Dataset Information

What is the effect of perioperative intravenous iron therapy in patients undergoing non-elective surgery? A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Guidelines to treat anaemia with intravenous (IV) iron have focused on elective surgical patients with little attention paid to those undergoing non-elective/emergency surgery. Whilst these patients may experience poor outcomes because of their presenting illness, observational data suggests that untreated anaemia may also be a contributing factor to poor outcomes. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the safety and efficacy of IV iron in patients undergoing non-elective surgery.

Methods

We followed a pre-defined review protocol and included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients undergoing non-elective surgery who received IV iron. Primary outcomes were all-cause infection and mean difference in haemoglobin (Hb) at follow-up. Secondary outcomes included transfusion requirements, hospital length of stay (LOS), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mortality and adverse events.

Results

Three RCTs (605 participants) were included in this systematic review of which two, in both hip fracture (HF) patients, provided data for meta-analysis. Both of these RCTs were at low risk of bias. We found no evidence of a difference in the risk of infection (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.80, I ² =?9%) or in the Hb concentration at 'short-term' (??7?days) follow-up (mean difference -?0.32?g/L, 95% CI -?3.28 to 2.64, I ² =?37%). IV iron did not reduce the risk of requiring a blood transfusion (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.11, p =?0.46, I ² =?0%), and we observed no difference in mortality, LOS or adverse events. One RCT reported on HRQoL and found no difference between treatment arms.

Conclusion

We found no conclusive evidence of an effect of IV iron on clinically important outcomes in patients undergoing non-elective surgery. Further adequately powered trials to evaluate its benefit in emergency surgical specialties with a high burden of anaemia are warranted.

Trial registration

This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018096288).

SUBMITTER: Shah A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6290500 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What is the effect of perioperative intravenous iron therapy in patients undergoing non-elective surgery? A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Shah Akshay A Palmer Antony J R AJR Fisher Sheila A SA Rahman Shah M SM Brunskill Susan S Doree Carolyn C Reid Jack J Sugavanam Anita A Stanworth Simon J SJ

Perioperative medicine (London, England) 20181212

<h4>Background</h4>Guidelines to treat anaemia with intravenous (IV) iron have focused on elective surgical patients with little attention paid to those undergoing non-elective/emergency surgery. Whilst these patients may experience poor outcomes because of their presenting illness, observational data suggests that untreated anaemia may also be a contributing factor to poor outcomes. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the safety and efficacy of IV iron in patients undergoing non-ele ...[more]

PMID: 30559962

Similar Datasets

Project description:Perioperative anemia frequently occurs in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of perioperative intravenous iron therapy (IVIT) on transfusion and recovery profiles during orthopedic surgery. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar for eligible clinical trials (randomized controlled trials, RCTs; case-control studies, CCSs) in comparing IVIT and no iron therapy, up to September 2018. Primary outcomes were the effects of IVIT on the proportion of patients transfused and units of red blood cells (RBCs) transfused perioperatively. Secondary outcomes were the effects of IVIT on recovery profiles, such as length of hospital stay (LOS), post-operative infection, and mortality. Subgroup analysis was performed based on iron dose (low: ≤ 300 mg, high: > 400 mg), IVIT period (pre-operative, post-operative, perioperative), and study design. We identified 12 clinical trials (4 RCTs with 616 patients and 8 CCSs with 1,253 patients). IVIT significantly reduced the proportion of patients transfused by 31% (RR, 0.69; P = 0.0002), and units of RBCs transfused by 0.34 units/person (MD, -0.34; P = 0.0007). For subgroup analysis by iron dose, low- or high-dose IVIT significantly reduced the proportion of patients transfused (RR, 0.73, P = 0.005; RR, 0.68, P = 0.008), and RBC units transfused (MD, -0.47, P < 0.0001; MD, -0.28, P = 0.04). For subgroup analysis by period, IVIT administered post-operatively significantly reduced the proportion of patients transfused (post-operative: RR, 0.60, P = 0.002; pre-operative: RR, 0.74, P = 0.06) and RBC units transfused (post-operative: MD, -0.44, P <0.00001; pre-operative: MD, -0.29, P = 0.06). For subgroup analysis by study design, IVIT decreased the proportion of patients transfused and RBC units transfused in the group of CCSs, but IVIT in the group of RCTs did not. IVIT significantly shortened LOS by 1.6 days (P = 0.0006) and reduced post-operative infections by 33% (P = 0.01). IVIT did not change mortality. Perioperative IVIT during orthopedic surgery, especially post-operatively, appears to reduce the proportion of patients transfused and units of RBCs transfused, with shorter LOS and decreased infection rate, but no change in mortality rate. These were only found in CCSs and not in RCTs due to the relatively small number of RCTs with low to high risk of bias.

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:BackgroundFluid loading is one of the recognised measures to prevent hypotension due to spinal anaesthesia in women scheduled for a caesarean section.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the current evidence on fluid loading in the prevention of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis and meta-regression.Data sourcesMedline, Epub, Embase.com (Embase and Medline), Cochrane Central, Web of Science and Google Scholar were used.Eligibility criteriaOnly randomised controlled trials were used. Patients included women undergoing elective caesarean section who received either crystalloid or colloid fluid therapy as a preload or coload. The comparator was a combination of either a different fluid or time of infusion.ResultsA total of 49 studies (4317 patients) were included. Network meta-analysis concluded that colloid coload and preload offered the highest chance of success (97 and 67%, respectively). Conventional meta-analysis showed that crystalloid preload is associated with a significantly higher incidence of maternal hypotension than colloid preload: risk ratio 1.48 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.69, P < 0.0001, I = 60%). However, this result was not supported by Trial Sequential Analysis. There was a significant dose-response effect for crystalloid volume preload (regression coefficient = -0.073), which was not present in the analysis of only double-blind studies. There was no dose-response effect for the other fluid regimes.ConclusionUnlike previous meta-analysies, we found a lack of data obviating an evidence-based recommendation. In most studies, vasopressors were not given prophylactically as is recommended. Studies on the best fluid regimen in combination with prophylactic vasopressors are needed. Due to official european usage restrictions on the most studied colloid (HES), we recommend crystalloid coload as the most appropriate fluid regimen.Trial registrationCRD42018099347.

Project description:BackgroundTranexamic acid (TXA) is well-established as a versatile oral, intramuscular, and intravenous (IV) antifibrinolytic agent. However, the efficacy of IV TXA in reducing perioperative blood transfusion in spinal surgery is poorly documented.MethodologyWe conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized (qi-RCTs) trials that included patients for various spinal surgeries, such as adolescent scoliosis surgery administered with perioperative IV TXA according to Cochrane Collaboration guidelines using electronic PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase databases. Additional journal articles and conference proceedings were manually located by two independent researchers.ResultsTotally, nine studies were included, with a total sample size of 581 patients. Mean blood loss was decreased in patients treated with perioperative IV TXA by 128.28 ml intraoperatively (ranging from 33.84 to 222.73 ml), 98.49 ml postoperatively (ranging from 83.22 to 113.77 ml), and 389.21 ml combined (ranging from 177.83 to 600.60 ml). The mean volume of transfused packed cells were reduced by 134.55 ml (ranging 51.64 to 217.46) (95% CI; P?=?0.0001). Overall, the number of patients treated with TXA who required blood transfusions was lower by 35% than that of patients treated with the comparator and who required blood transfusions (RR 0.65; 95% CI; 0.53 to 0.85; P<0.0001, I(2)?=?0%). A dose-independent beneficial effect of TXA was observed, and confirmed in subgroup and sensitivity analyses. A total of seven studies reported DVT data. The study containing only a single DVT case was not combined.ConclusionsThe blood loss was reduced in spinal surgery patients with perioperative IV TXA treatment. Also the percentage of spinal surgery patients who required blood transfusion was significantly decreased. Further evaluation is required to confirm our findings before TXA can be safely used in patients undergoing spine surgery.

Project description:IntroductionIntravenous lignocaine is an amide local anaesthetic known for its analgesic, antihyperalgesic and anti-inflammatory properties. Administration of intravenous lignocaine has been shown to enhance perioperative recovery parameters. This is the protocol for a systematic review which intends to summarise the evidence base for perioperative intravenous lignocaine administration in patients undergoing spinal surgery.Methods and analysisOur primary outcomes include: postoperative pain scores at rest and movement at predefined early, intermediate and late time points and adverse events. Other outcomes of interest include perioperative opioid consumption, composite morbidity, surgical complications and hospital length of stay. We will include randomised controlled trials, which compared intravenous lignocaine infusion vs standard treatment for perioperative analgesia. We will search electronic databases from inception to present; MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL). Two team members will independently screen all citations, full-text articles and abstract data. The individual study risk of bias will be appraised using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We will obtain a risk ratio or mean difference (MD) from the intervention and control group event rates based on the nature of data. We will correct for the variable measurement tools by using the standardised MD (SMD). We will use a random-effects model to synthesise data. We will conduct five subgroup analysis: major versus minor surgery, emergency versus elective surgery, patients with chronic pain conditions versus patients without, duration of lignocaine infusion and adult versus paediatric. Confidence in cumulative evidence for will be classified according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. We will construct summary of findings tables supported detailed evidence profile tables for predefined outcomes.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication.Prospero registration numberCRD420201963314.

Project description:BackgroundPreoperative anemia is a common comorbidity that often necessitates allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT). As there is a risk associated with blood transfusions, preoperative intravenous iron (IV) has been proposed to increase the hemoglobin to reduce perioperative transfusion; however, randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating this efficacy for IV iron are small, limited, and inconclusive. Consequently, a meta-analysis that pools these studies may provide new and clinically useful information.Methods/designDatabases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews; Cochrane-controlled trial registry; Scopus; registries of health technology assessment and clinical trials; Web of Science; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; Clinicaltrials.gov; and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) were searched. Also, we screened all the retrieved reference lists.Selection criteriaTitles and abstracts were screened for relevance (i.e., relevant, irrelevant, or potentially relevant). Then, we screened full texts of those citations identified as potentially applicable.ResultsOur search found 3195 citations and ten RCTs (1039 participants) that met our inclusion criteria. Preoperative IV iron supplementation significantly decreases ABT by 16% (risk ratio (RR): 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71, 0.99, p = 0.04). In addition, preoperatively, hemoglobin levels increased after receiving IV iron (mean difference [MD] between the study groups: 7.15 g/L, 95% CI: 2.26, 12.04 g/L, p = 0.004) and at follow-up > 4 weeks postoperatively (MD: 6.46 g/L, 95% CI: 3.10, 9.81, p = 0.0002). Iron injection was not associated with increased incidence of non-serious or serious adverse effects across groups (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.65, p = 0.52) and (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.44, 2.10, p = 0.92) respectively.ConclusionsWith moderate certainty, due to the high risk of bias in some studies in one or two domains, we found intravenous iron supplementation is associated with a significant decrease in the blood transfusions rate, and modest hemoglobin concentrations rise when injected pre-surgery compared with placebo or oral iron supplementation. However, further full-scale randomized controlled trials with robust methodology are required. In particular, the safety, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of different intravenous iron preparations require further evaluation.

Dataset Information

What is the effect of perioperative intravenous iron therapy in patients undergoing non-elective surgery? A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

What is the effect of perioperative intravenous iron therapy in patients undergoing non-elective surgery? A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets