Dataset Information

Intra-arterial anaesthetics for pain control in arterial embolisation procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

A systematic review to determine the effectiveness of intra-arterial anaesthetics on post- operative pain and opioid analgesia requirements in arterial embolisation procedures.

Materials and methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed (Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library) from inception to 10th August 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that utilised intra-arterial anaesthesia during an embolisation procedure for the purposes of pain control were included. Eligibility was assessed by two investigators independently.

Results

Eight hundred fifty-nine candidate articles were identified, and 9 studies met the inclusion criteria (6 RCTs and 3 retrospective cohort studies). Four studies were of hepatic chemoembolisation and 5 were of uterine artery embolisation. Five hundred twenty-nine patients were treated in total. All studies used lidocaine as the anaesthetic with doses ranging from 20 to 200?mg, and the anaesthetic was delivered varyingly before, during or after embolisation. Pain intensity was converted to a numeric scale from 0 to 10, and opioid doses were converted to milligram morphine equivalent doses. A random-effects meta-analysis model was used to analyse the results of RCTs, and the results of cohort studies were summarised with a narrative synthesis. The meta-analyses suggested that pain scores were reduced by a mean of 1.02 (95% CI -?2.34 to 0.30; p?=?0.13) and opioid doses were reduced by a mean of 7.35?mg (95% CI, -?14.77, 0.06; p?=?0.05) in the intervention group however neither finding was statistically significant. No serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

Intra-arterial anaesthetic may slightly reduce pain intensity and post-operative opioid consumption following embolisation, however the results are not statistically significant. There is very limited data available on the effect of anaesthetic on length of hospital admission. Whilst no serious adverse events were reported, there are some concerns regarding the effect of lidocaine on the technical success of embolisation procedures that preclude our recommendation for routine use in embolisation procedures. High quality randomised controlled trials are required to elucidate the dose-response effect of lidocaine on opioid consumption and pain following embolisation, particularly in the first few hours post-operatively, as well as effects on duration of hospital stay.

SUBMITTER: Shiwani TH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7785604 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intra-arterial anaesthetics for pain control in arterial embolisation procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shiwani Taha Hanif TH Shiwani Hunain H

CVIR endovascular 20210105 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>A systematic review to determine the effectiveness of intra-arterial anaesthetics on post- operative pain and opioid analgesia requirements in arterial embolisation procedures.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A systematic review of the literature was performed (Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library) from inception to 10th August 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that utilised intra-arterial anaesthesia during an embolisation procedure for the pu ...[more]

PMID: 33399961

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThere is a lack of evidence about the use of local anaesthetics (LAs) in patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in dental procedures. Thus, this study evaluated the safety of using LA with vasoconstrictor to determine the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with CVD.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe have searched in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Healthstar (via Ovid), CINAHL, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to January 2020. We have included RCTs involving adults with CVD within two groups: intervention group with LA with vasoconstrictor and control group with LA without vasoconstrictor. The primary outcomes assessed were death, mortality by a specific cause, stroke, acute myocardial infarction, hospitalisation, pain, bleeding and arrhythmias. The secondary outcomes were ST segment depression, anxiety, adverse effects and changes in haemodynamic parameters. The data were pooled using random effects meta-analyses and the confidence in the estimates was verified using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).ResultsTen RCTs (n=478 participants) were included. Most of them had a high risk of bias. There were more cases of pain and bleeding in groups without vasoconstrictor. Meta-analysis demonstrated a decrease in the systolic blood pressure with the use of LA with vasoconstrictor (standard mean difference -0.95, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.55) after procedure. Overall, for the other outcomes assessed there was no statistical difference. The quality of evidence was considered low according to the GRADE profile.ConclusionsThe results suggest that the use of LA with vasoconstrictors (epinephrine in low doses) is safe in patients with some types of CVD. However, the low quality of evidence demonstrated that literature needs further studies in order to confirm these results.Protocol registrationPROSPERO (CRD42016045421).

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The use of vasoconstrictors combined with local anaesthetics (LAs) in dentistry for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) is still controversial in the scientific literature. It raises concerns regarding the possibility of transient episodes, triggering negative cardiovascular outcomes. METHOD/DESIGN:Trials eligible for our systematic review will enrol patients with CVD who have undergone dental treatments carried out with the use of LAs by comparing two arms: LAs with vasoconstrictors and LAs without vasoconstrictors. The research will be conducted in the electronic databases, namely Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Healthstar (via Ovid), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Web of Science, from their inception to December 2017, without any restrictions in terms of language and status of publication. A team of reviewers will independently assess titles, abstracts and complete text to determine eligibility. For eligible studies, the same reviewers will perform data extraction and evaluate the risk of bias in the selected articles. The selected outcomes comprise death, mortality by a specific cause, stroke, acute myocardial infarction, hospitalisation, pain, bleeding, arrhythmias, ischaemic episodes, anxiety, adverse effects, changes in blood pressure, changes in heart rate, anxiety and results obtained via oximetry. Whenever possible, we will conduct a meta-analysis to establish the effects of LAs with and without vasoconstrictors in the patients with CVD, and the overall quality of evidence for each outcome will be determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation classification system. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics committee approval was not necessary because this is a protocol of systematic review. This systematic review will be submitted for presentation at conferences and for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Our review will assess the risks of cardiovascular events when using LAs with and without vasoconstrictors in patients with CVD, focusing on important clinical outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42016045421.

Project description:BackgroundEffective pain control is crucial to optimise the success of medical procedures. Immersive virtual reality (VR) technology could offer an effective non-invasive, non-pharmacological option to distract patients and reduce their experience of pain. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Immersive virtual reality (VR) technology in reducing patient's pain perception during various medical procedures by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and SIGLE until December 2022 for all randomised clinical trials (RCT) evaluating any type of VR in patients undergoing any medical procedure. We conducted a random effect meta-analysis summarising standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We evaluated heterogeneity using I 2 and explored it using subgroup and meta-regression analyses.ResultsIn total, we included 92 RCTs (n = 7133 participants). There was a significant reduction in pain scores with VR across all medical procedures (n = 83, SMD - 0.78, 95% CI - 1.00 to - 0.57, I 2 = 93%, p = < 0.01). Subgroup analysis showed varied reduction in pain scores across trial designs [crossover (n = 13, SMD - 0.86, 95% CI - 1.23 to - 0.49, I 2 = 72%, p = < 0.01) vs parallel RCTs (n = 70, SMD - 0.77, 95% CI - 1.01 to - 0.52, I 2 = 90%, p = < 0.01)]; participant age groups [paediatric (n = 43, SMD - 0.91, 95% CI - 1.26 to - 0.56, I 2 = 87%, p = < 0.01) vs adults (n = 40, SMD - 0.66, 95% CI - 0.94 to - 0.39, I 2 = 89%, p = < 0.01)] or procedures [venepuncture (n = 32, SMD - 0.99, 95% CI - 1.52 to - 0.46, I 2 = 90%, p = < 0.01) vs childbirth (n = 7, SMD - 0.99, 95% CI - 1.59 to - 0.38, I 2 = 88%, p = < 0.01) vs minimally invasive medical procedures (n = 25, SMD - 0.51, 95% CI - 0.79 to - 0.23, I 2 = 85%, p = < 0.01) vs dressing changes in burn patients (n = 19, SMD - 0.8, 95% CI - 1.16 to - 0.45, I 2 = 87%, p = < 0.01)]. We explored heterogeneity using meta-regression which showed no significant impact of different covariates including crossover trials (p = 0.53), minimally invasive procedures (p = 0.37), and among paediatric participants (p = 0.27). Cumulative meta-analysis showed no change in overall effect estimates with the additional RCTs since 2018.ConclusionsImmersive VR technology offers effective pain control across various medical procedures, albeit statistical heterogeneity. Further research is needed to inform the safe adoption of this technology across different medical disciplines.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Inadequate postoperative pain control is common and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. This study aimed to identify preoperative predictors of poor postoperative pain control in adults undergoing inpatient surgery. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analysis DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched through October 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Studies in any language were included if they evaluated postoperative pain using a validated instrument in adults (≥18 years) and reported a measure of association between poor postoperative pain control (defined by study authors) and at least one preoperative predictor during the hospital stay. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two reviewers screened articles, extracted data and assessed study quality. Measures of association for each preoperative predictor were pooled using random effects models. RESULTS:Thirty-three studies representing 53 362 patients were included in this review. Significant preoperative predictors of poor postoperative pain control included younger age (OR 1.18 [95% CI 1.05 to 1.32], number of studies, n=14), female sex (OR 1.29 [95% CI 1.17 to 1.43], n=20), smoking (OR 1.33 [95% CI 1.09 to 1.61], n=9), history of depressive symptoms (OR 1.71 [95% CI 1.32 to 2.22], n=8), history of anxiety symptoms (OR 1.22 [95% CI 1.09 to 1.36], n=10), sleep difficulties (OR 2.32 [95% CI 1.46 to 3.69], n=2), higher body mass index (OR 1.02 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.03], n=2), presence of preoperative pain (OR 1.21 [95% CI 1.10 to 1.32], n=13) and use of preoperative analgesia (OR 1.54 [95% CI 1.18 to 2.03], n=6). Pain catastrophising, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, chronic pain, marital status, socioeconomic status, education, surgical history, preoperative pressure pain tolerance and orthopaedic surgery (vs abdominal surgery) were not associated with increased odds of poor pain control. Study quality was generally high, although appropriate blinding of predictor during outcome ascertainment was often limited. CONCLUSIONS:Nine predictors of poor postoperative pain control were identified. These should be recognised as potentially important factors when developing discipline-specific clinical care pathways to improve pain outcomes and to guide future surgical pain research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017080682.

Project description:Background: As not all ischemic stroke patients benefit from currently available treatments, there is considerable need for neuroprotective co-therapies. Therapeutic hypothermia is one such co-therapy, but numerous issues have hampered its clinical use (e.g., pneumonia risk with whole-body cooling). Some problems may be avoided with brain-specific methods, such as intra-arterial selective cooling infusion (IA-SCI) into the arteries supplying the ischemic tissue. Objective: Our research question was about the efficacy of IA-SCI in animal middle cerebral artery occlusion models. We hypothesized that IA-SCI would be beneficial, but translationally-relevant study elements may be missing (e.g., aged animals). Methods: We completed a systematic review of the PubMed database following the PRISMA guidelines on May 21, 2020 for animal studies that administered IA-SCI in the peri-reperfusion period and assessed infarct volume, behavior (primary meta-analytic endpoints), edema, or blood-brain barrier injury (secondary endpoints). Our search terms included: "focal ischemia" and related terms, "IA-SCI" and related terms, and "animal" and related terms. Nineteen studies met inclusion criteria. We adapted a methodological quality scale from 0 to 12 for experimental design assessment (e.g., use of blinding/randomization, a priori sample size calculations). Results: Studies were relatively homogenous (e.g., all studies used young, healthy animals). Some experimental design elements, such as blinding, were common whereas others, such as sample size calculations, were infrequent (median methodological quality score: 5; range: 2-7). Our analyses revealed that IA-SCI provides benefit on all endpoints (mean normalized infarct volume reduction = 23.67%; 95% CI: 19.21-28.12; mean normalized behavioral improvement = 35.56%; 95% CI: 25.91-45.20; mean standardized edema reduction = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.56-1.34). Unfortunately, blood-brain barrier assessments were uncommon and could not be analyzed. However, there was substantial statistical heterogeneity and relatively few studies. Therefore, exploration of heterogeneity via meta-regression using saline infusion parameters, study quality, and ischemic duration was inconclusive. Conclusion: Despite convincing evidence of benefit in ischemic stroke models, additional studies are required to determine the scope of benefit, especially when considering additional elements (e.g., dosing characteristics). As there is interest in using this treatment alongside current ischemic stroke therapies, more relevant animal studies will be critical to inform patient studies.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the evidence for the safety and efficacy of invasive procedures for reducing chronic pain and improving function and health-related quality of life compared with sham (placebo) procedures.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.MethodsStudies were identified by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. Randomized controlled trials comparing invasive procedures with identical but otherwise sham procedures for chronic pain conditions were selected. Three authors independently extracted and described study characteristics and assessed Cochrane risk of bias. Two subsets of data on back and knee pain, respectively, were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Overall quality of the literature was assessed through Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.ResultsTwenty-five trials (2,000 participants) were included in the review assessing the effect of invasive procedures over sham. Conditions included low back (N?=?7 trials), arthritis (4), angina (4), abdominal pain (3), endometriosis (3), biliary colic (2), and migraine (2). Thirteen trials (52%) reported an adequate concealment of allocation. Fourteen studies (56%) reported on adverse events. Of these, the risk of any adverse event was significantly higher for invasive procedures (12%) than sham procedures (4%; risk difference = 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01 to 0.09, P?=?0.01, I2 = 65%). In the two meta-analysis subsets, the standardized mean difference for reduction of low back pain in seven studies (N?=?445) was 0.18 (95% CI = -0.14 to 0.51, P?=?0.26, I2 = 62%), and for knee pain in three studies (N?=?496) it was 0.04 (95% CI = -0.11 to 0.19, P?=?0.63, I2 = 36%). The relative contribution of within-group improvement in sham treatments accounted for 87% of the effect compared with active treatment across all conditions.ConclusionsThere is little evidence for the specific efficacy beyond sham for invasive procedures in chronic pain. A moderate amount of evidence does not support the use of invasive procedures as compared with sham procedures for patients with chronic back or knee pain. Given their high cost and safety concerns, more rigorous studies are required before invasive procedures are routinely used for patients with chronic pain.

Dataset Information

Intra-arterial anaesthetics for pain control in arterial embolisation procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Intra-arterial anaesthetics for pain control in arterial embolisation procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets