RESUMO
AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis sought i) to provide an overview of the incidence of delirium following open cardiac surgery and ii) to investigate how incidences of delirium are associated with different assessment tools. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic search of studies investigating delirium following open cardiac surgery were conducted in Medline (Ovid), EMBASE, PsycINFO, CiNAHL and the Cochrane Database. Only studies with patients diagnosed or screened with a validated tool were included. Studies published from 2005 to 2021 were included in the meta-analysis.Of 7,126 individual studies retrieved, 106 met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, hereof 31% of high quality. The weighted pooled incidence of delirium following open cardiac surgery across all studies was 23% (95% CI 20-26%), however we found a considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 99%), which could not be explained by subgroups or further sensitivity analyses. The most commonly applied screening tool for delirium is CAM/CAM-ICU. The lowest estimates of delirium were found by applying the Delirium Observation Scale (incidence 14%, 95% CI 8-20%), and the highest estimates in studies using "other" screening tools (Organic Brain Symptom Scale, Delirium Symptom Interview) pooled incidence of 43%, (95% CI 19 - 66%), however, only two studies applied these. CONCLUSION: Delirium following open cardiac surgery remains a complication with a high incidence of overall 23%, when applying a validated tool for screening or diagnosis. Nevertheless, this systematic review and meta-analyses highlight the significant inconsistency in current evidence regarding assessment tools and regimens. REGISTRATION: Prospero CRD42020215519.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: A paradoxical protective effect of diabetes on the development and progression of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) has been known for years. This study aimed to investigate whether the protective role of diabetes on AAAs has evolved over the years. METHODS: A cross-sectional study, a systematic review and meta-analysis. This study was based on two large, population-based, randomised screening trials of men aged 65-74; VIVA (2008-2011) and DANCAVAS (2014-2018), including measurement of the abdominal aorta by ultrasound or CT, respectively. Analyses were performed using multiple logistic regressions to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) for AAAs in men with diabetes compared to those not having diabetes. Moreover, a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based screening studies of AAAs to visualise a potential change of the association between diabetes and AAAs. Studies reporting only on women or Asian populations were excluded. RESULTS: In VIVA, the prevalence of AAA was 3.3%, crude OR for AAA in men with diabetes 1.04 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.80-1.34), and adjusted OR 0.64 (CI 0.48-0.84). In DANCAVAS, the prevalence of AAA was 4.2%, crude OR 1.44 (CI 1.11-1.87), and adjusted OR 0.78 (CI 0.59-1.04). Twenty-three studies were identified for the meta-analysis (N = 224 766). The overall crude OR was 0.90 (CI 0.77-1.05) before 2000 and 1.16 (CI 1.03-1.30) after 1999. The overall adjusted OR was 0.63 (CI 0.59-0.69) before 2000 and 0.69 (CI 0.57-0.84) after 1999. CONCLUSION: Both the crude and adjusted OR showed a statistically non-significant trend towards an increased risk of AAA by the presence of diabetes. If this represents an actual trend, it could be due to a change in the diabetes population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DANCAVAS: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN12157806. VIVA: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00662480.
