0
selected
-
1.
The Efficacy of Hypotensive Agents on Intraoperative Bleeding and Recovery Following General Anesthesia for Nasal Surgery: A Network Meta-Analysis
Kim DH, Lee J, Kim SW, Hwang SH
Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology. 2020
Abstract
OBJECTIVES A systematic review of the literature was conducted to evaluate hypotensive agents in terms of their adverse effects and associations with perioperative morbidity in patients undergoing nasal surgery. METHODS Two authors independently searched databases (Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane databases) up to February 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing the perioperative administration of a hypotensive agent with a placebo or other agent. The outcomes of interest for this analysis were intraoperative morbidity, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, hypotension, postoperative nausea/vomiting, and postoperative pain. Both a standard pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were conducted. RESULTS Our analysis was based on 37 trials. Treatment networks consisting of six interventions (placebo, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, beta-blockers, opioids, and nitroglycerine) were defined for the network meta-analysis. Dexmedetomidine resulted in the greatest differences in intraoperative bleeding (-0.971; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.161 to -0.781), intraoperative fentanyl administration (-3.683; 95% CI, -4.848 to -2.518), and postoperative pain (-2.065; 95% CI, -3.170 to -0.960) compared with placebo. The greatest difference in operative time compared with placebo was achieved with clonidine (-0.699; 95% CI, -0.977 to -0.421). All other agents also had beneficial effects on the measured outcomes. Dexmedetomidine was less likely than other agents to cause adverse effects. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated the superiority of the systemic use of dexmedetomidine as a perioperative hypotensive agent compared with the other five tested agents. However, the other agents were also superior to placebo in improving operative time, intraoperative bleeding, and postoperative pain.
-
2.
Platelet Transfusion in Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Yanagawa B, Ribeiro R, Lee J, Mazer CD, Cheng D, Martin J, Verma S, Friedrich JO
Ann Thorac Surg. 2020
Abstract
BACKGROUND Blood transfusion is a well-established independent risk factor for mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery but the impact of platelet transfusion is less clear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies comparing outcomes of patients who received platelet transfusion following cardiac surgery. METHODS We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to January 2019 for studies comparing peri-operative outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with and without platelet transfusion. RESULTS There were 9 observational studies reporting on 101,511 patients: 12% with and 88% without platelet transfusion. In unmatched/unadjusted studies, patients who received platelet transfusion were older with greater incidence of renal, peripheral and cerebrovascular disease, myocardial infarction, left ventricular dysfunction, and anemia. They were more likely to have non-elective, combined surgery; pre-operative hemodynamic instability and endocarditis; and more likely to be on clopidogrel preoperatively. Perioperative complications were significantly increased without adjusting for these baseline differences. After pooling only matched/adjusted data, differences were not found in patients who did vs did not receive platelets for operative mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.26, 95%CI:0.69-2.32, p=0.46, 5 studies), stroke (RR 0.94, 95%CI:0.62-1.45, p=0.79, 5 studies), myocardial infarction (RR1.29, 95%CI:0.95-1.77, p=0.11, 3 studies), reoperation for bleeding (RR1.20, 95%CI:0.46-3.18, p=0.71, 3 studies), infection (RR1.02, 95%CI:0.86-1.20, p=0.85, 6 studies), and peri-operative dialysis (RR0.91, 95%CI:0.63-1.32, p=0.62, 3 studies). CONCLUSIONS After accounting for baseline differences, platelet transfusion was not linked with perioperative complications in cardiac surgery patients. Given the small number of observational studies, these findings should be considered hypothesis generating.
-
3.
Comparison of manual compression and vascular hemostasis devices after coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention through femoral artery access: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Dahal K, Rijal J, Shahukhal R, Sharma S, Watti H, Azrin M, Katikaneni P, Jimenez E, Tandon N, Modi K, et al
Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine : Including Molecular Interventions. 2017;19((2):):151-162
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy and safety of manual compression (MC) with vascular hemostasis devices (VHD) in patients undergoing coronary angiography (CA) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) through femoral artery access. INTRODUCTION The use of femoral artery access for coronary procedures may result in access-related complications, prolonged immobility and discomfort for the patients. MC results in longer time-to-hemostasis (TTH) and time-to-ambulation (TTA) compared to VHDs but its role in access-related complications remains unclear in patients undergoing coronary procedures. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and relevant references for English language randomized controlled trials (RCT) from inception through September 30, 2016. We performed the meta-analysis using random effects model. The outcomes were time-to-hemostasis, time-to-ambulation, major bleeding, large hematoma >5cm, pseudoaneurysm and other adverse events. RESULTS The electronic database search resulted in a total of 44 RCTs with a total of 18,802 patients for analysis. MC, compared to VHD resulted in longer TTH [mean difference (MD): 11.21min; 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.13-14.29; P<0.00001] and TTA [standardized mean difference: 1.2 (0.79-1.62); P<0.00001] along with excess risk of hematoma >5cm formation [risk ratio (RR): 1.38 (1.15-1.67); P=0.0008]. MC resulted in similar risk of major bleeding [1.01 (0.64-1.60); P=0.95] pseudoaneurysm [0.99 (0.75-1.29); P=0.92], infections [0.52 (0.25-1.10); P=0.09], need of surgery [0.60 (0.29-1.22); P=0.16), AV fistula [0.93 (0.68-1.27); P=0.63] and ipsilateral leg ischemia [0.95 (0.57-1.60); P=0.86] compared to VHD. CONCLUSION Manual compression increase time-to-hemostasis, time-to-ambulation and risk of hematoma formation compared vascular hemostasis devices.
-
4.
Topical versus intravenous administration of tranexamic acid in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Hanna SA, Prasad A, Lee J, Achan P
Orthopedic Reviews. 2016;8((3)):6792.
Abstract
Tranexamic acid (TA) is widely used by orthopedic surgeons to decrease blood loss and the need for transfusion following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although both intravenous and topical applications are described in the literature, there remains no consensus regarding the optimal regimen, dosage and method of delivery of TA during THA. In addition, concerns still exist regarding the risk of thromboembolic events with intravenous administration. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of topical versus intravenous administration of TA in THA. A systemic review of the electronic databases PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE and Google Scholar was undertaken to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the topical and intravenous administration of TA during THA, in terms of total blood loss, rate of blood transfusion and incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) post-operatively. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of both methods of administration. Of 248 potentially relevant papers, three RCTs comprising (482) were eligible for data extraction and meta-analysis. The results showed a slightly higher amount of blood loss [Mean Difference (MD) - 46.37, P=0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 12.54 to 105.29] and rate of transfusion (Risk Ratio 1.30, P=0.39, 95%CI 0.71 to 2.37) postoperatively in the topical TA group, but both did not reach statistical significance. There were 3 cases (1.2%) of DVT/PE in the intravenous group and one case (0.4%) in the topical group. Topical TA is an effective and safe method to reduce blood loss and the rate of transfusion following primary THA. It has comparative effectiveness to IV administration with slightly less post-operative thromboembolic complications. Larger and better-designed RCTs are required to establish the optimum dosage and regimen for topical use.
-
5.
Breastfeeding or nipple stimulation for reducing postpartum haemorrhage in the third stage of labour
Abedi P, Jahanfar S, Namvar F, Lee J
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016;((1)):CD010845.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Oxytocin and prostaglandin are hormones responsible for uterine contraction during the third stage of labour. Receptors in the uterine muscles are stimulated by exogenous or endogenous oxytocin leading to uterine contractions. Nipple stimulation or breastfeeding are stimuli that can lead to the secretion of oxytocin and consequent uterine contractions. Consequently, uterine contractions can reduce bleeding during the third stage of labour. OBJECTIVES To investigate the effects of breastfeeding or nipple stimulation on postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) during the third stage of labour. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (15 July 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing breast stimulation, breastfeeding or suckling for PPH in the third stage of labour were selected for this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in terms of risk of bias and independently extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by a third review author. MAIN RESULTS We included four trials (4608 women), but only two studies contributed data to the review's analyses (n = 4472). The studies contributing data were assessed as of high risk of bias overall. One of these studies was cluster-randomised and conducted in a low-income country and the other study was carried out in a high-income country. All four included studies assessed blood loss in the third stage of labour. Birth attendants estimated blood loss in two trials. The third trial assessed the hematocrit level on the second day postpartum to determine the effect of the bleeding. The fourth study measured PPH ≥ 500 mL. Nipple stimulation versus no treatmentOne study (4385 women) compared the effect of suckling versus no treatment. Blood loss was not measured in 114 women (59 in control group and 55 in suckling group). After excluding twin pregnancies, stillbirths and neonatal deaths, the main analyses for this trial were performed on 4227 vaginal deliveries. In terms of maternal death or severe morbidity, one maternal death occurred in the suckling group due to retained placenta (risk ratio (RR) 3.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 74.26; one study, participants = 4227; very low quality evidence); severe morbidity was not mentioned. Severe PPH (≥ 1000 mL) was not reported in this study.The incidence of PPH (≥ 500 mL) was similar in the suckling and no treatment groups (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.16; one study, participants = 4227; moderate quality). There were no group differences between nipple stimulation and no treatment regarding blood loss in the third stage of labour (mean difference (MD) 2.00, 95% CI -7.39 to 11.39; one study, participants = 4227; low quality). The rates of retained placenta were similar (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.16; one study, participants = 4227; very low quality evidence), as were perinatal deaths (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.98; one study, participants = 4271; low quality), and maternal readmission to hospital (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.16; one study, participants = 4227; very low quality). We downgraded the evidence for this comparison for risk of bias concerns in the one included trial (inappropriate analyses for cluster design) and for imprecision (wide CIs crossing the line of no difference and, for some outcomes, few events).Many maternal secondary outcomes (including side effects) were not reported. Similarly, most neonatal secondary outcomes were not reported. Nipple stimulation versus oxytocinAnother study compared the effect of nipple stimulation (via a breast pump) with oxytocin. Eighty-seven women were recruited but only 85 women were analysed. Severe PPH ≥ 1000 mL and maternal death or severe morbidity were not reported.There was no clear effect of nipple stimulation on blood loss (MD 15.00, 95% CI -24.50 to 54.50; one study, participants = 85; low quality evidence), or on postnatal anaemia compared to the oxytocin group (MD -