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. This study also evaluates the outcomes of the erector spinae plane block compared with other regional blocks.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Embase, and CINAHL databases to identify all randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of ESPB on postoperative pain after lumbar spine surgery. The primary outcome is postoperative total opioid consumption in 24 hours. The secondary outcomes are postoperative pain scores, intraoperative opioid consumption, time to first rescue analgesia, number of patients requiring rescue analgesia, first time to ambulation after surgery, length of hospital stay, patients' satisfaction score, and postoperative side effects such as postoperative nausea and vomiting, itching.
RESULTS
A total of 19 randomized controlled trials are included in the final analysis. Compared with no/sham block, ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block can decrease perioperative opioid consumption including intraoperative opioid consumption: standardized mean difference (SMD) = -3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-3.99, -2.09), P < .01, and opioid consumption postoperatively: (SMD = -2.80, 95% CI [-3.61, -2.00], P < .01); reduce postoperative pain at 2, 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours both at rest and movement; meanwhile shorten time to hospital length of stay: (SMD = -1.01, 95% CI [-1.72, 0.30], P = .006), decrease postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.35, 95% CI [0.27, 0.46], P < .00001), and improve patient satisfaction (SMD = -2.03, 95% CI [-0.96, 3.11], P = .0002). But ultrasound-guided ESPB doesn't shorten the time to ambulation after surgery (SMD = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.08], P = .09). Additionally, ESPB is not superior to other regional blocks (e.g., thoracolumbar interfascial plane/midtransverse process to pleura block).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis demonstrates that ultrasound-guided ESPB can provide effective postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery and improve postoperative outcomes, and it deserves to be recommended as an analgesic adjunct in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgeries.
Topics: Humans; Acute Pain; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Nerve Block; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 36800574
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032981 -
The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery May 2023Cleft lip and/or palate repair techniques require continued reevaluation of best practice through high-quality evidence. The objective of this systematic review was to...
BACKGROUND
Cleft lip and/or palate repair techniques require continued reevaluation of best practice through high-quality evidence. The objective of this systematic review was to highlight the existing evidence for patient safety and quality improvement (QI) initiatives in cleft lip and palate surgery.
METHODS
A systematic review of published literature evaluating patient safety and QI in patients with cleft lip and/or palate was conducted from database inception to June 9, 2022, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Quality appraisal of included studies was conducted using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies, Cochrane, or a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 instruments, according to study type.
RESULTS
Sixty-one studies met inclusion criteria, with most published between 2010 and 2020 (63.9%). Randomized controlled trials represented the most common study design (37.7%). Half of all included studies were related to the topic of pain and analgesia, with many supporting the use of infraorbital nerve block using 0.25% bupivacaine. The second most common intervention examined was use of perioperative antibiotics in reducing fistula and infection (11.5%). Other studies examined optimal age and closure material for cleft lip repair, early recovery after surgery protocols, interventions to reduce blood loss, and safety of outpatient surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
Patient safety and QI studies in cleft surgery were of moderate quality overall and covered a wide range of interventions. To further enhance PS in cleft repair, more high-quality research in the areas of perioperative pharmaceutical usage, appropriate wound closure materials, and optimal surgical timing are needed.
Topics: Humans; Cleft Lip; Cleft Palate; Patient Safety; Quality Improvement; Pain
PubMed: 36730883
DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000009094 -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Mar 2023In labour, neuraxial analgesia is the standard in the provision of pain relief. However, the optimal mode of delivering epidural solution has not been determined, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
In labour, neuraxial analgesia is the standard in the provision of pain relief. However, the optimal mode of delivering epidural solution has not been determined, and some parturients may need an alternative to epidural analgesia. We sought to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare continuous epidural infusion (CEI), programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB), computer-integrated CEI, computer-integrated PIEB, patient-controlled epidural bolus (PCEA), fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), and remifentanil PCA, either alone or in combination.
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, CINAHL, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials that included nulliparous and/or multiparous parturients in spontaneous or induced labour. The maintenance epidural solution had to include a low concentration local anesthetic and an opioid. Specific subgroups in the obstetric population such as preeclampsia were excluded. Network meta-analysis was performed with a frequentist method, and continuous and dichotomous outcomes are presented as mean differences and odds ratios, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
Overall, 73 trials were included. For the first coprimary outcome, the need for rescue analgesia, CEI was inferior to PIEB and PIEB + PCEA was superior to PCEA alone, with a low certainty of evidence given the presence of serious limitations and imprecision. The second coprimary outcome, the maternal satisfaction, was improved by PIEB + PCEA compared with CEI + PCEA and PCEA alone, with a low quality of evidence in view of the presence of serious limitations and imprecision. Fentanyl PCA increased the requirement for rescue analgesia and decreased maternal satisfaction relative to many methods of delivering epidural solution. In terms of secondary outcomes, PIEB increased analgesic efficacy compared with CEI, and PCEA reduced local anesthetic consumption at the expense of inferior analgesia relative to CEI and PIEB. PIEB + PCEA was superior to CEI + PCEA in regard to the pain score at 2 h and 4 h, consumption of local anesthetic, incidence of lower lower limb motor blockade and the rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery. Fentanyl and remifentanil PCA did not provide the same level of analgesia as all epidural methods, resulted in increasing analgesic ineffectiveness with time spent in labour, and predisposed to a higher incidence of side effects such as nausea and/or vomiting and sedation. Remifentanil PCA was superior to fentanyl PCA for analgesia at an early time point, and it increased the incidence of oxygen desaturation relative to other strategies of delivering epidural solution.
CONCLUSIONS
Opioid PCA did not provide the same level of analgesia as epidural methods with a higher incidence of side effects. We interpret the findings of our systematic review and network meta-analysis as suggesting PIEB + PCEA to be the optimal delivery mode of epidural solution. Nevertheless, the potential differing importance of the various maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes in determining which is optimal has not, to our knowledge, been elucidated yet.
STUDY REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42021254978); registered 27 May 2021.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Fentanyl; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Remifentanil
PubMed: 36720838
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-022-02389-9 -
Journal of the American College of... Feb 2023Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) and peripheral nerve blocks (NBs) are techniques to manage pain and facilitate reduction of dislocated joints or fractures....
BACKGROUND
Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) and peripheral nerve blocks (NBs) are techniques to manage pain and facilitate reduction of dislocated joints or fractures. However, it is unclear if either approach provides any distinct advantage in the emergency department (ED). The aim of this systematic review is to compare these 2 techniques on pain scores, adverse events, patient satisfaction, and length of stay (LOS) in the ED.
METHODS
We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, and references were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PSA with NBs for orthopedic reductions in the ED were included. Outcomes of interest included pain scores, adverse events, patient satisfaction, and LOS in the ED. A total of 2 reviewers independently screened abstracts and extracted data into a standardized form. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to evaluate study quality. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty and strength of the evidence. Data on pain scores were pooled using a random-effects model and are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
A total of 6 RCTs (n = 256) were included in a qualitative review, and 4 RCTs (n = 101) were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in pain scores between the PSA and NB groups ( = 0.47; SMD, 0.45; 95% CI, -0.78 to 1.69; I = 0.94). There were less adverse events in the NB group (0%-3.3%) compared with the PSA group (0%-20%; n = 256). LOS times were consistently shorter in the NB group (n = 215). Patient satisfaction was comparable in both groups (n = 196).
CONCLUSION
Based on the available evidence, NBs performed by emergency physicians are as effective as PSA in managing pain during orthopedic reductions in the ED. NBs are associated with fewer adverse events and shorter LOS in the ED. The quality of evidence is low.
PubMed: 36704208
DOI: 10.1002/emp2.12886 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022To investigate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine (DEX) for postoperative patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). Two investigators independently...
To investigate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine (DEX) for postoperative patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). Two investigators independently searched Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and CBM for randomized controlled trials of DEX for PCIA. Thirty-seven studies with a total of 5,409 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with analgesics alone, DEX for PCIA reduced pain score at 24 h [mean difference (MD) = -0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.85, -0.54; < 0.00001, = 90%] and 48 h postoperatively (MD = -0.43; 95% CI: -0.52, -0.34; < 0.00001, = 96%). Moreover, DEX reduced analgesics consumption during the first 24 h [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.25; 95% CI: -0.34, -0.16; < 0.00001, = 91%] and the number of resuscitation analgesics administered [odds ratio (OR) = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.66; < 0.00001, = 72%]. Furthermore, DEX improved patient satisfaction (OR = 3.55; 95% CI: 2.36, 5.35; < 0.00001, = 60%), and reduced incidence of side effects, such as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (OR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.57; < 0.00001, = 59%) and pruritus after surgery (OR = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.68; = 0.0001, = 0%). Besides, DEX attenuates inflammatory cytokine levels, such as IL-6 (MD = -5.73; 95% CI: -8.34, -3.12; < 0.00001, = 91%) and TNF-α (MD = -0.63; 95% CI: -0.76, -0.50; < 0.00001, = 89%). Finally, DEX increased the risk of bradycardia (OR = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.12, 2.45; = 0.01, = 15%), but the complication of hypotension did not differ between the two groups (OR = 1.30; 95% CI: 0.84, 2.04; = 0.25, = 0%). DEX is used for postoperative PCIA analgesia, which can significantly improve the analgesic effect, effectively control postoperative inflammatory response, reduce the dosage and adverse reactions of analgesics, and improve postoperative patient satisfaction. Of course, the impact of the immunosuppressive effect of DEX on the prognosis of patients needs further study. CRD42022340933, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.
PubMed: 36578546
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1028704 -
Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Jan 2024Postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction (PNCD) is a frequent and preventable complication after surgery. The large high-quality evidence for the efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Role of supplemental regional blocks on postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction after major non-cardiac surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE
Postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction (PNCD) is a frequent and preventable complication after surgery. The large high-quality evidence for the efficacy of supplemental regional analgesia blocks (RAB) for preventing PNCD is still elusive.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of RAB versus standard anesthesia care on the incidence of PNCD in adult patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Registers of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 2017 until June 2022. The primary outcome was the incidence of PNCD within 1 month of surgery. A random-effects model with an inverse variance method was used to pool results, and OR and mean differences were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes. Various exploratory subgroup analyses were performed to explore the possibility of the association between the various patient, technique, and surgery-related factors. Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines were used to determine the certainty of evidence.
FINDINGS
Twenty-six RCTs comprizing 4414 patients were included. The RAB group was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of PNCD with an OR of 0.46 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.59; p<0.00001; I=28%) compared with the control group (moderate certainty). Subgroup analysis exhibited that the prophylactic efficacy of RAB persisted for both delirium and delayed neurocognitive recovery.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence suggests that supplemental RAB are beneficial in preventing PNCD in patients after major non-cardiac surgery.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022338820.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Analgesia; Anesthesia, Conduction; Delirium; Postoperative Cognitive Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36535728
DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2022-104095 -
PloS One 2022Remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (rPCA) and epidural analgesia (EA) has been used for pain relief in labor. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rPCA... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (rPCA) and epidural analgesia (EA) has been used for pain relief in labor. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rPCA versus EA in labor, to provide evidence support for clinical analgesia and pain care.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Weipu databases for RCTs comparing rPCA and EA in labor until February 15, 2022. Two researchers independently screened literature and extracted data. RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 10 RCTs involving 3086 parturients were enrolled, 1549 parturients received rPCA and 1537 received EA. Meta-analysis indicated that the incidence of intrapartum maternal fever within 1 hour of labor analgesia (OR = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.30~0.62), after 1 hour of labor analgesia (OR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.20~0.90) in the rPCA was significantly less than that of EA (all P<0.05). The incidence of respiratory depression (OR = 3.56, 95%CI: 2.45~5.16, P<0.001) in the rPCA was significantly higher than that of EA. There were no significant differences in the incidence of Apgar scores<7 at 5 minutes (OR = 1.18, 95%CI: 0.71~1.96, P = 0.53), the patients' satisfaction of pain relief during labor analgesia (SMD = 0.03, 95%CI: -0.40~0.46, P = 0.90) between rPCA and EA (all P>0.05).
CONCLUSION
rPCA can be an optional alternative to EA with similar pain relief and less risk of intrapartum maternal fever. However, rPCA was associated with increased risk of respiratory depression. Future studies with rigorous design and larger sample size are needed to provide more reliable evidences for clinical rPCA and EA use.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Remifentanil; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics, Opioid; Labor Pain; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled
PubMed: 36534641
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275716 -
Journal of Opioid Management 2022To determine equianalgesic potency ratios for opioids with an -evidence-based approach without the use of pre-existing potency tables. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine equianalgesic potency ratios for opioids with an -evidence-based approach without the use of pre-existing potency tables.
DESIGN
Frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing opioids in patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).
SETTING
A systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), and Web of Science identified relevant RCTs from start of recording to 2019.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
RCTs comparing opioids via intravenous PCA in acute pain, with comparable resulting pain scores and identical treatment with coanalgesics at study level. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool with six items.
RESULTS
52 RCTs were identified with data for 16 opioids. Primary endpoint was the inverted ratio of means of the total consumption administered via PCA, which resembles the analgesic potency. The calculated analgesic potencies were sufentanil 423 [95 percent CI 334.99; 532.96], fentanyl 58 [48.22; 68.60], buprenorphine 37 [26.66; 50.81], remifentanil 13 [9.37; 19.13], alfentanil 7 [4.02; 11.01], hydromorphone 6 [4.96; 8.43], oxymorphone 6 [4.46; 8.84], butorphanol 4.5 [3.05; 6.73], diamorphine 2.2 [1.16; 4.10], morphine 1, oxycodone 0.9 [0.65; 1.34], piritramide 0.9 [0.55; 1.56], nalbuphine 0.7 [0.54; 0.95], pethidine 0.12 [0.10; 0.15], meptazinol 0.08 [0.03; 0.20], and tramadol 0.08 [0.07; 0.10].
CONCLUSIONS
The results in part contradict the values from the literature, which have been criticized for their imprecision. From clinical experience however, our findings seem very plausible. Short-acting opioids are less potent compared to longer acting drugs, eg, morphine, probably due to shorter intervals for -readministration.
Topics: Humans; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Network Meta-Analysis; Tramadol; Morphine
PubMed: 36523208
DOI: 10.5055/jom.2022.0751