Dataset Information

Iron supplementation for patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Iron administration has been evaluated in several randomized controlled trials for the potential of increasing baseline hemoglobin values and decreasing the incidence of red blood cell transfusion during cardiac surgery. We describe the protocol for a study aiming to evaluate the efficacy and safety of perioperative iron administration in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Methods

We will search MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Web of Science, from inception to Nov. 19, 2020, for randomized controlled trials in any language evaluating the perioperative administration of iron in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery; we will also include the first 50 results from Google Scholar. The primary outcome will be the incidence of red blood cell transfusion from the study intervention time until 8 weeks postoperatively. The secondary outcomes will be the number of red blood cell units transfused; change in ferritin level, reticulocyte count and hemoglobin concentration after iron administration; and adverse events. We will assess the risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool, and will analyze the primary and secondary outcomes using a random-effects model.

Interpretation

This study will summarize the current evidence about perioperative iron administration in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, help determine whether this intervention should be included in enhanced-recovery protocols, and shape future research if needed. The final manuscript will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.

Trial registration

PROSPERO no. CRD42020161927.

SUBMITTER: Cameron MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8191589 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundSeveral studies suggest beneficial effects of perioperative statin therapy on postoperative outcome after cardiac surgery. However, recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show potential detrimental effects. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the association between perioperative statin therapy and clinical outcomes in cardiac surgery patients.MethodsElectronic databases were searched up to 1 November 2016 for RCTs of preoperative statin therapy versus placebo or no treatment in adult cardiac surgery. Postoperative outcomes were acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, stroke, infections, and mortality. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using fixed-effects meta-analyses. Primary analysis was restricted to trials with low risk of bias according to Cochrane methodology, and sensitivity analyses examined whether the risk of bias of included studies was associated with different results. We performed trial sequential analysis (TSA) to test the strength of the results.ResultsWe included data from 23 RCTs involving 5102 patients. Meta-analysis of trials with low risk of bias showed that statin therapy was associated with an increase in acute kidney injury (314 of 1318 (23.82%) with statins versus 262 of 1319 (19.86%) with placebo; OR 1.26 (95%CI 1.05 to 1.52); p = 0.01); these results were supported by TSA. No difference in postoperative atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, stroke, infections, or mortality was present. On sensitivity analysis, statin therapy was associated with a slight increase in hospital mortality. Meta-analysis including also trials with high or unclear risk of bias showed no beneficial effects of statin therapy on any postoperative outcomes.ConclusionsThere is no evidence that statin therapy in the days prior to cardiac surgery is beneficial for patients' outcomes. Particularly, statins are not protective against postoperative atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, stroke, or infections. Statins are associated with a possible increased risk of acute kidney injury and a detrimental effect on hospital survival could not be excluded. Future RCTs should further evaluate the safety profile of this therapy in relation to patients' outcomes and assess the more appropriate time point for discontinuation of statins before cardiac surgery.

Project description:Multiple randomized controlled trials of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) prior to cardiac surgery have failed to demonstrate clinical benefit. The aim of this updated meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of RIPC on outcomes following cardiac surgery.Searches of PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were performed for 1970 to December 13, 2015. Randomized controlled trials comparing RIPC with a sham procedure prior to cardiac surgery performed with cardiopulmonary bypass were assessed. All-cause mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), and myocardial infarction were the primary outcomes of interest. We identified 21 trials that randomized 5262 patients to RIPC or a sham procedure prior to undergoing cardiac surgery. The majority of patients were men (72.6%) and the mean or median age ranged from 42.3 to 76.3 years. Of the 9 trials that evaluated mortality, 188 deaths occurred out of a total of 4210 randomized patients, with 96 deaths occurring in 2098 patients (4.6%) randomized to RIPC and 92 deaths occurring in 2112 patients (4.4%) randomized to a sham control procedure, demonstrating no significant reduction in all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.987; 95% CI, 0.653-1.492, P=0.95). Twelve studies evaluated AKI in 4209 randomized patients. In these studies, AKI was observed in 516 of 2091 patients (24.7%) undergoing RIPC and in 577 of 2118 patients (27.2%) randomized to a sham procedure. RIPC did not result in a significant reduction in AKI (RR, 0.839; 95% CI, 0.703-1.001 [P=0.052]). In 6 studies consisting of 3799 randomized participants, myocardial infarction occurred in 237 of 1891 patients (12.5%) randomized to RIPC and in 282 of 1908 patients (14.8%) randomized to a sham procedure, resulting in no significant reduction in postoperative myocardial infarction (RR, 0.809; 95% CI, 0.615-1.064 [P=0.13]). A subgroup analysis was performed a priori based on previous studies suggesting that propofol may mitigate the protective benefits of RIPC. Three studies randomized patients undergoing cardiac surgery to RIPC or sham procedure in the absence of propofol anesthesia. Most of these patients were men (60.3%) and the mean or median age ranged from 57.0 to 70.6 years. In this propofol-free subgroup of 434 randomized patients, 71 of 217 patients (32.7%) who underwent RIPC developed AKI compared with 103 of 217 patients (47.5%) treated with a sham procedure. In this cohort, RIPC resulted in a significant reduction in AKI (RR, 0.700; 95% CI, 0.527-0.930 [P=0.014]). In studies of patients who received propofol anesthesia, 445 of 1874 (23.7%) patients randomized to RIPC developed AKI compared with 474 of 1901 (24.9%) who underwent a sham procedure. The RR for AKI was 0.928 (95% CI, 0.781-1.102; P=0.39) for RIPC versus sham. There was no significant interaction between the two subgroups (P=0.098).RIPC does not reduce morbidity or mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. In the subgroup of studies in which propofol was not used, a reduction in AKI was seen, suggesting that propofol may interact with the protective effects of RIPC. Future studies should evaluate RIPC in the absence of propofol anesthesia.

Project description:BackgroundCardiac 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsTwenty-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).LimitationsAmong 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.ConclusionsThe 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.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42018091191.

Project description:PURPOSE:Restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies remain controversial in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the prognostic benefits of restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS:We identified randomized clinical trials through the 9th of December 2017 that investigated a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy versus a liberal transfusion strategy in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Individual patient data from each study were collected. Meta-analyses were performed for the primary and secondary outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. A trial sequential analysis (TSA)-adjusted random-effects model was used to pool the results from the included studies for the primary outcomes. RESULTS:Seven trials involving a total of 8886 patients were included. The TSA evaluations suggested that this meta-analysis could draw firm negative results, and the data were sufficient. There was no evidence that the risk of 30-day mortality differed between the patients assigned to a restrictive blood cell transfusion strategy and a liberal transfusion strategy (odds ratio (OR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.24; p = 0.87). Furthermore, the study suggested that the restrictive transfusion strategy was not associated with significant increases in pulmonary morbidity (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.34; p = 0.44), postoperative infection (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.3; p = 0.58), acute kidney injury (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.14; p = 0.71), acute myocardial infarction (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.27; p = 0.78), or cerebrovascular accidents (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.30; p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS:Our meta-analysis demonstrates that the restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy was not inferior to the liberal strategy with respect to 30-day mortality, pulmonary morbidity, postoperative infection, cerebrovascular accidents, acute kidney injury, or acute myocardial infarction, and fewer red blood cells were transfused.