Dataset Information

Is deliberate hypotension a safe technique for orthopedic surgery?: a systematic review and meta-analysis of parallel randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Deliberate hypotension has been shown to reduce the intraoperative bleeding and the need for allogeneic blood transfusion, and improve the surgical field, but there is still controversy on its clinical safety. This systematic review was designed to assess the safety and benefits of deliberate hypotension for orthopedic surgery.

Methods

The review met the requirements of the PRISMA guidelines. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and four Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, vip citation database, and updated version of China Biology Medicine disc from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2019) were searched. All parallel randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of using deliberate hypotension with not using deliberate hypotension on clinical outcomes of patients undergoing orthopedic surgery were selected. The primary outcome was overall mortality. The secondary outcomes were the intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion volume, and serious adverse postoperative events.

Results

A total of 30 studies with 36 comparisons (1454 participants) were included in meta-analysis. Two studies with 120 participants reported overall mortality and the result was zero (low-quality evidence). The use of deliberate hypotension reduced the intraoperative blood loss (mean difference, -?376.7; 95% CI -?428.1 to -?325.3; I² = 94%; 29 studies, 36 comparisons, and 1398 participants; low-quality evidence) and blood transfusion volume (mean difference, -?242.5; 95% CI -?302.5 to -?182.6; I² = 95%; 13 studies, 14 comparisons, and 544 participants; low-quality evidence). Six studies with 286 participants reported the occurrence of serious adverse postoperative events and the result was zero (low-quality evidence). Subgroup analyses according to age groups, controlled mean artery pressure levels, types of orthopedic surgeries, different combinations of other blood conservative method, and hypotensive methods mostly did not explain heterogeneity; significant differences were identified in almost all subgroups.

Conclusions

Based on the available evidence, it is still unclear whether or not deliberate hypotension is a safe technique for orthopedic surgery due to limited studies with very small sample size, though it may decrease the intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion volume irrespective of age groups, controlled mean artery pressure levels, types of surgeries, hypotensive methods, or different combinations of other blood conservation strategies.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42016045480.

SUBMITTER: Jiang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6889611 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is deliberate hypotension a safe technique for orthopedic surgery?: a systematic review and meta-analysis of parallel randomized controlled trials.

Jiang Jia J Zhou Ran R Li Bo B Xue Fushan F

Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research 20191202 1

<h4>Background</h4>Deliberate hypotension has been shown to reduce the intraoperative bleeding and the need for allogeneic blood transfusion, and improve the surgical field, but there is still controversy on its clinical safety. This systematic review was designed to assess the safety and benefits of deliberate hypotension for orthopedic surgery.<h4>Methods</h4>The review met the requirements of the PRISMA guidelines. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, ...[more]

PMID: 31791362

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDeliberate hypotension is used to provide a bloodless field during functional endoscopic sinus surgery; however, the impact of controlled hypotension during anesthesia on peripheral tissue perfusion has not been extensively evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare the impact of nitroglycerin- versus labetalol-induced hypotension on peripheral perfusion.MethodsThe present randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial included adult patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery. Patients were allocated to one of two groups according to the drug received for induction of deliberate hypotension: nitroglycerin (n = 20) or labetalol (n = 20). Mean arterial pressure was maintained at 55-65 mmHg in both groups. Both study groups were compared according to pulse oximeter-derived peripheral perfusion index (primary outcome), serum lactate level, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, surgical field score, and intraoperative blood loss.ResultsForty patients were included in the final analysis. The nitroglycerin group exhibited a higher peripheral perfusion index at nearly all records (p < 0.0001) and lower postoperative serum lactate levels (1.3 ± 0.2 mmol/L vs. 1.7 ± 0.4 mmol/L; p = 0.001) than the labetalol group. The peripheral perfusion index was higher in the nitroglycerin group than at baseline at most intraoperative readings. The median surgical field score was modestly lower in the labetalol group than in the nitroglycerin group in the first 20 min (2 [interquartile range (IQR) 2-2.5] versus 1.5 [IQR 1-2]; p = 0.001). Both groups demonstrated comparable and acceptable surgical field scores in all subsequent readings.ConclusionNitroglycerin-induced deliberate hypotension was accompanied by higher peripheral perfusion index and lower serum lactate levels than labetalol-induced deliberate hypotension during sinus endoscopic surgery.Trial registrationThe study was registered at clinicaltrials registry system with trial number: NCT03809065. Registered at 19 January 2019. This study adheres to CONSORT guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundDrug-induced orthostatic hypotension (OH) is common, and its resulting cerebral hypoperfusion is linked to adverse outcomes including falls, strokes, cognitive impairment, and increased mortality. The extent to which specific medications are associated with OH remains unclear.Methods and findingsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the extent to which specific drug groups are associated with OH. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception through 23 November 2020. Placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on any drug reporting on OH as an adverse effect in adults (≥18 years) were eligible. Three authors extracted data on the drug, OH, dose, participant characteristics, and study setting. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to appraise evidence. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were estimated for OH using fixed effects Mantel-Haenszel statistics. We conducted subgroup analysis on validity of OH measurement, drug dose, risk of bias, age, and comorbidity. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to summarise the certainty of evidence. Of 36,940 citations, 69 eligible RCTs were included in the meta-analysis comprising 27,079 participants. Compared with placebo, beta-blockers and tricyclic antidepressants were associated with increased odds of OH (OR 7.76 [95% CI 2.51, 24.03]; OR 6.30 [95% CI 2.86, 13.91]). Alpha-blockers, antipsychotics, and SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with up to 2-fold increased odds of OH, compared to placebo. There was no statistically significant difference in odds of OH with vasodilators (CCBs, ACE inhibitors/ARBs, SSRIs), compared to placebo. Limitations of this study are as follows: data limited to placebo-controlled studies, (excluding head-to-head trials), many RCTs excluded older participants; therefore results may be amplified in older patients in the clinical setting. The study protocol is publicly available on PROSPERO (CRD42020168697).ConclusionsMedications prescribed for common conditions (including depression, diabetes, and lower urinary tract symptoms) were associated with significantly increased odds of OH. Drugs causing sympathetic inhibition were associated with significantly increased odds of OH, while most vasodilators were associated with small nonsignificant differences in odds of OH, compared to placebo. Drugs targeting multiple parts of the orthostatic blood pressure (BP) reflex pathway (e.g. sympathetic inhibition, vasodilation, cardio-inhibitory effects) may carry cumulative risk, suggesting that individuals with polypharmacy could benefit from postural BP monitoring.

Project description:BackgroundThis meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the ACL remnant preservation technique versus the standard technique.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through December 24, 2017, to identify randomized controlled studies that compared the use of the ACL remnant preservation technique versus the standard technique for primary ACL reconstruction. Statistical heterogeneity among the trials was evaluated with chi-square and I-square tests. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore sources of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify potential differences according to type of ACL remnant tissue (remnant bundle or remnant fibers).ResultsSeven studies with a combined 412 patients (208 in the remnant preservation technique group and 204 in the standard technique group) were included in the meta-analysis. There was a significant difference between the groups in Lysholm score (mean difference (MD), 2.20; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95-3.45; P?=?0.0006) and side-to-side difference (MD, -?0.71; 95% CI, -?0.87 to -?0.55; P?<?0.01). There was no significant difference between the groups in subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, complications, pivot shift test, Lachman test, or overall IKDC score. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that for primary ACL reconstruction with preservation of remnant fibers, the remnant preservation technique was superior to the standard technique based on Lysholm scores (P?<?0.01) and side-to-side difference (P?<?0.01).ConclusionsBased on the current literature, using the remnant preservation technique showed a better clinical outcome than using the standard technique for patients undergoing primary ACL reconstruction with respect to Lysholm score and side-to-side difference. However, it remains unclear that there is a definite advantage to use the remnant preservation technique compared with the standard technique.

Dataset Information

Is deliberate hypotension a safe technique for orthopedic surgery?: a systematic review and meta-analysis of parallel randomized controlled trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Is deliberate hypotension a safe technique for orthopedic surgery?: a systematic review and meta-analysis of parallel randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets