3 results
Filters • 2
Sort By
Results Per Page
Filters
3 results
2
Download the following citations:
Email the following citations:
Print the following citations:
Editor's Choice
  • Bus SR
  • de Haan RJ
  • Vermeulen M
  • van Schaik IN
  • Eftimov F
  • et al.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Feb 14;2(2):CD001797 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001797.pub4.
POPULATION:

People with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (9 randomised controlled trials, n= 372).

INTERVENTION:

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg).

COMPARISON:

Placebo; plasma exchange; corticosteroids (prednisolone and intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP)).

OUTCOME:

The primary outcome was significant improvement in disability within six weeks after the start of treatment. There was low statistical heterogeneity between the trial results, and the overall risk of bias was low for all trials that contributed data to the analysis. IVIg compared with placebo increases the probability of significant improvement in disability within six weeks of the start of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.72, 3.36]; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4; 95% CI [3, 5]; 5 trials, 269 participants, high-certainty evidence). The trial comparing IVIg with plasma exchange reported none of our main outcomes. IVIg compared with prednisolone probably has little or no effect on the probability of significant improvement in disability four weeks after the start of treatment (RR 0.91; 95% CI [0.50, 1.68]; 1 trial, 29 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with IVMP probably increases the likelihood of significant improvement in disability two weeks after starting treatment (RR 1.46; 95% CI [0.40, 5.38]; 1 trial, 45 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).

BACKGROUND:

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) causes progressive or relapsing weakness and numbness of the limbs, which lasts for at least two months. Uncontrolled studies have suggested that intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) could help to reduce symptoms. This is an update of a review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2013.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin in people with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 8 March 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that tested any dose of IVIg versus placebo, plasma exchange, or corticosteroids in people with definite or probable CIDP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was significant improvement in disability within six weeks after the start of treatment, as determined and defined by the study authors. Our secondary outcomes were change in mean disability score within six weeks, change in muscle strength (Medical Research Council (MRC) sum score) within six weeks, change in mean disability score at 24 weeks or later, frequency of serious adverse events, and frequency of any adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for our main outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS:

We included nine RCTs with 372 participants (235 male) from Europe, North America, South America, and Israel. There was low statistical heterogeneity between the trial results, and the overall risk of bias was low for all trials that contributed data to the analysis. Five trials (235 participants) compared IVIg with placebo, one trial (20 participants) compared IVIg with plasma exchange, two trials (72 participants) compared IVIg with prednisolone, and one trial (45 participants) compared IVIg with intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP). We included one new trial in this update, though it contributed no data to any meta-analyses. IVIg compared with placebo increases the probability of significant improvement in disability within six weeks of the start of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 3.36; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; 5 trials, 269 participants; high-certainty evidence). Since each trial used a different disability scale and definition of significant improvement, we were unable to evaluate the clinical relevance of the pooled effect. IVIg compared with placebo improves disability measured on the Rankin scale (0 to 6, lower is better) two to six weeks after the start of treatment (mean difference (MD) -0.26 points, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.05; 3 trials, 90 participants; high-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with placebo probably improves disability measured on the Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) scale (1 to 10, lower is better) after 24 weeks (MD 0.80 points, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.37; 1 trial, 117 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference between IVIg and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.87; 3 trials, 315 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The trial comparing IVIg with plasma exchange reported none of our main outcomes. IVIg compared with prednisolone probably has little or no effect on the probability of significant improvement in disability four weeks after the start of treatment (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.68; 1 trial, 29 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and little or no effect on change in mean disability measured on the Rankin scale (MD 0.21 points, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.61; 1 trial, 24 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference between IVIg and prednisolone in the frequency of serious adverse events (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.69; 1 cross-over trial, 32 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with IVMP probably increases the likelihood of significant improvement in disability two weeks after starting treatment (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.38; 1 trial, 45 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with IVMP probably has little or no effect on change in disability measured on the Rankin scale two weeks after the start of treatment (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.63; 1 trial, 45 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or on change in mean disability measured with the Overall Neuropathy Limitation Scale (ONLS, 1 to 12, lower is better) 24 weeks after the start of treatment (MD 0.03 points, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.97; 1 trial, 45 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The frequency of serious adverse events may be higher with IVIg compared with IVMP (RR 4.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 86.78; 1 trial, 45 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Evidence from RCTs shows that IVIg improves disability for at least two to six weeks compared with placebo, with an NNTB of 4. During this period, IVIg probably has similar efficacy to oral prednisolone and IVMP. Further placebo-controlled trials are unlikely to change these conclusions. In one large trial, the benefit of IVIg compared with placebo in terms of improved disability score persisted for 24 weeks. Further research is needed to assess the long-term benefits and harms of IVIg relative to other treatments.

Editor's Choice
  • Skubas NJ
  • Callum J
  • Bathla A
  • Keshavarz H
  • Fergusson D
  • et al.
Br J Anaesth. 2024 Feb;132(2):237-250 doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.11.009.
POPULATION:

Paediatric and adult patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery (42 randomised controlled trials).

INTERVENTION:

Intravenous albumin.

COMPARISON:

Synthetic colloids and crystalloids.

OUTCOME:

Primary outcome of all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included renal failure, blood loss, duration of hospital or intensive care unit stay, cardiac index, and blood component use. Mortality was assessed in 15 trials (n= 2,711) and the risk difference was 0.00; 95% confidence interval (CI) [-0.01, 0.01] I(2)= 0%. Among secondary outcomes, intravenous albumin resulted in smaller fluid balance, mean difference -0.55 L; 95% CI [-1.06, -0.4], I(2)= 90% (nine studies, n= 1,975) and higher albumin concentrations, mean difference 7.77 gL(-1); 95% CI [3.73, 11.8], I(2)= 95% (six studies, n= 325). Intravenous albumin use was not associated with a difference in morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery, when compared with comparator fluids.

BACKGROUND:

Intravenous albumin is commonly utilised in cardiovascular surgery for priming of the cardiopulmonary bypass circuit, volume replacement, or both, although the evidence to support this practice is uncertain. The aim was to compare i.v. albumin with synthetic colloids and crystalloids for paediatric and adult patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery for all-cause mortality and other perioperative outcomes.

METHODS:

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of i.v. albumin compared with synthetic colloids and crystalloids on the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was conducted. Secondary outcomes included renal failure, blood loss, duration of hospital or intensive care unit stay, cardiac index, and blood component use; subgroups were analysed by age, comparator fluid, and intended use (priming, volume, or both). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCRT) from 1946 to November 23, 2022.

RESULTS:

Of 42 RCTs, mortality was assessed in 15 trials (2711 cardiac surgery patients) and the risk difference was 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.01, I2=0%. Among secondary outcomes, i.v. albumin resulted in smaller fluid balance, mean difference -0.55 L, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.4, I2=90% (nine studies, 1975 patients) and higher albumin concentrations, mean difference 7.77 g L-1, 95% CI 3.73-11.8, I2=95% (six studies, 325 patients).

CONCLUSIONS:

Intravenous albumin use was not associated with a difference in morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery, when compared with comparator fluids. The lack of improvement in important outcomes with albumin and its higher cost suggests it should be used restrictively.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL:

PROSPERO; CRD42020171876.

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.