Dataset Information

Impact of anesthetic agents on the amount of bleeding during dilatation and evacuation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Patients undergo dilatation and evacuation for abortion or miscarriage. However, bleeding is sometimes problematic. Despite reports on the association between volatile anesthetics and increased bleeding during the procedure, firm evidence is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects of volatile anesthetics and propofol on the amount of bleeding in patients undergoing dilatation and evacuation.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of four databases, namely PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), from their respective inception to April 2021. Moreover, we searched two trial registration sites. The inclusion criterion was randomized controlled trials of patients who underwent dilatation and evacuation under general anesthesia using volatile anesthetics or propofol. The primary outcome was the amount of perioperative bleeding. The mean difference of the bleeding was combined using a random-effects model. The I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. We assessed risk of bias with Cochrane domains. We controlled type I and II errors due to sparse data and repetitive testing with Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.

Results

Five studies were included in the systematic review. The amount of bleeding was compared in four studies and was higher in the volatile anesthetic group, with a mean difference of 164.7 ml (95% confidence interval, 43.6 to 285.7; p = 0.04). Heterogeneity was considerable, with an I2 value of 97%. Two studies evaluated the incidence of significant bleeding, which was significantly higher in the volatile anesthetic group (RR, 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-5.63; p = 0.04).

Conclusion

Choosing propofol over volatile anesthetics during dilatation and evacuation might reduce bleeding and the incidence of excessive bleeding. However, the quality of the evidence was very low. This necessitates further trials with a low risk of bias.

Trial registration

PROSPERO (CRD42019120873).

SUBMITTER: Lee HA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8694452 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceClinical studies of neurodevelopmental outcomes after anesthetic exposure have evaluated a range of outcomes with mixed results.ObjectiveTo examine via meta-analyses the associations between exposure to general anesthesia and domain-specific neurodevelopmental outcomes in children.Data sourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to August 31, 2021.Study selectionInclusion criteria were exposures to procedures requiring general anesthesia at younger than 18 years and evaluation of long-term neurodevelopmental function after exposure. Studies lacking unexposed controls or focused on children with major underlying comorbidities were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisExtracted variables included effect size; hazard, risk, or odds ratio; number of exposures; procedure type; major comorbidities; age of exposure and assessment; presence of unexposed controls; and study design. Studies were independently reviewed by 2 coders, and review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were standardized mean differences (SMD) for scores in the neurodevelopmental domains of academics, behavioral problems, cognition, executive function, general development, language, motor function, nonverbal reasoning, social cognition, and hazard and risk of neurodevelopmental disorder diagnoses.ResultsA total of 31 studies contributed data for meta-analysis. For each of the assessed neurodevelopmental domains, the numbers of children evaluated ranged from 571 to 63 315 exposed and 802 to 311 610 unexposed. Children with any exposure (single or multiple) had significantly worse behavioral problems scores, indicating more behavioral problems (SMD, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.18 to -0.02; P = .02), and worse scores in academics (SMD, -0.07; 95% CI -0.12 to -0.01; P = .02), cognition (SMD, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.00; P = .03), executive function (SMD, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.32 to -0.09; P < .001), general development (SMD, -0.08; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.02; P = .01), language (SMD, -0.08; 95% CI, -0.14 to -0.02; P = .01), motor function (SMD, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.21 to -0.02; P = .02), and nonverbal reasoning (SMD, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.27 to -0.02; P = .02). Higher incidences of neurodevelopmental disorder diagnoses were also reported (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.30; P < .001; risk ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.25 to 2.61; P = .002).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings support the hypothesis that associations between anesthetic exposure during childhood and subsequent neurodevelopmental deficits differ based on neurodevelopmental domain.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the comparative efficacy and safety of antithrombotic treatments (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban and vitamin K antagonists (VKA) at a standard adjusted dose (target international normalised ratio 2.0-3.0), acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), ASA and clopidogrel) for non-valvular atrial fibrillation and among subpopulations.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesA systematic literature search strategy was designed and carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and the grey literature including the websites of regulatory agencies and health technology assessment organisations for trials published in English from 1988 to January 2014.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials were selected for inclusion if they were published in English, included at least one antithrombotic treatment and involved patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation eligible to receive anticoagulant therapy.ResultsFor stroke or systemic embolism, dabigatran 150?mg and apixaban twice daily were associated with reductions relative to standard adjusted dose VKA, whereas low-dose ASA and the combination of clopidogrel plus low-dose ASA were associated with increases. Absolute risk reductions ranged from 6 fewer events per 1000 patients treated for dabigatran 150?mg twice daily to 15 more events for clopidogrel plus ASA. For major bleeding, edoxaban 30?mg daily, apixaban, edoxaban 60?mg daily and dabigatran 110?mg twice daily were associated with reductions compared to standard adjusted dose VKA. Absolute risk reductions with these agents ranged from 18 fewer per 1000 patients treated each year for edoxaban 30?mg daily to 24 more for medium dose ASA.ConclusionsCompared with standard adjusted dose VKA, new oral anticoagulants were associated with modest reductions in the absolute risk of stroke and major bleeding. People on antiplatelet drugs experienced more strokes compared with anticoagulant drugs without any reduction in bleeding risk. To fully elucidate the comparative benefits and harms of antithrombotic agents across the various subpopulations, rigorously conducted comparative studies or network meta-regression analyses of patient-level data are required.Systematic review registration numberPROSPERO registry-CRD42012002721.

Project description:Aim:To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the weekend effect on the mortality of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding(UGIB). Methods:The review protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration number: CRD42017073313) and was written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We conducted a search of the PUBMED, COCHRANE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases from inception to August 2017. All observational studies comparing mortality between UGIB patients with weekend versus weekday admissions were included. Articles that were published only in abstract form or not published in a peer-reviewed journal were excluded. The quality of articles was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We pooled results from the articles using random-effect models. Heterogeneity was evaluated by the chi-square-based Q-test and I2 test. To address heterogeneity, we performed sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Potential publication bias was assessed via funnel plot. Results:Eighteen observational cohort studies involving 1,232,083 study patients were included. Weekend admission was associated with significantly higher 30-day or in-hospital mortality in all studies (OR = 1.12, 95% CI [1.07-1.17], P < 0.00001). Increased in-hospital mortality was also associated with weekend admission (OR = 1.12, 95% CI [1.08-1.17], P < 0.00001). No significant difference in in-hospital mortality was observed between patients admitted with variceal bleeding during the weekend or on weekdays (OR = 0.99, 95% CI [0.91-1.08], P = 0.82); however, weekend admission was associated with a 15% increase in in-hospital mortality for patients with non-variceal bleeding (OR = 1.15, 95% CI [1.09-1.21], P < 0.00001). The time to endoscopy for weekday admission was significantly less than that obtained for weekend admission (MD = -2.50, 95% CI [-4.08--0.92], P = 0.002). Conclusions:The weekend effect is associated with increased mortality of UGIB patients, particularly in non-variceal bleeding. The timing of endoscopic intervention might be a factor that influences mortality of UGIB patients.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether corticosteroids are associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind, controlled trials comparing a corticosteroid to placebo for any medical condition or in healthy participants. Studies with steroids given either locally, as a single dose, or in crossover studies were excluded.Data sourcesLiterature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews between 1983 and 22 May 2013.Outcome measureOutcome measures were the occurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation. Predefined subgroup analyses were carried out for disease severity, use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or gastroprotective drugs, and history of peptic ulcer.Results159 studies (N=33?253) were included. In total, 804 (2.4%) patients had a gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation (2.9% and 2.0% for corticosteroids and placebo). Corticosteroids increased the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation by 40% (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66). The risk was increased for hospitalised patients (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66). For patients in ambulatory care, the increased risk was not statistically significant (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 6.34). Only 11 gastrointestinal bleeds or perforations occurred among 8651 patients in ambulatory care (0.13%). Increased risk was still present in subgroup analyses (studies with NSAID use excluded; OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.71, peptic ulcer as an exclusion criterion excluded; OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.78, and use of gastroprotective drugs excluded; OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.67).ConclusionsCorticosteroid use was associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation. The increased risk was statistically significant for hospitalised patients only. For patients in ambulatory care, the total occurrence of bleeding or perforation was very low, and the increased risk was not statistically significant.