Dataset Information

Efficacy of perioperative intravenous iron therapy for transfusion in orthopedic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Shin HW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6502310 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of perioperative intravenous iron therapy for transfusion in orthopedic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shin Hye Won HW Park Jeong Jun JJ Kim Hyun Jung HJ You Hae Sun HS Choi Sung Uk SU Lee Mee Ju MJ

PloS one 20190506 5

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 ...[more]

PMID: 31059515

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTreatment of preoperative anemia with intravenous iron is common within elective surgical care pathways. It is plausible that this treatment may improve care for people with hip fractures many of whom are anemic because of pre-existing conditions, fractures, and surgery.ObjectiveTo review the evidence for intravenous iron administration on outcomes after hip fracture.DesignWe followed a predefined protocol and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of intravenous iron to treat anemia before and after emergency hip fracture surgery. The planned primary outcome was a difference in length of stay between those treated with intravenous iron and the control group. Other outcomes analyzed were 30-day mortality, requirement for blood transfusion, changes in quality of life, and hemoglobin concentration on discharge from the hospital.Data sourcesEMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, DARE) databases, Clinicaltrials.gov, and ISRCTN trial registries. Date of final search March 2022.Eligibility criteriaAdult patients undergoing urgent surgery for hip fracture. Studies considered patients who received intravenous iron and were compared with a control group.ResultsFour randomized controlled trials (RCT, 732 patients) and nine cohort studies (2986 patients) were included. The RCTs were at low risk of bias, and the nonrandomized studies were at moderate risk of bias. After metanalysis of the RCTs there was no significant difference in the primary outcome, length of hospital stay, between the control group and patients receiving intravenous iron (mean difference: -0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]; -1.20 to 0.03; I 2 = 30%, p = 0.23). Intravenous iron was not associated with a difference in 30-day mortality (n = 732, OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.62-2.1; I 2 = 0%, p = 0.50), nor with the requirement for transfusion (n = 732, OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.63-1.14; I 2 = 0%, p < 0.01) in the analyzed RCTs. Functional outcomes and quality of life were variably reported in three studies.ConclusionThe evidence on the use of intravenous iron in patients with hip fracture is low quality and shows no difference in length of acute hospital stay and transfusion requirements in this population. Improved large, multicentre, high-quality studies with patient-centered outcomes will be required to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this treatment.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous iron, focusing primarily on its effects on haemoglobin, requirement for transfusion, and risk of infection.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials investigating the safety and efficacy of intravenous iron therapy.Data sourcesRandomised controlled trials from Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1966 to June 2013, with no language restrictions.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEligible trials were randomised controlled trials of intravenous iron compared with either no iron or oral iron. Crossover and observational studies were excluded.Main outcome measuresChange in haemoglobin concentration and risk of allogeneic red blood cell transfusion (efficacy) and risk of infection (safety).ResultsOf the 75 trials meeting the inclusion criteria, 72 studies including 10 605 patients provided quantitative outcome data for meta-analysis. Intravenous iron was associated with an increase in haemoglobin concentration (standardised mean difference 6.5 g/L, 95% confidence interval 5.1 g/L to 7.9 g/L) and a reduced risk of requirement for red blood cell transfusion (risk ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.88), especially when intravenous iron was used with erythroid stimulating agents (ESAs) or in patients with a lower baseline plasma ferritin concentration. There were no significant interactions between the efficacy of intravenous iron and type or dose administered. Intravenous iron was, however, associated with a significant increase in risk of infection (relative risk 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 1.64) compared with oral or no iron supplementation. The results remained similar when only high quality trials were analysed.ConclusionsIntravenous iron therapy is effective in increasing haemoglobin concentration and reducing the risk of allogeneic red blood cell transfusion and could have broad applicability to a range of acute care settings. This potential benefit is counterbalanced by a potential increased risk of infection.

Project description:IntroductionOrthopedic procedures have been associated with increased pain, making perioperative analgesia a major clinical concern. We assessed the efficacy and safety of intravenous parecoxib administration during the perioperative period for postoperative pain relief after orthopedic surgery in adults.MethodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and clinicaltrial.gov were searched from inception to 23 August 2021 without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous parecoxib with placebo or another active treatment for acute postoperative pain in adults after orthopedic surgery were included. The primary outcomes were the pain scores and cumulative morphine consumption. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients requiring rescue analgesics and the incidence of adverse events. The meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registration (PROSPERO).ResultsTwenty-seven trials (n = 2840) from more than 20 countries involving six types of orthopedic surgery met the inclusion criteria. Compared with placebo, intravenous parecoxib administration led to reductions in postoperative resting pain scores at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h [mean difference (MD) -0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.71 to -0.03; MD -0.86, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.46; MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.31; MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.11, respectively], postoperative movement pain scores at 24 and 48 h (MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.19; MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.39, respectively), cumulative morphine consumption (MD -11.30 mg, 95% CI -14.79 to -7.81 mg), and the proportion of patients requiring rescue analgesia (relative risk 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.89). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between groups.ConclusionLow to moderate evidence indicates that parecoxib might be an effective and safe analgesic in perioperative orthopedic settings. It relieves postoperative orthopedic pain while sparing opioid analgesic consumption without increasing the incidence of adverse events.Prospero registrationCRD42021274939.

Project description:BackgroundGuidelines 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThree 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.ConclusionWe 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 registrationThis systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018096288).

Project description:BackgroundIntravenous iron (IV-iron) is used as an alternative to, or alongside, red blood cell transfusion (RBC-T) to treat more severe postpartum anemia (PPA), although optimal treatment options remain unclear. No previous systematic reviews have examined IV-iron and RBC-T, including patient-reported outcomes and hematological responses.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing IV-iron and RBC-T with each other, oral iron, no treatment, and placebo for the treatment of PPA. Key inclusion criteria were PPA (hemoglobin < 12 g/dL) and IV-iron or RBC-T as interventions. Key exclusion criteria were antenatal IV-iron or RBC-T. Fatigue was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included hemoglobin and ferritin concentrations, and adverse events. From 27th August 2020 to 26th September 2022, databases, registries, and hand searches identified studies. A fixed-effect meta-analysis was undertaken using RevMan (5.4) software. The quality of the studies and the evidence was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias table, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. This review is registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020201115).ResultsTwenty studies and 4196 participants were included: 1834 assigned IV-iron, 1771 assigned oral iron, 330 assigned RBC-T, and 261 assigned non-intervention. Six studies reported the primary outcome of fatigue (1251 participants). Only studies of IV-iron vs. oral iron (15 studies) were available for meta-analysis. Of these, three reported on fatigue using different scales; two were available for meta-analysis. There was a significant reduction in fatigue with IV-iron compared to oral iron (standardized mean difference - 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.62, - 0.18, I2 = 0%). The direction of effect also favored IV-iron for hemoglobin (mean difference (MD) 0.54 g/dL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47, 0.61, I2 = 91%), ferritin, (MD 58.07 mcg/L, 95% CI 55.74, 60.41, I2 = 99%), and total adverse events (risk-ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.52, 0.77, I2 = 84%). The overall quality of the evidence was low-moderate.DiscussionFor all outcomes, the evidence for RBC-T, compared to IV-iron, non-intervention, or dose effects of RBC-T is very limited. Further research is needed to determine whether RBC-T or IV-iron for the treatment of PPA is superior for fatigue and hematological outcomes.

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: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.

Project description:BackgroundRoutine use of antifibrinolytic agents in spine surgery is still an issue of debate.ObjectiveTo gather scientific evidence for the efficacy and safety of antifibrinolytic agents including aprotinin, tranexamic acid (TXA) and epsilon aminocaproic acid (EACA, traditionally known as Amicar) in reducing perioperative blood loss and transfusion requirements in scoliosis surgery.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), retrospective case-control studies, and retrospective cohort studies on the use of antifibrinolytic agents in scoliosis surgery by searching in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Controlled Trials of papers published from January 1980 through July 2014. Safety of the antifibrinolytic agents was evaluated in all included studies, while efficacy was evaluated in RCTs.ResultsEighteen papers with a total of 1,158 patients were eligible for inclusion in this study. Among them, 8 RCTs with 450 patients were included for evaluation of pharmacologic efficacy (1 RCT was excluded because of a lack of standard deviation data). Mean blood loss was reduced in patients with perioperative use of antifibrinolytic agents by 409.25 ml intraoperatively (95% confidence interval [CI], 196.57-621.94 ml), 250.30 ml postoperatively (95% CI, 35.31-465.30), and 601.40 ml overall (95% CI, 306.64-896.16 ml). The mean volume of blood transfusion was reduced by 474.98 ml (95% CI, 195.30-754.67 ml). The transfusion rate was 44.6% (108/242) in the patients with antifibrinolytic agents and 68.3% (142/208) in the patients with placebo. (OR 0.38; 95% CI; 0.25-0.58; P<0.00001, I2 = 9%). All studies were included for evaluation of safety, with a total of 8 adverse events reported overall (4 in the experimental group and 4 in the control group).ConclusionThe systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that aprotinin, TXA, and EACA all significantly reduced perioperative blood loss and transfusion requirements in scoliosis surgery. There was no evidence that the use of antifibrinolytic agents was a risk factor for adverse events, especially thromboembolism, in scoliosis surgery.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of perioperative intravenous iron therapy for transfusion in orthopedic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Efficacy of perioperative intravenous iron therapy for transfusion in orthopedic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets