Postoperative urinary retention (POUR): A narrative review.

Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) is defined as the inability to void in the presence of a full bladder after surgery. Complications include delirium, pain, prolonged hospitalization, and long-term altered bladder contractility. Comorbidities, type of surgery and anesthesia influence the development of POUR. The incidence varies between 5% and 70%. History and clinical examination, the need for bladder catheterization and ultrasonographic evaluation are three methods used to diagnose POUR. The prevention of POUR currently involves identifying patients with pre-operative risk factors and then modifying them where possible. Bladder catheterization is the standard treatment of POUR, however, further studies are necessary to establish patients who need a bladder catheter, bladder volume thresholds and duration of catheterization.

Remifentanil-induced hyperalgesia in healthy volunteers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: Recent literature suggests that the withdrawal of remifentanil (RF) infusion can be associated with hyperalgesia in clinical and nonclinical settings. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with cross-over design, to assess the effect of discontinuing RF infusion on pain intensity and areas of hyperalgesia and allodynia in healthy volunteers. Nine studies were included. The intervention treatment consisted in RF infusion that was compared with placebo (saline solution). The primary outcome was pain intensity assessment at 30 ± 15 minutes after RF or placebo discontinuation, assessed by any pain scale and using any quantitative sensory testing. Moreover, postwithdrawal pain scores were compared with baseline scores in each treatment. Secondary outcomes included the areas (% of basal values) of hyperalgesia and allodynia. Subjects during RF treatment reported higher pain scores after discontinuation than during treatment with placebo [standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.97; P = 0.04, I 2 = 71%]. A significant decrease in pain scores, compared with baseline values, was found in the placebo treatment (SMD: -0.87, 95% CI: -1.61 to -0.13; P = 0.02, I 2 = 87%), but not in the RF treatment (SMD: -0.28, 95% CI: -1.18 to 0.62; P = 0.54, I 2 = 91%). The area of hyperalgesia was larger after RF withdrawal (SMD: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.27-0.84; P = 0.001; I 2 = 0%). The area of allodynia did not vary between treatments. These findings suggest that the withdrawal of RF induces a mild but nonclinically relevant degree of hyperalgesia in HVs, likely linked to a reduced pain threshold.

Efficacy and Safety of Prothrombin Complex Concentrates in Liver Transplantation: Evidence from Observational Studies.

The risk/benefit ratio of using prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) to correct coagulation defects in patients with end-stage liver disease is still unclear. The primary aim of this review was to assess the clinical effectiveness of PCCs in reducing transfusion requirements in patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT). This systematic review of non-randomized clinical trials was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The protocol was previously registered (PROSPERO:CRD42022357627). The primary outcome was the mean number of transfused units for each blood product, including red blood cells (RBCs), fresh frozen plasma, platelets, and cryoprecipitate. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of arterial thrombosis, acute kidney injury, and haemodialysis, and hospital and intensive care unit length of stay. There were 638 patients from 4 studies considered for meta-analysis. PCC use did not affect blood product transfusions. Sensitivity analysis, including only four-factor PCC, showed a significant reduction of RBC effect size (MD: 2.06; 95%CI: 1.27-2.84) with no true heterogeneity. No significant differences in secondary outcomes were detected. Preliminary evidence indicated a lack of PCC efficacy in reducing blood product transfusions during LT, but further investigation is needed. In particular, future studies should be tailored to establish if LT patients will likely benefit from four-factor PCC therapy.

Viscoelastic versus conventional coagulation tests to reduce blood product transfusion in patients undergoing liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recent literature suggests viscoelastic test (VET)-guided transfusion management could be associated with reduced blood product administration in patients undergoing liver transplantation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of coagulation management guided by VETs compared with conventional coagulation tests (CCTs) in reducing blood product transfusion in patients undergoing liver transplantation. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised (RCTs) and nonrandomised clinical trials performed according to PRISMA guidelines. The protocol was previously published (PROSPERO: CRD42021230213). DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Central Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and the Transfusion Evidence Library were searched up to 30 th January 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Setting: operating room. Patients: liver transplantation recipients. Intervention: use of VETs versus CCTs. Main outcome measures: the primary outcome was the mean number of transfused units for each blood product including red blood cells (RBCs), fresh frozen plasma (FFP), platelets (PLTs) and cryoprecipitate. Secondary outcomes included mortality rate, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Seventeen studies ( n  = 5345 patients), 15 observational and two RCTs, were included in this review. There was a mean difference reduction in RBCs [mean difference: -1.40, 95% confidence interval (95% CI), -1.87 to -0.92; P  < 0.001, I2  = 61%) and FFP units (mean difference: -2.98, 95% CI, -4.61 to -1.35; P  =  < 0.001; I2  = 98%) transfused in the VETs group compared with the CCTs one. A greater amount of cryoprecipitate was administered in the VETs group (mean difference: 2.71, 95% CI, 0.84 to 4.58; P  = 0.005; I2  = 91%). There was no significant difference in the mean number of PLT units, mortality, hospital and ICU-LOS. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that VETs implementation was associated with reduced RBC and FFP consumption in liver transplantation patients without effects on mortality and hospital and ICU-LOS. The certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Further well conducted RCTs are needed to improve the certainty of evidence.

Comparative effects of pharmacological interventions for the acute and long-term management of insomnia disorder in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural, cognitive, and pharmacological interventions can all be effective for insomnia. However, because of inadequate resources, medications are more frequently used worldwide. We aimed to estimate the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the acute and long-term treatment of adults with insomnia disorder. METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and websites of regulatory agencies from database inception to Nov 25, 2021, to identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. We included studies comparing pharmacological treatments or placebo as monotherapy for the treatment of adults (≥18 year) with insomnia disorder. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (ie, quality of sleep measured by any self-rated scale), treatment discontinuation for any reason and due to side-effects specifically, and safety (ie, number of patients with at least one adverse event) both for acute and long-term treatment. We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PU4QJ. FINDINGS: We included 170 trials (36 interventions and 47 950 participants) in the systematic review and 154 double-blind, randomised controlled trials (30 interventions and 44 089 participants) were eligible for the network meta-analysis. In terms of acute treatment, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than placebo (SMD range: 0·36-0·83 [CINeMA estimates of certainty: high to moderate]). Benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD 0·27-0·71 [moderate to very low]). Intermediate-acting benzodiazepines, long-acting benzodiazepines, and eszopiclone had fewer discontinuations due to any cause than ramelteon (OR 0·72 [95% CI 0·52-0·99; moderate], 0·70 [0·51-0·95; moderate] and 0·71 [0·52-0·98; moderate], respectively). Zopiclone and zolpidem caused more dropouts due to adverse events than did placebo (zopiclone: OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·28-3·13; very low]; zolpidem: 1·79 [1·25-2·50; moderate]); and zopiclone caused more dropouts than did eszopiclone (OR 1·82 [95% CI 1·01-3·33; low]), daridorexant (3·45 [1·41-8·33; low), and suvorexant (3·13 [1·47-6·67; low]). For the number of individuals with side-effects at study endpoint, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were worse than placebo, doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon (OR range 1·27-2·78 [high to very low]). For long-term treatment, eszopiclone and lemborexant were more effective than placebo (eszopiclone: SMD 0·63 [95% CI 0·36-0·90; very low]; lemborexant: 0·41 [0·04-0·78; very low]) and eszopiclone was more effective than ramelteon (0.63 [0·16-1·10; very low]) and zolpidem (0·60 [0·00-1·20; very low]). Compared with ramelteon, eszopiclone and zolpidem had a lower rate of all-cause discontinuations (eszopiclone: OR 0·43 [95% CI 0·20-0·93; very low]; zolpidem: 0·43 [0·19-0·95; very low]); however, zolpidem was associated with a higher number of dropouts due to side-effects than placebo (OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·11-3·70; very low]). INTERPRETATION: Overall, eszopiclone and lemborexant had a favorable profile, but eszopiclone might cause substantial adverse events and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive. Doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon were well tolerated, but data on efficacy and other important outcomes were scarce and do not allow firm conclusions. Many licensed drugs (including benzodiazepines, daridorexant, suvorexant, and trazodone) can be effective in the acute treatment of insomnia but are associated with poor tolerability, or information about long-term effects is not available. Melatonin, ramelteon, and non-licensed drugs did not show overall material benefits. These results should serve evidence-based clinical practice. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacological Interventions for Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.

Cognitive decline after carotid endarterectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative cognitive decline (pCD) occurs frequently (6 to 30%) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), although there are no exact estimates and risk factors are still unclear. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine pCD incidence and risk factors in CEA patients. DESIGN: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of both randomised and nonrandomised trials following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: We searched Cochrane, PubMed/Medline and Embase databases from the date of database inception to 1 December 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We selected longitudinal studies including CEA patients with both pre-operative and postoperative cognitive assessments. Primary outcome was pCD incidence, differentiating delayed neurocognitive recovery (dNCR) and postoperative neurocognitive disorder (pNCD). dNCR and pNCD incidences were expressed as proportions of cases on total CEA sample and pooled as weighted estimates from proportions. Postoperative delirium was excluded from the study design. Secondary outcomes were patient-related (i.e. age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, contralateral stenosis, pre-operative symptoms, dyslipidaemia and statin use) and procedure-related (i.e. hyperperfusion, cross-clamping duration and shunting placement) risk factors for pCD. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences through a random effects model by using STATA 13.1 and RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: Our search identified 5311 publications and 60 studies met inclusion criteria reporting a total of 4823 CEA patients. dNCR and pNCD incidence were 20.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 17.1 to 24.0] and 14.1% (95% CI, 9.5 to 18.6), respectively. pCD risk was higher in patients experiencing hyperperfusion during surgery (OR, 35.68; 95% CI, 16.64 to 76.51; P < 0.00001; I = 0%), whereas dNCR risk was lower in patients taking statins before surgery (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.77; P = 0.0004; I = 19%). Sensitivity analysis revealed that longer cross-clamping duration was a predictor for dNCR (mean difference, 5.25 min; 95% CI, 0.87 to 9.63; P = 0.02; I = 49%). CONCLUSION: We found high incidences of dNCR (20.5%) and pNCD (14.1%) after CEA. Hyperperfusion seems to be a risk factor for pCD, whereas the use of statins is associated with a lower risk of dNCR. An increased cross-clamping duration could be a risk factor for dNCR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CDR42017073633).

Prevalence of Non-Affective Psychoses in Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review.

Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and non-affective psychoses such as schizophrenia are commonly acknowledged as discrete entities. Previous research has revealed evidence of high comorbidity between these conditions, but their differential diagnosis proves difficult in routine clinical practice due to the similarities between core symptoms of each disorder. The prevalence of comorbid non-affective psychoses in individuals with ASD is uncertain, with studies reporting rates ranging from 0% to 61.5%. We therefore performed a systematic review and pooled analysis of the available studies reporting the prevalence of non-affective psychosis in ASD. Fourteen studies, including a total of 1708 participants, were included, with a weighted pooled prevalence assessed at 9.5% (95% CI 2.6 to 16.0). In view of significant heterogeneity amongst the studies, subgroup analyses were conducted. We observed higher prevalence of non-affective psychoses among ASD inpatients versus outpatients, when operationalised criteria were used, and in studies with smaller sample sizes, whereas the figures were comparable between children and adults with ASD. Our results suggest that future studies involving larger samples should implement both operationalized criteria and specific scales for the assessment of psychotic symptoms in individuals with ASD. A deeper understanding of both differential and comorbid features of ASD and non-affective psychosis will be required for the development of optimized clinical management protocols.

Accuracy of serum procalcitonin for the diagnosis of sepsis in neonates and children with systemic inflammatory syndrome: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A number of biomarkers have been studied for the diagnosis of sepsis in paediatrics, but no gold standard has been identified. Procalcitonin (PCT) was demonstrated to be an accurate biomarker for the diagnosis of sepsis in adults and showed to be promising in paediatrics. Our study reviewed the diagnostic accuracy of PCT as an early biomarker of sepsis in neonates and children with suspected sepsis. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was carried out in Medline/Pubmed, Embase, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Library, for studies assessing PCT accuracy in the diagnosis of sepsis in children and neonates with suspected sepsis. Studies in which the presence of infection had been confirmed microbiologically or classified as "probable" by chart review were included. Studies comparing patients to healthy subjects were excluded. We analysed data on neonates and children separately. Our primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of PCT at the cut-off of 2-2.5 ng/ml, while as secondary outcomes we analysed PCT cut-offs <2 ng/ml and >2.5 ng/ml. Pooled sensitivities and specificities were calculated by a bivariate meta-analysis and heterogeneity was graphically evaluated. RESULTS: We included 17 studies, with a total of 1408 patients (1086 neonates and 322 children). Studies on neonates with early onset sepsis (EOS) and late onset sepsis (LOS) were grouped together. In the neonatal group, we calculated a sensitivity of 0.85, confidence interval (CI) (0.76; 0.90) and specificity of 0.54, CI (0.38; 0.70) at the PCT cut-off of 2.0-2.5 ng/ml. In the paediatric group it was not possible to undertake a pooled analysis at the PCT cut-off of 2.0-2.5 ng/ml, due to the paucity of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: PCT shows a moderate accuracy for the diagnosis of sepsis in neonates with suspected sepsis at the cut-off of 2.0-2.5 ng/ml. More studies with high methodological quality are warranted, particularly in neonates, studies considering EOS and LOS separately are needed to improve specificity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42016033809 . Registered 30 Jan 2016.