Dataset Information

Perioperative statin therapy in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The effects of perioperative statin therapy on clinical outcome after cardiac or non-cardiac surgery are controversial. We aimed to assess the association between perioperative statin therapy and postoperative outcome.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched up to May 1, 2018, for randomized controlled trials of perioperative statin therapy versus placebo or no treatment in adult cardiac or non-cardiac surgery. Postoperative outcomes were: myocardial infarction, stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), and mortality. We calculated risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using fixed-effects meta-analyses. We performed meta-regression and subgroup analyses to assess the possible influence of statin therapy regimen on clinical outcomes and trial sequential analysis to evaluate the risk of random errors and futility.

Results

We included data from 35 RCTs involving 8200 patients. Perioperative statin therapy was associated with lower incidence of postoperative myocardial infarction in non-cardiac surgery (OR?=?0.44 [95% CI 0.30-0.64], p?subgroup?=?0.002). Higher incidence of AKI was present in cardiac surgery patients receiving perioperative statins (RR?=?1.15 [95% CI 1.00-1.31], p?=?0.05), nonetheless not in non-cardiac surgery (RR?=?1.52 [95% CI 0.71-3.26], p?=?0.28) (p_subgroup?=?0.47). No difference in postoperative stroke and mortality was present in either cardiac or non-cardiac surgery. However, low risk of bias trials performed in cardiac surgery showed a higher mortality with statins versus placebo (OR?=?3.71 [95% CI 1.03-13.34], p?=?0.04). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses failed to find possible relationships between length of statin regimens and clinical outcomes. Trial sequential analysis suggested no firm conclusions on the topic.

Conclusions

Perioperative statins appear to be protective against postoperative myocardial infarction in non-cardiac surgery and associated with higher AKI in cardiac surgery. Possible positive or even negative effects on mortality could not be excluded and merits further investigations. Currently, no randomized evidence supports the systematic administration of statins in surgical patients.

SUBMITTER: Putzu A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6160380 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perioperative statin therapy in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Putzu Alessandro A de Carvalho E Silva Carolina Maria Pinto Domingues CMPD de Almeida Juliano Pinheiro JP Belletti Alessandro A Cassina Tiziano T Landoni Giovanni G Hajjar Ludhmila Abrahao LA

Annals of intensive care 20180927 1

<h4>Background</h4>The effects of perioperative statin therapy on clinical outcome after cardiac or non-cardiac surgery are controversial. We aimed to assess the association between perioperative statin therapy and postoperative outcome.<h4>Methods</h4>Electronic databases were searched up to May 1, 2018, for randomized controlled trials of perioperative statin therapy versus placebo or no treatment in adult cardiac or non-cardiac surgery. Postoperative outcomes were: myocardial infarction, stro ...[more]

PMID: 30264290

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeveral studies suggest beneficial effects of perioperative statin therapy on postoperative outcome after cardiac surgery. However, recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show potential detrimental effects. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the association between perioperative statin therapy and clinical outcomes in cardiac surgery patients.MethodsElectronic databases were searched up to 1 November 2016 for RCTs of preoperative statin therapy versus placebo or no treatment in adult cardiac surgery. Postoperative outcomes were acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, stroke, infections, and mortality. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using fixed-effects meta-analyses. Primary analysis was restricted to trials with low risk of bias according to Cochrane methodology, and sensitivity analyses examined whether the risk of bias of included studies was associated with different results. We performed trial sequential analysis (TSA) to test the strength of the results.ResultsWe included data from 23 RCTs involving 5102 patients. Meta-analysis of trials with low risk of bias showed that statin therapy was associated with an increase in acute kidney injury (314 of 1318 (23.82%) with statins versus 262 of 1319 (19.86%) with placebo; OR 1.26 (95%CI 1.05 to 1.52); p = 0.01); these results were supported by TSA. No difference in postoperative atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, stroke, infections, or mortality was present. On sensitivity analysis, statin therapy was associated with a slight increase in hospital mortality. Meta-analysis including also trials with high or unclear risk of bias showed no beneficial effects of statin therapy on any postoperative outcomes.ConclusionsThere is no evidence that statin therapy in the days prior to cardiac surgery is beneficial for patients' outcomes. Particularly, statins are not protective against postoperative atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, stroke, or infections. Statins are associated with a possible increased risk of acute kidney injury and a detrimental effect on hospital survival could not be excluded. Future RCTs should further evaluate the safety profile of this therapy in relation to patients' outcomes and assess the more appropriate time point for discontinuation of statins before cardiac surgery.

Project description:IntroductionPostoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is one of the most common complications after cardiac surgery. Patients who develop POAF have a prolonged stay in the intensive care unit and hospital and an increased risk of postoperative stroke. Many guidelines for the management of cardiac surgery patients, therefore, recommend perioperative administration of beta-blockers to prevent and treat POAF. Landiolol is an ultra-short acting beta-blocker, and some randomized controlled trials of landiolol administration for the prevention of POAF have been conducted in Japan. This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of landiolol administration for the prevention of POAF after cardiac surgery.MethodsThe Medline/PubMed and BioMed Central databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing cardiac surgery patients who received perioperative landiolol with a control group (saline administration, no drug administration, or other treatment). Two independent reviewers selected the studies for inclusion. Data regarding POAF and safety outcomes were extracted. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method (fixed effects model).ResultsSix trials with a total of 560 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Landiolol administration significantly reduced the incidence of POAF after cardiac surgery (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17-0.40). The effectiveness of landiolol administration was similar in three groups: all patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17-0.43), patients who underwent CABG compared with a control group who received saline or nothing (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17-0.45), and all patients who underwent cardiac surgery compared with a control group who received saline or nothing (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17-0.42). Only two adverse events associated with landiolol administration were observed (2/302, 0.7%): hypotension in one patient and asthma in one patient.ConclusionLandiolol administration reduces the incidence of POAF after cardiac surgery and is well tolerated.

Project description:BackgroundStudies of cardiac resynchronization therapy in addition to an implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients with mild to moderate congestive heart failure had not been shown to reduce mortality until the recent RAFT trial (Resynchronization/Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial). We performed a meta-analysis including the RAFT trial to determine the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator on mortality.MethodsWe searched electronic databases and other sources for reports of randomized trials using a parallel or crossover design. We included studies involving patients with heart failure receiving optimal medical therapy that compared cardiac resynchronization therapy with optimal medical therapy alone, or cardiac resynchronization therapy plus an implantable defibrillator with a standard implantable defibrillator. The primary outcome was mortality. The optimum information size was considered to assess the minimum amount of information required in the literature to reach reliable conclusions about cardiac resynchronization therapy.ResultsOf 3071 reports identified, 12 studies (n = 7538) were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with optimal medical therapy alone, cardiac resynchronization therapy plus optimal medical therapy significantly reduced mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.85). Compared with an implantable defibrillator alone, cardiac resynchronization therapy plus an implantable defibrillator significantly reduced mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.96). This last finding remained significant among patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I or II disease (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67-0.96) but not among those with class III or IV disease (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69-1.07). Analysis of the optimum information size showed that the sequential monitoring boundary was crossed, which suggests no need for further clinical trials.InterpretationThe cumulative evidence is now conclusive that the addition of cardiac resynchronization to optimal medical therapy or defibrillator therapy significantly reduces mortality among patients with heart failure.

Project description:Multiple randomized controlled trials of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) prior to cardiac surgery have failed to demonstrate clinical benefit. The aim of this updated meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of RIPC on outcomes following cardiac surgery.Searches of PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were performed for 1970 to December 13, 2015. Randomized controlled trials comparing RIPC with a sham procedure prior to cardiac surgery performed with cardiopulmonary bypass were assessed. All-cause mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), and myocardial infarction were the primary outcomes of interest. We identified 21 trials that randomized 5262 patients to RIPC or a sham procedure prior to undergoing cardiac surgery. The majority of patients were men (72.6%) and the mean or median age ranged from 42.3 to 76.3 years. Of the 9 trials that evaluated mortality, 188 deaths occurred out of a total of 4210 randomized patients, with 96 deaths occurring in 2098 patients (4.6%) randomized to RIPC and 92 deaths occurring in 2112 patients (4.4%) randomized to a sham control procedure, demonstrating no significant reduction in all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.987; 95% CI, 0.653-1.492, P=0.95). Twelve studies evaluated AKI in 4209 randomized patients. In these studies, AKI was observed in 516 of 2091 patients (24.7%) undergoing RIPC and in 577 of 2118 patients (27.2%) randomized to a sham procedure. RIPC did not result in a significant reduction in AKI (RR, 0.839; 95% CI, 0.703-1.001 [P=0.052]). In 6 studies consisting of 3799 randomized participants, myocardial infarction occurred in 237 of 1891 patients (12.5%) randomized to RIPC and in 282 of 1908 patients (14.8%) randomized to a sham procedure, resulting in no significant reduction in postoperative myocardial infarction (RR, 0.809; 95% CI, 0.615-1.064 [P=0.13]). A subgroup analysis was performed a priori based on previous studies suggesting that propofol may mitigate the protective benefits of RIPC. Three studies randomized patients undergoing cardiac surgery to RIPC or sham procedure in the absence of propofol anesthesia. Most of these patients were men (60.3%) and the mean or median age ranged from 57.0 to 70.6 years. In this propofol-free subgroup of 434 randomized patients, 71 of 217 patients (32.7%) who underwent RIPC developed AKI compared with 103 of 217 patients (47.5%) treated with a sham procedure. In this cohort, RIPC resulted in a significant reduction in AKI (RR, 0.700; 95% CI, 0.527-0.930 [P=0.014]). In studies of patients who received propofol anesthesia, 445 of 1874 (23.7%) patients randomized to RIPC developed AKI compared with 474 of 1901 (24.9%) who underwent a sham procedure. The RR for AKI was 0.928 (95% CI, 0.781-1.102; P=0.39) for RIPC versus sham. There was no significant interaction between the two subgroups (P=0.098).RIPC does not reduce morbidity or mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. In the subgroup of studies in which propofol was not used, a reduction in AKI was seen, suggesting that propofol may interact with the protective effects of RIPC. Future studies should evaluate RIPC in the absence of propofol anesthesia.

Project description:Background: To assess the effect of dexmedetomidine on the reducing risk of perioperative neurocognitive disorders (PNDs) following cardiac surgery. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomized controlled trials were performed. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI databases (to August 16, 2020) were searched for relevant articles to analyze the incidence of PND for intraoperative or postoperative dexmedetomidine administration after cardiac surgery. PND included postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) and postoperative delirium (POD). Results: A total of 24 studies with 3,610 patients were included. Compared with the control group, the incidence of POD in the dexmedetomidine group was significantly lower (odds ratio [OR]: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.43-0.82, P = 0.001), with firm evidence from TSA. Subgroup analyses confirmed that dexmedetomidine reduced the incidence of POD with firm evidence following coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.26-0.79, P = 0.005), and intervention during the postoperative period (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.34-0.67, P < 0.001). Furthermore, the incidence of POD in the dexmedetomidine group was also decreased in mixed cardiac surgery (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.47-0.98, P = 0.039). Irrespective of whether "Confusion Assessment Method/Confusion Assessment Method for intensive care unit" or "other tools" were used as diagnostic tools, the results showed a decreased risk of POD in the dexmedetomidine group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of POCD (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.22-1.03, P = 0.060) between the two groups, but this result lacked firm evidence from TSA. Conclusion: The administration of dexmedetomidine during the perioperative period reduced the incidence of POD in patients after cardiac surgery, but there was no significant benefit in the incidence of POCD. The effect of dexmedetomidine on the incidence of POD or POCD following different types of surgery and the optimal dose and timing of dexmedetomidine warrant further investigation. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020203980. Registered on September 13, 2020.

Dataset Information

Perioperative statin therapy in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Perioperative statin therapy in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets