Dose-Response Study of Phenylephrine for Preventing Spinal-Induced Hypotension During Cesarean Delivery with Combined Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia Under the Effect of Prophylactic Intravenous Ondansetron.

Background: Ondansetron reduces the median effective dose (ED50) of prophylactic phenylephrine to prevent spinal-induced hypotension (SIH) during cesarean delivery. However, the exact dose response of phenylephrine in combination with prophylactic ondansetron for preventing SIH is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the dose-response of phenylephrine to prevent SIH in cesarean delivery when 4 mg of ondansetron was used as a preventive method. Methods: A total of 80 parturients were enrolled and divided randomly into four groups (n = 20 in each group) who received either 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, or 0.5 µg/kg/min of prophylactic phenylephrine. Ten minutes before the initiation of spinal induction, 4 mg prophylactic ondansetron was administered. The effective dose of prophylactic phenylephrine was defined as the dose required to prevent hypotension after the period of intrathecal injection and up to neonatal delivery. The ED50 and ED90 of prophylactic phenylephrine and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using probit analysis. Results: The ED50 and ED90 for prophylactic phenylephrine to prevent SIH were 0.25 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.30), and 0.45 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.59) µg/kg/min, respectively. No significant differences were observed in the side effects and neonatal outcomes between the four groups. Conclusion: The administration of 4 mg of prophylactic ondansetron was associated with an ED50 of 0.25 (95% CI, 0.15~0.30) and ED90 of 0.45 (95% CI, 0.39~0.59) µg/kg/min for phenylephrine to prevent SIH.

Exploring the Median Effective Dose of Ciprofol for Anesthesia Induction in Elderly Patients: Impact of Frailty on ED50.

Purpose: Explore the median effective dose of ciprofol for inducing loss of consciousness in elderly patients and investigate how frailty influences the ED50 of ciprofol in elderly patients. Patients and Methods: A total of 26 non-frail patients and 28 frail patients aged 65-78 years, with BMI ranging from 15 to 28 kg/m2, and classified as ASA grade II or III were selected. Patients were divided into two groups according to frailty: non-frail patients (CFS<4), frail patients (CFS≥4). With an initial dose of 0.3 mg/kg for elderly non-frail patients and 0.25 mg/kg for elderly frail patients, using the up-and-down Dixon method, and the next patient's dose was dependent on the previous patient's response. Demographic information, heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO2), mean blood pressure (MBP), and bispectral index (BIS) were recorded every 30 seconds, starting from the initiation of drug administration and continuing up to 3 minutes post-administration. Additionally, the total ciprofol dosage during induction, occurrences of hypotension, bradycardia, respiratory depression, and injection pain were recorded. Results: The calculated ED50 (95% confidence interval [CI]) and ED95 (95% CI) values for ciprofol-induced loss of consciousness were as follows: 0.267 mg/kg (95% CI 0.250-0.284) and 0.301 mg/kg (95% CI 0.284-0.397) for elderly non-frail patients; and 0.263 mg/kg (95% CI 0.244-0.281) and 0.302 mg/kg (95% CI 0.283-0.412) for elderly frail patients. Importantly, no patients reported intravenous injection pain, required treatment for hypotension, or experienced significant bradycardia. Conclusion: Frailty among elderly patients does not exert a notable impact on the median effective dose of ciprofol for anesthesia induction. Our findings suggest that anesthesiologists may forego the necessity of dosage adjustments when administering ciprofol for anesthesia induction in elderly frail patients.

Effect of Remimazolam- versus Propofol-Based Total Intravenous General Anesthesia on Intraoperative Hemodynamic Stability for Major Spine Surgery in the Prone Position: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background and Objectives: Remimazolam offers advantages over propofol in terms of hemodynamic stability. However, it remains unclear whether remimazolam-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) can reduce intraoperative hypotension compared to propofol-based TIVA, especially after prone positioning. In this study, we compared the effects of remimazolam- and propofol-based TIVA on intraoperative hemodynamic stability in patients undergoing surgery in the prone position. Materials and Methods: This study randomly assigned patients undergoing major spinal surgery in the prone position to the propofol or remimazolam group. Target-controlled infusion (2-3.5 µg/mL for induction and 2-3 µg/mL for maintenance) was used in the propofol group and continuous infusion (6 mg/kg/h for induction and 1-2 mg/kg/h for maintenance) was used in the remimazolam group; target-controlled infusion (3-5 ng/mL) of remifentanil was performed in both groups. The primary outcomes were the incidence of hypotensive episodes during the first hour after prone positioning. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of severe hypotension and the total amount of inotropic or vasopressor medication. Systolic and mean arterial pressure, heart rate, cardiac index and output, stroke volume, stroke volume variation, and pleth variability index were also evaluated. These variables were recorded per minute for the first 10 min after prone positioning, and every 10 min thereafter. Results: The study enrolled 94 patients (47 patients in each group). The incidence of hypotension or severe hypotension did not differ significantly between the two groups during the first hour after prone positioning. The total amount of ephedrine administered during the first hour after prone positioning was lesser (p = 0.020) and the mean arterial pressure during the initial 10 min after prone positioning was higher in the remimazolam group (p = 0.003). Conclusions: Our study uncovered no significant differences in the incidence of hypotension between remimazolam- and propofol-based TIVA in patients undergoing major spine surgery in prone position.

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for anesthesia induction in adult patients received elective surgeries: a meta­analysis.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is use widely used in anesthesia, known for its effectiveness, may lead to cardiopulmonary issues in some patients. Ciprofol has emerged as a possible alternative to propofol because it can achieve comparable effects to propofol while causing fewer adverse events at lower doses. However, no definitive conclusion has been reached yet. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol in adult patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anesthesia. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) to identify potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing ciprofol with propofol in general anesthesia until September 30, 2023. The efficacy outcomes encompassed induction success rate, time to onset of successful induction, time to disappearance of eyelash reflex, and overall estimate means in Bispectral Index (BIS). Safety outcomes were assessed through time to full alertness, incidence of hypotension, incidence of arrhythmia, and incidence of injection-site pain. Continuous variables were expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), and dichotomous variables were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 and STATA 14.0. The quality of the evidence was rated through the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS: A total of 712 patients from 6 RCTs were analyzed. Meta-analysis suggested that ciprofol was equivalent to propofol in terms of successful induction rate, time to onset of successful induction, time to disappearance of eyelash reflex, time to full alertness, and incidence of arrhythmia, while ciprofol was better than propofol in overall estimated mean in BIS (MD: -3.79, 95% CI: -4.57 to -3.01, p < 0.001), incidence of hypotension (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.94, p = 0.02), and incidence of injection-site pain (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.47, p < 0.001). All results were supported by moderate to high evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Ciprofol may be a promising alternative to propofol because it facilitates achieving a satisfactory anesthesia depth and results in fewer hypotension and injection-site pain. However, we still recommend conducting more studies with large-scale studies to validate our findings because only limited data were accumulated in this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023479767.

Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Intraoperative Hemodynamics and Blood Loss in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective Dexmedetomidine (Dex) is a highly selective α2 adrenoceptor agonist that reduces blood pressure and heart rate. However, its ability to provide stable hemodynamics and a clinically significant reduction in blood loss in spine surgery is still a matter of debate. This study aimed to investigate the effects of Dex on intraoperative hemodynamics and blood loss in patients undergoing spine surgery.Methods The Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to February 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including patients undergoing spine surgeries under general anaesthesia and comparing Dex and saline. A fixed- or random-effect model was used depending on heterogeneity.Results Twenty-one RCTs, including 1388 patients, were identified. Dex added the overall risk of intraoperative hypotension (odds ratio [OR]: 2.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24 - 3.58; P=0.006) and bradycardia (OR: 2.48; 95%CI: 1.57 - 3.93; P=0.0001). The use of a loading dose of Dex led to significantly increased risks of intraoperative hypotension (OR: 2.00; 95%CI: 1.06 - 3.79; P=0.03) and bradycardia (OR: 2.28; 95%CI: 1.42 - 3.66; P=0.0007). For patients receiving total intravenous anesthesia, there was an increased risk of hypotension (OR: 2.90; 95%CI: 1.24 - 6.82; P=0.01) and bradycardia (OR: 2.66; 95%CI: 1.53 - 4.61; P=0. 0005). For patients in the inhalation anesthesia group, only an increased risk of bradycardia (OR: 4.95; 95%CI: 1.41 - 17.37; P=0.01) was observed. No significant increase in the risk of hypotension and bradycardia was found in the combined intravenous-inhalation anesthesia group. The incidence of severe hypotension (OR: 2.57; 95%CI: 1.05 - 6.32; P=0.04), but not mild hypotension, was increased. Both mild (OR: 2.55; 95%CI: 1.06 - 6.15; P=0.04) and severe (OR: 2.45; 95%CI: 1.43 - 4.20; P=0.001) bradycardia were associated with a higher risk. The overall analyses did not reveal significant reduction in intraoperative blood loss. However, a significant decrease in blood loss was observed in total inhalation anesthesia subgroup (mean difference [MD]: -82.97; 95%CI: -109.04 - -56.90; P<0.001).Conclusions Dex increases the risks of intraoperative hypotension and bradycardia in major spine surgery. The administration of a loading dose of Dex and the utilization of various anesthesia maintenance methods may potentially impact hemodynamic stability and intraoperative blood loss.

Pharmacokinetics and exposure-safety relationship of ciprofol for sedation in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit.

Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a newly developed, highly selective γ-aminobutyric acid-A (GABAA) receptor potentiator that is recently approved for a new indication of sedation for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) in China. This analysis aimed to characterize the population pharmacokinetics (PopPKs) of ciprofol and evaluate the relationship of exposure with hypotension in mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU. A total of 462 subjects with 3918 concentration measurements from two clinical trials of mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU, four clinical trials of elective surgical patients, and six clinical trials of healthy subjects were used in the PopPK analysis. Exposure-safety relationship for hypotension was evaluated based on the data gathered from 112 subjects in two clinical trials of mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU. Ciprofol pharmacokinetics (PKs) was adequately described by a three-compartment linear disposition model with first-order elimination. Body weight, age, sex, blood sampling site (vein vs. arterial), study design (long-term infusion vs. short-term infusion), and patient population (ICU vs. non-ICU) were identified as statistically significant covariates on the PKs of ciprofol. Within the exposure range of the mechanically ventilated ICU patient population, no meaningful association was observed between ciprofol exposure and the incidence of hypotension. These results support the dosing regimen currently used in mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU.

Sacubitril/Valsartan-Related Hypotension in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved or Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension is a potential adverse effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but there are limited data regarding the predictors and implications of treatment-related hypotension in heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction. OBJECTIVES: We investigated predictors of treatment-associated hypotension, clinical outcomes after hypotension, and the relationship between left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and incidence of hypotension in the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial. METHODS: PARAGON-HF randomized patients with chronic HF (≥45%) to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. Following randomization, hypotension was defined as investigator-reported hypotension with a systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg. Predictors of hypotension were assessed using multivariable Cox models. Associations between hypotension and clinical outcomes were evaluated in time-updated Cox models. The relationship among treatment, LVEF, and incident rates of hypotension and clinical outcomes was estimated using Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 4,796 patients in PARAGON-HF, 637 (13%) experienced hypotension, more frequently in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (P < 0.001). Following documented hypotension, patients had higher risk of cardiovascular death and total HF hospitalizations (adjusted RR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.27-2.09; P < 0.001) and all-cause death (adjusted HR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.28-2.05; P < 0.001). LVEF modified the association between sacubitril/valsartan and risk of hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.019) such that patients with LVEF ≥60% experienced substantially higher treatment-related risks of hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: In PARAGON-HF, a higher LVEF was associated with an increased risk of hypotension in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. Because these subjects are also less likely to derive clinical benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, our data reinforce that the benefit/risk ratio favors the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with LVEF below normal, but not at higher LVEF. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

Adverse Drug Events Observed with the Newly Approved Remimazolam in Comparison to Propofol for General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Surgery: A Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Developments in anesthetic pharmacology have been aiming at minimizing physiological disturbance in addition to maintaining and improving titrateability, recovery profile, and patient experience. Remimazolam, a GABAAlpha receptor agonist, is a new intravenous anesthetic agent which has recently been approved for use. This analysis aimed to systematically compare the adverse drug events reported with the newly approved remimazolam in comparison to propofol for general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing surgery. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from 15 May to 20 December 2023 for relevant publications which compared the outcomes reported with the newly approved remimazolam versus propofol in patients undergoing surgery. Relevant reported adverse drug events were the endpoints of this study. The statistical analysis was carried out using the latest version of the RevMan software. Data analysis was represented by risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Sixteen studies with a total number of 1897 participants were included in this analysis; 1104 participants received remimazolam and 793 participants received propofol. The risks for hypotension (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.43-0.58; P = 0.00001), hypoxemia (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-0.99; P = 0.05), bradycardia (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36-0.78; P = 0.001), pain at injection site (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.56; P = 0.01), and total adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24-0.47; P = 0.00001) were significantly lower with remimazolam. However, no significant differences were observed in terms of postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66-1.46; P = 0.93), dizziness (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11-1.57; P = 0.20), psychiatric symptoms (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.45-2.67; P = 0.85), and respiratory depression (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.24-2.76; P = 0.74). CONCLUSION: Our current analysis showed that the newly approved remimazolam was apparently associated with significantly fewer adverse drug events in comparison to propofol for GA in patients undergoing surgery. Therefore, this new drug should be further studied and more research with larger population sizes should be carried out to confirm this hypothesis.

Safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs. midazolam in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for complex digestive endoscopy procedures, with the goal of offering comprehensive clinical evidence. METHODS: Following predefined inclusion criteria, five databases were systematically searched, with a focus on identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam during complex digestive endoscopy procedures. The statistical software Stata 15.1 was employed for meticulous data analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs were encompassed, involving a total of 1218 patients. In comparison to the midazolam group, dexmedetomidine administration was associated with a reduced risk of respiratory depression (RR=0.25, 95 %CI: 0.11-0.56) and hypoxemia (RR=0.22, 95 %CI: 0.12-0.39). Additionally, the dexmedetomidine group exhibited lower incidence rates of choking (RR=0.27, 95 %CI: 0.16-0.47), physical movement (RR=0.16, 95 %CI: 0.09-0.27), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR=0.56,95 %CI: 0.34-0.92). Patients and endoscopists in the dexmedetomidine group reported higher levels of satisfaction (patient satisfaction: SMD=0.73, 95 %CI: 0.26-1.21; endoscopist satisfaction: SMD=0.84, 95 %CI: 0.24-1.44). The incidence of hypotension and anesthesia recovery time did not significantly differ between the two groups (hypotension: RR=1.73,95 %CI:0.94-3.20; anesthesia recovery time: SMD=0.02, 95 %Cl: 0.44-0.49). It is noteworthy that the administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant increase in the incidence of bradycardia in patients. CONCLUSION: Compared to midazolam, dexmedetomidine exhibits a favorable safety profile for use in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy by significantly reducing the risk of respiratory depression and hypoxemia. Despite this, dexmedetomidine is associated with a higher incidence of bradycardia. These findings underscore the need for further research through larger, multi-center studies to thoroughly investigate dexmedetomidine's safety and efficacy.

The efficacy and safety of soluble guanylate cyclase modulation in patients with heart failure: a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) modulation has been scrutinized in several disease states including heart failure (HF). Recently, it was shown that an sGC modulator improved HF-related hospitalization significantly, though, there was no benefit related to mortality. Herein, a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for sGC modulation in HF patients was provided in agreement with the PRISMA statement. A total of 10 RCTs yielding 12 papers were included. There were 7526 patients with heart failure of each phenotype, 4253 in the sGC modulator group and 3273 in the placebo group. Use of sGC modulators in HF patients yielded no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality compared to placebo (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.88-1.08, p = 0.62). The use of sGC modulators was associated with a trend toward a considerable but non-significant increase in the incidence of SAEs (RR = 1.10, 95% CI 0.99-1.22, p = 0.07), as well as an increased incidence of hypotension and anemia. There was an overall neutral effect of sGC modulation on NT-proBNP levels, 6MWD and mortality, at a cost of slight increase in hypotension and anemia. Of note, the improvement in EQ-5D-based quality of life was significant. Hence, the benefit seems to be driven by distinctive domains of quality of life.

Efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol for curative endoscopic resection in colorectum: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Curative endoscopic resection is widely used to treat colonic polyps and early stage cancers. The anesthetic strategy commonly involves the use of propofol combined with a small dose of opioids for sedation. Adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events such as hypotension often occur when attempting to achieve the necessary level of sedation. Several studies have suggested its advantages owing to the anesthetic, analgesic, and sympathomimetic properties of esketamine. However, there are no reports on curative colorectal endoscopic resection. We designed this randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol for sedation in patients undergoing curative colorectal endoscopic resection. METHODS: A total of 166 patients who underwent curative colorectal endoscopic resection were randomly assigned to groups A (propofol + fentanyl) or E (propofol + esketamine). Ideal sedation was assessed using the MOAA/S scale and was achieved using TCI-propofol with different doses of fentanyl and esketamine. The propofol consumption and vasoactive drug dosages were recorded. Sedation-related times, adverse events, and satisfaction were recorded. RESULTS: Of the 160 patients, the total propofol consumption was significantly lower in group E (n = 81) (300 mg) than in group A (n = 79) (350 mg). Hypotension and bradycardia were significantly lower in Group E than in Group A. The groups showed no significant differences in other adverse events, induction time, recovery time, or patient or endoscopist satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Compared to fentanyl, esketamine helps decrease propofol consumption and increases cardiovascular stability during curative colorectal endoscopic resection in American Society of Anesthesiologists Class I-III patients without affecting anesthesia, patient and endoscopist satisfaction, or other adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( www.chictr.org.cn ; registration number: ChiCTR2300069014 on 03/03/2023).

Efficacy and safety of Ciprofol compared with Propofol during general anesthesia induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT).

BACKGROUND: Ciprofol, a newer entrant with similarities to propofol, has shown promise with a potentially improved safety profile, making it an attractive alternative for induction of general anesthesia. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared with propofol during general anesthesia induction. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Clinical Trial.gov, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to July 2023 to identify relevant studies. All statistical analyses were conducted using R statistical software version 4.1.2. RESULTS: Thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) encompassing a total of 1998 participants, were included in our analysis. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for postoperative hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Ciprofol is not inferior to Propofol in terms of its effectiveness in general anesthesia. Ciprofol emerges as a valuable alternative sedative with fewer side effects, especially reduced injection pain, when compared to Propofol. SUMMARY: Propofol, frequently utilized as an anesthetic, provides swift onset and quick recovery. However, it has drawbacks such as a narrow effective dosage range and a high occurrence of adverse effects, particularly pain upon injection. Ciprofol, a more recent drug with propofol-like properties, has demonstrated promise and may have an improved safety profile, making it a compelling alternative for inducing general anesthesia. This meta-analysis compared the safety and effectiveness of Ciprofol with Propofol for general anesthesia induction in a range of medical procedures, encompassing thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and 1998 individuals. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia. In conclusion, ciprofol is equally effective at inducing and maintaining general anesthesia as propofol. When compared to propofol, ciprofol is a better alternative sedative for operations including fiberoptic bronchoscopy, gynecological procedures, gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and elective surgeries because it has less adverse effects, most notably less painful injections.

Revisiting Cardiovascular Benefits of Blood Pressure Reduction in Primary and Secondary Prevention: Focus on Targets and Residual Risk-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses resurrected the debated statement "the lower, the better" following blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment. We investigated the benefits of BP-lowering treatment at different BP targets by prevention category. METHODS: The meta-analysis protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022379249). The database included 115 BP-lowering or comparison trials from patients with (n=241 089) or without (n=198 937) previous cardiovascular events. Prevention disease groups were stratified by in-treatment achieved BP, drug class versus placebo, and drug class versus other classes. Risk ratios and 95% CIs of major adverse cardiovascular events were calculated. RESULTS: Following a standard (10/5 mm Hg) BP reduction, major adverse cardiovascular event relative risk reductions were not different between prevention groups (primary, 25% [95% CI, 18%-31%]; secondary, 28% [95% CI, 20%-37%]). For achieved systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg, between 130 and 140 mm Hg, and <130 mm Hg (nadir, 125 mm Hg), (1) risk ratios of major adverse cardiovascular events and absolute risk reductions were not different between prevention groups across systolic BP strata, and (2) residual risk, though 4.1× greater in secondary than primary prevention, decreased in primary prevention from higher to lower systolic BP targets. The effect of separate drugs versus others on the primary outcome was not different between prevention groups. CONCLUSIONS: BP-lowering treatment benefits did not differ by prevention group to a nadir of 125 mm Hg for systolic BP. Although residual risk in secondary prevention is higher than in primary prevention, it gradually decreases at progressively lower systolic BP targets in primary prevention. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD42022379249.

Safety and Tolerability of Starting Aripiprazole Lauroxil With Aripiprazole Lauroxil NanoCrystal Dispersion in 1 Day Followed by Aripiprazole Lauroxil Every 2 Months Using Paliperidone Palmitate Monthly as an Active Control in Patients With Schizophrenia: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Aripiprazole lauroxil (AL) 1064 mg every 2 months following initiation using the AL NanoCrystal Dispersion formulation (ALNCD) plus 30-mg oral aripiprazole was efficacious and well tolerated in a 25-week, randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial in adults with acute schizophrenia. This post hoc analysis further characterized the safety of AL 1064 mg administered every 2 months and that of active control paliperidone palmitate (PP) 156 mg monthly based on occurrence, timing, and severity of adverse events (AEs) associated with antipsychotic medications.Methods: This study was conducted between November 2017 and March 2019. AL or PP was initiated during an inpatient stay of ≥ 2 weeks with transition to outpatient treatment thereafter. Rates of AEs of clinical interest, including injection site reactions (ISRs), motor AEs, sedation, hypotension, prolactin level increase, weight gain, and suicidal ideation/behavior, were summarized through weeks 4, 9, and 25 for each treatment.Results: Of 200 patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study treatment, 99 (49.5%) completed the study (AL, 57%; PP, 43%). Mean (SD) baseline Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total scores were 94.1 (9.04) and 94.6 (8.41) in the AL and PP treatment groups, respectively. AEs were reported by 69/99 (70%) patients administered AL and 72/101 (71%) administered PP; most AEs were mild or moderate in severity. ISRs (AL, 18.2%; PP, 26.7%) occurred primarily on days 1 and 8. All akathisia/restlessness AEs (AL, 10.1%; PP, 11.9%) occurred during the first 4 weeks; <10% of patients (either treatment) experienced hypotension, sedation, or suicidal ideation/behavior events. Weight gain of ≥ 7% from baseline occurred in 9.3% of AL- and 23.8% of PP-treated patients. Median prolactin concentrations changed by -4.60 and -3.55 ng/mL among AL-treated males and females, respectively, and did not exceed 2 times normal levels in any AL-treated patients. In PP-treated patients, changes were 21.20 and 80.40 ng/mL and concentrations exceeded 2 times normal in 38% and 88% of males and females, respectively.Conclusions: No new early- or late-emerging safety concerns were observed through 25 weeks of treatment with AL 1064 mg every 2 months following initiation using ALNCD plus 30-mg oral aripiprazole. Results were consistent with known safety profiles of AL and PP and support the safety of AL 1064 mg every 2 months initiated using ALNCD plus 30-mg oral aripiprazole.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03345979.

Immune-related cardiovascular toxicities of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in solid tumors: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to investigate the risk of cardiovascular toxicities related to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in solid tumors. Methods: A literature search was performed following the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) principles, and the study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data analysis was conducted using Review Manager version 5.4. Results: This meta-analysis included 69 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) divided into five groups based on the treatment regimens: PD-1/PD-L1 + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, PD-1/PD-L1 versus chemotherapy, PD-1/PD-L1 versus placebo, PD-1/PD-L1 + CTLA-4 versus PD-1/PD-L1 and PD-1/PD-L1 + CTLA-4 versus chemotherapy. Compared to chemotherapy treatment alone, PD-1/PD-L1 +chemotherapy significantly increased the risk of hypertension [all-grade (OR = 1.27, 95% CI [1.05, 1.53], p = 0.01); grade 3-5 (OR = 1.36, 95% CI [1.04, 1.79], p = 0.03)], hypotension [all-grade (OR = 2.03, 95% CI [1.19, 3.45], p = 0.009); grade 3-5 (OR = 3.60, 95% CI [1.22, 10.60], p = 0.02)], arrhythmia [all-grade (OR = 1.53, 95% CI [1.02, 2.30], p = 0.04); grade 3-5 (OR = 2.91, 95% CI [1.33, 6.39], p = 0.008)] and myocarditis [all-grade (OR = 2.42, 95% CI [1.06, 5.54], p = 0.04)]. The risk of all-grade hypotension (OR = 2.87, 95% CI [1.26, 6.55], p = 0.01) and all-grade arrhythmia (OR = 2.03, 95% CI [1.13, 3.64], p = 0.02) significantly increased when treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors compared to the placebo. The risks of cardiovascular toxicities are significantly higher with PD-1+CTLA-4 compared to PD-1 alone (OR = 2.02, 95% CI [1.12, 3.66], p = 0.02). Conclusion: PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor leads to an increased risk of cardiovascular toxicities, especially hypertension, hypotension, arrhythmia, and myocarditis.

Successful treatment of severe calcium channel blocker poisoning, new experience with the guidance of invasive hemodynamic monitoring in a 17-year-old girl: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Calcium channel blocker poisoning is one of the most lethal cardiac drugs overdoses. Calcium and high-dose insulin infusion are the first-line therapy for symptomatic patients, and Intralipid emulsion infusion is useful for refractory cases. CASE PRESENTATION: In this report, we describe a 17-year-old Iranian girl who took 250 mg of the drug for a suicidal attempt and presented with refractory hypotension and non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema treated successfully with the guidance of invasive hemodynamic parameters. CONCLUSION: For complicated cases, in addition to supportive care and adjuvant therapy such as high-dose insulin and Intralipid, it is mandatory to utilize advanced hemodynamic monitoring to treat hypotension in severe calcium channel blocker poisoning to guide the treatment.

Preoperative Renin-Angiotensin System Antagonists Intake and Blood Pressure Responses During Ambulatory Surgical Procedures: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence to inform the association between the intake of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and intraoperative blood pressure (BP) changes in an ambulatory surgery population. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent ambulatory surgery and were discharged on the same day or within 24 hours of their procedure were enrolled in this prospective cohort study. The primary outcome of the study was early intraoperative hypotension (first 15 minutes of induction). Secondary outcomes included any hypotension, BP variability, and recovery. Hypotension was defined as a decrease in systolic BP of >30% from baseline for ≥5 minutes or a mean BP of <55 mm Hg. Four exposure groups were compared (no antihypertensives, ACEI/ARB intake <10 hours before surgery, ACEI/ARB intake ≥10 hours before surgery, and other antihypertensives). RESULTS: Of the 537 participants, early hypotension was observed in 25% (n = 134), and any hypotension in 41.5% (n = 223). Early hypotension occurred in 30% (29 of 98) and 41% (17 of 41) with the intake of ACEI/ARBs <10 and ≥10 hours before surgery, respectively, compared to 30% (9 of 30) with other antihypertensives and 21% (79 of 368) with no antihypertensives ( P = .02). Those on antihypertensives also experienced any hypotension more frequently than those who were not on antihypertensives ( P < .001). After adjusting for age and baseline BP in a regression analysis, antihypertensive exposure groups were observed to be associated only with any intraoperative hypotension ( P = .012). In the ACEI/ARB subset, there was no evidence of an association between time since the last ACEI/ARB dose, and hypotension or minimum mean or systolic BP. Compared to normal baseline BP, BP ≥ 140/90 mm Hg increased the odds of early and any hypotension (odds ratio [OR], 3.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-7.1 and OR, 7.7; 95% CI, 3.7-14.9, respectively; P < .001). Intraoperative variability in systolic and diastolic BP demonstrated significant differences with age, baseline BP, and antihypertensive exposure group ( P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Early and any hypotension occurred more frequently in those on antihypertensives than those not on antihypertensives. Unadjusted associations between antihypertensive exposure and intraoperative hypotension were largely explained by baseline hypertension rather than the timing of ACEI/ARBs or type of antihypertensive exposure. Patients with hypertension and on treatment experience more intraoperative BP variability and should be monitored appropriately.

Adverse Events of Peripherally Administered Norepinephrine During Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative treatment of hypotension by intravenous administration of norepinephrine in a peripheral vein can lead to adverse events, for example, tissue necrosis. However, the incidence and severity of adverse events during perioperative administration are unknown. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study conducted at 3 Swedish hospitals from 2019 to 2022. A total of 1004 patients undergoing surgery, who met the criteria for perioperative peripheral norepinephrine administration, were included. The infusion site was inspected regularly. If swelling or paleness of skin was detected, the infusion site was changed to a different peripheral line. Systolic blood pressure and pulse frequency were monitored during the infusion time and defined as adverse events at >220 mm Hg and <40 beats•min -1 . In case of adverse events, patients were observed for up to 48 hours. The primary outcome was prevalence of extravasation, defined as swelling around the infusion site. Secondary outcomes were all types of adverse events and associations between predefined clinical variables and risk of adverse events. RESULTS: We observed 2.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4%-3.2%) extravasation of infusion and 0.9% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.7%) bradycardia. No cases of tissue necrosis or severe hypertension were detected. All adverse events had dissipated spontaneously within 48 hours. Proximal catheter placement was associated with more adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Extravasation of peripherally administrated norepinephrine in the perioperative period occurred at similar rates as in previous studies in critically ill patients. In our setting, where we regularly inspected the infusion site and shifted site in case of swelling or paleness of skin, we observed no case of severe adverse events. Given that severe adverse events were absent, the potential benefit of this preventive approach requires confirmation in a larger population.

Anaesthetic efficacy and postinduction hypotension with remimazolam compared with propofol: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Remimazolam, a short-acting benzodiazepine, may be used for induction and maintenance of total intravenous anaesthesia, but its role in the management of patients with multiple comorbidities remains unclear. In this phase 3 randomised controlled trial, we compared the anaesthetic efficacy and the incidence of postinduction hypotension during total intravenous anaesthesia with remimazolam vs. propofol. A total of 365 patients (ASA physical status 3 or 4) scheduled for elective surgery were assigned randomly to receive total intravenous anaesthesia with remimazolam (n = 270) or propofol (n = 95). Primary outcome was anaesthetic effect, quantified as the percentage of time with Narcotrend® Index values ≤ 60, during surgery (skin incision to last skin suture), with a non-inferiority margin of -10%. Secondary outcome was the incidence of postinduction hypotensive events. Mean (SD) percentage of time with Narcotrend Index values ≤ 60 during surgery across all patients receiving remimazolam (93% (20.7)) was non-inferior to propofol (99% (4.2)), mean difference (97.5%CI) -6.28% (-8.89-infinite); p = 0.003. Mean (SD) number of postinduction hypotension events was 62 (38.1) and 71 (41.1) for patients allocated to the remimazolam and propofol groups, respectively; p = 0.015. Noradrenaline administration events (requirement for a bolus and/or infusion) were also lower in patients allocated to remimazolam compared with propofol (14 (13.5) vs. 20 (14.6), respectively; p < 0.001). In conclusion, in patients who were ASA physical status 3 or 4, the anaesthetic effect of remimazolam was non-inferior to propofol.