Safety and effectiveness of adding fentanyl or sufentanil to spinal anesthesia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract Introduction Spinal infusions of either fentanyl or sufentanil have been reported in international reports, articles, and scientific events worldwide. This study aimed to determine whether intrathecal fentanyl or sufentanil offers safety in mortality and perioperative adverse events. Methods MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, CENTRAL (Cochrane library databases), gray literature, hand-searching, and clinicaltrials.gov were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials with no language, data, or status restrictions were included, comparing the effectiveness and safety of adding spinal lipophilic opioid to local anesthetics (LAs). Data were pooled using the random-effects models or fixed-effect models based on heterogeneity. Results The initial search retrieved 4469 records; 3241 records were eligible, and 3152 articles were excluded after reading titles and abstracts, with a high agreement rate (98.6%). After reading the full texts, 76 articles remained. Spinal fentanyl and sufentanil significantly reduced postoperative pain and opioid consumption, increased analgesia and pruritus. Fentanyl, but not sufentanil, significantly reduced both postoperative nausea and vomiting, and postoperative shivering; compared to LAs alone. The analyzed studies did not report any case of in-hospital mortality related to spinal lipophilic opioids. The rate of respiratory depression was 0.7% and 0.8% when spinal fentanyl or sufentanil was added and when it was not, respectively. Episodes of respiratory depression were rare, uneventful, occurred intraoperatively, and were easily manageable. Conclusion There is moderate to high quality certainty that there is evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of adding lipophilic opioids to LAs in spinal anesthesia.

Safety and effectiveness of adding fentanyl or sufentanil to spinal anesthesia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal infusions of either fentanyl or sufentanil have been reported in international reports, articles, and scientific events worldwide. This study aimed to determine whether intrathecal fentanyl or sufentanil offers safety in mortality and perioperative adverse events. METHODS: MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, CENTRAL (Cochrane library databases), gray literature, hand-searching, and clinicaltrials.gov were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials with no language, data, or status restrictions were included, comparing the effectiveness and safety of adding spinal lipophilic opioid to local anesthetics (LAs). Data were pooled using the random-effects models or fixed-effect models based on heterogeneity. RESULTS: The initial search retrieved 4469 records; 3241 records were eligible, and 3152 articles were excluded after reading titles and abstracts, with a high agreement rate (98.6%). After reading the full texts, 76 articles remained. Spinal fentanyl and sufentanil significantly reduced postoperative pain and opioid consumption, increased analgesia and pruritus. Fentanyl, but not sufentanil, significantly reduced both postoperative nausea and vomiting, and postoperative shivering; compared to LAs alone. The analyzed studies did not report any case of in-hospital mortality related to spinal lipophilic opioids. The rate of respiratory depression was 0.7% and 0.8% when spinal fentanyl or sufentanil was added and when it was not, respectively. Episodes of respiratory depression were rare, uneventful, occurred intraoperatively, and were easily manageable. CONCLUSION: There is moderate to high quality certainty that there is evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of adding lipophilic opioids to LAs in spinal anesthesia.

Injection sclerotherapy for varicose veins.

BACKGROUND: Varicose veins are enlarged and tortuous veins, affecting up to one-third of the world's population. They can be a cause of chronic venous insufficiency, which is characterised by oedema, pigmentation, eczema, lipodermatosclerosis, atrophie blanche, and healed or active venous ulcers. Injection sclerotherapy (liquid or foam) is widely used for treatment of varicose veins aiming to transform the varicose veins into a fibrous cord. However, there is limited evidence regarding its effectiveness and safety, especially in patients with more severe disease. This is the second update of the review first published in 2002. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of injection sclerotherapy for the treatment of varicose veins. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, and LILACS databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries, on 20 July 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (including cluster-randomised trials and first phase cross-over studies) that used injection sclerotherapy for the treatment of varicose veins. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed, selected and extracted data. Disagreements were cross-checked by a third review author. We used Cochrane's Risk of bias tool to assess the risk of bias. The outcomes of interest were cosmetic appearance, complications, residual varicose veins, quality of life (QoL), persistence of symptoms, and recurrent varicose veins. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the worst-case-scenario for dichotomous data imputation for intention-to-treat analyses. For continuous outcomes, we used the 'last-observation-carried-forward' for data imputation if there was balanced loss to follow-up. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 new RCTs for this update, bringing the total to 28 studies involving 4278 participants. The studies differed in their design, and in which sclerotherapy method, agent or concentration was used. None of the included RCTs compared sclerotherapy to no intervention or to any pharmacological therapy. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded for risk of bias, low number of studies providing information for each outcome, low number of participants, clinical differences between the study participants, and wide CIs. Sclerotherapy versus placebo Foam sclerotherapy may improve cosmetic appearance as measured by IPR-V (independent photography review - visible varicose veins scores) compared to placebo (polidocanol 1%: mean difference (MD) -0.76, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.60; 2 studies, 223 participants; very low-certainty evidence); however, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) rates may be slightly increased in this intervention group (RR 5.10, 95% CI 1.30 to 20.01; 3 studies, 302 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Residual varicose vein rates may be decreased following polidocanol 1% compared to placebo (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.29; 2 studies, 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Following polidocanol 1% use, there may be a possible improvement in QoL as assessed using the VEINES-QOL/Sym questionnaire (MD 12.41, 95% CI 9.56 to 15.26; 3 studies, 299 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and possible improvement in varicose vein symptoms as assessed using the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) (MD -3.25, 95% CI -3.90 to -2.60; 2 studies, 223 participants; low-certainty evidence). Recurrent varicose veins were not reported for this comparison. Foam sclerotherapy versus foam sclerotherapy with different concentrations Three individual RCTs reported no evidence of a difference in cosmetic appearance after comparing different concentrations of the intervention; data could not be pooled for two of the three studies (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.47; 1 study, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there was no clear difference in rates of thromboembolic complications when comparing one foam concentration with another (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.41 to 5.33; 3 studies, 371 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Three RCTs investigating higher concentrations of polidocanol foam indicated the rate of residual varicose veins may be slightly decreased in the polidocanol 3% foam group compared to 1% (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.04; 3 studies, 371 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No clear improvement in QoL was detected. Two RCTs reported improved VCSS scores with increasing concentrations of foam. Persistence of symptoms were not reported for this comparison. There was no clear difference in recurrent varicose vein rates (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.32; 1 study, 148 participants; low-certainty evidence). Foam sclerotherapy versus liquid sclerotherapy One RCT reported on cosmetic appearance with no evidence of a difference between foam or liquid sclerotherapy (patient satisfaction scale MD 0.2, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.67; 1 study, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the RCTs investigated thromboembolic complications, QoL or persistence of symptoms. Six studies individually showed there may be a benefit to polidocanol 3% foam over liquid sclerotherapy in reducing residual varicose vein rate; pooling data from two studies showed a RR of 0.51, with 95% CI 0.41 to 0.65; 203 participants; very low-certainty evidence. One study reported no clear difference in recurrent varicose vein rates when comparing sodium tetradecyl sulphate (STS) foam or liquid (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.42; 1 study, 286 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sclerotherapy versus sclerotherapy with different substances Four RCTs compared sclerotherapy versus sclerotherapy with any other substance. We were unable to combine the data due to heterogeneity or assess the certainty of the evidence due to insufficient data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a very low to low-certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, sclerotherapy is an effective and safe treatment for varicose veins concerning cosmetic appearance, residual varicose veins, QoL, and persistence of symptoms. Rates of DVT may be slightly increased and there were no data concerning recurrent varicose veins. There was limited or no evidence for one concentration of foam compared to another; foam compared to liquid sclerotherapy; foam compared to any other substance; or one technique compared to another. There is a need for high-quality trials using standardised sclerosant doses, with clearly defined core outcome sets, and measurement time points to increase the certainty of the evidence.

Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review.

OBJECTIVES: A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardised minimum collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research in a specific area of health. Cochrane systematic reviews ('reviews') are rigorous reviews on health-related topics conducted under the auspices of Cochrane. This study examines the use of existing COS to inform the choice of outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews ('reviews') and investigates the views of the coordinating editors of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) on this topic. METHODS: A cohort of 100 recently published or updated Cochrane reviews were assessed for reference to a COS being used to inform the choice of outcomes for the review. Existing COS, published 2 or more years before the review publication, were then identified to assess how often a reviewer could have used a relevant COS if it was available. We asked 52 CRG coordinating editors about their involvement in COS development, how outcomes are selected for reviews in their CRG and their views of the advantages and challenges surrounding the standardisation of outcomes within their CRG. RESULTS: In the cohort of reviews from 2019, 40% (40/100) of reviewers noted problems due to outcome inconsistency across the included studies. In 7% (7/100) of reviews, a COS was referenced in relation to the choice of outcomes for the review. Relevant existing COS could be considered for a review update in 35% of the others (33/93). Most editors who responded (31/36, 86%) thought that COS should definitely or possibly be used to inform the choice of outcomes in a review. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviewers are continuing to note outcome heterogeneity but are starting to use COS to inform their reviews. There is potential for greater uptake of COS in Cochrane reviews.

Iniciativa COMET. Escolhendo desfechos em ensaios clínicos randomizados / Initiative COMET. Choosing outcomes in randomized controlled trials

Introdução: A escolha dos desfechos de um ensaio clínico é complexa e, muitas vezes, subjetiva. Muitas variáveis podem interferir no processo de escolha, aumentando a heterogeneidade clínica entre os ensaios clínicos que se propõem a avaliar uma mesma questão clínica, além de aumentar o risco de viés de relato e levar a custos desnecessários com desfechos de pouca relevância. Objetivos: Apresentar a iniciativa COMET (Core Outcomes Measures in Effectiveness Trials, ou, em português, Medidas de Desfechos Principais em Ensaios Clínicos de Efetividade) e discutir a importância desta base de dados de desfechos para a avaliação da efetividade de intervenções em saúde. Métodos: Estudo descritivo realizado na Disciplina de Medicina Baseada em Evidências da Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp). Resultados: A iniciativa COMET tem como objetivo identificar os desfechos mais relevantes para cada situação clínica e promover a sua disseminação. Por meio de uma base de dados, a iniciativa COMET disponibiliza os vários conjuntos de desfechos relevantes identificados. Esta base está disponível gratuitamente (http://www.comet-initiative.org/resources), ainda apenas na língua inglesa, para ser acessada por pesquisadores, gestores, profissionais da saúde e pacientes, e com o objetivo de orientar o processo de escolha dos desfechos de um ensaio clínico. Conclusão: A iniciativa COMET, por meio de sua base de dados, se apresenta como uma ferramenta útil para a definição dos desfechos mais relevantes em saúde, auxiliando o planejamento adequado de um ensaio clínico. Com a disseminação do uso desta base de dados, espera-se aumentar a homogeneidade entre os ensaios clínicos que avaliam uma mesma pergunta clínica, minimizar o risco de viés de relato seletivo dos desfechos e otimizar o uso de recursos no desenvolvimento de ensaios clínicos.

Análises econômicas em saúde. Estudo descritivo / Economic analysis in health. Descriptive study

Introdução: As avaliações econômicas são importantes para quantificar e comparar custos e consequências das alternativas disponíveis em saúde. Objetivos: Descrever as características e a utilidade dos principais tipos de estudos de análises econômicas. Métodos: Estudo descritivo e de análise crítica realizado na Disciplina de Medicina Baseada em Evidências da Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp). Resultados: Apresentamos características e exemplos dos principais tipos de análises econômicas em saúde, como análise de custo-utility, análise de custo-minimização, análise de custo-efetividade e análise de custo-benefício. Conclusão: Existem diferentes tipos de análise econômica, destinados a responder perguntas específicas, que precisam ser bem planejados e conduzidos para embasar a tomada de decisão de gestores e profissionais da saúde, tornando o processo mais explícito e objetivo.