A Comparison Between Enteral and Intravenous Nimodipine in Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Our objective was to compare the effectiveness of intravenous and enteral nimodipine in preventing poor outcome from delayed cerebral ischemia in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage. We performed a systematic search and a network meta-analysis using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar. Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess risk of bias of included studies. A ranking among methods was performed on the basis of the frequentist analog of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Published studies that met the following population, intervention, comparison, outcomes and study (PICOS) criteria were included: patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage aged 15 years or older (P); nimodipine, intravenous and oral formulation (I); placebo or no intervention (C); poor outcome measured at 3 months (defined as death, vegetative state, or severe disability), case fatality at 3 months, delayed cerebral ischemia, delayed ischaemic neurologic deficit, and vasospasm measured with transcranial Doppler or digital subtraction angiography (O); and randomized controlled trials (S). No language or publication date restrictions were applied. Ten studies were finally included, with a total of 1527 randomly assigned patients. Oral and intravenous nimodipine were both effective in preventing poor outcome, delayed cerebral ischemia, and delayed ischaemic neurological deficit. Neither treatment was effective in improving case fatality. Evolving clinical protocols over a 30-year period and the risk of bias of the included studies may limit the strength of our results. Enteral and intravenous nimodipine may have a similar effectiveness in terms of preventing poor outcome, delayed cerebral ischemia, and delayed ischaemic neurological deficit. More research may be needed to fully establish the role of intravenous nimodipine in current clinical practice.

Single-injection regional analgesia techniques for mastectomy surgery: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing mastectomy surgery experience severe postoperative pain. Several regional techniques have been developed to reduce pain intensity but it is unclear, which of these techniques is most effective. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise direct and indirect comparisons for the relative efficacy of different regional and local analgesia techniques in the setting of unilateral mastectomy. Postoperative opioid consumption at 24 h, postoperative pain at extubation, 1, 12 and 24 h, postoperative nausea and vomiting were collected. DESIGN: Systematic review with network meta-analysis (PROSPERO:CRD42021250651). DATA SOURCE: PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception until 7 July 2021). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials investigating single-injection regional and local analgesia techniques in adult patients undergoing unilateral mastectomy were included in our study without any language or publication date restriction. RESULTS: Sixty-two included studies randomising 4074 patients and investigating nine techniques entered the analysis. All techniques were associated with less opioid consumption compared with controls The greatest mean difference [95% confidence interval (CI)] was associated with deep serratus anterior plane block: mean difference -16.1 mg (95% CI, -20.7 to -11.6). The greatest reduction in pain score was associated with the interpectoral-pecto-serratus plane block (mean difference -1.3, 95% CI, -1.6 to - 1) at 12 h postoperatively, and with superficial serratus anterior plane block (mean difference -1.4, 95% CI, -2.4 to -0.5) at 24 h. Interpectoral-pectoserratus plane block resulted in the greatest statistically significant reduction in postoperative nausea/vomiting when compared with placebo/no intervention with an OR of 0.23 (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.40). CONCLUSION: All techniques were associated with superior analgesia and less opioid consumption compared with controls. No single technique was identified as superior to others. In comparison, local anaesthetic infiltration does not offer advantages over multimodal analgesia alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD4202125065).