Representation of Women in Randomized Trials in Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gaudino M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8475035 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Gender and ethnicity are factors affecting the incidence and severity of vascular disease as well as subsequent treatment outcomes. Although well studied in other fields, balanced enrollment of patients with relevant demographic characteristics in vascular surgery randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is not well known. This study describes the reporting of gender and ethnicity data in vascular surgery RCTs and analyzes whether these studies adequately represent our diverse patient population.We conducted a retrospective review of United States-based RCTs from 1983 through 2007 for three broadly defined vascular procedures: aortic aneurysm repair (AAR), carotid revascularization (CR), and lower extremity revascularization (LER). Included studies were examined for gender and ethnicity data, study parameters, funding source, and geographic region. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was analyzed to obtain group-specific procedure frequency as an estimate of procedure frequency in the general population.We reviewed 77 studies, and 52 met our inclusion criteria. Only 85% reported gender, and 21% reported ethnicity. Reporting of ethnicity was strongly associated with larger (>280 participants), multicenter, government-funded trials (P < .001 for all). Women are disproportionately under-represented in RCTs for all procedure categories (AAR, 9.0% vs 21.5%; CR, 30.0% vs 42.9%; LER, 22.4% vs 41.3%). Minorities are under-represented in AAR studies (6.0% vs 10.7%) and CR studies (6.9% vs 9.5%) but are over-represented in LER studies (26.0% vs 21.8%, P < .001 for all).Minority ethnicity and female gender are under-reported and under-represented in vascular surgery RCTs, particularly in small, non-government-funded and single-center trials. The generalizability of some trial results may not be applicable to these populations. Greater effort to enroll a balanced study population in RCTs may yield more broadly applicable results.
| S-EPMC2759770 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5139027 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5523764 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundInfluence of fish oil supplementation on postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) was inconsistent according to published clinical trials. The aim of the meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of perioperative fish oil supplementation on the incidence of POAF after cardiac surgery.MethodsPubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing perioperative fish oil supplementation for patients undergoing cardiac surgery were identified. Data concerning study design, patient characteristics, and outcomes were extracted. Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated using fixed or random effects models.ResultsEight RCTs involving 2687 patients were included. Perioperative supplementation of fish oil did not significantly reduce the incidence of POAF (RR?=?0.86, 95%CI 0.71 to 1.03, p?=?0.11) or length of hospitalization after surgery (WMD?=?0.10 days, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.67 days, p?=?0.75). Fish oil supplementation also did not affect the perioperative mortality, incidence of major bleeding or the length of stay in the intensive care unit. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses indicated mean DHA dose in the supplements may be a potential modifier for the effects of fish oil for POAF. For supplements with DHA >1 g/d, fish oil significantly reduced the incidence of POAF; while it did not for the supplements with a lower dose of DHA.ConclusionsCurrent evidence did not support a preventative role of fish oil for POAF. However, relative amounts of DHA and EPA in fish oil may be important for the prevention of POAF.
| S-EPMC3769383 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPostoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is one of the most common complications after cardiac surgery. Patients who develop POAF have a prolonged stay in the intensive care unit and hospital and an increased risk of postoperative stroke. Many guidelines for the management of cardiac surgery patients, therefore, recommend perioperative administration of beta-blockers to prevent and treat POAF. Landiolol is an ultra-short acting beta-blocker, and some randomized controlled trials of landiolol administration for the prevention of POAF have been conducted in Japan. This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of landiolol administration for the prevention of POAF after cardiac surgery.MethodsThe Medline/PubMed and BioMed Central databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing cardiac surgery patients who received perioperative landiolol with a control group (saline administration, no drug administration, or other treatment). Two independent reviewers selected the studies for inclusion. Data regarding POAF and safety outcomes were extracted. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method (fixed effects model).ResultsSix trials with a total of 560 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Landiolol administration significantly reduced the incidence of POAF after cardiac surgery (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17-0.40). The effectiveness of landiolol administration was similar in three groups: all patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17-0.43), patients who underwent CABG compared with a control group who received saline or nothing (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17-0.45), and all patients who underwent cardiac surgery compared with a control group who received saline or nothing (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17-0.42). Only two adverse events associated with landiolol administration were observed (2/302, 0.7%): hypotension in one patient and asthma in one patient.ConclusionLandiolol administration reduces the incidence of POAF after cardiac surgery and is well tolerated.
| S-EPMC4003343 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe effects of perioperative statin therapy on clinical outcome after cardiac or non-cardiac surgery are controversial. We aimed to assess the association between perioperative statin therapy and postoperative outcome.MethodsElectronic databases were searched up to May 1, 2018, for randomized controlled trials of perioperative statin therapy versus placebo or no treatment in adult cardiac or non-cardiac surgery. Postoperative outcomes were: myocardial infarction, stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), and mortality. We calculated risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using fixed-effects meta-analyses. We performed meta-regression and subgroup analyses to assess the possible influence of statin therapy regimen on clinical outcomes and trial sequential analysis to evaluate the risk of random errors and futility.ResultsWe included data from 35 RCTs involving 8200 patients. Perioperative statin therapy was associated with lower incidence of postoperative myocardial infarction in non-cardiac surgery (OR = 0.44 [95% CI 0.30-0.64], p < 0.0001), but not in cardiac surgery (OR = 0.93 [95% CI 0.70-1.24], p = 0.61) (psubgroup = 0.002). Higher incidence of AKI was present in cardiac surgery patients receiving perioperative statins (RR = 1.15 [95% CI 1.00-1.31], p = 0.05), nonetheless not in non-cardiac surgery (RR = 1.52 [95% CI 0.71-3.26], p = 0.28) (psubgroup = 0.47). No difference in postoperative stroke and mortality was present in either cardiac or non-cardiac surgery. However, low risk of bias trials performed in cardiac surgery showed a higher mortality with statins versus placebo (OR = 3.71 [95% CI 1.03-13.34], p = 0.04). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses failed to find possible relationships between length of statin regimens and clinical outcomes. Trial sequential analysis suggested no firm conclusions on the topic.ConclusionsPerioperative statins appear to be protective against postoperative myocardial infarction in non-cardiac surgery and associated with higher AKI in cardiac surgery. Possible positive or even negative effects on mortality could not be excluded and merits further investigations. Currently, no randomized evidence supports the systematic administration of statins in surgical patients.
| S-EPMC6160380 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe role of dexmedetomidine in preventing postoperative delirium (POD) after cardiac surgery remains controversial because of several recent trials with negative results. We aimed to perform an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to clarify this controversy.MethodsRCTs investigating the perioperative administration of dexmedetomidine in cardiac surgery were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library until August,27,2020. Two researchers independently screened the literature, collected the data and evaluated the bias risk of the included studies. The meta-analysis was performed with the RevMan 5.3.ResultsA total of 15 studies including 2813 patients were included in the study. A pooled result showed that dexmedetomidine could reduce the risk of POD in adult population underwent cardiac surgery (OR 0.56, 95%CI 0.36-0.89, P = 0.0004, I2 = 64%). The subgroup analysis demonstrated that the protective effect of dexmedetomidine was only present in the patients injected with dexmedetomidine after surgery but not from the start of surgery, in the adult patients without specific age limitation but not in the elderly, and in the studies in comparison with other sedatives but not with placebo. There were no statistical differences when analyzing the secondary outcomes including hypotension (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.54-2.37, P < 0.00001, I2 = 85%), bradycardia (OR 1.72; 95% CI 0.84-3.53, P = 0.04, I2 = 58%) and atrial fibrillation (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.70-1.08, P = 0.43, I2 = 0).ConclusionsDexmedetomidine can reduce the incidence of POD compared to other sedatives and opioids after cardiac surgery in adult patients. The proper population and timing for perioperative use of dexmedetomidine after cardiac surgery remain to be further investigated.
| S-EPMC8130348 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6508704 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPosterior pericardiotomy (PP) has been shown to reduce the incidence of pericardial effusion and postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after cardiac surgery. However, the procedure and the totality of its effects are poorly known in the cardiac surgery community. We performed a study-level meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the impact of PP in cardiac surgery patients.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted on three medical databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Library) to identify RCTs reporting outcomes of patients that received a PP or no intervention after cardiac surgery. The primary outcome was the incidence of POAF. Key secondary outcomes were operative mortality, incidence of pericardial and pleural effusion, cardiac tamponade, length of stay (LOS), pulmonary complications, amount of chest drainage, need for intra-aortic balloon pump, and re-exploration for bleeding.ResultsEighteen RCTs totaling 3,531 patients were included. PP was associated with a significantly lower incidence of POAF (odds ratio [OR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-0.64, P < 0.0001), early (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.10-0.34, P < 0.0001) and late pericardial effusion (incidence rate ratio 0.13, 95% CI 0.06-0.29, P < 0.0001), and cardiac tamponade (risk difference -0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.01, P = 0.001). PP was associated with a higher incidence of pleural effusion (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.06-1.90, P = 0.02), but not pulmonary complications (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.56-1.19; P = 0.38). No differences in other outcomes, including operative mortality, were found.ConclusionsPP is a safe and effective intervention that significantly decreases the incidence of POAF and pericardial effusion following cardiac surgery.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=261485, identifier: CRD42021261485.
| S-EPMC9816139 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10711410 | biostudies-literature