23 results
Filters • 3
Sort By
Results Per Page
Filters
23 results
3
Download the following citations:
Email the following citations:
Print the following citations:
Editor's Choice
  • Liu CW
  • Anih J
  • Lebedeva V
  • Gungor A
  • Wang C
  • et al.
J Clin Anesth. 2024 Jun;94:111417 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111417.
POPULATION:

Patients undergoing non-obstetric surgery (300 trials, n= 53,085).

INTERVENTION:

Intravenous tranexamic acid.

COMPARISON:

Placebo or usual care without tranexamic acid.

OUTCOME:

From all the included studies, 45,958 participants (86.6%) were enrolled in 228 trials (76.0%) that explicitly excluded patients with kidney disease. Definitions of kidney diseased used for exclusion varied widely. Most were non-specific and some corresponded to mild disease. Only 5 trials adjusted dosing for kidney function. Meta-analysis of two large trials found tranexamic acid unlikely to substantially increase or decrease the occurrence of thrombotic events in patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73m(2) (RR 0.95; 95% CI [0.83, 1.07]) or ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73m(2) (RR 1.00; 95% CI [0.91, 1.11], but both trials excluded patients with severe kidney disease. No analysis could be performed regarding seizure risk. One large trial in non-cardiac surgery reported similar reduction in bleeding across subgroups of kidney function but excluded patients with creatinine clearance <30 mL/min.

STUDY OBJECTIVE:

To assess how kidney disease is handled in randomized trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of perioperative tranexamic acid, and to evaluate its effects across levels of kidney function.

DESIGN:

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

SETTING:

We screened studies from a previous comprehensive systematic review, and updated its search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL to July 31, 2023.

PATIENTS:

Patients undergoing non-obstetric surgery.

INTERVENTIONS:

Intravenous tranexamic acid compared to placebo or usual care without tranexamic acid.

MEASUREMENT:

We summarized the handling of kidney disease in eligibility criteria, dose adjustments for kidney function, and effects of tranexamic acid on thrombotic events, seizures, and bleeding by subgroups of kidney function.

MAIN RESULTS:

We evaluated 300 trials with 53,085 participants; 45,958 participants (86.6%) were enrolled in 228 trials (76.0%) that explicitly excluded patients with kidney disease. Definitions of kidney diseased used for exclusion varied widely. Most were non-specific and some corresponded to mild disease. Only 5 trials adjusted dosing for kidney function. Meta-analysis of two large trials found tranexamic acid unlikely to substantially increase or decrease the occurrence of thrombotic events in patients with eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73m2 (RR, 0.95; 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.07) or ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73m2 (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.11; P for subgroup difference = 0.47), but both trials excluded patients with severe kidney disease. No analysis could be performed regarding seizure risk. One large trial in noncardiac surgery reported similar reduction in bleeding across subgroups of kidney function but excluded patients with creatinine clearance <30 mL/min.

CONCLUSIONS:

The large evidence base supporting perioperative tranexamic acid suffers from broad and unjustified exclusion of patients with kidney disease. Typical perioperative dosing of tranexamic acid is likely safe and effective in patients with creatinine clearance >30 mL/min, but effects in more severe kidney disease are unknown.

Editor's Choice
  • Goltstein LCMJ
  • Grooteman KV
  • Bernts LHP
  • Scheffer RCH
  • Laheij RJF
  • et al.
Gastroenterology. 2024 Apr;166(4):690-703 doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.12.020.
POPULATION:

Patients with refractory anemia due to bleeding gastrointestinal angiodysplasias, enrolled in the OCEAN randomised controlled trial (n= 62).

INTERVENTION:

Octreotide (n= 31).

COMPARISON:

Standard of care (n= 31).

OUTCOME:

The treatment duration was one year. The primary outcome was the mean difference in the number of transfusion units (red blood cell + parental iron) between the octreotide and standard of care groups. The total number of transfusions was lower with octreotide (11.0; 95% CI [5.5, 16.5]) compared to standard of care (21.2; 95% CI [15.7, 26.7]). Octreotide reduced the mean number of transfusion units by 10.2; 95% CI [2.4, 18.1]. Octreotide reduced the annual volume of endoscopic procedures by 0.9; 95% CI [0.3, 1.5].

BACKGROUND & AIMS:

Gastrointestinal angiodysplasias are vascular anomalies that may result in transfusion-dependent anemia despite endoscopic therapy. An individual patient data meta-analysis of cohort studies suggests that octreotide decreases rebleeding rates, but component studies possessed a high risk of bias. We investigated the efficacy of octreotide in reducing the transfusion requirements of patients with angiodysplasia-related anemia in a clinical trial setting.

METHODS:

The study was designed as a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Patients with angiodysplasia bleeding were required to have had at least 4 red blood cell (RBC) units or parental iron infusions, or both, in the year preceding randomization. Patients were allocated (1:1) to 40-mg octreotide long-acting release intramuscular every 28 days or standard of care, including endoscopic therapy. The treatment duration was 1 year. The primary outcome was the mean difference in the number of transfusion units (RBC + parental iron) between the octreotide and standard of care groups. Patients who received at least 1 octreotide injection or followed standard of care for at least 1 month were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. Analyses of covariance were used to adjust for baseline transfusion requirements and incomplete follow-up.

RESULTS:

We enrolled 62 patients (mean age, 72 years; 32 men) from 17 Dutch hospitals in the octreotide (n = 31) and standard of care (n = 31) groups. Patients required a mean number of 20.3 (standard deviation, 15.6) transfusion units and 2.4 (standard deviation, 2.0) endoscopic procedures in the year before enrollment. The total number of transfusions was lower with octreotide (11.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5-16.5) compared with standard of care (21.2; 95% CI, 15.7-26.7). Octreotide reduced the mean number of transfusion units by 10.2 (95% CI, 2.4-18.1; P = .012). Octreotide reduced the annual volume of endoscopic procedures by 0.9 (95% CI, 0.3-1.5).

CONCLUSIONS:

Octreotide effectively reduces transfusion requirements and the need for endoscopic therapy in patients with angiodysplasia-related anemia.

CLINICALTRIALS:

gov, NCT02384122.

Editor's Choice
  • Donohue JK
  • Iyanna N
  • Lorence JM
  • Brown JB
  • Guyette FX
  • et al.
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2024 Feb 17;9(1):e001346 doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2023-001346.
POPULATION:

Patients at risk for haemorrhage receiving tranexamic acid before hospitalization, enrolled in the Study of Tranexamic Acid During Air Medical and Ground Prehospital Transport (STAAMP) Trial (n= 903).

INTERVENTION:

Prehospital tranexamic acid (TXA) (n= 447).

COMPARISON:

Placebo (n= 456).

OUTCOME:

This study was a secondary analysis of the STAAMP trial, comparing patients that received thromboelastography (TEG) (YES-TEG, n= 837) and patients unable to be sampled (NO-TEG, n= 66) to analyze subgroups in which to investigate TEG differences. NO-TEG patients had lower prehospital systolic blood pressure (SBP) (100 (78, 140) vs. 125 (88, 147)), lower prehospital Glascow Coma Score (14 (3, 15) vs. 15 (12, 15)), greater rates of prehospital intubation (39.4% vs. 24.4%) and greater mortality at 30 days (36.4% vs. 6.8%). NO-TEG patients had a greater international normalized ratio relative to the YES-TEG subgroup (1.2 (1.1, 1.5) vs. 1.1 (1.0, 1.2)). Within a severe prehospital shock cohort (SBP< 70), TXA was associated with a significant decrease in clot lysis at 30 min on multivariate analysis (β= -27.6; 95% CI [-51.3, -3.9].

BACKGROUND:

Tranexamic acid (TXA) has been hypothesized to mitigate coagulopathy in patients after traumatic injury. Despite previous prehospital clinical trials demonstrating a TXA survival benefit, none have demonstrated correlated changes in thromboelastography (TEG) parameters. We sought to analyze if missing TEG data contributed to this paucity of findings.

METHODS:

We performed a secondary analysis of the Study of Tranexamic Acid During Air Medical and Ground Prehospital Transport Trial. We compared patients that received TEG (YES-TEG) and patients unable to be sampled (NO-TEG) to analyze subgroups in which to investigate TEG differences. TEG parameter differences across TXA intervention arms were assessed within subgroups disproportionately present in the NO-TEG relative to the YES-TEG cohort. Generalized linear models controlling for potential confounders were applied to findings with p<0.10 on univariate analysis.

RESULTS:

NO-TEG patients had lower prehospital systolic blood pressure (SBP) (100 (78, 140) vs 125 (88, 147), p<0.01), lower prehospital Glascow Coma Score (14 (3, 15) vs 15 (12, 15), p<0.01), greater rates of prehospital intubation (39.4% vs 24.4%, p<0.01) and greater mortality at 30 days (36.4% vs 6.8%, p<0.01). NO-TEG patients had a greater international normalized ratio relative to the YES-TEG subgroup (1.2 (1.1, 1.5) vs 1.1 (1.0, 1.2), p=0.04). Within a severe prehospital shock cohort (SBP<70), TXA was associated with a significant decrease in clot lysis at 30 min on multivariate analysis (β=-27.6, 95% CI (-51.3 to -3.9), p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS:

Missing data, due to the logistical challenges of sampling certain severely injured patients, may be associated with a lack of TEG parameter changes on TXA administration in the primary analysis. Previous demonstration of TXA's survival benefit in patients with severe prehospital shock in tandem with the current findings supports the notion that TXA acts at least partially by improving clot integrity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:

Level II.

Editor's Choice
  • Vogel JP
  • Nguyen PY
  • Ramson J
  • De Silva MS
  • Pham MD
  • et al.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024 Feb 7; doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.01.012.
POPULATION:

Women experiencing vaginal birth or caesarean delivery (22 studies).

INTERVENTION:

Care bundles for postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) prevention and/or treatment.

COMPARISON:

OUTCOME:

For prevention-only bundles (2 studies), low-certainty evidence suggests possible benefits in reducing blood loss, duration of hospitalization and intensive care unit stay, and maternal wellbeing. For treatment-only bundles (9 studies), high-certainty evidence shows that the E-MOTIVE intervention reduced risks of composite severe morbidity (RR 0.40; 95% CI [0.32, 0.50] as well as blood transfusion for bleeding, PPH, severe PPH, and mean blood loss. One non-randomized trial and seven uncontrolled studies suggest other PPH treatment bundles might reduce blood loss and severe PPH, but this is uncertain. For combined prevention/treatment bundles (11 studies), low-certainty evidence shows that the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative (CMQCC) care bundle may reduce severe maternal morbidity (RR 0.64; 95% CI [0.57, 0.72]. Ten uncontrolled studies variably showed possible benefits, no effects, or harms for other bundle types.

OBJECTIVE:

Care bundles are a promising approach to reducing postpartum hemorrhage-related morbidity and mortality. We assessed the effectiveness and safety of care bundles for postpartum hemorrhage prevention and/or treatment.

DATA SOURCES:

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Maternity and Infant Care Database, and Global Index Medicus (inception to June 9, 2023) and ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (last 5 years) using a phased search strategy, combining terms for postpartum hemorrhage and care bundles.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:

Peer-reviewed studies evaluating postpartum hemorrhage-related care bundles were included. Care bundles were defined as interventions comprising ≥3 components implemented collectively, concurrently, or in rapid succession. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, interrupted time series, and before-after studies (controlled or uncontrolled) were eligible.

METHODS:

Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 (randomized trials) and ROBINS-I (nonrandomized studies). For controlled studies, we reported risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with certainty of evidence determined using GRADE. For uncontrolled studies, we used effect direction tables and summarized results narratively.

RESULTS:

Twenty-two studies were included for analysis. For prevention-only bundles (2 studies), low-certainty evidence suggests possible benefits in reducing blood loss, duration of hospitalization, and intensive care unit stay, and maternal well-being. For treatment-only bundles (9 studies), high-certainty evidence shows that the E-MOTIVE intervention reduced risks of composite severe morbidity (risk ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.50) and blood transfusion for bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage, severe postpartum hemorrhage, and mean blood loss. One nonrandomized trial and 7 uncontrolled studies suggest that other postpartum hemorrhage treatment bundles might reduce blood loss and severe postpartum hemorrhage, but this is uncertain. For combined prevention/treatment bundles (11 studies), low-certainty evidence shows that the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative care bundle may reduce severe maternal morbidity (risk ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.72). Ten uncontrolled studies variably showed possible benefits, no effects, or harms for other bundle types. Nearly all uncontrolled studies did not use suitable statistical methods for single-group pretest-posttest comparisons and should thus be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSION:

The E-MOTIVE intervention improves postpartum hemorrhage-related outcomes among women delivering vaginally, and the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative bundle may reduce severe maternal morbidity. Other bundle designs warrant further effectiveness research before implementation is contemplated.

Editor's Choice
  • Park GN
  • Lee KH
  • Moon JE
  • Choi SJ
  • Park MY
  • et al.
Kidney Res Clin Pract. 2024 Jan 23; doi: 10.23876/j.krcp.23.074.
POPULATION:

Patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis (n= 40).

INTERVENTION:

Darbepoetin alfa (DA), (n= 20).

COMPARISON:

Continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (CERA), (n= 20).

OUTCOME:

The patients received the study drug once in 4 weeks during 10- or 12-week correction period and 24-week efficacy evaluation period. The primary outcomes were the mean difference in the changes in haemoglobin levels between baseline and efficacy evaluation period and haemoglobin response rates during the correction period. DA was non-inferior to CERA for anaemia correction; the mean difference in the change in haemoglobin levels between the groups was -0.070 g/dL (95% confidence interval [-0.730, 0.590 g/dL]). Haemoglobin response rates were 100% with DA and 94.1% with CERA. Adverse events were comparable. The mean cost of DA was approximately one-third that of CERA (34,100 ± 7,600 Korean won/4 weeks vs. 115,500 ± 23,600 Korean won/4 weeks).

BACKGROUND:

For anemia management in patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis, darbepoetin alfa (DA), which has a shorter half-life but is more inexpensive than continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (CERA), is preferred in Korea. This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of once-in-4-weeks DA compared with once-in-4-weeks CERA in patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis.

METHODS:

In this randomized, prospective, non-inferiority study, 40 erythropoiesis-stimulating agent-naïve patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis were randomized 1:1 to the DA group and CERA group. They received the study drug once in 4 weeks during 10- or 12-week correction period and 24-week efficacy evaluation period. The primary outcomes were the mean difference in the changes in hemoglobin levels between baseline and efficacy evaluation period and hemoglobin response rates during the correction period. The secondary outcomes included differences in adverse events and costs.

RESULTS:

DA was non-inferior to CERA for anemia correction; the mean difference in the change in hemoglobin levels between the groups was -0.070 g/dL (95% confidence interval, -0.730 to 0.590 g/dL). Hemoglobin response rates were 100% with DA and 94.1% with CERA. Adverse events were comparable. The mean cost of DA was approximately one-third that of CERA (34,100 ± 7,600 Korean won/4 weeks vs. 115,500 ± 23,600 Korean won/4 weeks; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION:

Once-in-4-weeks DA safely corrects anemia in erythropoiesis-stimulating agent-naïve patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis and is more cost-effective than once-in-4-weeks CERA.

Editor's Choice
  • Wang C
  • Lebedeva V
  • Yang J
  • Anih J
  • Park LJ
  • et al.
Perioper Med (Lond). 2024 Jan 23;13(1):5 doi: 10.1186/s13741-023-00358-4.
POPULATION:

Children or adults without known inherited bleeding disorders undergoing surgery or other invasive procedures (63 randomised controlled trials, n= 4,163).

INTERVENTION:

Desmopressin administered intravenously or subcutaneously before, during, or immediately after a surgical or interventional procedure.

COMPARISON:

Placebo, usual care, or antifibrinolytic agents.

OUTCOME:

Meta-analyses demonstrated that desmopressin likely does not reduce the risk of receiving a red blood cell transfusion (25 trials, risk ratio [RR] 0.95; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.86, 1.05]) and may not reduce the risk of reoperation due to bleeding (22 trials, RR 0.75; 95% CI [0.47, 1.19]) when compared to placebo or usual care. However, the authors demonstrated significant reductions in number of units of red blood cells transfused (25 trials, mean difference -0.55 units; 95% CI [-0.94, -0.15]), total volume of blood loss (33 trials, standardized mean difference - 0.40 standard deviations; 95% CI [-0.56, -0.23]), and the risk of bleeding events (2 trials, RR 0.45; 95% CI [0.24, 0.84]). The certainty of evidence of these findings was generally low.

We systematically reviewed the literature to investigate the effects of peri-procedural desmopressin in patients without known inherited bleeding disorders undergoing surgery or other invasive procedures. We included 63 randomized trials (4163 participants) published up to February 1, 2023. Seven trials were published after a 2017 Cochrane systematic review on this topic. There were 38 trials in cardiac surgery, 22 in noncardiac surgery, and 3 in non-surgical procedures. Meta-analyses demonstrated that desmopressin likely does not reduce the risk of receiving a red blood cell transfusion (25 trials, risk ratio [RR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86 to 1.05) and may not reduce the risk of reoperation due to bleeding (22 trials, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.19) when compared to placebo or usual care. However, we demonstrated significant reductions in number of units of red blood cells transfused (25 trials, mean difference -0.55 units, 95% CI - 0.94 to - 0.15), total volume of blood loss (33 trials, standardized mean difference - 0.40 standard deviations; 95% CI - 0.56 to - 0.23), and the risk of bleeding events (2 trials, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.84). The certainty of evidence of these findings was generally low. Desmopressin increased the risk of clinically significant hypotension that required intervention (19 trials, RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.36 to 3.41). Limited evidence suggests that tranexamic acid is more effective than desmopressin in reducing transfusion risk (3 trials, RR 2.38 favoring tranexamic acid, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.39) and total volume of blood loss (3 trials, mean difference 391.7 mL favoring tranexamic acid, 95% CI - 93.3 to 876.7 mL). No trials directly informed the safety and hemostatic efficacy of desmopressin in advanced kidney disease. In conclusion, desmopressin likely reduces periprocedural blood loss and the number of units of blood transfused in small trials with methodologic limitations. However, the risk of hypotension needs to be mitigated. Large trials should evaluate desmopressin alongside tranexamic acid and enroll patients with advanced kidney disease.

Editor's Choice
  • Kim D
  • Bashrum BS
  • Kotlier JL
  • Mayfield CK
  • Thompson AA
  • et al.
Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2024 Jan 16;6(1):100851 doi: 10.1016/j.asmr.2023.100851.
POPULATION:

Patients with hip osteoarthritis (15 systematic reviews).

INTERVENTION:

Systematic review to describe the incidence and types of spin bias in systematic reviews of platelet-rich plasma injections for hip osteoarthritis and to determine whether patterns in study characteristics could be identified among studies with identifiable spin.

COMPARISON:

OUTCOME:

All studies contained at least two types of spin (range 2-9), with a median of 2. The most common type of spin was type 14 ("Failure to report a wide confidence interval of estimates"), which was observed in 10 studies. The second most common type of spin was type 13 ("Failure to specify the direction of the effect when it favors the control intervention"), found in 6 studies. Several associations were found between spin types and the study characteristics of AMSTAR 2 rating, Scopus CiteScore, journal impact factor, and PROSPERO preregistration.

PURPOSE:

To describe the incidence and types of spin in systematic reviews of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for hip osteoarthritis (OA) and to determine whether patterns in study characteristics could be identified among studies with identifiable spin.

METHODS:

The PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases were queried. Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews or meta-analyses that included an assessment of intra-articular PRP injections as a stand-alone treatment for hip OA. Two authors independently assessed the presence of spin in the included studies and recorded general study characteristics. The prevalence of the 15 different categories of spin was quantified using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS:

Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria for this study. All studies contained at least two types of spin (range 2-9), with a median of 2. The most common type of spin was type 14 ("Failure to report a wide confidence interval of estimates"), which was observed in 10 studies. The second most common type of spin was type 13 ("Failure to specify the direction of the effect when it favors the control intervention"), found in 6 studies.

CONCLUSIONS:

Spin is highly prevalent in abstracts of systematic reviews of PRP in the treatment of hip OA. Several associations were found between spin types and the study characteristics of AMSTAR 2 rating, Scopus CiteScore, journal impact factor, and PROSPERO preregistration. When present, spin in the abstracts of reviewed studies tended to favor the use of PRP in hip osteoarthritis.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE:

It is important to understand the prevalence of spin in published abstracts, especially in areas of great impact or interest, so authors and readers can have a greater awareness of this potential form of bias.

Editor's Choice
  • Wang T
  • Wang J
  • Zhang M
  • Zhang H
  • Zhang Q
  • et al.
BMC Anesthesiol. 2024 Jan 16;24(1):26 doi: 10.1186/s12871-024-02414-y.
POPULATION:

Adult patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (10 randomised controlled trials).

INTERVENTION:

Network meta-analysis (NMA) to perform direct comparisons, including albumin vs. artificial colloid and artificial colloid vs. crystalloid, and to obtain indirect evidence for the comparisons between albumin and crystalloid priming strategies.

COMPARISON:

OUTCOME:

Direct meta-analysis indicated that crystalloid priming significantly decreased total perioperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusions (MD -0.68U; 95% CI [-1.26, -0.09U]) and intraoperative RBC transfusions (MD -0.20U; 95% CI [-0.39, -0.01U]) compared to albumin. Postoperative RBC transfusions showed a decreasing trend in the crystalloid group; however, the difference was not statistically significant (MD -0.16U; 95% CI: [-0.45, 0.14U]). After including indirect evidence, the NMA results continued to demonstrate a higher RBC receiving with the albumin priming strategy compared to crystalloids, although the differences did not reach statistical significance.

BACKGROUND:

In on-pump cardiac surgery, the albumin priming strategy could maintain colloid osmotic pressure better than crystalloid solutions and reduce excessive perioperative fluid balance. However, a high-quality meta-analysis is required to compare the safety of these approaches in perioperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. Owing to limited direct evidence, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to increase the pool of studies and provide indirect evidence.

METHODS:

The pre-defined primary outcomes were intraoperative and the first 24 h postoperative RBC transfusion volume in units. The pre-defined secondary outcome was postoperative blood loss (the first 24 h). We reviewed all randomized controlled trials comparing albumin, crystalloid, and artificial colloid priming strategies. Studies that only displayed pre-defined outcomes could be included. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed on studies that directly compared the pre-defined outcomes between albumin and crystalloids. Additionally, a random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) model was employed to generate indirect evidence for the pre-defined outcomes between albumin and crystalloids.

RESULTS:

The literature search identified 830 studies,10 of which were included in the final analysis. Direct meta-analysis indicated that crystalloid priming significantly decreased total perioperative RBC transfusions (MD: -0.68U; 95%CI: -1.26, -0.09U; P = 0.02) and intraoperative RBC transfusions (MD: -0.20U; 95%CI: -0.39, -0.01U; P = 0.03) compared to albumin. Postoperative RBC transfusions showed a decreasing trend in the crystalloid group; however, the difference was not statistically significant. (MD: -0.16U; 95%CI: -0.45, 0.14U; P = 0.30). After including indirect evidence, the NMA results continued to demonstrate a higher RBC receiving with the albumin priming strategy compared to crystalloids, although the differences did not reach statistical significance. For postoperative blood loss, direct evidence showed no significant differences between albumin and crystalloid priming strategies. However, NMA evidence displayed that albumin exist higher probability of reducing postoperative blood loss than crystalloid.

CONCLUSION:

Both direct and NMA evidence indicated that the albumin priming strategy resulted in more perioperative RBC transfusions than crystalloids. Considering the additional blood management burden, the application of an albumin-priming strategy in on-pump cardiac surgery still needs more consideration.

Editor's Choice
  • Gibbs VN
  • Champaneria R
  • Sandercock J
  • Welton NJ
  • Geneen LJ
  • et al.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jan 16;1(1):CD013295 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013295.pub2.
POPULATION:

People undergoing elective hip or knee surgery (102 randomised controlled trials).

INTERVENTION:

Antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid, aprotinin, epsilon-aminocaproic acid (EACA)), desmopressin, factor VIIa and XIII, fibrinogen, fibrin sealants and non-fibrin sealants.

COMPARISON:

Placebo or one of the active interventions.

OUTCOME:

The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion and all‐cause mortality. Tranexamic acid was the most common drug studied. Mortality was not reported by many trials. Tranexamic acid interventions consistently ranked higher than other treatments such as aprotinin, EACA and topical fibrin sealants compared with placebo. The authors noted that mixed routes of administration (oral and intra‐articular, intravenous and intra‐articular) appear to be more effective than single routes of administration and higher doses of tranexamic acid feature higher up the treatment ranking hierarchy. The authors identified 30 ongoing studies.

BACKGROUND:

Hip and knee replacement surgery is a well-established means of improving quality of life, but is associated with a significant risk of bleeding. One-third of people are estimated to be anaemic before hip or knee replacement surgery; coupled with the blood lost during surgery, up to 90% of individuals are anaemic postoperatively. As a result, people undergoing orthopaedic surgery receive 3.9% of all packed red blood cell transfusions in the UK. Bleeding and the need for allogeneic blood transfusions has been shown to increase the risk of surgical site infection and mortality, and is associated with an increased duration of hospital stay and costs associated with surgery. Reducing blood loss during surgery may reduce the risk of allogeneic blood transfusion, reduce costs and improve outcomes following surgery. Several pharmacological interventions are available and currently employed as part of routine clinical care.

OBJECTIVES:

To determine the relative efficacy of pharmacological interventions for preventing blood loss in elective primary or revision hip or knee replacement, and to identify optimal administration of interventions regarding timing, dose and route, using network meta-analysis (NMA) methodology.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews, from inception to 18 October 2022: CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Transfusion Evidence Library (Evidentia), ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We included RCTs of people undergoing elective hip or knee surgery only. We excluded non-elective or emergency procedures, and studies published since 2010 that had not been prospectively registered (Cochrane Injuries policy). There were no restrictions on gender, ethnicity or age (adults only). We excluded studies that used standard of care as the comparator. Eligible interventions included: antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid (TXA), aprotinin, epsilon-aminocaproic acid (EACA)), desmopressin, factor VIIa and XIII, fibrinogen, fibrin sealants and non-fibrin sealants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

We performed the review according to standard Cochrane methodology. Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using CINeMA. We presented direct (pairwise) results using RevMan Web and performed the NMA using BUGSnet. We were interested in the following primary outcomes: need for allogenic blood transfusion (up to 30 days) and all-cause mortality (deaths occurring up to 30 days after the operation), and the following secondary outcomes: mean number of transfusion episodes per person (up to 30 days), re-operation due to bleeding (within seven days), length of hospital stay and adverse events related to the intervention received.

MAIN RESULTS:

We included a total of 102 studies. Twelve studies did not report the number of included participants; the other 90 studies included 8418 participants. Trials included more women (64%) than men (36%). In the NMA for allogeneic blood transfusion, we included 47 studies (4398 participants). Most studies examined TXA (58 arms, 56%). We found that TXA, given intra-articularly and orally at a total dose of greater than 3 g pre-incision, intraoperatively and postoperatively, ranked the highest, with an anticipated absolute effect of 147 fewer blood transfusions per 1000 people (150 fewer to 104 fewer) (53% chance of ranking 1st) within the NMA (risk ratio (RR) 0.02, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0 to 0.31; moderate-certainty evidence). This was followed by TXA given orally at a total dose of 3 g pre-incision and postoperatively (RR 0.06, 95% CrI 0.00 to 1.34; low-certainty evidence) and TXA given intravenously and orally at a total dose of greater than 3 g intraoperatively and postoperatively (RR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.02 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence). Aprotinin (RR 0.59, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.96; low-certainty evidence), topical fibrin (RR 0.86, CrI 0.25 to 2.93; very low-certainty evidence) and EACA (RR 0.60, 95% CrI 0.29 to 1.27; very low-certainty evidence) were not shown to be as effective compared with TXA at reducing the risk of blood transfusion. We were unable to perform an NMA for our primary outcome all-cause mortality within 30 days of surgery due to the large number of studies with zero events, or because the outcome was not reported. In the NMA for deep vein thrombosis (DVT), we included 19 studies (2395 participants). Most studies examined TXA (27 arms, 64%). No studies assessed desmopressin, EACA or topical fibrin. We found that TXA given intravenously and orally at a total dose of greater than 3 g intraoperatively and postoperatively ranked the highest, with an anticipated absolute effect of 67 fewer DVTs per 1000 people (67 fewer to 34 more) (26% chance of ranking first) within the NMA (RR 0.16, 95% CrI 0.02 to 1.43; low-certainty evidence). This was followed by TXA given intravenously and intra-articularly at a total dose of 2 g pre-incision and intraoperatively (RR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.00 to 9.12; low-certainty evidence) and TXA given intravenously and intra-articularly, total dose greater than 3 g pre-incision, intraoperatively and postoperatively (RR 0.13, 95% CrI 0.01 to 3.11; low-certainty evidence). Aprotinin was not shown to be as effective compared with TXA (RR 0.67, 95% CrI 0.28 to 1.62; very low-certainty evidence). We were unable to perform an NMA for our secondary outcomes pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction and CVA (stroke) within 30 days, mean number of transfusion episodes per person (up to 30 days), re-operation due to bleeding (within seven days), or length of hospital stay, due to the large number of studies with zero events, or because the outcome was not reported by enough studies to build a network. There are 30 ongoing trials planning to recruit 3776 participants, the majority examining TXA (26 trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

We found that of all the interventions studied, TXA is probably the most effective intervention for preventing bleeding in people undergoing hip or knee replacement surgery. Aprotinin and EACA may not be as effective as TXA at preventing the need for allogeneic blood transfusion. We were not able to draw strong conclusions on the optimal dose, route and timing of administration of TXA. We found that TXA given at higher doses tended to rank higher in the treatment hierarchy, and we also found that it may be more beneficial to use a mixed route of administration (oral and intra-articular, oral and intravenous, or intravenous and intra-articular). Oral administration may be as effective as intravenous administration of TXA. We found little to no evidence of harm associated with higher doses of tranexamic acid in the risk of DVT. However, we are not able to definitively draw these conclusions based on the trials included within this review.

Editor's Choice
  • Stangl S
  • Popp M
  • Reis S
  • Sitter M
  • Saal-Bauernschubert L
  • et al.
Syst Rev. 2024 Jan 2;13(1):5 doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02431-x.
POPULATION:

Patients with iron deficiency or iron deficiency anaemia undergoing major surgery (13 studies: 5 randomised controlled trials and 8 observational studies).

INTERVENTION:

Systematic review to identify and appraise outcomes reported for preoperative or perioperative treatment of iron deficiency, with or without anemia.

COMPARISON:

OUTCOME:

Overall, 111 outcomes were structured into five core areas including nine domains. Most studies (92%) reported outcomes within the 'blood and lymphatic system' domain, followed by ‘adverse event’ (77%) and ‘need for further resources’ (77%). All of the latter reported on the need for blood transfusion. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous in measures and timing. Merely, two (33%) of six prospective studies were registered prospectively of which one (17%) showed no signs of selective outcome reporting.

BACKGROUND:

Iron deficiency (ID) is the leading cause of anemia worldwide. The prevalence of preoperative ID ranges from 23 to 33%. Preoperative anemia is associated with worse outcomes, making it important to diagnose and treat ID before elective surgery. Several studies indicated the effectiveness of intravenous iron supplementation in iron deficiency with or without anemia (ID(A)). However, it remains challenging to establish reliable evidence due to heterogeneity in utilized study outcomes. The development of a core outcome set (COS) can help to reduce this heterogeneity by proposing a minimal set of meaningful and standardized outcomes. The aim of our systematic review was to identify and assess outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating iron supplementation in iron-deficient patients with or without anemia.

METHODS:

We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov systematically from 2000 to April 1, 2022. RCTs and observational studies investigating iron supplementation in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of ID(A), were included. Study characteristics and reported outcomes were extracted. Outcomes were categorized according to an established outcome taxonomy. Quality of outcome reporting was assessed with a pre-specified tool. Reported clinically relevant differences for sample size calculation were extracted.

RESULTS:

Out of 2898 records, 346 underwent full-text screening and 13 studies (five RCTs, eight observational studies) with sufficient diagnostic inclusion criteria for iron deficiency with or without anemia (ID(A)) were eligible. It is noteworthy to mention that 49 studies were excluded due to no confirmed diagnosis of ID(A). Overall, 111 outcomes were structured into five core areas including nine domains. Most studies (92%) reported outcomes within the 'blood and lymphatic system' domain, followed by "adverse event" (77%) and "need for further resources" (77%). All of the latter reported on the need for blood transfusion. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous in measures and timing. Merely, two (33%) of six prospective studies were registered prospectively of which one (17%) showed no signs of selective outcome reporting.

CONCLUSION:

This systematic review comprehensively depicts the heterogeneity of reported outcomes in studies investigating iron supplementation in ID(A) patients regarding exact definitions and timing. Our analysis provides a systematic base for consenting to a minimal COS.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:

PROSPERO CRD42020214247.