Dataset Information

Perioperative corticosteroid administration: a systematic review and descriptive analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Perioperative administration of corticosteroid is common and variable. Guidelines for perioperative corticosteroid administration before non-cardiac non-transplant surgery in patients with current or previous corticosteroid use to reduce the risk of adrenal insufficiency are lacking. Perioperative use of corticosteroid may be associated with serious adverse events, namely hyperglycemia, infection, and poor wound healing.

Objective

To determine whether perioperative administration of corticosteroids, compared to placebo or no intervention, reduces the incidence of adrenal insufficiency in adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery who were or are exposed to corticosteroids.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE via Ovid and PubMed, EMBASE via Ovid, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, all from 1995 to January 2017.

Selection criteria

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case-studies, and systematic reviews involving adults undergoing non-cardiac non-transplant surgery and reporting the incidence of postoperative adrenal insufficiency.

Data collection and analysis

Two authors independently assessed studies' quality and extracted data. A descriptive and bias assessment analysis was performed.

Results

Two RCTs (total of 37 patients), five cohort studies (total of 462 patients), and four systematic reviews were included. Neither RCT showed a significant difference in the outcome. This result was like that of the five cohort studies. The quality of the evidence was low.

Conclusion

The current use of perioperative corticosteroid supplementation to prevent adrenal insufficiency is not supported by evidence. Given the significant studies' limitations, it is not possible to conclude that perioperative administration of corticosteroids, compared to placebo, reduces the incidence of adrenal insufficiency.

SUBMITTER: Groleau C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5994041 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perioperative corticosteroid administration: a systematic review and descriptive analysis.

Groleau C C Morin S N SN Vautour L L Amar-Zifkin A A Bessissow A A

Perioperative medicine (London, England) 20180608

<h4>Background</h4>Perioperative administration of corticosteroid is common and variable. Guidelines for perioperative corticosteroid administration before non-cardiac non-transplant surgery in patients with current or previous corticosteroid use to reduce the risk of adrenal insufficiency are lacking. Perioperative use of corticosteroid may be associated with serious adverse events, namely hyperglycemia, infection, and poor wound healing.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether perioperative admi ...[more]

PMID: 29977522

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The benefit-risk profile of perioperative corticosteroids in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery remains controversial. Objective: To investigate the influence of perioperative corticosteroids on the postoperative mortality and clinical outcomes in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Methods: We conducted a systematic search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database through August 31, 2019. We included randomized controlled trials comparing perioperative corticosteroids with other clinical interventions, placebo, or no treatment in children between 0 and 18 years of age undergoing cardiac surgery. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were length of intensive care unit stay (LOIS), duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV), postoperative insulin therapy, postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS), postoperative infection, maximal temperature (T max) in the first 24 h postoperatively, urine output (UO) in the first 24 h postoperatively, serum lactate at postoperative day (POD) 1, blood glucose at POD 1, vasoactive inotrope score (VIS) at POD 1, and postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI). Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Results: Our analysis included 17 studies and 848 pediatric patients. The data demonstrated that children receiving corticosteroids showed no significant difference on the all-cause in-hospital mortality with a fixed-effect model (RR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.28-1.25, P = 0.55) compared with controls. For the secondary outcomes, corticosteroids had a statistically significant reduction on the VIS at POD1 (MD = -2.04, 95% CI = -3.96 -0.12, P = 0.04), while it might be significantly associated with an increased blood glucose at POD1 (MD = 1.38, 95% CI = 0.68-2.09, P = 0.0001) and a 2.69-fold higher risk of postoperative insulin therapy (RR = 2.69, 95% CI = 1.37-5.27, P = 0.004). No statistical significance was shown in other secondary outcomes. Conclusion: Perioperative corticosteroids might not significantly improve clinical outcomes identified as mortality, LOIS, DMV, AKI, and LCOS other than VIS at POD1. However, it might increase the blood glucose and episodes of insulin therapy. Perioperative corticosteroids to attenuate the inflammatory response are not supported by available evidence from our study. Further results from ongoing randomized controlled trials with a larger sample size are required.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Perioperative benzodiazepines are used because of their anxiolytic, sedative and amnestic effects. Evidence has demonstrated an association of benzodiazepines with adverse neuropsychiatric effects. Nonetheless, because of their potential benefits, perioperative benzodiazepines continue to be used routinely. We seek to evaluate the body of evidence of the risks and benefits of benzodiazepine use during the perioperative period. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will search Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science from inception to March 2019 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating the administration of benzodiazepine medications as compared with all other medications (or nothing) in patients undergoing cardiac and non-cardiac surgery. We will exclude studies assessing the use of benzodiazepines for procedural sedation or day surgery. We will examine the impact of giving these medications before, during and after surgery. Outcomes of interest include the incidence of delirium, duration of delirium, postprocedure cognitive change, the incidence of intraoperative awareness, patient satisfaction/quality of life/quality of recovery, length-of-stay (LOS) in the intensive care unit (ICU), hospital LOS and in-hospital mortality.Reviewers will screen references and assess eligibility using predefined criteria independently and in duplicate. Two reviewers will independently collect data using prepiloted forms. We will present results separately for RCTs and observational studies. We will pool data using a random effect model and present results as relative risk with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference with 95%?CI for continuous outcomes. We will pool adjusted ORs for observational studies. We will assess risk of bias for individual studies using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for RCTs. For observational studies, we will use tools designed by the Clinical Advances through Research and Information Translation group. Quality of evidence for each outcome will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This systematic review involves no patient contact and no interaction with healthcare providers or systems. As such, we did not seek ethics board approval. We will disseminate the findings of our systematic review through the presentation at peer-reviewed conferences and by seeking publication in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019128144.

Project description:BackgroundAntenatal corticosteroids (ACS) are highly effective at improving outcomes for preterm newborns. Evidence suggests the benefits of ACS may vary with the time interval between administration-to-birth. However, the optimal ACS administration-to-birth interval is not yet known. In this systematic review, we synthesised available evidence on the relationship between ACS administration-to-birth interval and maternal and newborn outcomes.MethodsThis review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021253379). We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Global Index Medicus on 11 Nov 2022 with no date or language restrictions. Randomised and non-randomised studies of pregnant women receiving ACS for preterm birth where maternal and newborn outcomes were reported for different administration-to-birth intervals were eligible. Eligibility screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two authors independently. Fetal and neonatal outcomes included perinatal and neonatal mortality, preterm birth-related morbidity outcomes and mean birthweight. Maternal outcomes included chorioamnionitis, maternal mortality, endometritis, and maternal intensive care unit admission.FindingsTen trials (4592 women; 5018 neonates), 45 cohort studies (at least 22,992 women; 30,974 neonates) and two case-control studies (355 women; 360 neonates) met the eligibility criteria. Across studies, 37 different time interval combinations were identified. There was considerable heterogeneity in included administration-to-birth intervals and populations. The odds of neonatal mortality, respiratory distress syndrome and intraventricular haemorrhage were associated with the ACS administration-to-birth interval. However, the interval associated with the greatest improvements in newborn outcomes was not consistent across studies. No reliable data were available for maternal outcomes, though odds of chorioamnionitis might be associated with longer intervals.IntepretationAn optimal ACS administration-to-birth interval likely exists, however variations in study design limit identification of this interval from available evidence. Future research should consider advanced analysis techniques such as individual patient data meta-analysis to identify which ACS administration-to-birth intervals are most beneficial, and how these benefits can be optimised for women and newborns.FundingThis study was conducted with funding support from the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research (SRH), a co-sponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization.

Project description:BackgroundClevidipine is an ultrashort-acting drug for rapid reduction of blood pressure by selectively acting on the L-type Ca2+ channels on arteriolar smooth muscle. The drug's ultrashort action in reducing the blood pressure is due to its rapid hydrolysis by blood and extravascular tissue esterases, which does not depend on hepato-renal metabolism and excretion. An analysis of the perioperative management of blood pressure should be considered to compare with other intravenous antihypertensive agents.MethodsAnalyses of the available evidence in randomized clinical trials following the PRISMA methodology as well as clinical significance according to the GRADE system were conducted. Placebo versus other antihypertensive drugs studies were included. Statistical assessments were done using the X2 and I2 tests.ResultsClevidipine was more effective in maintaining the blood pressure within pre-specified ranges compared with other antihypertensive drugs (MD, -17.87 CI 95%: -29.02 to -6.72; p = 0.02). The use of Clevidipine versus placebo and rescue antihypertensive intravenous drug showed a clear reduction in rates of treatment failure (RR 0.10; IC 95%; 0.05-0.18; p <0.0001). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 1.47; 95% CI 0.89 to 2.43, p = 0.14) and with other antihypertensive drugs (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.35; p = 0.37). In addition, there was no difference in the incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) between clevidipine and control groups (RR 1.09, IC del 95%: 0.65 a 1.83; p = 0.73).ConclusionsClevidipine is an ultrafast-acting drug that is highly effective for management of perioperative arterial hypertension. It is devoid of adverse effects associated with the use of other IV antihypertensives. Its favorable pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties make clevidipine the drug of choice for the management of acute perioperative hypertension. It is important to emphasize the need for further studies with a larger number of patients to confirm these findings and increase the degree of evidence.

Project description:BackgroundCorticosteroid injection is frequently used for plantar heel pain (plantar fasciitis), although there is limited high-quality evidence to support this treatment. Therefore, this study reviewed randomised trials to estimate the effectiveness of corticosteroid injection for plantar heel pain.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials that compared corticosteroid injection to any comparator. Primary outcomes were pain and function, categorised as short (0 to 6?weeks), medium (7 to 12?weeks) or longer term (13 to 52?weeks).ResultsA total of 47 trials (2989 participants) were included. For reducing pain in the short term, corticosteroid injection was more effective than autologous blood injection (SMD -0.56; 95% CI, -?0.86 to -?0.26) and foot orthoses (SMD -0.91; 95% CI, -?1.69 to -?0.13). There were no significant findings in the medium term. In the longer term, corticosteroid injection was less effective than dry needling (SMD 1.45; 95% CI, 0.70 to 2.19) and platelet-rich plasma injection (SMD 0.61; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.06). Notably, corticosteroid injection was found to have similar effectiveness to placebo injection for reducing pain in the short (SMD -0.98; 95% CI, -?2.06, 0.11) and medium terms (SMD -0.86; 95% CI, -?1.90 to 0.19). For improving function, corticosteroid injection was more effective than physical therapy in the short term (SMD -0.69; 95% CI, -?1.31 to -?0.07). When trials considered to have high risk of bias were excluded, there were no significant findings.ConclusionsBased on the findings of this review, corticosteroid injection is more effective than some comparators for the reduction of pain and the improvement of function in people with plantar heel pain. However, corticosteroid injection is not more effective than placebo injection for reducing pain or improving function. Further trials that are of low risk of bias will strengthen this evidence.RegistrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42016053216 .

Project description:To assess the risk of new-onset or worsening hyperglycaemia, hypertension, weight gain and hyperlipidaemia with systemic corticosteroid therapy (CST) as reported in published randomised control trial (RCT) studies. Literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science and Scopus STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Published articles on results of RCT with a systemic CST arm with numerical data presented on adverse effect (AE). Reports of hyperglycaemia, hypertension, weight gain and hyperlipidaemia associated with systemic CST in patients or healthy volunteer's ≥17 years of age. Risk of bias tool, assessment at the level of AE and key study characteristics. A total of 5446 articles were screened to include 118 studies with 152 systemic CST arms (total participants=17 113 among which 8569 participants treated with CST). Pooled prevalence of hyperglycaemia in the CST arms within the studies was 10% (95% CI 7% to 14%), with the highest prevalence in respiratory illnesses at 22% (95% CI 9% to 35%). Pooled prevalence of severe hyperglycaemia, hypertension, weight gain and hyperlipidaemia within the corticosteroid arms was 5% (95% CI 2% to 9%), 6% (95% CI 4% to 8%), 13% (95% CI 8% to 18%), 8% (95% CI 4% to 17%), respectively. CST was significantly associated hyperglycaemia, hypertension and weight gain as noted in double-blinded placebo-controlled parallel-arms studies: OR of 2.13 (95% CI 1.66 to 2.72), 1.68 (95% CI 0.96 to 2.95) and 5.20 (95% CI 2.10 to 12.90), respectively. Intravenous therapy posed higher risk than oral therapy: OR of 2.39 (95% CI 1.16 to 4.91). There was significant heterogeneity in the AE definitions and quality of AE reporting in the primary studies and patient populations in the studies. The impact of cumulative dose effect on incidental AE could not be calculated. Systemic CST use is associated with increased risk of metabolic AEs, which differs for each disease group and route of administration. CRD42020161270.

Dataset Information

Perioperative corticosteroid administration: a systematic review and descriptive analysis.

Background

Objective

Methods

Selection criteria

Data collection and analysis

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Perioperative corticosteroid administration: a systematic review and descriptive analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets