Perioperative management of patients with asthma during elective surgery: A systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bayable SD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8473668 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundBody temperature is tightly regulated with hormonal and cellular metabolism for normal functioning; however perioperative hypothermia is common secondary to anesthesia and surgical exposure.Prevention and maintaining body temperature should be started 1-2hrs before induction of anesthesia, to do this both active and passive warming system are effective to prevent complications associated with perioperative hypothermia.MethodsThe aim of this systematic review is to develop a clear clinical practice protocol in prevention and management of perioperative hypothermia for elective adult surgical patients.The study is conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline 2020. After formulating clear criteria for the evidences to be included an appropriate method of searching was conducted by using the Pub Med, Google scholar and Cochrane library using the following MeSH terms: (inadvertent hypothermia AND anesthesia, hypothermia AND perioperative management and thermoregulation AND anesthesia) were used to draw evidences.After a reasonable amount of evidences were collected, appraisal and evaluation of study quality was based on WHO 2011 level of evidence and degree of recommendation. Final conclusions and recommendations are done by balancing the benefits and downsides of alternative management strategies for perioperative management of hypothermia.This systematic review registered with research registry unique identifying number (UIN) of "reviewregistry1253" in addition the overall AMSTAR 2 quality of this systematic review is moderate level.DiscussionPreserving a patient's body temperature during anesthesia and surgery is to minimize heat loss by reducing radiation and convection from the skin, evaporation from exposed surgical areas, and cooling caused by the introduction of cold intravenous fluids.ConclusionHypothermia is least monitored complication during anesthesia and surgery results cardiac abnormalities, impaired wound healing, increased surgical site infections, shivering and delayed postoperative recovery, and coagulopathies.
| S-EPMC8605381 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntithrombotic drugs increase the risk of bleeding, especially in patients who need urgent surgery without an adequate wash-out period. This review aims to evaluate perioperative bleeding complications in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) undergoing high-bleeding risk cardiovascular surgery and to present currently available potential solutions to mitigate antithrombotic therapy-related bleeding complications.MethodsAs a first step, we searched for relevant articles, over the last 10 years, in Medline (PubMed) and abstracted clinical information based on pre-defined criteria for bleeding complications. In the next step, an additional search evaluating potential solutions to mitigate bleeding complications was performed. The literature screening and selection process followed the principles derived from the PRISMA statement.ResultsFrom all reviewed studies, a total of 19 articles could be included evaluating the risk for bleeding in cardiac surgery related to DAPT or DOACs and 10 papers evaluating antithrombotic drug reversal or removal in the setting of cardiovascular surgery. Reported bleeding rates ranged between 18% and 41%. The variability of the reported data is remarkable. Idarucizumab is reported to provide optimal perioperative hemostasis in up to 93% of patients. It has been observed that andexanet alfa causes unresponsiveness to the anticoagulant effects of heparin. Antithrombotic removal by intraoperative hemoadsorption is found to be associated with a significant decrease in re-thoracotomy rate, overall procedure duration, administered transfusion volumes, chest-tube drainage, and length of hospitalization.DiscussionBleeding complications in patients treated with DAPT or DOACs in cardiac surgery are high. New costly reversal agents are available but have not been sufficiently tested in the cardio-surgical setting so far. Interestingly, bleeding-related complications seem to be effectively reduced by applying innovative intraoperative hemoadsorption techniques. Expected results from the ongoing trials should provide better insights concerning the efficacy and safety of several potential solutions. Currently, the variability of reports and the deficit of high-quality studies in this specific setting represent the major limitation for the unbiased conclusion of this review.
| S-EPMC9442533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThyrotoxicosis is a clinical syndrome produced by a multitude of disorders. Thyrotoxicosis is a serious medical condition that, if left untreated, can lead to a fatal illness. This review of recent evidences give additional input for perioperative management of thyrotoxic patients.MethodsThe literatures were found with Boolean operators in the form of thyrotoxicosis AND anesthesia, antithyroid medications AND perioperative optimization AND beta blockers OR calcium channel blockers in electronic data base sources such as the Cochrane library, PubMed, and Google scholar. This review was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement.Conclusionsand recommendations: Before surgery and anesthesia, manifestation of thyrotoxicosis including palpitation, irritability etc should be ruled out.
| S-EPMC9486717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The correct perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy (APT) in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (NCS) is often debated by clinicians. American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines recommend postponing elective NCS at least 3 months after stent implantation. Regardless of the timing of surgery, ACC/AHA guidelines recommend continuing at least ASA throughout the perioperative period and ideally continuing dual APT (DAPT) therapy "unless surgery demands discontinuation." The objective of this review was to ascertain the risks and benefits of APT in the perioperative period, to assess how these risks and benefits vary by APT management, and the significance of length of time since stent implantation before operative intervention. METHODS:PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception through October 2017. Articles were included if patients were post PCI with stent placement (bare metal [BMS] or drug eluting [DES]), underwent elective NCS, and had rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) or bleeding events associated with pre and perioperative APT therapy. RESULTS:Of 4882 screened articles, we included 16 studies in the review (1 randomized controlled trial and 15 observational studies). Studies were small (< 50: n = 5, 51-150: n = 5, >150: n = 6). All studies included DES with 7 of 16 also including BMS. Average time from stent to NCS was variable (< 6 months: n = 3, 6-12 months: n = 1, > 12 months: n = 6). At least six different APT strategies were described. Six studies further utilized bridging protocols using three different pharmacologic agents. Studies typically included multiple surgical fields with varying degrees of invasiveness. Across all APT strategies, rates of MACE/bleeding ranged from 0 to 21% and 0 to 22%. There was no visible trend in MACE/bleeding rates within a given APT strategy. Stratifying the articles by type of surgery, timing of discontinuation of APT therapy, bridging vs. no bridging, and time since stent placement did not help explain the heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS:Evidence regarding perioperative APT management in patients with cardiac stents undergoing NCS is insufficient to guide practice. Other clinical factors may have a greater impact than perioperative APT management on MACE and bleeding events. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42016036607.
| S-EPMC5763575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background The appropriate timing of surgery and perioperative management of patients with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection are open issues. The purpose of this document is to support the clinical decision-making process regarding the patient with previous Sars-CoV-2 infection to undergo elective surgery. The recipients of this document are physicians, nurses, healthcare personnel, and other professionals involved in the patient’s surgical process. Methods The Italian Society of Anesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) selected 11 experts to reach a consensus on key aspects of this theme in adult and pediatric population. The methods of this process document were in accordance to the principles of rapid review of the scientific literature and modified Delphi method. The experts produced statements and supporting reasons in the form of an informative text. The overall list of statements was subjected to a vote in order to express the degree of consent. Results Patients should not undergo elective surgery within 7 weeks of infection unless there is the risk of a negative evolution of the disease. To mitigate the risk of postsurgical mortality, a multidisciplinary approach seemed useful in addition to the use of validated algorithms to estimate the risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality; the risk related to SARS-CoV-2 infection should be added. The risk of potential nosocomial contagion from a positive patients should also be considered when deciding to proceed with surgery. Most of the evidence came from previous SARS-CoV-2 variants, so the evidence should be considered indirect. Conclusion A balanced preoperative multidisciplinary risk–benefit evaluation is needed in patients with previous infection by SARS-CoV-2 for elective surgery. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s44158-022-00058-3.
| S-EPMC9214464 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMachine learning (ML) is developing fast with promising prospects within medicine and already has several applications in perioperative care. We conducted a scoping review to examine the extent and potential limitations of ML implementation in perioperative anesthetic care, specifically in cardiac surgery patients.MethodsWe mapped the current literature by searching three databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and Cochrane Library. Articles were eligible if they reported on perioperative ML use in the field of cardiac surgery with relevance to anesthetic practices. Data on the applicability of ML and comparability to conventional statistical methods were extracted.ResultsForty-six articles on ML relevant to the work of the anesthesiologist in cardiac surgery were identified. Three main categories emerged: (I) event and risk prediction, (II) hemodynamic monitoring, and (III) automation of echocardiography. Prediction models based on ML tend to behave similarly to conventional statistical methods. Using dynamic hemodynamic or ultrasound data in ML models, however, shifts the potential to promising results.ConclusionsML in cardiac surgery is increasingly used in perioperative anesthetic management. The majority is used for prediction purposes similar to conventional clinical scores. Remarkable ML model performances are achieved when using real-time dynamic parameters. However, beneficial clinical outcomes of ML integration have yet to be determined. Nonetheless, the first steps introducing ML in perioperative anesthetic care for cardiac surgery have been taken.
| S-EPMC8743411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPerioperative diabetes management has become increasingly complex; management is often inconsistent resulting in dysglycaemia and associated morbidity.AimTo evaluate a structured pre-admission perioperative diabetes management plan (PDMP) for safe and appropriate recommendation, prescription and administration of diabetes medications in the perioperative period for people with diabetes undergoing elective, non-cardiac surgery.MethodsA multidisciplinary team developed the intervention, a structured PDMP (including diabetes medication reconciliation, management guide, individualised plan) to standardise optimal perioperative diabetes management. A single centre prospective pre- and post-intervention pilot study was performed, including all individuals with diabetes medications attending the pre-admissions clinic during two 4-month periods (February to May) in 2016 (control period) and 2017 (intervention period). The primary outcome was appropriate recommendation, prescription and administration of diabetes medications (including insulin), according to the PDMP, in the perioperative period. Secondary outcomes measures were glycaemia. Analysis was by intention to treat.ResultsControl and intervention groups included 131 and 133 participants, respectively; they were well matched in clinical characteristics. The PDMP was completed correctly in 100 (75%) individuals in the intervention group. The appropriate use of diabetes medications increased from 30% in the control group to 71% in the intervention group (p < 0.001). Following the PDMP implementations, glycaemia improved in the overall perioperative period (8.7 ± 2.9 vs. 9.8 ± 3.3 mmol/L, p = 0.005) and at all time points (from admission and over entire hospital stay).ConclusionA structured pre-admission perioperative diabetes management plan for elective surgery improved safe and appropriate diabetes medication use and glycaemia in the perioperative period.
| S-EPMC9325050 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGuidelines to treat anaemia with intravenous (IV) iron have focused on elective surgical patients with little attention paid to those undergoing non-elective/emergency surgery. Whilst these patients may experience poor outcomes because of their presenting illness, observational data suggests that untreated anaemia may also be a contributing factor to poor outcomes. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the safety and efficacy of IV iron in patients undergoing non-elective surgery.MethodsWe followed a pre-defined review protocol and included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients undergoing non-elective surgery who received IV iron. Primary outcomes were all-cause infection and mean difference in haemoglobin (Hb) at follow-up. Secondary outcomes included transfusion requirements, hospital length of stay (LOS), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mortality and adverse events.ResultsThree RCTs (605 participants) were included in this systematic review of which two, in both hip fracture (HF) patients, provided data for meta-analysis. Both of these RCTs were at low risk of bias. We found no evidence of a difference in the risk of infection (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.80, I 2 = 9%) or in the Hb concentration at 'short-term' (≤ 7 days) follow-up (mean difference - 0.32 g/L, 95% CI - 3.28 to 2.64, I 2 = 37%). IV iron did not reduce the risk of requiring a blood transfusion (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.11, p = 0.46, I 2 = 0%), and we observed no difference in mortality, LOS or adverse events. One RCT reported on HRQoL and found no difference between treatment arms.ConclusionWe found no conclusive evidence of an effect of IV iron on clinically important outcomes in patients undergoing non-elective surgery. Further adequately powered trials to evaluate its benefit in emergency surgical specialties with a high burden of anaemia are warranted.Trial registrationThis systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018096288).
| S-EPMC6290500 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10580163 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prehabilitation has emerged as a strategy to prepare patients for elective abdominal cancer surgery with documented improvements in postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the evidence for prehabilitation interventions of relevance to the older adult. Systematic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and PsychINFO. Studies of preoperative intervention (prehabilitation) in patients undergoing abdominal cancer surgery reporting postoperative outcomes were included. Age limits were not set as preliminary searches revealed this would be too restrictive. Articles were screened and selected based on PRISMA guidelines, and assessment of bias was performed. Qualitative, quantitative and meta-analyses of data were conducted as appropriate. Thirty-three studies (3962 patients) were included. Interventions included exercise, nutrition, psychological input, comprehensive geriatric assessment and optimization, smoking cessation and multimodal (two or more interventions). Nine studies purposely selected high-risk, frail or older patients. Thirty studies were at moderate or high risk of bias. Ten studies individually reported benefits in complication rates, with meta-analyses for overall complications demonstrating significant benefit: multimodal (risk difference -0·1 (95 per cent c.i. -0·18 to -0·02); P = 0·01, I2 = 18 per cent) and nutrition (risk difference -0·18 (-0·26 to -0·10); P < 0·001, I2 = 0 per cent). Seven studies reported reductions in length of hospital stay, with no differences on meta-analysis. The conclusions of this review are limited by the quality of the included studies, and the heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures reported. Exercise, nutritional and multimodal prehabilitation may reduce morbidity after abdominal surgery, but data specific to older patients are sparse.
| S-EPMC7709363 | biostudies-literature