Dataset Information

Impact of Adjuvant Use of Midodrine to Intravenous Vasopressors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of midodrine use in intensive care units (ICU) to facilitate weaning off intravenous vasopressors (IVV).

Methods

We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar (inception through October 18^th, 2020) for studies evaluating adjuvant use of midodrine to IVV in the ICU. The outcomes of interest were ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, mortality, IVV reinstitution, ICU readmission, and bradycardia. Estimates were pooled using the random-effects model. We reported effect sizes as standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for other outcomes with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

A total of 6 studies were found that met inclusion criteria and had sufficient data for our quantitative analysis (1 randomized controlled trial and 5 retrospective studies). A total of 2,857 patients were included: 600 in the midodrine group and 2,257 patients in the control group. Midodrine use was not associated with a significant difference in ICU LOS (SMD 0.16 days; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.55), hospital LOS (SMD 0.03 days; 95% CI -0.33 to 0.0.39), mortality (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.46), IVV reinstitution (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.3), or ICU readmission (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.49) when compared to using only IVV. However, there were higher trends of bradycardia with midodrine use that did not reach significance (RR 7.64; 95% CI 0.23 to 256.42).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that midodrine was not associated with a significant decrease in ICU LOS, hospital LOS, mortality, or ICU readmissions.

SUBMITTER: Al-Abdouh A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8147551 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDexamethasone is a common adjuvant for local anesthetics in regional anesthesia, but the optimal route of administration is controversial. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effect of perineural versus intravenous dexamethasone on local anesthetic regional nerve-blockade outcomes.Materials and methodsMedline (through PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Biosis Previews databases were systematically searched (published from inception of each database to January 1, 2017) to identify randomized controlled trials. The data of the selected trials were statistically analyzed to find any significant differences between the two modalities. The primary outcome was the duration of analgesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of motor block, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and postoperative analgesic dose at 24 hours. We conducted a planned subgroup analysis to compare the effects between adding epinephrine or not.ResultsTen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria of our analysis, with a total of 749 patients. Without the addition of epinephrine, the effects of perineural and intravenous dexamethasone were equivalent concerning the duration of analgesia (mean difference 0.03 hours, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.24). However, with the addition of epinephrine, the analgesic duration of perineural dexamethasone versus intravenous dexamethasone was prolonged (mean difference 3.96 hours, 95% CI 2.66-5.27). Likewise, the impact of epinephrine was the same on the duration of motor block. The two routes of administration did not show any significant differences in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, nor on postoperative analgesic consumption at 24 hours.ConclusionOur results show that perineural dexamethasone can prolong the effects of analgesic duration when compared to the intravenous route, only when epinephrine is coadministered. Without epinephrine, the two modalities show equivalent effect as adjuvants on regional anesthesia.

Project description:This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the efficacy and safety of nonopioid adjunctive analgesics for patients in the ICU.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science.Study selectionTwo independent reviewers screened citations. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing efficacy and safety of an adjuvant-plus-opioid regimen to opioids alone in adult ICU patients.Data extractionWe conducted duplicate screening of citations and data abstraction.Data synthesisOf 10,949 initial citations, we identified 34 eligible trials. These trials examined acetaminophen, carbamazepine, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, ketamine, magnesium sulfate, nefopam, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (including diclofenac, indomethacin, and ketoprofen), pregabalin, and tramadol as adjunctive analgesics. Use of any adjuvant in addition to an opioid as compared to an opioid alone led to reductions in patient-reported pain scores at 24 hours (standard mean difference, -0.88; 95% CI, -1.29 to -0.47; low certainty) and decreased opioid consumption (in oral morphine equivalents over 24 hr; mean difference, 25.89 mg less; 95% CI, 19.97-31.81 mg less; low certainty). In terms of individual medications, reductions in opioid use were demonstrated with acetaminophen (mean difference, 36.17 mg less; 95% CI, 7.86-64.47 mg less; low certainty), carbamazepine (mean difference, 54.69 mg less; 95% CI, 40.39-to 68.99 mg less; moderate certainty), dexmedetomidine (mean difference, 10.21 mg less; 95% CI, 1.06-19.37 mg less; low certainty), ketamine (mean difference, 36.81 mg less; 95% CI, 27.32-46.30 mg less; low certainty), nefopam (mean difference, 70.89 mg less; 95% CI, 64.46-77.32 mg less; low certainty), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (mean difference, 11.07 mg less; 95% CI, 2.7-19.44 mg less; low certainty), and tramadol (mean difference, 22.14 mg less; 95% CI, 6.67-37.61 mg less; moderate certainty).ConclusionsClinicians should consider using adjunct agents to limit opioid exposure and improve pain scores in critically ill patients.

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:BackgroundThe effectiveness and safety of intraoperative intravenous magnesium (IIM) on spine surgery remain uncertain, as recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) yielded conflicting results. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of IIM on spine surgery.MethodsA literature search was performed on multiple electronic databases, ClinicalTrial.gov and Google Scholar on July 12th 2021, and reference lists were examined. We selected RCTs comparing the effects of IIM with placebo treatment on spine surgery. We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confident interval (CI) under a random-effect model. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Jadad score was applied to assess the quality of each included trial. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to determine the confidence in effect estimates. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by omitting each included study one by one from the pooled analysis. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021266170.FindingsFourteen trials of 781 participants were included. Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggested that IIM reduces postoperative morphine consumption at 24 h (SMD: -1·61 mg, 95% CI: -2·63 to -0·58) and intraoperative remifentanil requirement (SMD: -2·09 ug/h, 95% CI: -3·38 to -0·81). High-quality evidence suggested that IIM reduces the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with placebo (RR: 0·43, 95% CI: 0·26 to 0·71). Besides, moderate-quality evidence suggested that recovery orientation time in the IIM group is longer than control group (SMD: 1·13 min, 95% CI: 0·83 to 1·43).InterpretationIIM as adjuvant analgesics showed overall benefits on spine surgery in terms of reducing analgesic requirement and postoperative nausea and vomiting; however, potential risks of IIM, such as delayed anesthetic awakening, should not be ignored. Future evidence will inform the optimal strategy of IIM administration for patients undergoing spine surgery.FundingThis study was funded by Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation (Grant No :7212117).