-
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular... Oct 2017To assess differences in mitral regurgitation (MR) grade between the preoperative and the intraoperative evaluations. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess differences in mitral regurgitation (MR) grade between the preoperative and the intraoperative evaluations.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 6 observational studies found from MEDLINE and EMBASE.
SETTING
Cardiac surgery.
PARTICIPANTS
One hundred thirty-seven patients.
INTERVENTION
Comparison between the preoperative MR assessment and the intraoperative evaluation conducted under general anesthesia (GA), with or without "hemodynamic matching" (HM) (artificial increase of afterload).
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
The primary outcome was the difference between the preoperative and intraoperative MR grade under "GA-only" or "after-HM." Secondary analyses addressed differences according to effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA), regurgitant volume (RVol), color-jet area, and vena contracta width. Risk of MR underestimation was found under "GA-only" (SMD: 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.79, p < 0.00001), but not "after-HM" (SMD: -0.16; 95% CI, -0.46 to 0.13, p = 0.27). Under "GA-only", EROA had a trend toward underestimation (p = 0.07), RVol was reliable (p = 0.17), while reliance on color-jet area and vena contracta width incur risk of underestimation (both p = 0.003). After HM, EROA accurately reflected preoperative MR (p = 0.68) while RVol had a trend toward overestimation (p = 0.05). The overall reported incidence of misdiagnoses was slightly more common under "GA-only" (mean 48%, 39% underestimation, 9% overestimation; range: 32%-57%) than "after-HM" (mean 41%, 12% underestimation, 29% overestimation; range: 33%-50%). Only the minority of misdiagnoses were clinically relevant: underestimation was around 10% (both approaches), but 18% had clinically significant overestimation "after-HM" as compared with 3% under GA-only.
CONCLUSIONS
Intraoperative assessment under "GA-only" significantly underestimated MR. A more accurate intraoperative evaluation can be obtained with afterload manipulation, although HM strategy carries high risk of clinically significant overestimation.
Topics: Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Humans; Intraoperative Care; Mitral Valve Insufficiency; Operating Rooms; Preoperative Care; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 28506541
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2017.02.046 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Topical local anaesthetics provide effective analgesia for patients undergoing numerous superficial procedures, including repair of dermal lacerations. The need for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Topical local anaesthetics provide effective analgesia for patients undergoing numerous superficial procedures, including repair of dermal lacerations. The need for cocaine in topical anaesthetic formulations has been questioned because of concern about adverse effects, thus novel preparations of cocaine-free anaesthetics have been developed. This review was originally published in 2011 and has been updated in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether benefits of non-invasive topical anaesthetic application occur at the expense of decreased analgesic efficacy. To compare the efficacy of various single-component or multi-component topical anaesthetic agents for repair of dermal lacerations. To determine the clinical necessity for topical application of the ester anaesthetic, cocaine.
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, we searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 2010 to December 2016), Embase (2010 to December 2016) and MEDLINE (2010 to December 2016). We did not limit this search by language or format of publication. We contacted manufacturers, international scientific societies and researchers in the field. Weemailed selected journalsand reviewed meta-registers of ongoing trials. For the previous version of this review, we searched these databases to November 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of topical anaesthetics for repair of dermal laceration in adult and paediatric participants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information when needed. We collected adverse event information from trial reports. We assessed methodological risk of bias for each included study and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
The present updated review included 25 RCTs involving 3278 participants. The small number of trials in each comparison group and the heterogeneity of outcome measures precluded quantitative analysis of data for all but one outcome: pain intensity. In two pooled studies, the mean self-reported visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 to 100 mm) score for topical prilocaine-phenylephrine (PP) was higher than the mean self-reported VAS (0 to 100 mm) score for topical tetracaine-epinephrine-cocaine (TAC) by 5.59 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.16 to 13.35). Most trials that compared infiltrated and topical anaesthetics were at high risk of bias, which is likely to have affected their results. Researchers found that several cocaine-free topical anaesthetics provided effective analgesic efficacy. However, data regarding the efficacy of each topical agent are based mostly on single comparisons in trials with unclear or high risk of bias. Mild, self-limited erythematous skin induration occurred in one of 1042 participants who had undergone application of TAC. Investigators reported no serious complications among any of the participants treated with cocaine-based or cocaine-free topical anaesthetics. The overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE system is low owing to limitations in design and implementation, imprecision of results and high probability of publication bias (selective reporting of data). Additional well-designed RCTs with low risk of bias are necessary before definitive conclusions can be reached.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have found two new studies published since the last version of this review was prepared. We have added these studies to those previously included and have conducted an updated analysis, which resulted in the same review conclusions as were presented previously.Mostly descriptive analysis indicates that topical anaesthetics may offer an efficacious, non-invasive means of providing analgesia before suturing of dermal lacerations. Use of cocaine-based topical anaesthetics might be hard to justify, given the availability of other effective topical anaesthetics without cocaine. However, the overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE system is low owing to limitations in design and implementation, imprecision of results and high probability of publication bias (selective reporting of data). Additional well-designed RCTs with low risk of bias are necessary before definitive conclusions can be reached.
Topics: Adult; Anesthetics, Local; Child; Cocaine; Drug Combinations; Epinephrine; Humans; Lacerations; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin; Sutures; Tetracaine
PubMed: 28230244
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005364.pub3 -
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Nov 2016Adult critically ill patients often suffer from acute circulatory failure, necessitating use of vasopressor therapy. The aim of the Scandinavian Society of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Adult critically ill patients often suffer from acute circulatory failure, necessitating use of vasopressor therapy. The aim of the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (SSAI) task force for Acute Circulatory Failure was to present clinically relevant, evidence-based treatment recommendations on this topic.
METHODS
This guideline was developed according to standards for trustworthy guidelines, including a systematic review of the literature and use of the GRADE methodology for assessment of the quality of evidence and for moving from evidence to recommendations. We assessed the following subpopulations of patients with acute circulatory failure: 1) shock in general, 2) septic shock, 3) cardiogenic shock, 4) hypovolemic shock and 5) other types of shock, including vasodilatory shock. We assessed patient-important outcome measures, including mortality, serious adverse reactions and quality-of-life.
RESULTS
For patients with shock in general and those with septic shock, we recommend using norepinephrine rather than dopamine, and we suggest using norepinephrine rather than epinephrine, vasopressin analogues, and phenylephrine. For patients with cardiogenic shock and those with hypovolemic shock, we suggest using norepinephrine rather than dopamine, and we provide no recommendations/suggestions of norepinephrine vs. epinephrine, vasopressin analogues, and phenylephrine. For patients with other types of shock, including vasodilatory shock, we suggest using norepinephrine rather than dopamine, epinephrine, vasopressin analogues, and phenylephrine.
CONCLUSIONS
We recommend using norepinephrine rather than other vasopressors as first-line treatment for the majority of adult critically ill patients with acute circulatory failure.
Topics: Acute Disease; Humans; Norepinephrine; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Shock; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 27576362
DOI: 10.1111/aas.12780 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Oct 2016Hypotension remains a frequent complication of spinal anesthesia, increasing the risk of nausea and vomiting, altered mental status, and aspiration. The aim of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Prevention of Spinal Anesthesia-Induced Hypotension During Cesarean Delivery by 5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 Receptor Antagonists: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis and Meta-regression.
BACKGROUND
Hypotension remains a frequent complication of spinal anesthesia, increasing the risk of nausea and vomiting, altered mental status, and aspiration. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, administered before the initiation of spinal anesthesia, mitigate hypotension.
METHODS
After a systematic literature search in various databases, randomized placebo-controlled double-blind trials studying the preventive effect of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists were included. A random-effects model was applied, risk ratio (RR, binary variables) or weighted mean difference (continuous variables) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension.
RESULTS
Seventeen trials (8 obstetric, 9 non-obstetric) reporting on 1604 patients were identified. Ondansetron in doses from 2 to 12 mg was studied in 12 trials. Prophylactic 5-HT3 administration significantly reduced the risk of hypotension in the combined analysis of 17 trials, RR 0.54 (95% CI 0.36-0.81, I = 79%). In obstetric trials, the RR was 0.52, 95% CI 0.30-0.88, I = 87% (number needed to treat 4). In non-obstetric studies, the 95% CIs were wide and included a clinically relevant reduction in the risk of hypotension (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22-1.16; I = 66%). Contour-enhanced funnel plots confirmed publication bias. Meta-regression showed a significant ondansetron dose response in non-obstetric patients (β = -0.355, P = .04). In the combined and in the obstetric-only analysis, the risk of bradycardia was significantly reduced as was the use of phenylephrine equivalents.
CONCLUSIONS
5-HT3 antagonists are effective in reducing the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia; the effects are moderate and are only significant in the subgroup of patients undergoing cesarean delivery. The effects in the non-obstetric population are not significant.
Topics: Anesthesia, Spinal; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Hypotension; Pregnancy; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Regression Analysis; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists
PubMed: 27537930
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001511 -
International Journal of Obstetric... Nov 2015A range of strategies including physical interventions, intravenous fluids and vasopressor drugs have been used to minimize or prevent spinal anesthesia-induced... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A range of strategies including physical interventions, intravenous fluids and vasopressor drugs have been used to minimize or prevent spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension. Recent studies suggest that ondansetron, a commonly used antiemetic, also affects hypotension. This systematic review investigated the effects of prophylactic ondansetron on hemodynamic changes following spinal anesthesia.
METHODS
Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library databases and www.clinicaltrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials studying the effects of ondansetron on hemodynamic changes induced by spinal anesthesia. The primary outcome was hypotension. Relative risk (RR) or mean difference, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), were used to analyze outcomes.
RESULTS
Ten randomized controlled trials with 863 patients were included in the analysis. Prophylactic ondansetron reduced the incidence of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension in both obstetric and non-obstetric patients. The RR of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension after ondansetron administration was 0.53 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.86) in obstetric patients and 0.16 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.51) in non-obstetric patients. There was significant heterogeneity among obstetric studies (I(2) = 71%). Ondansetron also reduced the incidence of bradycardia, nausea and vomiting after spinal anesthesia with RRs of 0.27 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.47), 0.24 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.42) and 0.48 (95% CI 0.08 to 3.08), respectively. The doses of ephedrine and phenylephrine required to treat hypotension were reduced by ondansetron with mean differences of -2.35 mg (95% CI -4.14 to -0.55 mg) and -31.16 μg (95% CI -57.46 to -4.87 μg), respectively.
CONCLUSION
This review suggests that prophylactic ondansetron reduces the incidence of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension and vasopressor consumption in both obstetric and non-obstetric patients. In addition, ondansetron can also reduce related adverse outcomes such as bradycardia, nausea and vomiting. However, given the relatively large heterogeneity and small sample sizes in current studies, further large and strict randomized clinical trials investigating the effects of ondansetron on spinal anesthesia-induced hemodynamic changes and side effects are still needed, especially among obstetric patients.
Topics: Anesthesia, Spinal; Humans; Hypotension; Ondansetron; Serotonin Antagonists
PubMed: 26421701
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2015.08.012 -
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 -
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk... 2015Vasopressor agents are often prescribed in septic shock. However, their effects remain controversial. We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis...
OBJECTIVE
Vasopressor agents are often prescribed in septic shock. However, their effects remain controversial. We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the effects among different types of vasopressor agents.
DATA SOURCES
We searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from database inception until December 2014.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials in adults with septic shock that evaluated different vasopressor agents were selected.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Twenty-one trials (n=3,819) met inclusion criteria, which compared eleven vasopressor agents or vasopressor combinations (norepinephrine [NE], dopamine [DA], vasopressin [VP], epinephrine [EN], terlipressin [TP], phenylephrine [PE], TP+NE, TP + dobutamine [DB], NE+DB, NE+EN, and NE + dopexamine [DX]). Except for the superiority of NE over DA, the mortality of patients treated with any vasopressor agent or vasopressor combination was not significantly different. Compared to DA, NE was found to be associated with decreased cardiac adverse events, heart rate (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -2.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.95, -0.25; P=0.03), and cardiac index (SMD: -0.73; 95% CI: -1.14, -0.03; P=0.004) and increased systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) (SMD: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.61, 1.45; P<0.0001). This Bayesian meta-analysis revealed a possible rank of probability of mortality among the eleven vasopressor agents or vasopressor combinations; from lowest to highest, they are NE+DB, EN, TP, NE+EN, TP+NE, VP, TP+DB, NE, PE, NE+DX, and DA.
CONCLUSION
In terms of survival, NE may be superior to DA. Otherwise, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that any other vasopressor agent or vasopressor combination is superior to another. When compared to DA, NE is associated with decreased heart rate, cardiac index, and cardiovascular adverse events, as well as increased SVRI. The effects of vasopressor agents or vasopressor combinations on mortality in patients with septic shock require further investigation.
PubMed: 26203253
DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S80060 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014It is unclear whether blood pressure should be altered actively during the acute phase of stroke. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1997, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
It is unclear whether blood pressure should be altered actively during the acute phase of stroke. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1997, and previously updated in 2001 and 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effectiveness of altering blood pressure in people with acute stroke, and the effect of different vasoactive drugs on blood pressure in acute stroke.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched in February 2014), the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews (CDSR) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 2), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1966 to May 2014), EMBASE (Ovid) (1974 to May 2014), Science Citation Index (ISI, Web of Science, 1981 to May 2014) and the Stroke Trials Registry (searched May 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of interventions that aimed to alter blood pressure compared with control in participants within one week of acute ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and extracted data. The review authors cross-checked data and resolved discrepancies by discussion to reach consensus. We obtained published and unpublished data where available.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 26 trials involving 17,011 participants (8497 participants were assigned active therapy and 8514 participants received placebo/control). Not all trials contributed to each outcome. Most data came from trials that had a wide time window for recruitment; four trials gave treatment within six hours and one trial within eight hours. The trials tested alpha-2 adrenergic agonists (A2AA), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor antagonists (ARA), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), nitric oxide (NO) donors, thiazide-like diuretics, and target-driven blood pressure lowering. One trial tested phenylephrine.At 24 hours after randomisation oral ACEIs reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP, mean difference (MD) -8 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17 to 1) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP, MD -3 mmHg, 95% CI -9 to 2), sublingual ACEIs reduced SBP (MD -12.00 mm Hg, 95% CI -26 to 2) and DBP (MD -2, 95%CI -10 to 6), oral ARA reduced SBP (MD -1 mm Hg, 95% CI -3 to 2) and DBP (MD -1 mm Hg, 95% CI -3 to 1), oral beta blockers reduced SBP (MD -14 mm Hg; 95% CI -27 to -1) and DBP (MD -1 mm Hg, 95% CI -9 to 7), intravenous (iv) beta blockers reduced SBP (MD -5 mm Hg, 95% CI -18 to 8) and DBP (-5 mm Hg, 95% CI -13 to 3), oral CCBs reduced SBP (MD -13 mmHg, 95% CI -43 to 17) and DBP (MD -6 mmHg, 95% CI -14 to 2), iv CCBs reduced SBP (MD -32 mmHg, 95% CI -65 to 1) and DBP (MD -13, 95% CI -31 to 6), NO donors reduced SBP (MD -12 mmHg, 95% CI -19 to -5) and DBP (MD -3, 95% CI -4 to -2) while phenylephrine, non-significantly increased SBP (MD 21 mmHg, 95% CI -13 to 55) and DBP (MD 1 mmHg, 95% CI -15 to 16).Blood pressure lowering did not reduce death or dependency either by drug class (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.05), stroke type (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.05) or time to treatment (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.05). Treatment within six hours of stroke appeared effective in reducing death or dependency (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.99) but not death (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.26) at the end of the trial. Although death or dependency did not differ between people who continued pre-stroke antihypertensive treatment versus those who stopped it temporarily (worse outcome with continuing treatment, OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.24), disability scores at the end of the trial were worse in participants randomised to continue treatment (Barthel Index, MD -3.2, 95% CI -5.8, -0.6).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence that lowering blood pressure during the acute phase of stroke improves functional outcome. It is reasonable to withhold blood pressure-lowering drugs until patients are medically and neurologically stable, and have suitable oral or enteral access, after which drugs can than be reintroduced. In people with acute stroke, CCBs, ACEI, ARA, beta blockers and NO donors each lower blood pressure while phenylephrine probably increases blood pressure. Further trials are needed to identify which people are most likely to benefit from early treatment, in particular whether treatment started very early is beneficial.
Topics: Acute Disease; Blood Pressure; Calcium Channel Blockers; Humans; Hypertension; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk; Stroke; Time-to-Treatment; Vasodilator Agents
PubMed: 25353321
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000039.pub3 -
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