Dataset Information

Risk of Hemorrhage during Needle-Based Ophthalmic Regional Anesthesia in Patients Taking Antithrombotics: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients undergoing ophthalmic surgery are usually elderly and, due to systemic disease, may be on long-term therapy, such as antithrombotic agents. Rates of hemorrhagic complications associated with invasive procedures may be increased by the use of anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents.

Objective

To compare the incidence of hemorrhagic complications in patients undergoing needle-based ophthalmic regional anesthesia between patients on antithrombotic therapy and those not on such therapy.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted by two independent reviewers based on searches of Cochrane, LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the "gray" literature (Google Scholar). The end search date was May 8, 2015, across all databases.

Results

Five studies met the eligibility criteria. In three studies, individual risk of bias was low, and in two of them, moderate. In all studies, no differences regarding mild to moderate incidence of hemorrhagic complications were found between patients using antithrombotics (aspirin, clopidogrel, and warfarin) and those not using them. Rates of severe hemorrhagic complication were very low (0.04%) in both groups, supporting the safety of needle blocks, even in patients using antithrombotics. High heterogeneity across studies prevented meta-analysis. Limitations to these results include low statistical power in three experimental studies and a large 95% confidence interval in the two retrospective cohorts.

Conclusion

In this review, none of the selected studies showed significant bleeding related to needle-based ophthalmic regional anesthesia in association with the use of aspirin, clopidogrel, or vitamin K inhibitors. Since the available data is not powerful enough to provide a reliable evaluation of the true effect of antithrombotics in this setting, new studies to address these limitations are necessary.

SUBMITTER: Takaschima A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4723334 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk of Hemorrhage during Needle-Based Ophthalmic Regional Anesthesia in Patients Taking Antithrombotics: A Systematic Review.

Takaschima Augusto A Marchioro Patricia P Sakae Thiago M TM Porporatti André L AL Mezzomo Luis André LA De Luca Canto Graziela G

PloS one 20160122 1

<h4>Background</h4>Patients undergoing ophthalmic surgery are usually elderly and, due to systemic disease, may be on long-term therapy, such as antithrombotic agents. Rates of hemorrhagic complications associated with invasive procedures may be increased by the use of anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the incidence of hemorrhagic complications in patients undergoing needle-based ophthalmic regional anesthesia between patients on antithrombotic therapy and those ...[more]

PMID: 26800356

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDexamethasone is a common adjuvant for local anesthetics in regional anesthesia, but the optimal route of administration is controversial. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effect of perineural versus intravenous dexamethasone on local anesthetic regional nerve-blockade outcomes.Materials and methodsMedline (through PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Biosis Previews databases were systematically searched (published from inception of each database to January 1, 2017) to identify randomized controlled trials. The data of the selected trials were statistically analyzed to find any significant differences between the two modalities. The primary outcome was the duration of analgesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of motor block, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and postoperative analgesic dose at 24 hours. We conducted a planned subgroup analysis to compare the effects between adding epinephrine or not.ResultsTen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria of our analysis, with a total of 749 patients. Without the addition of epinephrine, the effects of perineural and intravenous dexamethasone were equivalent concerning the duration of analgesia (mean difference 0.03 hours, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.24). However, with the addition of epinephrine, the analgesic duration of perineural dexamethasone versus intravenous dexamethasone was prolonged (mean difference 3.96 hours, 95% CI 2.66-5.27). Likewise, the impact of epinephrine was the same on the duration of motor block. The two routes of administration did not show any significant differences in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, nor on postoperative analgesic consumption at 24 hours.ConclusionOur results show that perineural dexamethasone can prolong the effects of analgesic duration when compared to the intravenous route, only when epinephrine is coadministered. Without epinephrine, the two modalities show equivalent effect as adjuvants on regional anesthesia.

Project description:BackgroundWhether regional anesthesia may help to prevent disease recurrence in cancer patients is still controversial. The stage of cancer at the time of diagnosis is a key factor that defines prognosis and is one of the most important sources of heterogeneity for the treatment effect. We sought to update existing systematic reviews and clarify the effect of regional anesthesia on cancer recurrence in late-stage cancer patients.MethodsMedline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to September 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that assessed the effect of regional anesthesia on cancer recurrence and overall survival (OS) compared with general anesthesia. Late-stage cancer patients were primarily assessed according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer Cancer Staging Manual (eighth edition), and the combined hazard ratio (HR) from random-effects models was used to evaluate the effect of regional anesthesia.ResultsA total of three RCTs and 34 cohort studies (including 64,691 patients) were identified through the literature search for inclusion in the analysis. The risk of bias was low in the RCTs and was moderate in the observational studies. The pooled HR for recurrence-free survival (RFS) or OS did not favor regional anesthesia when data from RCTs in patients with late-stage cancer were combined (RFS, HR = 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-2.18, P = 0.729, I2 = 76%; OS, HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.63-1.18, P = 0.345, I2 = 48%). Findings from observational studies showed that regional anesthesia may help to prevent disease recurrence (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.78-0.96, P = 0.008, I2 = 71%) and improve OS (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79-0.98, P = 0.022, I2 = 79%).ConclusionsRCTs reveal that OS and RFS were similar between regional and general anesthesia in late-stage cancers. The selection of anesthetic methods should still be based on clinical evaluation, and changes to current practice need more support from large, well-powered, and well-designed studies.

Dataset Information

Risk of Hemorrhage during Needle-Based Ophthalmic Regional Anesthesia in Patients Taking Antithrombotics: A Systematic Review.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Risk of Hemorrhage during Needle-Based Ophthalmic Regional Anesthesia in Patients Taking Antithrombotics: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets