-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Coinfection; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Oxygen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; United States; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35695334
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015209 -
World Journal of Gastrointestinal... Mar 2023Oesophageal cancer is a frequently observed and lethal malignancy worldwide. Surgical resection remains a realistic option for curative intent in the early stages of the...
BACKGROUND
Oesophageal cancer is a frequently observed and lethal malignancy worldwide. Surgical resection remains a realistic option for curative intent in the early stages of the disease. However, the decision to undertake oesophagectomy is significant as it exposes the patient to a substantial risk of morbidity and mortality. Therefore, appropriate patient selection, counselling and resource allocation is important. Many tools have been developed to aid surgeons in appropriate decision-making.
AIM
To examine all multivariate risk models that use preoperative and intraoperative information and establish which have the most clinical utility.
METHODS
A systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases was conducted from 2000-2020. The search terms applied were ((Oesophagectomy) AND (Risk OR predict OR model OR score) AND (Outcomes OR complications OR morbidity OR mortality OR length of stay OR anastomotic leak)). The applied inclusion criteria were articles assessing multivariate based tools using exclusively preoperatively available data to predict perioperative patient outcomes following oesophagectomy. The exclusion criteria were publications that described models requiring intra-operative or post-operative data and articles appraising only univariate predictors such as American Society of Anesthesiologists score, cardiopulmonary fitness or pre-operative sarcopenia. Articles that exclusively assessed distant outcomes such as long-term survival were excluded as were publications using cohorts mixed with other surgical procedures. The articles generated from each search were collated, processed and then reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. All risk models were appraised for clinical credibility, methodological quality, performance, validation, and clinical effectiveness.
RESULTS
The initial search of composite databases yielded 8715 articles which reduced to 5827 following the deduplication process. After title and abstract screening, 197 potentially relevant texts were retrieved for detailed review. Twenty-seven published studies were ultimately included which examined twenty-one multivariate risk models utilising exclusively preoperative data. Most models examined were clinically credible and were constructed with sound methodological quality, but model performance was often insufficient to prognosticate patient outcomes. Three risk models were identified as being promising in predicting perioperative mortality, including the National Quality Improvement Project surgical risk calculator, revised STS score and the Takeuchi model. Two studies predicted perioperative major morbidity, including the predicting postoperative complications score and prognostic nutritional index-multivariate models. Many of these models require external validation and demonstration of clinical effectiveness.
CONCLUSION
Whilst there are several promising models in predicting perioperative oesophagectomy outcomes, more research is needed to confirm their validity and demonstrate improved clinical outcomes with the adoption of these models.
PubMed: 37032794
DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v15.i3.450 -
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) May 2024Postoperative mortality is one of the six surgical indicators identified by the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery for monitoring access to high-quality surgical care.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative mortality is one of the six surgical indicators identified by the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery for monitoring access to high-quality surgical care. This study aimed to assess the magnitude and associated factors of postoperative mortality among patients who underwent surgery in Ethiopia.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines. Ten studies were included in this Systematic review and meta-analysis. The risk of bias for each study was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute quality appraisal scale. Publication bias was checked using a funnel plot and Egger's regression test. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed by I statistics. STATA version 17 software was used for analysis. A random effect model and the DerSimonian-Laird method of estimation was used to estimate the pooled magnitude of postoperative mortality. Odds ratios with 95% CIs were calculated to determine the associations of the identified factors with postoperative mortality.
RESULTS
The results revealed that the pooled magnitude of postoperative mortality among patients who underwent surgery in Ethiopia was 4.53% (95% CI :3.70-5.37). An American Society of Anesthesiologists score greater than or equal to III [adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 2.45, 95% CI: 2.02, 2.96], age older than or equal to 65 years (AOR: 3.03, 95% CI: 2.78, 3.31), and comorbidity (AOR: 3.28, 95% CI: 1.91, 5.63) were significantly associated with postoperative mortality.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The pooled magnitude of postoperative mortality among patients who underwent surgery in Ethiopia was high. The presence of comorbidities, age older than 65 years, and ASA physical status greater than III were significantly associated with postoperative mortality. Therefore, the Ministry of Health and other concerned bodies should consider quality improvement processes.
PubMed: 38694295
DOI: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001978 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Aug 2022Many postmortem studies address the cardiovascular effects of COVID-19 and provide valuable information, but are limited by their small sample size. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many postmortem studies address the cardiovascular effects of COVID-19 and provide valuable information, but are limited by their small sample size.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review is to better understand the various aspects of the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 by pooling data from a large number of autopsy studies.
DATA SOURCES
We searched the online databases Ovid EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science for concepts of autopsy or histopathology combined with COVID-19, published between database inception and February 2021. We also searched for unpublished manuscripts using the medRxiv services operated by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Articles were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported human postmortem cardiovascular findings among individuals with a confirmed SARS coronavirus type 2 (CoV-2) infection.
PARTICIPANTS
Confirmed COVID-19 patients with post-mortem cardiovascular findings.
INTERVENTIONS
None.
METHODS
Studies were individually assessed for risk of selection, detection, and reporting biases. The median prevalence of different autopsy findings with associated interquartile ranges (IQRs).
RESULTS
This review cohort contained 50 studies including 548 hearts. The median age of the deceased was 69 years. The most prevalent acute cardiovascular findings were myocardial necrosis (median: 100.0%; IQR, 20%-100%; number of studies = 9; number of patients = 64) and myocardial oedema (median: 55.5%; IQR, 19.5%-92.5%; number of studies = 4; number of patients = 46). The median reported prevalence of extensive, focal active, and multifocal myocarditis were all 0.0%. The most prevalent chronic changes were myocyte hypertrophy (median: 69.0%; IQR, 46.8%-92.1%) and fibrosis (median: 35.0%; IQR, 35.0%-90.5%). SARS-CoV-2 was detected in the myocardium with median prevalence of 60.8% (IQR 40.4-95.6%).
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review confirmed the high prevalence of acute and chronic cardiac pathologies in COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 cardiac tropism, as well as the low prevalence of myocarditis in COVID-19.
Topics: Aged; Autopsy; COVID-19; Humans; Lung; Myocarditis; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35339672
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.03.021 -
Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia 2024This review article examines the utility of artificial intelligence (AI) in anesthesia, with a focus on recent developments and future directions in the field. A total... (Review)
Review
This review article examines the utility of artificial intelligence (AI) in anesthesia, with a focus on recent developments and future directions in the field. A total of 19,300 articles were available on the given topic after searching in the above mentioned databases, and after choosing the custom range of years from 2015 to 2023 as an inclusion component, only 12,100 remained. 5,720 articles remained after eliminating non-full text. Eighteen papers were identified to meet the inclusion criteria for the review after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The applications of AI in anesthesia after studying the articles were in favor of the use of AI as it enhanced or equaled human judgment in drug dose decision and reduced mortality by early detection. Two studies tried to formulate prediction models, current techniques, and limitations of AI; ten studies are mainly focused on pain and complications such as hypotension, with a P value of <0.05; three studies tried to formulate patient outcomes with the help of AI; and three studies are mainly focusing on how drug dose delivery is calculated (median: 1.1% ± 0.5) safely and given to the patients with applications of AI. In conclusion, the use of AI in anesthesia has the potential to revolutionize the field and improve patient outcomes. AI algorithms can accurately predict patient outcomes and anesthesia dosing, as well as monitor patients during surgery in real time. These technologies can help anesthesiologists make more informed decisions, increase efficiency, and reduce costs. However, the implementation of AI in anesthesia also presents challenges, such as the need to address issues of bias and privacy. As the field continues to evolve, it will be important to carefully consider the ethical implications of AI in anesthesia and ensure that these technologies are used in a responsible and transparent manner.
PubMed: 38654854
DOI: 10.4103/sja.sja_955_23 -
Cancers Nov 2022Anastomotic leaks (AL) following ovarian cytoreduction surgery could be detrimental, leading to significant delays in commencing adjuvant chemotherapy, prolonged... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Anastomotic leaks (AL) following ovarian cytoreduction surgery could be detrimental, leading to significant delays in commencing adjuvant chemotherapy, prolonged hospital stays and increased morbidity. The aim of this study was to investigate risk factors associated with anastomotic leaks after ovarian cytoreduction surgery.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Scopus bibliographical databases were searched. Original clinical studies investigating risk factors for AL in ovarian cytoreduction surgery were included.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies with non-overlapping populations reporting on patients undergoing cytoreduction surgery for ovarian cancer (n = 4622, including 344 cases complicated by AL) were included in our analysis. Patients undergoing ovarian cytoreduction surgery complicated by AL had a significantly higher rate of 30-day mortality but no difference in 60-day mortality. Multiple bowel resections were associated with an increased risk of postoperative AL, while no association was observed with body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, age, smoking, operative approach (primary versus interval cytoreductive, stapled versus hand-sewn anastomoses and formation of diverting stoma), neoadjuvant chemotherapy and use of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC).
DISCUSSION
Multiple bowel resections were the only clinical risk factor associated with increased risk for AL after bowel surgery in the ovarian cancer population. The increased 30-day mortality rate in patients undergoing ovarian cytoreduction complicated by AL highlights the need to minimize the number of bowel resections in this population. Further studies are required to clarify any association between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and decreased AL rates.
PubMed: 36358882
DOI: 10.3390/cancers14215464 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous (IV) ibuprofen, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate-to-severe postoperative pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 10 June 2021. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous (IV) ibuprofen with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for review inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a 4- and 6-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to, and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants reporting or experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and specific NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. We were not able to carry out any planned meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Only one study met our inclusion criteria, involving 201 total participants, mostly female (mean age 42 years), undergoing primary, unilateral, distal, first metatarsal bunionectomy (with osteotomy and internal fixation). Ibuprofen 300 mg, placebo or acetaminophen 1000 mg was administered intravenously to participants reporting moderate pain intensity the day after surgery. Since we identified only one study for inclusion, we did not perform any quantitative analyses. The study was at low risk of bias for most domains. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to serious study limitations, indirectness and imprecision. Ibuprofen versus placebo Findings of the single study found that at both the 4-hour and 6-hour assessment period, the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 32% (24/76) for those assigned to ibuprofen and 22% (11/50) for those assigned to placebo. These findings produced a risk ratio (RR) of 1.44 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 2.66 versus placebo for at least 50% of maximum pain relief over the 4-hour and 6-hour period (very low-certainty evidence). Median time to rescue medication was 101 minutes for ibuprofen and 71 minutes for placebo (1 study, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The number of participants using rescue medication was not reported within the included study. During the study (1 study, 126 participants), 58/76 (76%) of participants assigned to ibuprofen and 39/50 (78%) assigned to placebo reported or experienced any adverse event (AE), (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence). No serious AEs (SAEs) were experienced (1 study, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus active comparators Ibuprofen (300 mg) was similar to the active comparator, IV acetaminophen (1000 mg) at 4 hours and 6 hours (1 study, 126 participants). For those assigned to active control (acetaminophen), the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 35% (26/75) at 4 hours and 31% (23/75) at 6 hours. At 4 hours, these findings produced a RR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.43; very low-certainty evidence) versus active comparator (acetaminophen). At 6 hours, these findings produced a RR of 1.03 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.66; very low-certainty evidence) versus active comparator (acetaminophen). Median time to rescue medication was 101 minutes for ibuprofen and 125 minutes for the active comparator, acetaminophen (1 study, 151 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The number of participants using rescue medication was not reported within the included study. During the study, 8/76 (76%) of participants assigned to ibuprofen and 45/75 (60%) assigned to active control (acetaminophen) reported or experienced any AE, (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.59; very low-certainty evidence). No SAEs were experienced (1 study, 151 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that IV ibuprofen is effective and safe for acute postoperative pain in adults.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Female; Humans; Ibuprofen; Male; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 34499349
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013264.pub2 -
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology... 2023Anesthesiologists and hospitals are increasingly confronted with costs associated with the complications of Peripheral Nerve Blocks (PNB) procedures. The objective of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Anesthesiologists and hospitals are increasingly confronted with costs associated with the complications of Peripheral Nerve Blocks (PNB) procedures. The objective of our study was to identify the incidence of the main adverse events associated with regional anesthesia, particularly during anesthetic PNB, and to evaluate the associated healthcare and social costs.
METHODS
According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a systematic search on EMBASE and PubMed with the following search strategy: ("regional anesthesia" OR "nerve block") AND ("complications" OR "nerve lesion" OR "nerve damage" OR "nerve injury"). Studies on patients undergoing a regional anesthesia procedure other than spinal or epidural were included. Targeted data of the selected studies were extracted and further analyzed.
RESULTS
Literature search revealed 487 articles, 21 of which met the criteria to be included in our analysis. Ten of them were included in the qualitative and 11 articles in the quantitative synthesis. The analysis of costs included data from four studies and 2,034 claims over 51,242 cases. The median claim consisted in 39,524 dollars in the United States and 22,750 pounds in the United Kingdom. The analysis of incidence included data from seven studies involving 424,169 patients with an overall estimated incidence of 137/10,000.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite limitations, we proposed a simple model of cost calculation. We found that, despite the relatively low incidence of adverse events following PNB, their associated costs were relevant and should be carefully considered by healthcare managers and decision makers.
Topics: Humans; United States; Financial Stress; Anesthesia, Conduction; Nerve Block
PubMed: 33823209
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2021.02.043 -
Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical... Feb 2018Mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS) are rare, inherited, lysosomal storage diseases that cause accumulation of glycosaminoglycans, resulting in anatomic abnormalities and organ... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS) are rare, inherited, lysosomal storage diseases that cause accumulation of glycosaminoglycans, resulting in anatomic abnormalities and organ dysfunction that can increase the risk of anesthesia complications. We conducted a systematic review of the literature in order to describe the anesthetic management and perioperative outcomes in patients with MPS. We reviewed English-language literature search using an OVID-based search strategy of the following databases: 1) PubMed (1946-present), 2) Medline (1946-present), 3) EMBASE (1946-present), and 4) Web of Science (1946-present), using the following search terms: mucopolysaccharidosis, Hurler, Scheie, Sanfilippo, Morquio, Maroteaux, anesthesia, perioperative, intubation, respiratory insufficiency, and airway. The review of the literature revealed nine case series and 27 case reports. A substantial number of patients have facial and oral abnormalities posing various challenges for airway management, however, evolving new technologies that include videolaryngoscopy appears to substantially facilitate airway management in these patients. The only type of MPS that appears to have less difficulty with airway management are MPS III patients, as the primary site of glycosaminoglycan deposition is in the central nervous system. All other MPS types have facial and oral characteristics that increase the risk of airway management. To mitigate these risks, anesthesia should be conducted by experienced anesthesiologists with expertise in using of advanced airway intubating devices.
Topics: Airway Management; Anesthesia; Anesthesia, General; Humans; Mucopolysaccharidoses
PubMed: 28590232
DOI: 10.17305/bjbms.2017.2201 -
BMC Medicine Sep 2016Older adults hospitalized with fragility fractures are at high risk of negative events that can culminate in re-presentations to hospital emergency departments or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Older adults hospitalized with fragility fractures are at high risk of negative events that can culminate in re-presentations to hospital emergency departments or readmissions to hospital. This systematic review aimed to identify patient, clinical, or hospital-related factors that are identifiable at the index admission and that may be associated with re-presentations to hospital emergency departments or hospital readmissions in older adults following fragility fractures.
METHODS
Four electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Scopus) were searched. A suite of search terms identified peer-reviewed English-language articles that examined potential correlates of hospital re-presentation in older adults (mean age ≥ 65 years) who were discharged from hospital following treatment for fragility fractures. A three-stage screening process (titles, abstracts, full text) was conducted by two researchers independently. Participant characteristics, study design, potential correlates examined, analyses, and findings were extracted for studies included in the review. Quality and risk of bias were assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool. The strength of evidence was incorporated into a best evidence synthesis, and meta-analysis was conducted where effect pooling was possible.
RESULTS
Eleven of 35 eligible studies were categorized as high quality studies. These studies reported that age, higher Cumulative Illness Rating scores, American Society of Anesthesiologists scores > 3, longer length of stay, male sex, cardiovascular disease, low post-operative hemoglobin, kidney disease, dementia and cancer were factors identified at the index admission that were predictive of subsequent re-presentation to hospital. Age was the only predictor for which pooling of effects across studies was possible: pooling was conducted for re-presentation ≤ 30 days (pooled OR, 1.27; 95 % CI, 1.14-1.43) and > 30 days (pooled OR, 1.23; 95 % CI, 1.01-1.50).
CONCLUSIONS
The best-evidence synthesis, in addition to the meta-analysis, identified a range of factors that may have utility in guiding clinical practice and policy guidelines for targeted interventions to reduce the need for re-presentation to hospital among this frail clinical population. The paucity of studies investigating re-presentations to hospital emergency departments without admission was an important gap in the literature identified in this review. Key limitations were exclusion of non-English language studies and grey literature.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42015019379 .
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Fractures, Bone; Frail Elderly; Hospitalization; Hospitals; Humans; Male; Osteoporotic Fractures; Patient Discharge; Patient Readmission; Risk Factors
PubMed: 27615745
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0671-x