-
Annals of Palliative Medicine Aug 2021In order to increase the sample size and improve the test efficiency from a statistical perspective, we conducted a combined analysis of multiple results from similar... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In order to increase the sample size and improve the test efficiency from a statistical perspective, we conducted a combined analysis of multiple results from similar studies. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the sedative effect of dexmedetomidine on patients after cardiac surgery, so as to provide theoretical basis and help for clinical treatment of cardiac diseases.
METHODS
The Boolean logic search method was employed to search online databases for publications, with "dexmedetomidine", "cardiac surgery", "competitive antagonist", and "analgesic sedation" used as keywords. In addition, the literature was screened for comparative studies on the use of midazolam and propofol as controls. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) of Cochrane Collaborative Network was used to evaluate the pathological control studies in Meta-analysis, and the star rating system (out of 9 stars) was used to measure the results from the subjects, cases and groups. Finally, a meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager software (Cochrane).
RESULTS
Thirteen references containing mostly low-risk biases (medium-high quality) were included in this study. The meta-analysis showed no statistically obvious heterogeneity in the mechanical ventilation time (MVT) between patients in the control group (group A) or patients in the experimental group (group B) (Chi2=74.71; I2=92%; P<0.00001), showing no statistical significance (Z=1.57; P=0.12). Heterogeneity was found as a complication in both groups (Chi2=14.82; I2=60%; P=0.02), but fewer complications were observed in group B (Z=2.06, P=0.04). The sedative effect displayed by patients from the 2 groups during the induction of anesthesia was statistically heterogeneous (Chi2=6.45; I2=38%; P=0.17), but the sedative effect in group B was shown to be greater (Z=3.31, P=0.0009).
CONCLUSIONS
Dexmedetomidine can significantly reduce the mechanical ventilation time and the incidence of complications in patients after cardiac surgery, and has a high safety and good sedative effect on patients.
Topics: Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Propofol
PubMed: 34488382
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-1850 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2014Status epilepticus is a medical emergency associated with significant mortality and morbidity that requires immediate and effective treatment. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Status epilepticus is a medical emergency associated with significant mortality and morbidity that requires immediate and effective treatment.
OBJECTIVES
(1) To determine whether a particular anticonvulsant is more effective or safer to use in status epilepticus compared to another and compared to placebo.(2) To delineate reasons for disagreement in the literature regarding recommended treatment regimens and to highlight areas for future research.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update of this review, the following electronic databases were searched on 15/08/2013: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register, CENTRAL The Cochrane Library July 2013, Issue 7, and MEDLINE (Ovid) 1946 to 15/08/2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of participants with premonitory, early, established or refractory status epilepticus using a truly random or quasi-random allocation of treatments were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
Eighteen studies with 2755 participants were included. Few studies used the same interventions. Intravenous diazepam was better than placebo in reducing the risk of non-cessation of seizures (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.92), requirement for ventilatory support (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.94), or continuation of status epilepticus requiring use of a different drug or general anaesthesia (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92). Intravenous lorazepam was better than placebo for risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.71) and for risk of continuation of status epilepticus requiring a different drug or general anaesthesia (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.71). Intravenous lorazepam was better than intravenous diazepam for reducing the risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90) and had a lower risk for continuation of status epilepticus requiring a different drug or general anaesthesia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.88). Intravenous lorazepam was better than intravenous phenytoin for risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). Diazepam gel was better than placebo gel in reducing the risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.43 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62)For pre-hospital treatment, intramuscular midazolam is at least as effective as (probably more effective than) intravenous lorazepam in control of seizures (RR1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.27) and frequency of hospitalisation (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97) or intensive care admissions (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.96). It was uncertain whether Intravenous valproate was better than intravenous phenytoin in reducing risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.00). Both levetiracetam and lorazepam were equally effective in aborting seizures (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.13). Results for other comparisons of anticonvulsant therapies were uncertain due to single studies with few participants.The body of randomised evidence to guide clinical decisions is small. It was uncertain whether any anticonvulsant therapy was better than another in terms of adverse effects, due to few studies and participants identified. The quality of the evidence from the included studies is not strong but appears acceptable. We were unable to make judgements for risk of bias domains incomplete outcome reporting (attrition bias) and selective outcome reporting (selection bias) due to unclear reporting by the study authors.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Intravenous lorazepam is better than intravenous diazepam or intravenous phenytoin alone for cessation of seizures. Intravenous lorazepam also carries a lower risk of continuation of status epilepticus requiring a different drug or general anaesthesia compared with intravenous diazepam. Both intravenous lorazepam and diazepam are better than placebo for the same outcomes. For pre hospital management, midazolam IM seemed more effective than lorazepam IV for cessation of seizures, frequency of hospitalisation and ICU admissions however,it was unclear whether the risk of recurrence of seizures differed between treatments. The results of other comparisons of anticonvulsant therapies versus each other were also uncertain. Universally accepted definitions of premonitory, early, established and refractory status epilepticus are required. Diazepam gel was better than placebo gel in reducing the risk of non-cessation of seizures. Results for other comparisons of anticonvulsant therapies were uncertain due to single studies with few participants.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Diazepam; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Lorazepam; Midazolam; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 25207925
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003723.pub3 -
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders Mar 2024Postoperative delirium is a common and debilitating complication that significantly affects patients and their families. The purpose of this study is to investigate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Postoperative delirium is a common and debilitating complication that significantly affects patients and their families. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether there is an effective sedative that can prevent postoperative delirium while also examining the safety of using sedatives during the perioperative period.
METHODS
The net-meta analysis was used to compare the incidence of postoperative delirium among four sedatives: sevoflurane, propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam. Interventions were ranked according to their surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).
RESULTS
A total of 41 RCT studies involving 6679 patients were analyzed. Dexmedetomidine can effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium than propofol (OR 0.47 95% CI 0.25-0.90), midazolam (OR 0.42 95% CI 0.17-1.00), normal saline (OR 0.42 95% CI 0.33-0.54) and sevoflurane (OR 0.39 95% CI 0.18-0.82). The saline group showed a significantly lower incidence of bradycardia compared to the group receiving dexmedetomidine (OR 0.55 95% CI 0.37-0.80). In cardiac surgery, midazolam (OR 3.34 95%CI 2.04-5.48) and normal saline (OR 2.27 95%CI 1.17-4.39) had a higher rate of postoperative delirium than dexmedetomidine, while in non-cardiac surgery, normal saline (OR 1.98 95%CI 1.44-2.71) was more susceptible to postoperative delirium than dexmedetomidine.
CONCLUSION
Our analysis suggests that dexmedetomidine is an effective sedative in preventing postoperative delirium whether in cardiac surgery or non-cardiac surgery. The preventive effect of dexmedetomidine on postoperative delirium becomes more apparent with longer surgical and extubation times. However, it should be administered with caution as it was found to be associated with bradycardia.
Topics: Humans; Anesthetics; Bradycardia; Dexmedetomidine; Emergence Delirium; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Propofol; Saline Solution; Sevoflurane; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 38448835
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-024-03783-5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2008Mechanical ventilation is a potentially painful and discomforting intervention widely used in neonatal intensive care units. Newborn babies (neonates) demonstrate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Mechanical ventilation is a potentially painful and discomforting intervention widely used in neonatal intensive care units. Newborn babies (neonates) demonstrate increased sensitivity to pain, which may affect clinical and neurodevelopmental outcomes. The use of drugs that reduce pain might be important in improving survival and neurodevelopmental outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of opioid analgesics (pain-killing drugs derived from opium e.g. morphine), compared to placebo, no drug, or other non-opioid analgesics or sedatives, on pain, duration of mechanical ventilation, mortality, growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes in newborn infants on mechanical ventilation.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Electronic searches included: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2007); MEDLINE (1966 to June 2007); EMBASE (1974 to June 2007); and CINAHL (1982 to 2007). Previous reviews and lists of relevant articles were cross-referenced.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing opioids to a control, or to other analgesics or sedatives in newborn infants on mechanical ventilation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted independently by two review authors. Categorical outcomes were analysed using relative risk and risk difference; and continuous outcomes with weighted mean difference or standardised mean difference. A fixed effect model was used for meta-analysis except where heterogeneity existed, in which case a random effects model was used.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen studies on 1505 infants were included. Infants given opioids showed reduced premature infant pain profile (PIPP) scores compared to the control group (weighted mean difference -1.71; 95% confidence interval -3.18 to -0.24). Differences in execution and reporting of trials mean that this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution. Heterogeneity was significantly high in all analyses of pain, even when lower quality studies were excluded and analysis limited to very preterm newborns. Meta-analyses of mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and long and short-term neurodevelopmental outcomes showed no statistically significant differences. Very preterm infants given morphine took significantly longer to reach full enteral feeding than those in control groups (weighted mean difference 2.10 days; 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 3.85). One study compared morphine with a sedative: the treatments showed similar pain scores, but morphine had fewer adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to recommend routine use of opioids in mechanically ventilated newborns. Opioids should be used selectively, when indicated by clinical judgment and evaluation of pain indicators. If sedation is required, morphine is safer than midazolam. Further research is needed.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Pain; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 18254040
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004212.pub3 -
Pain Physician 2009There is ongoing controversy regarding the validity of controlled diagnostic blocks due to variability in sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Consequently,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is ongoing controversy regarding the validity of controlled diagnostic blocks due to variability in sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Consequently, identification of false-positive rates, false-negative rates, and placebo responses is crucial. The reasons described for false-positive responses to diagnostic anesthetic blocks are many; however, sedation and psychological factors have been implied as causes. Further, there is no consensus with regards to sedation prior to controlled diagnostic blocks and their influence on the accuracy and validity of a diagnosis.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review of the literature evaluating the influence of sedation on diagnostic spinal interventional techniques.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically assess the quality of clinical studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of controlled diagnostic blocks in the diagnosis of chronic spinal pain.
METHODS
A comprehensive evaluation of the literature relating to sedation in diagnostic interventional techniques was performed. The methodologic quality assessment of the studies was carried out by utilizing Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodologic quality criteria with scores of 50 or higher included in the assessment of the level of evidence. Level of evidence was based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for the assessment of accuracy of diagnostic studies.
LIMITATIONS
All 3 of the studies were produced by one group of authors. Thus paucity of the literature on the subject of facet joint pain and the lack of literature on the subjects of discogenic pain and sacroiliac joint pain are major limitations.
RESULTS
Three studies were identified which met inclusion and methodologic assessment quality criteria. Sedation can be a confounding factor in a small population of patients specifically if fentanyl is employed and non-stringent criteria are followed. Based on the 3 randomized double-blind trials with stringent criteria utilizing 80% pain relief and the ability to perform prior painful movements without any significant pain following the diagnostic injection in evaluation of facet joint pain, the indicated evidence is Level II-1.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review provides no significant evidence of the influence of sedation either with midazolam or fentanyl in the evaluation of cervical and lumbar facet joint pain with controlled cervical and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with an indicated evidence of Level II-1, with application of stringent criteria of at least 80% pain relief and the ability to perform previously painful movements after the diagnostic blocks.
Topics: Anesthesia; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Injections, Spinal; Spine
PubMed: 19165304
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) Nov 2014Premedication is important in pediatric anesthesia. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the role of dexmedetomidine as a premedicant for pediatric patients. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Premedication is important in pediatric anesthesia. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the role of dexmedetomidine as a premedicant for pediatric patients. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials comparing dexmedetomidine premedication with midazolam or ketamine premedication or placebo in children. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection, quality assessment and data extraction. The original data were pooled for the meta-analysis with Review Manager 5. The main parameters investigated included satisfactory separation from parents, satisfactory mask induction, postoperative rescue analgesia, emergence agitation and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 1190 patients were included. When compared with midazolam, premedication with dexmedetomidine resulted in an increase in satisfactory separation from parents (RD = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.30, p = 0.003) and a decrease in the use of postoperative rescue analgesia (RD = -0.19, 95% CI: -0.29 to -0.09, p = 0.0003). Children treated with dexmedetomidine had a lower heart rate before induction. The incidence of satisfactory mask induction, emergence agitation and PONV did not differ between the groups. Dexmedetomidine was superior in providing satisfactory intravenous cannulation compared to placebo. This meta-analysis suggests that dexmedetomidine is superior to midazolam premedication because it resulted in enhanced preoperative sedation and decreased postoperative pain. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the dosing schemes and long-term outcomes of dexmedetomidine premedication in pediatric anesthesia.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Anesthesia; Anesthetics, Dissociative; Child; Child, Preschool; Dexmedetomidine; Female; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Ketamine; Male; Midazolam; Premedication; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25518037
DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2014(11)12 -
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Nov 2022An ever-growing body of evidence supports the impact of cytokine modulation on the patient's phenotypic drug response. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze... (Review)
Review
The Cytokine Release Syndrome and/or the Proinflammatory Cytokines as Underlying Mechanisms of Downregulation of Drug Metabolism and Drug Transport: A Systematic Review of the Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Victim Drugs of this Drug-Disease Interaction Under Different Clinical Conditions.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
An ever-growing body of evidence supports the impact of cytokine modulation on the patient's phenotypic drug response. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the clinical studies that assessed the pharmacokinetics of victim drugs of this drug-disease interaction in the presence of different scenarios of cytokine modulation in comparison with baseline conditions.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review by searching the PubMed-MEDLINE database from inception until February 2022 to retrieve prospective and/or retrospective observational studies, population pharmacokinetic studies, phase I studies, and/or case series/reports that investigated the impact of cytokine modulation on the pharmacokinetic behavior of victim drugs. Only studies providing quantitative pharmacokinetic data of victim drugs by comparing normal status versus clinical conditions with documented cytokine modulation or by assessing the influence of anti-inflammatory biological agents on metabolism and/or transport of victim drugs were included.
RESULTS
Overall, 26 studies were included. Rheumatoid arthritis (6/26; 23.1%) and sepsis (5/26; 19.2%) were the two most frequently investigated pro-inflammatory clinical scenarios. The victim drug most frequently assessed was midazolam (14/26; 53.8%; as a probe for cytochrome P450 [CYP] 3A4). Cytokine modulation showed a moderate inhibitory effect on CYP3A4-mediated metabolism (area under the concentration-time curve increase and/or clearance decrease between 1.98-fold and 2.59-fold) and a weak-to-moderate inhibitory effect on CYP1A2, CYP2C9, and CYP2C19-mediated metabolism (in the area under the concentration-time curve increase or clearance decrease between 1.29-fold and 1.97-fold). Anti-interleukin-6 agents showed remarkable activity in counteracting downregulation of CYP3A4-mediated activity (increase in the area under the concentration-time curve between 1.75-fold and 2.56-fold).
CONCLUSIONS
Cytokine modulation may cause moderate or weak-to-moderate downregulation of metabolism/transport of victim drugs, and this may theoretically have relevant clinical consequences.
Topics: Humans; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A; Cytokine Release Syndrome; Cytokines; Down-Regulation; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Drug Interactions
PubMed: 36059001
DOI: 10.1007/s40262-022-01173-8 -
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine : a... Feb 2015Analgesia and sedation are common therapies in pediatric critical care, and rapid titration of these medications is associated with iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome. We... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Analgesia and sedation are common therapies in pediatric critical care, and rapid titration of these medications is associated with iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome. We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify all common and salient risk factors associated with iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome and build a conceptual model of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome risk in critically ill pediatric patients.
DATA SOURCES
Multiple databases, including PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical Trials, were searched using relevant terms from January 1, 1980, to August 1, 2014.
STUDY SELECTION
Articles were included if they were published in English and discussed iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome following either opioid or benzodiazepine therapy in children in acute or intensive care settings. Articles were excluded if subjects were neonates born to opioid- or benzodiazepine-dependent mothers, children diagnosed as substance abusers, or subjects with cancer-related pain; if data about opioid or benzodiazepine treatment were not specified; or if primary data were not reported.
DATA EXTRACTION
In total, 1,395 articles were evaluated, 33 of which met the inclusion criteria. To facilitate analysis, all opioid and/or benzodiazepine doses were converted to morphine or midazolam equivalents, respectively. A table of evidence was developed for qualitative analysis of common themes, providing a framework for the construction of a conceptual model. The strongest risk factors associated with iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome include duration of therapy and cumulative dose. Additionally, evidence exists linking patient, process, and system factors in the development of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome.
FINDINGS
Most articles were prospective observational or interventional studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the state of existing evidence, well-designed prospective studies are required to better characterize iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in critically ill pediatric patients. This review provides data to support the construction of a conceptual model of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome risk that, if supported, could be useful in guiding future research.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Benzodiazepines; Child; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Iatrogenic Disease; Models, Theoretical; Risk Factors; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 25560429
DOI: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000306 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016People experiencing acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People experiencing acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Droperidol, a butyrophenone antipsychotic, has been used for this purpose in several countries.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the effects of droperidol, including its cost-effectiveness, when compared to placebo, other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments, or other forms of management of psychotic illness, in controlling acutely disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms in people with schizophrenia-like illnesses.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (18 December 2015). We searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations and contacted authors of trials. We supplemented these electronic searches by handsearching reference lists and contacting both the pharmaceutical industry and relevant authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with useable data that compared droperidol to any other treatment for people acutely ill with suspected acute psychotic illnesses, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, mixed affective disorders, the manic phase of bipolar disorder or a brief psychotic episode.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For included studies, we assessed quality, risk of bias and extracted data. We excluded data when more than 50% of participants were lost to follow-up. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four relevant trials from the update search (previous version of this review included only two trials). When droperidol was compared with placebo, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for the droperidol group (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.31, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.52, low-quality evidence) than placebo. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no clear difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.Similarly, when droperidol was compared to haloperidol, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for participants in the droperidol group (2 RCTs, N = 255, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.90, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular hypotension (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 26.49,moderate-quality evidence) and cardiovascular hypotension/desaturation (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 67.98, low-quality evidence) than haloperidol. There was no suggestion that use of droperidol was unsafe. For mental state, there was no evidence of clear difference between the efficacy of droperidol compared to haloperidol (Scale for Quantification of Psychotic Symptom Severity, 1 RCT, N = 40, mean difference (MD) 0.11, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.29, low-quality evidence). There were no data for service use and costs.Whereas, when droperidol was compared with midazolam, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found droperidol to be less acutely tranquillising than midazolam (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.28, high-quality evidence). As regards the 'need for additional medication by 60 minutes after initial adequate sedation, we found an effect (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.20, moderate-quality evidence). In terms of adverse effects, we found no statistically significant differences between the two drugs for either airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55, low-quality evidence) or respiratory hypoxia (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.03, moderate-quality evidence) - but use of midazolam did result in three people (out of around 70) needing some sort of 'airway management' with no such events in the droperidol group. There were no data for mental state, service use and costs.Furthermore, when droperidol was compared to olanzapine, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by any time point, we found no clear differences between the older drug (droperidol) and olanzapine (e.g. at 30 minutes: 1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11, high-quality evidence). There was a suggestion that participants allocated droperidol needed less additional medication after 60 minutes than people given the olanzapine (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.72, low-quality evidence) than olanzapine. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Previously, the use of droperidol was justified based on experience rather than evidence from well-conducted and reported randomised trials. However, this update found high-quality evidence with minimal risk of bias to support the use of droperidol for acute psychosis. Also, we found no evidence to suggest that droperidol should not be a treatment option for people acutely ill and disturbed because of serious mental illnesses.
Topics: Acute Disease; Aggression; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Droperidol; Haloperidol; Humans; Midazolam; Olanzapine; Psychomotor Agitation; Psychotic Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27976370
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002830.pub3 -
Danish Medical Journal Jun 2013Pain and distress during minor hospital-related procedures is a familiar problem in many children. Inadequate relief of children's procedural pain and distress not only... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
INTRODUCTION
Pain and distress during minor hospital-related procedures is a familiar problem in many children. Inadequate relief of children's procedural pain and distress not only affects the experience of the children and their parents, but also adversely impacts procedural success. We aimed to review the safety and efficacy of nitrous oxide during brief, but painful paediatric procedures and to compare nitrous oxide with some of the commonly used pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for relieving anxiety and mild to moderate pain in Denmark.
METHOD
We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews with the MeSH term nitrous oxide combined with midazolam, surgical procedures minor, analgesia or conscious sedation. The references in the articles acquired that were not found in the MEDLINE search were further investigated. Only articles written in English and published after 1980 were included to ensure optimal data collection.
RESULTS
Nitrous oxide is an effective sedative/analgesic for mildly to moderately painful paediatric procedures. Furthermore, it is safely administrated, particularly for short procedures (< 15 min.). Serious and potentially serious adverse events are rare and occur in less than 0.5% of cases, while minor events typically occur amongst 4-8% of patients.
CONCLUSION
Nitrous oxide is a safe and effective method to achieve analgesia and sedation during minor, but painful procedures. It can be safely administered by a dedicated staff member. This helpful method is still underused in Denmark, and we believe that it could be an alternative or the first choice of treatment in emergency and paediatric departments.
Topics: Adolescent; Analgesia; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Catheterization, Peripheral; Child; Child, Preschool; Conscious Sedation; Denmark; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant; Injections, Intramuscular; Midazolam; Nitrous Oxide; Pain; Spinal Puncture
PubMed: 23743110
DOI: No ID Found