Dataset Information

Guidelines on analgosedation, monitoring, and recovery time for flexible bronchoscopy: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients undergoing bronchoscopy in spontaneous breathing are prone to hypoxaemia and hypercapnia. Sedation, airway obstruction, and lung diseases impair respiration and gas exchange. The restitution of normal respiration takes place in the recovery room. Nonetheless, there is no evidence on the necessary observation time. We systematically reviewed current guidelines on bronchoscopy regarding sedation, monitoring and recovery.

Methods

This review was registered at the PROSPERO database (CRD42020197476). MEDLINE and awmf.org were double-searched for official guidelines, recommendation or consensus statements on bronchoscopy from 2010 to 2020. The PICO-process focussed on adults (Patients), bronchoscopy with maintained spontaneous breathing (Interventions), and recommendations regarding the intra- and postprocedural monitoring and sedation (O). The guideline quality was graded. A catalogue of 54 questions was answered. Strength of recommendation and evidence levels were recorded for each recommendation.

Results

Six guidelines on general bronchoscopy and three expert statements on special bronchoscopic procedures were identified. Four guidelines were evidence-based. Most guidelines recommend sedation to improve the patient's tolerance. Midazolam combined with an opioid is preferred. The standard monitoring consists of non-invasive blood pressure, and pulse oximetry, furthermore electrocardiogram in cardiac patients. Only one guideline discusses hypercapnia and capnometry, but without consensus. Two guidelines discuss a recovery time of two hours, but a recommendation was not given because of lack of evidence.

Conclusion

Evidence for most issues is low to moderate. Lung-diseased patients are not represented by current guidelines. Capnometry and recovery time lack evidence. More primary research in these fields is needed so that future guidelines may address these issues, too.

SUBMITTER: Strohleit D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8193886 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Scientific knowledge is in constant change. The flow of new information requires a frequent re-evaluation of the available research results. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are not exempted from this phenomenon and need to be kept updated to maintain the validity of their recommendations. The objective of our review is to systematically identify, describe and assess strategies for monitoring and updating CPGs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating one or more methods of updating (with or without monitoring) CPGs or recommendations. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library) from 1966 to June 2012. Additionally, we hand-searched reference lists of the included studies and the Guidelines International Network book of abstracts. If necessary, we contacted study authors to obtain additional information. RESULTS: We included a total of eight studies. Four evaluated if CPGs were out of date, three updated CPGs, and one continuously monitored and updated CPGs. The most detailed reported phase of the process was the identification of new evidence. As opposed to studies updating guidelines, studies evaluating if CPGs were out of date applied restricted searches. Only one study compared a restricted versus an exhaustive search suggesting that a restricted search is sufficient to assess recommendations' Validity. One study analyzed the survival time of CPGs and suggested that these should be reassessed every three years. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence about the optimal strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines. A restricted search is likely to be sufficient to monitor new evidence and assess the need to update, however, more information is needed about the timing and type of search. Only the exhaustive search strategy has been assessed for the update of CPGs. The development and evaluation of more efficient strategies is needed to improve the timeliness and reduce the burden of maintaining the validity of CPGs.