Effectiveness of ketamine-propofol sedation for reducing respiratory adverse events compared to propofol sedation: A Meta-Analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting Wen ◽  
Shibiao Chen ◽  
Lili Zhao ◽  
Yang Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Respiratory Depression ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Central Apnea ◽  
Propofol Sedation ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Randomized Controlled Studies ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract ObjectiveThe objective of our review was to determine whether ketamine-propofol had an advantage in reducing respiratory adverse events compared to propofol for procedural sedation.MethodsElectronic databases including Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, Embase, Google Scholar were searched to identify potential studies. All randomized controlled studies from their inception to May 2020 comparing ketamine-propofol sedation with propofol sedation were identified. Pooled analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted using Stata software. The quality assessment of all included studies was completed by using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias.ResultsA total of 21 studies involving 3669 individuals were included. The most common respiratory adverse events (all reported per 100 sedations) were: hypoxia(KP 10.9%; P 17.0%), respiratory depression(KP 6.9%; P 14.9%), central apnea(KP 5.9%; P 8.0%). Pooling these 21 studies, subjects with ketamine-propofol had significant lower incidence of respiratory adverse events than those with propofol (RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.41–0.74). When stratified by study population, no significant difference was observed in reducing respiratory adverse events between ketamine-propofol sedation and propofol sedation among children (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.46–1.20). However, significant differences were discerned definitely among adults(RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.39–0.60).ConclusionIn summary, Our results suggested hypoxia, respiratory depression, central apnea were most common respiratory adverse events in propofol sedation. However, ketamine-propofol sedation had an advantage in reducing the incidence of respiratory adverse events compared with propofol sedation, especially in adults.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness and Safety of Thunder Fire Moxibustion for Treating Allergic Rhinitis: A PRISMA Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Ting Yuan ◽  
Jun Xiong ◽  
Jun Yang ◽  
Xue Wang ◽  
Yunfeng Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Total Effective Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effective Rate ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background. Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a noninfectious inflammatory disease caused by allergic individuals exposed to allergens. Western medicine therapy for treating AR causes obvious adverse events, while thunder fire moxibustion (TFM) is known as a safe and effective treatment for AR. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TFM for treating AR. Methods. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM from inception to April 5, 2020, were searched without any language restriction. Reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality, independently. The primary outcomes were the total effective rate and the TNSS. The secondary outcomes included TNNSS, RQLQ, VAS, serum IgE, IgA, or IgG level, and adverse events. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were collected; methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB), and the level of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan5.3.0 software. Results. A total of 18 RCTs were included, including 1600 patients. The results of this meta-analysis showed a statistically significant effect in a total effective rate of T = TFM (RR = 1.07; 95% CI [1.03, 1.12]; P=0.45; I2 = 0%) and T = TFM + other treatments (RR = 1.18; 95% CI [1.11, 1.25]; P=0.03; I2 = 53%). In addition, TFM intervention also showed significant difference in total symptom score (T = TFM + other treatments) (MD = −1.42; 95% CI [−1.55, −1.29]; P=0.03; I2 = 60%) in patients with AR. Conclusion. Existing evidence shows that TFM is safe and effective for AR. Due to the universal low quality of the eligible trials and low evidence level, we should draw our conclusions with caution. Therefore, clinical researchers should carry out more large-sample, multicentre, high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials in the future to verify the clinical efficacy of TFM in treating AR.

Efficacy of Bimodal High-Voltage Monopulsed Current in the Treatment of Pressure Ulcer: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhiwei ZHANG ◽  
Bojun LI ◽  
Zhichao WANG ◽  
Lina WU ◽  
Lili SONG ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Group ◽  
Pressure Ulcer ◽  
High Voltage ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Randomized Controlled Studies ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: We aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy of high-voltage pulsed current (HVPC) in the treatment of pressure ulcer. Methods: We searched the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Elsevier and EMBASE to identify randomized controlled studies on the application of HVPC in pressure ulcer treatment, up to January 2019. Two authors independently screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the data and evaluated the quality. RevMan 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis. Four randomized controlled trials involving a total of 176 patients were included in the study. Results: Meta-analysis showed that the percentage of wound area reduction in the HVPC treatment group was higher than that in the control group (95%CI 24.59, 47.76, P<0.001). Descriptive analysis showed that there was no significant difference in wound healing between the HVPC treatment group and the control group. One study reported that there was contact dermatitis, and the rest of the studies reported no adverse events. Conclusion: Compared with the conventional therapy, the combination with HVPC therapy can reduce the area of pressure ulcers more effectively. However, due to the small number of the studies included in this evaluation, the conclusions need to be verified by more high-quality studies.

Prolonging the flush-lock interval of totally implantable venous access ports in patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 112972982095099
Author(s):  
Xiaohong Wu ◽  
Tiantian Zhang ◽  
Lichan Chen ◽  
Xisui Chen
Keyword(s):  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Monthly Interval ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Fixed Effects Model ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Randomized Controlled Studies ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Recently, some studies have shown that prolonging flush interval is safe and feasible for patients who complete chemotherapy. However, there is no consensus about the optimal flush interval for those patients. Objective: The purpose of this review was to evaluate whether the flush interval could be prolonged based on monthly interval for regular maintenance and to explore the optimal flush interval. Data sources: We searched the following databases for articles published between 1 January 1982 and 21 February 2020: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Ovid. Study eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled trials, retrospective and prospective cohort studies of flush interval less than 4 weeks versus longer than 4 weeks for patients who completed chemotherapy, were included. Results: Two reviewers extracted information and assessed the quality of the articles independently. In total, 389 articles were retrieved, and 4 studies including 862 cases fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was no statistical heterogeneity ( I2 = 0, p > 0.05) among the included studies. Hence, the fixed-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that the total complication rate associated with longer than 4-week interval was higher than that associated with less than 4-week interval. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between the two groups (7.2% vs 7.6%, p = 0.83). Moreover, the meta-analysis showed that the total complication and catheter occlusion rates associated with the 4-week interval were higher than those associated with the 8-week interval. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups (total complications: 11.4% vs 9.5%, p = 0.68; catheter occlusions: 4.9% vs 4.1%, p = 0.89). Limitations: Only four non-randomized controlled studies were included, and the outcomes of the included studies were reported incompletely. Conclusion: Extending the flush interval to longer than 4 weeks is safe and feasible. Based on previous studies, extending the flush interval to 8 weeks might not increase the incidence of total complications and catheter occlusions. However, there is no conclusion on whether the flush interval could be extended to 3 months or longer.

scholarly journals Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bahman Amani ◽  
Ahmad Khanijahani ◽  
Behnam Amani
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractThe efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ in addition to standard of care (SOC) in COVID-19. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of sciences, and medRxiv were searched up to March 15, 2021. Clinical studies registry databases were also searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The references list of the key studies was reviewed to identify additional relevant resources. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Jadad checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3). Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total number of 8161 patients were identified as eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in terms of negative rate of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 1.08; P = 0.76), PCR negative conversion time (Mean difference [MD]: − 1.06, 95% CI − 3.10, 0.97; P = 0.30), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.00, 1.20; P = 0.06), body temperature recovery time (MD: − 0.64, 95% CI − 1.37, 0.10; P = 0.09), length of hospital stay (MD: − 0.17, 95% CI − 0.80, 0.46; P = 0.59), use of mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.95, 1.32; P = 0.19), and disease progression (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.37, 1.85; P = 0.64). However, there was a significant difference between two groups regarding adverse events (RR: 1.81, 95% CI 1.36, 2.42; P < 0.05). The findings suggest that the addition of HCQ to SOC has no benefit in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it is associated with more adverse events.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Androgens in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammed Rashid ◽  
Madhan Ramesh ◽  
K. Shamshavali ◽  
Amit Dang ◽  
Himanshu Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the sixth primary cause of cancer death. However, conflicts are present about the efficacy and safety of Non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAA) for its treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NSAAs versus any comparator for the treatment of advanced or metastatic PCa (mPCa). Methodology: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. References of included studies and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for relevant studies. Only English language studies after 1990 were considered for review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of NSAAs as compared with any other comparator including surgery or chemotherapy in mPCa patients were included. The outcomes include efficacy, safety and the tolerability of the treatment. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality assessment. Two authors were independently involved in the selection, extraction and quality assessment of included studies and disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. Results: Fifty-eight out of 1307 non-duplicate RCTs with 29154 patients were considered for the review. NSAA showed significantly better progression-free survival [PFS] (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P=0.0001), time to distant metastasis or death [TTD] (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; p<0.0001), objective response (Odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI 1.06-2.54; P=0.03) and clinical benefits (OR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.63; P=0.006) as compared to the control group. There was no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.87-1.03; P=0.18) and time to progression (HR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.77-1.11; P=0.43). Treatment-related adverse events were more with the NSAA group, but the discontinuation due to lack of efficacy reason was 43% significantly lesser than the control group in patients with mPCa. Rest of the outcomes were appeared to be non-significant. Conclusion: Treatment with NSAA was appeared to be better efficacious with respect to PFS, TTD, and response rate with considerable adverse events when compared to the control group in patients with metastatic PCa.

scholarly journals A Meta-Analysis of Nutritional Supplementation for Management of Hospitalized Alcoholic Hepatitis

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 463-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramy Antar ◽  
Phil Wong ◽  
Peter Ghali
Keyword(s):  
Biochemical Parameters ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Nutritional Therapy ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Nutritional Supplementation ◽  
Mortality Benefit ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Balanced Diet ◽  
Randomized Controlled Studies ◽  
Diet Versus

BACKGROUND: Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) is associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Malnutrition accompanies this condition and may be both a consequence of and contributor to the pathology. Many trials have investigated the benefits of providing supplemental nutrition in the management of patients with ALD. The present study is a meta-analysis of the available evidence.METHOD: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies comparing nutritional supplementation plus a normal hospital diet versus diet alone.RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled studies including 262 patients with ALD were identified. Pooled analysis revealed no statistical difference in mortality between groups given special nutritional therapy versus a normal balanced diet (OR 0.80 [95% CI 0.42 to 1.52]). In addition, nutrition did not significantly improve ascites (OR 1.29 [95% CI 0.52 to 3.20]) or any biochemical parameters. However, encephalopathy showed a significant improvement or resolution (OR 0.24 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.93]).CONCLUSION: Nutritional supplementation provided no mortality benefit in patients with ALD, and neither ascites nor biochemical parameters significantly improved. However, encephalopathy was significantly ameliorated and, therefore, nutritional supplementation should be encouraged in that setting.

Early Versus Routine Stoma Closure in Patients With Colorectal Resection: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-298
Author(s):  
Yinyin Guo ◽  
Yanxin Luo ◽  
Hui Zhao ◽  
Liangliang Bai ◽  
Juan Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Surgery ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Bowel Obstruction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Wound Complications ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Stoma Closure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background. A substantial proportion of patients undergoing colorectal surgery receive a temporary stoma, and the timing for stoma closure remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of early stoma closure (ESC) compared with routine stoma closure (RSC) after colorectal surgery. Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared ESC and RSC after colorectal surgery. Results. A total of 7 randomized controlled trials with 814 enrolled patients were identified for this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the ESC and RSC groups regarding the complications of stoma closure (26.8% and 16.6%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.90; P = .17). A subgroup analysis was conducted by Clavien-Dindo grade of complication, and no significant difference was observed in any subgroup ( P > .05). However, the ESC group had a significantly higher risk of wound complications than the RSC group (17.6% and 7.8%, respectively; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.43-4.76; P = .002), and the RSC group had more cases of small bowel obstruction than the ESC group (3.1% and 8.4%, respectively; OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.15-0.87; P = .02). Conclusions. ESC is a safe and effective therapeutic approach in patients who have undergone colorectal surgery; it is associated with a reduced risk of bowel obstruction but a higher risk of wound complications.

scholarly journals Opioid Use and the Risk of Respiratory Depression and Death in the Pediatric Population

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 269-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marianne R. Whittaker
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Respiratory Depression ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Pediatric Population ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Randomized Controlled Studies ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference

BACKGROUND Pediatric patients may be at an increased risk of adverse effects from various medications. Recently, there have been a number of serious adverse events, including several pediatric patients experiencing severe respiratory depression and death as a result of the use of codeine for pain control following tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy. OBJECTIVE To assess the safety of opioid agonists in pediatric patients undergoing operative procedures or have experienced trauma and to evaluate the risk of respiratory depression and death among this population. METHODS PubMed and Medline were searched to identify randomized controlled studies from 1994 to 2012 addressing postsurgery/trauma opioid use in pediatric patients. Relative risks and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using data available in clinical trials. RESULTS A total of 16 clinical trials were evaluated for this review. Randomized controlled trials included studies comparing opioids versus non-opioids for a variety of painful conditions. The relative risk of respiratory depression associated with opioid use in 1 trial was 1.63 (95% CI: 0.64–6.13). The remaining 15 trials reviewed described no significant difference in respiratory depression or adverse effects associated with treatment. No deaths were attributed to opioid use in any of these studies. CONCLUSION Opioid-associated respiratory depression was very rare and no deaths were reported in the reviewed studies. These findings under the well-defined conditions of controlled studies may not be the best means of determining overall opioid-associated side effects in pediatric patients.

The Relationship between Use of Low Molecular Weight Heparin during Pregnancy and Risk of Peripartum Adverse Events: A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaorong Y ◽  
◽  
Shan L ◽  
Shengji S ◽  
Tao S ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Premature Delivery ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Fetal Complications

Introduction: To summarize the trials investigated on relationship between low molecular weight heparin use during pregnancy and peripartum adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) on maternal and fetal complications. Methods: Electronic research was performed in Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE through October 2020. The primary outcome was the incidence of maternal and fetal complications during peripartum period. RevMan 5.3 was used for data analysis. Results: 11 articles were finally included. Meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference in abortion, premature delivery, stillbirth, preeclampsia and postpartum hemorrhage events between pregnant women who used LMWH and those who not. Conclusion: Using LMWH in pregnant women does not increase pregnancy related maternal and fetal complications.

Efficacy and Safety of PEGPH20 in Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinod Solipuram ◽  
Harish Gopalakrishna ◽  
Gayatri Naira ◽  
Akhila Mohan
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Thromboembolic Events ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference

Introduction: Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive tumor that had an estimated 57,600 new cases and 47,050 deaths in 2020 in the US alone. Recent studies have targeted tumor microenvironment (TME) for better delivery of systemic chemotherapy like PEGPH20, which degrades hyaluronic acid in the extracellular matrix (ECM). A meta-analysis of these Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to test the efficacy of PEGPH20 was performed. Methods: A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library without language limitations from inception to July 30, 2020. A total of 59 articles was identified, and 3 RCTs were included in the final analysis. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), deaths from adverse events, thromboembolic events, serious adverse events (SAE), and febrile neutropenia. Results: There was no statistically significant improvement in PFS (HR= 0.94; 95%CI (0.79, 1.11)) in the PEGPH20 group when compared to the standard treatment/placebo group. There was no significant difference among OS (HR= 0.99, 95%CI (0.83, 1.17), deaths from adverse events (RR=0.97; 95%CI (0.54, 1.73)), thromboembolic events (RR= 1.49; 95%CI (0.92, 2.44)), and febrile neutropenia (RR= 0.88; 95%CI (0.45, 1.72), however, there was statistically significant increase in SAE (RR = 1.59; 95%CI (1.01, 2.52) in the PEGPH20 group compared to the placebo group. Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that PEGPH20 did not improve the PFS or OS. Moreover, there is an increased incidence of serious adverse events with the use of PEGPH20 compared to standard therapies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document