Dataset Information

N-acetylcysteine use among patients undergoing cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cardiac surgeries are complex procedures aiming to re-establish coronary flow and correct valvular defects. Oxidative stress, caused by inflammation and ischemia-reperfusion injury, is associated with these procedures, increasing the risk of adverse outcomes. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) acts as an antioxidant by replenishing the glutathione stores, and emerging evidence suggests that NAC may reduce the risk of adverse perioperative outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the addition of NAC to a standard of care among adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Methods

We searched four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS) from inception to October 2018 and the grey literaure for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of NAC on pre-defined outcomes including mortality, acute renal insufficiency (ARI), acute cardiac insufficiency (ACI), hospital length of stay (HLoS), intensive care unit length of stay (ICULoS), arrhythmia and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias among eligible articles. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome.

Results

Twenty-nine RCTs including 2,486 participants proved eligible. Low to moderate certainty evidence demonstrated that the addition of NAC resulted in a non-statistically significant reduction in mortality (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.71; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.25), ARI (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.09), ACI (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.38), HLoS (Mean Difference (MD) 0.21; 95% CI -0.64 to 0.23), ICULoS (MD -0.04; 95% CI -0.29 to 0.20), arrhythmia (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.20), and AMI (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.48).

Limitations

Among eligible trials, we observed heterogeneity in the population and interventions including patients with and without kidney dysfunction and interventions that differed in route of administration, dosage, and duration of treatment. This observed heterogeneity was not explained by our subgroup analyses.

Conclusions

The addition of NAC during cardiac surgery did not result in a statistically significant reduction in clinical outcomes. A large randomized placebo-controlled multi-centre trial is needed to determine whether NAC reduces mortality.

Registration

PROSPERO CRD42018091191.

SUBMITTER: Pereira JEG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6508704 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsElectronic 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.ResultsWe 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?<?0.0001), but not in cardiac surgery (OR?=?0.93 [95% CI 0.70-1.24], p?=?0.61) (psubgroup?=?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) (psubgroup?=?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.ConclusionsPerioperative 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.

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:BackgroundSmall trials suggest that levosimendan is associated with a favorable outcome in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. However, recently published larger-scale trials did not provide evidence for a similar benefit from levosimendan. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the survival benefits of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and to investigate its effects in subgroups of patients with preoperative low-ejection fraction (EF).MethodsWe identified randomized clinical trials through 20 April 2017 that investigated levosimendan therapy versus control in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Individual patient data from each study were compiled. Meta-analyses were performed for primary outcomes, secondary outcomes and serious adverse events, and subgroup analyses according to the preoperative EF of enrolled patients were also conducted. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.ResultsSeventeen studies involving a total of 2756 patients were included. Levosimendan therapy was associated with a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (RR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.93; p = 0.02) and reduced the risk of death in single-center trials (RR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.79; p = 0.004) and in subgroup trials of inferior quality (RR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.92; p = 0.02); however, in multicenter and in high-quality subgroup-analysis trials, no significant difference in mortality was observed between patients who received levosimendan therapy and controls (p > 0.05). However, in high-quality subgroup trials, levosimendan therapy was associated with reduced mortality in patients in a preoperative low-EF subgroup (RR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.88; p = 0.01). Similarly, only patients in the preoperative low-EF subgroup benefited in terms of reduced risk of renal replacement therapy (RR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.85; p = 0.007). Furthermore, levosimendan therapy was associated with a significant reduction in intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (MDR -17.19; 95% CI, -34.43 to -2.94; p = 0.02).ConclusionsIn patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the benefit of levosimendan in terms of survival was not shown in multicenter or in high-quality trials; however, levosimendan therapy was associated with reduced mortality in patients with preoperative ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Colchicine has unique anti-inflammatory properties that may be beneficial in various cardiovascular conditions. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examines this issue. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database from inception to June 2014 for RCTs using colchicine in adult patients with cardiac diseases. Results were pooled using random effects. RESULTS:15 RCTs (n?=?3431 patients, median treatment 3 and follow-up 15 months) were included. All but 2 used colchicine 1 mg/day. In 5 trials, n?=?1301) at risk for cardiovascular disease (coronary artery disease, acute coronary syndrome or stroke, post-angioplasty [2 RCTs], or congestive heart failure), colchicine reduced composite cardiovascular outcomes by ~60 % (risk ratio [RR] 0.44, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.69, p?=?0.0004; I(2)?=?0 %) and showed a trend towards lower all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95 % CI 0.23-1.08, p?=?0.08; I(2)?=?0 %). In pericarditis or post-cardiotomy, colchicine decreased recurrent pericarditis or post-pericardiotomy syndrome (RR 0.50, 95 % CI 0.41-0.60, p?<?0.0001; I(2)?=?0 %; 8 RCTs, n?=?1635), and post-pericardiotomy or ablation induced atrial fibrillation (RR 0.65, 95 % CI 0.51-0.82, p?=?0.0003; I(2)?=?31 %; 4 RCTs, n?=?1118). The most common adverse event was diarrhea. Treatment discontinuation overall and due to adverse events (RR 4.34, 95 % CI 1.70-11.07, p?=?0.002; I(2)?=?29 %; 7 RCTs, 83/790 [10.5 %] vs. 11/697 [1.6 %]) was higher in colchicine-assigned patients. CONCLUSIONS:Current RCT data suggests that colchicine may reduce the composite rate of cardiovascular adverse outcomes in a range of patients with established cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, colchicine reduces rates of recurrent pericarditis, post-pericardiotomy syndrome, and peri-procedural atrial fibrillation following cardiac surgery. Further RCTs evaluating the potential of colchicine for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events would be of interest.

Project description:Background and Objectives: Patients undergoing cardiac surgery are particularly vulnerable for developing postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the role of preoperative chest physiotherapy in such patients. Materials and Methods: All original articles that assessed patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery, with preoperative chest physiotherapy, and compared them to patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery, without preoperative chest physiotherapy, were included. Animal studies, studies conducted prior to the year 2000, commentaries, or general discussion papers whose authors did not present original data were excluded. Studies assessing physiotherapy regimens other than chest physiotherapy were also excluded. The search was performed using the following electronic resources: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the PubMed central database, and Embase. The included studies were assessed for potential bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias. Each article was read carefully, and any relevant data were extracted. The extracted data were registered, tabulated, and analyzed using Review Manager software. Results: A total of 10 articles investigating 1458 patients were included in the study. The studies were published from 2006 to 2019. The populations were patients scheduled for elective CABG/cardiac surgery, and they were classified into two groups: the interventional (I) group, involving 651 patients, and the control (C) group, involving 807 patients. The meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences between the interventional and control groups in surgery time and ICU duration, but a significant difference was found in the time of mechanical ventilation and the length of hospital stay, favoring the interventional group. A significant difference was shown in the forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1% predicted), forced vital capacity (FVC% predicted), and maximum inspiratory pressure (Pi-max), favoring the interventional group. Conclusions: This study is limited by the fact that one of the included ten studies was not an RCT. Moreover, due to lack of the assessment of certain variables in some studies, the highest number of studies included in a meta-analysis was the hospital stay length (eight studies), and the other variables were analyzed in a fewer number of studies. The data obtained can be considered as initial results until more inclusive RCTs are conducted involving a larger meta-analysis. However, in the present study, the intervention was proved to be protective against the occurrence of PPCs. The current work concluded that preoperative chest physiotherapy can yield better outcomes in patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery.