-
Local and Regional Anesthesia 2016A systematic review of the literature on the use of regional anesthesia (RA) and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) was conducted in patients who require orthopedic... (Review)
Review
A systematic review of the literature on the use of regional anesthesia (RA) and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) was conducted in patients who require orthopedic extremity procedures to determine whether either analgesic technique contributes to a delayed diagnosis of compartment syndrome (CS). A total of 34 relevant articles (28 case reports and six research articles) were identified. Of all case report articles published after 2009, the majority (75%) concluded that RA does not put the patient at an increased risk of a delayed diagnosis of CS. Of these, only two relevant prospective research studies focusing on RA or PCA and their relationship to CS were identified. Neither study resulted in any cases of CS. However, both had relatively small sample sizes. Given the lack of evidence identified in this systematic review, prospective studies or large-scale retrospective data reviews are needed to more strongly advocate the use of one modality of analgesia over the other in this patient population.
PubMed: 27785097
DOI: 10.2147/LRA.S109659 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2022To compare the intravenous and epidural routes of patient-controlled anesthesia in abdominal surgery. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare the intravenous and epidural routes of patient-controlled anesthesia in abdominal surgery.
METHODS
We searched for randomized clinical trials that compared the intravenous and epidural modes of patient-controlled anesthesia in intra-abdominal surgery in adults. Data analysis was performed in RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was measured using I statistic. Risk of bias was assessed using the Jadad/Oxford quality scoring system.
RESULTS
Seven studies reporting 529 patients were included into the meta-analysis. For pain at rest, the mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was -0.00 [-0.79, 0.78], -value 0.99, while for pain on coughing, it was 0.43 [-0.02, 0.88], -value 0.06, indicating that patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) was superior. For the sedation score, the mean difference with 95% CI was 0.26 [-0.37, 0.89], -value 0.42, slightly favoring PCEA. For the length of hospital stay, the mean difference with 95% CI was 1.13 [0.29, 1.98], -value 0.009, favoring PCEA. For postoperative complications, the risk ratio with 95% CI was 0.8 [0.62, 1.03], -value 0.08, slightly favoring patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIVA). A significant effect was observed for hypotension, favoring PCIVA.
CONCLUSIONS
Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia compared with patient-controlled epidural analgesia was associated with fewer episodes of hypotension. PCEA, on other hand, was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay. Pain control and other side effects did not differ significantly. Only three studies out of seven had an acceptable methodological quality. Thus, these conclusions should be taken with caution.
PubMed: 35566705
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092579 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2018Epidural analgesia in labour prolongs the second stage and increases instrumental delivery. It has been suggested that a more upright maternal position during all or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Epidural analgesia in labour prolongs the second stage and increases instrumental delivery. It has been suggested that a more upright maternal position during all or part of the second stage may counteract these adverse effects. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different birthing positions (upright or recumbent) during the second stage of labour, on maternal and fetal outcomes for women with epidural analgesia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 June 2018), and the reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised or quasi-randomised trials including pregnant women (primigravidae or multigravidae) in the second stage of induced or spontaneous labour receiving epidural analgesia of any kind. Cluster-randomised controlled trials would have been eligible for inclusion but we found none. Studies published in abstract form only were also eligible.We assumed the experimental intervention to be maternal use of any upright position during the second stage of labour, compared with the control condition of remaining in any recumbent position.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors to obtain missing data. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.We carried out a planned sensitivity analysis of the three studies with low risks of bias for allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data reporting, and further excluded one study with a co-intervention (this was not prespecified).
MAIN RESULTS
We include eight randomised controlled trials, involving 4464 women, comparing upright positions versus recumbent positions in this update. Five were conducted in the UK, one in France and two in Spain.The largest UK trial accounted for three-quarters of all review participants, and we judged it to have low risk of bias. We assessed two other trials as being at low risk of selection and attrition bias. We rated four studies at unclear or high risk of bias for both selection and attrition bias and one study as high risk of bias due to a co-intervention. The trials varied in their comparators, with five studies comparing different positions (upright and recumbent), two comparing ambulation with (recumbent) non-ambulation, and one study comparing postural changes guided by a physiotherapist to a recumbent position.Overall, there may be little or no difference between upright and recumbent positions for our combined primary outcome of operative birth (caesarean or instrumental vaginal): average risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.07; 8 trials, 4316 women; I = 78%; low-quality evidence. It is uncertain whether the upright position has any impact on caesarean section (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.46; 8 trials, 4316 women; I = 47%; very low-quality evidence), instrumental vaginal birth (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 8 trials, 4316 women; I = 69%) and the duration of the second stage of labour (mean difference (MD) 6.00 minutes, 95% CI -37.46 to 49.46; 3 trials, 456 women; I = 96%), because we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for these outcomes. Maternal position in the second stage of labour probably makes little or no difference to postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), (PPH requiring blood transfusion): RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.72; 1 trial, 3093 women; moderate-quality evidence. Maternal satisfaction with the overall childbirth experience was slightly lower in the upright group: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.99; 1 trial, 2373 women. Fewer babies were born with low cord pH in the upright group: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.90; 2 trials, 3159 infants; moderate-quality evidence.The results were less clear for other maternal or fetal outcomes, including trauma to the birth canal requiring suturing (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.13; 3 trials, 3266 women; I = 46%; low-quality evidence), abnormal fetal heart patterns requiring intervention (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.84; 1 trial, 107 women; very low-quality evidence), or admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.02 to 12.73; 1 trial, 66 infants; very low-quality evidence). However, the CIs around some of these estimates were wide, and we cannot rule out clinically important effects.In our sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias, upright positions increase the chance of women having an operative birth: RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.20; 3 trials, 3609 women; high-quality evidence. In absolute terms, this equates to 63 more operative births per 1000 women (from 17 more to 115 more). This increase appears to be due to the increase in caesarean section in the upright group (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.57; 3 trials, 3609 women; high-quality evidence), which equates to 25 more caesarean sections per 1000 women (from 4 more to 49 more). In the sensitivity analysis there was no clear impact on instrumental vaginal births: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 3 trials, 3609 women; low-quality evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There may be little or no difference in operative birth between women who adopt recumbent or supine positions during the second stage of labour with an epidural analgesia. However, the studies are heterogeneous, probably related to differing study designs and interventions, differing adherence to the allocated intervention and possible selection and attrition bias. Sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias indicated that recumbent positions may reduce the need for operative birth and caesarean section, without increasing instrumental delivery. Mothers may be more satisfied with their experience of childbirth by adopting a recumbent position. The studies in this review looked at left or right lateral and semi-recumbent positions. Recumbent positions such as flat on the back or lithotomy are not generally used due to the possibility of aorto-caval compression, although we acknowledge that these recumbent positions were not the focus of trials included in this review.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Extraction, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Labor Stage, Second; Parturition; Patient Positioning; Posture; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 30411804
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008070.pub4 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Mar 2020Intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (RPCA) is an alternative for epidural analgesia (EA) in labor pain relief. However, it remains unknown whether RPCA... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (RPCA) is an alternative for epidural analgesia (EA) in labor pain relief. However, it remains unknown whether RPCA is superior to EA in decreasing the risk of intrapartum maternal fever during labor.
METHODS
According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed by searching PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the risk of intrapartum maternal fever with RPCA compared with EA alone or EA in combination with spinal analgesia during labor were included.
RESULTS
A total of 825 studies were screened, and 6 RCTs including 3341 patients were identified. Compared with EA, RPCA was associated with a significantly lower incidence of intrapartum maternal fever (risk ratio [RR] 0.48, P = 0.02, I = 49%) during labor analgesia. After excluding 2 trials via the heterogeneity analysis, there was no difference in the incidence of intrapartum fever between patients receiving RPCA and those receiving EA. Satisfaction with pain relief during labor was lower in the RPCA group than that in the EA group (- 10.6 [13.87, - 7.44], P < 0.00001, I = 0%). The incidence of respiratory depression was significantly greater in the RPCA group than that in the EA group (risk ratio 2.86 [1.65, 4.96], P = 0.0002, I = 58%). The incidence of Apgar scores < 7 at 5 min in the RPCA group was equivalent to that in the EA group.
CONCLUSION
There is no solid evidence to illustrate that the incidence of intrapartum maternal fever is lower in patients receiving intravenous RPCA than in patients receiving EA.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Apgar Score; Female; Fever; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Labor Pain; Labor, Obstetric; Obstetric Labor Complications; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Remifentanil
PubMed: 32164593
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-2800-y -
Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2018PRN is the acronym for ',' written against prescriptions whose administration should be based on patients' needs, rather than at set times. The aim of this systematic... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
PRN is the acronym for ',' written against prescriptions whose administration should be based on patients' needs, rather than at set times. The aim of this systematic review was to explore safety issues and adverse events arising from PRN prescription and administration. Electronic databases including Scopus, PubMed [including Medline], Embase, Cinahl, Web of Science and ProQuest were systematically searched to retrieve articles published from 2005 to 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
we included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and studies with comparison groups, comparing PRN prescription and administration with scheduled administration, where safety issues and adverse events were reported. The authors independently assessed titles, abstracts and full-texts of retrieved studies based on inclusion criteria and risk of bias. Results were summarised narratively. The search identified 7699 articles. Title, abstract and full-text appraisals yielded 5 articles. The included studies were RCTs with one exception, a pre-test post-test experimental design. Patient populations, interventions and outcomes varied. Studies compared patient-controlled or routine administration with PRN and one trial assessed the effect of a practice guideline on implementation of PRN administration. More analgesia was administered in the patient-controlled than the PRN arms but pain reduction was similar. However, there was little difference in administration of psychotropic medicines. No differences between patient-controlled and PRN groups were reported for adverse events. The PRN practice guideline improved PRN patient education but non-documentation of PRN administration increased. This systematic review suggests that PRN safety issues and adverse events are an under-researched area of healthcare practice. Variations in the interventions, outcomes and clinical areas make it difficult to judge the overall quality of the evidence. Well-designed RCTs are needed to identify any safety issues and adverse events associated with PRN administration.
PubMed: 30158511
DOI: 10.3390/pharmacy6030095 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Feb 2011Sickle cell disease causes chronic haemolytic anaemia, dactylitis, and painful acute crises. It also increases the risk of stroke, organ damage, bacterial infections,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Sickle cell disease causes chronic haemolytic anaemia, dactylitis, and painful acute crises. It also increases the risk of stroke, organ damage, bacterial infections, and complications of blood transfusion. In sub-Saharan Africa, up to a third of adults are carriers of the defective sickle cell gene, and 1% to 2% of babies are born with the disease.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: what are the effects of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent sickle cell crisis and other acute complications in people with sickle cell disease? What are the effects of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions to treat pain in people with sickle cell crisis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to March 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 38 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, antibiotic prophylaxis in children <5 years of age, antibiotic prophylaxis in children >5 years of age, aspirin, avoidance of cold environment, blood transfusion, codeine, corticosteroid (with narcotic analgesics), diflunisal, hydration, hydroxyurea, ibuprofen, ketorolac, limiting physical exercise, malaria chemoprophylaxis, morphine (controlled-release oral after initial intravenous bolus, repeated intravenous doses), oxygen, paracetamol, patient-controlled analgesia, pneumococcal vaccines, and rehydration.
Topics: Acute Disease; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Anemia, Sickle Cell; Blood Transfusion; Humans; Hydroxyurea; Pneumococcal Vaccines
PubMed: 21718552
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Pediatric Surgery May 2014The minimally invasive pectus excavatum repair (MIPER) is a painful procedure. The ideal approach to postoperative analgesia is debated. We performed a systematic review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
The minimally invasive pectus excavatum repair (MIPER) is a painful procedure. The ideal approach to postoperative analgesia is debated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of epidural analgesia compared to intravenous Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA) following MIPER.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE (1946-2012) and the Cochrane Library (inception-2012) for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies comparing epidural analgesia to PCA for postoperative pain management in children following MIPER. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) for numeric pain scores and summarized secondary outcomes qualitatively.
RESULTS
Of 699 studies, 3 RCTs and 3 retrospective cohorts met inclusion criteria. Compared to PCA, mean pain scores were modestly lower with epidural immediately (WMD -1.04, 95% CI -2.11 to 0.03, p=0.06), 12 hours (WMD -1.12; 95% CI -1.61 to -0.62, p<0.001), 24 hours (WMD -0.51, 95%CI -1.05 to 0.02, p=0.06), and 48 hours (WMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.62 to -0.07, p=0.03) after surgery. We found no statistically significant differences between secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Epidural analgesia may provide superior pain control but was comparable with PCA for secondary outcomes. Better designed studies are needed. Currently the analgesic technique should be based on patient preference and institutional resources.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Child; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Funnel Chest; Humans; Length of Stay; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Operative Time; Pain, Postoperative; Research Design; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 24851774
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2014.02.072 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2015This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2006. Patients may control postoperative pain by self administration of intravenous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2006. Patients may control postoperative pain by self administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient controlled analgesia or PCA). A 1992 meta-analysis by Ballantyne et al found a strong patient preference for PCA over non-patient controlled analgesia, but disclosed no differences in analgesic consumption or length of postoperative hospital stay. Although Ballantyne's meta-analysis found that PCA did have a small but statistically significant benefit upon pain intensity, a 2001 review by Walder et al did not find statistically significant differences in pain intensity or pain relief between PCA and groups treated with non-patient controlled analgesia.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia (termed PCA in this review) versus non-patient controlled opioid analgesia of as-needed opioid analgesia for postoperative pain relief.
SEARCH METHODS
We ran the search for the previous review in November 2004. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1966 to 28 January 2015), and EMBASE (1980 to 28 January 2015) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language, and reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected RCTs that assessed pain intensity as a primary or secondary outcome. These studies compared PCA without a continuous background infusion with non-patient controlled opioid analgesic regimens. We excluded studies that explicitly stated they involved patients with chronic pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data, which included demographic variables, type of surgery, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events. We graded each included study for methodological quality by assessing risk of bias and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence. We performed meta-analysis of outcomes that included pain intensity assessed by a 0 to 100 visual analog scale (VAS), opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, length of stay, and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-nine studies with 1725 participants receiving PCA and 1687 participants assigned to a control group met the inclusion criteria. The original review included 55 studies with 2023 patients receiving PCA and 1838 patients assigned to a control group. There were fewer included studies in our updated review due to the revised exclusion criteria. For the primary outcome, participants receiving PCA had lower VAS pain intensity scores versus non-patient controlled analgesia over most time intervals, e.g., scores over 0 to 24 hours were nine points lower (95% confidence interval (CI) -13 to -5, moderate quality evidence) and over 0 to 48 hours were 10 points lower (95% CI -12 to -7, low quality evidence). Among the secondary outcomes, participants were more satisfied with PCA (81% versus 61%, P value = 0.002) and consumed higher amounts of opioids than controls (0 to 24 hours, 7 mg more of intravenous morphine equivalents, 95% CI 1 mg to 13 mg). Those receiving PCA had a higher incidence of pruritus (15% versus 8%, P value = 0.01) but had a similar incidence of other adverse events. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review, we have found new studies providing additional information. We reanalyzed the data but the results did not substantially alter any of our previously published conclusions. This review provides moderate to low quality evidence that PCA is an efficacious alternative to non-patient controlled systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control.
Topics: Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Patient Satisfaction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26035341
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003348.pub3 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2009Sickle cell disease causes chronic haemolytic anaemia, dactylitis, and painful acute crises, and increases the risk of stroke, organ damage, bacterial infections, and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Sickle cell disease causes chronic haemolytic anaemia, dactylitis, and painful acute crises, and increases the risk of stroke, organ damage, bacterial infections, and complications of blood transfusion. In sub-Saharan Africa, up to a third of adults are carriers of the defective sickle cell gene, and 1-2% of babies are born with the disease.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent sickle cell crisis and other acute complications in people with sickle cell disease? What are the effects of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions to treat pain in people with sickle cell crisis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 38 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, antibiotic prophylaxis in children under 5 years of age, aspirin, avoidance of cold environment, blood transfusion, codeine, corticosteroid (with narcotic analgesics), diflunisal, hydration, hydroxyurea, ibuprofen, ketorolac, limiting physical exercise, malaria chemoprophylaxis, morphine (controlled-release oral after initial intravenous bolus, repeated intravenous doses), oxygen, paracetamol, patient-controlled analgesia, penicillin prophylaxis in children over 5 years of age, piracetam, pneumococcal vaccines, rehydration, and zinc sulphate.
Topics: Acute Disease; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Anemia, Sickle Cell; Blood Transfusion; Humans; Malaria; Pneumococcal Vaccines
PubMed: 19445751
DOI: No ID Found -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022To investigate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine (DEX) for postoperative patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). Two investigators independently...
To investigate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine (DEX) for postoperative patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). Two investigators independently searched Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and CBM for randomized controlled trials of DEX for PCIA. Thirty-seven studies with a total of 5,409 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with analgesics alone, DEX for PCIA reduced pain score at 24 h [mean difference (MD) = -0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.85, -0.54; < 0.00001, = 90%] and 48 h postoperatively (MD = -0.43; 95% CI: -0.52, -0.34; < 0.00001, = 96%). Moreover, DEX reduced analgesics consumption during the first 24 h [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.25; 95% CI: -0.34, -0.16; < 0.00001, = 91%] and the number of resuscitation analgesics administered [odds ratio (OR) = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.66; < 0.00001, = 72%]. Furthermore, DEX improved patient satisfaction (OR = 3.55; 95% CI: 2.36, 5.35; < 0.00001, = 60%), and reduced incidence of side effects, such as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (OR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.57; < 0.00001, = 59%) and pruritus after surgery (OR = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.68; = 0.0001, = 0%). Besides, DEX attenuates inflammatory cytokine levels, such as IL-6 (MD = -5.73; 95% CI: -8.34, -3.12; < 0.00001, = 91%) and TNF-α (MD = -0.63; 95% CI: -0.76, -0.50; < 0.00001, = 89%). Finally, DEX increased the risk of bradycardia (OR = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.12, 2.45; = 0.01, = 15%), but the complication of hypotension did not differ between the two groups (OR = 1.30; 95% CI: 0.84, 2.04; = 0.25, = 0%). DEX is used for postoperative PCIA analgesia, which can significantly improve the analgesic effect, effectively control postoperative inflammatory response, reduce the dosage and adverse reactions of analgesics, and improve postoperative patient satisfaction. Of course, the impact of the immunosuppressive effect of DEX on the prognosis of patients needs further study. CRD42022340933, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.
PubMed: 36578546
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1028704