Puncture Site Bleeding Complications of Peripheral Nerve Block in Patients Taking Antithrombotic and Anticoagulant Drugs: An Umbrella Review.

BACKGROUND: While there are multiple guidelines for the management of bleeding complications and hematoma if being treated with antithrombotic and anticoagulant drugs, these risks are not yet stratified for procedures with regional anesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was an umbrella review of systematic studies and meta-analysis based on PRISMA guidelines in databases of Scopus, PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Due to heterogeneity in evaluated outcomes and methods of studies, only the qualitative evidence synthesis was performed. AMSTAR checklist was used to assess the risk of bias in included systematic reviews. RESULTS: After an extensive search of relevant studies, 971 primary cases were identified. Following a thorough screening process, 5 systematic reviews were selected. The evidence suggests that head and neck punctures generally do not result in bleeding complications, except for rare cases of hematoma associated with Infraclavicular brachial plexus block. A deep cervical plexus block is not recommended. Interscalene blocks have varying findings, with some studies reporting hematoma incidence and spinal injury, while others consider them low risk. Supraclavicular brachial plexus block might be associated with hemothorax and infraclavicular blocks are not favored by reviews. Axillary brachial plexus blocks have a minor incidence of hematoma. Abdomen blocks, TAP blocks, ilioinguinal blocks, and rectus sheath blocks carry a higher risk of hematoma. Pectoral nerve (PECS) blocks have a relatively high risk, while paravertebral and intercostal blocks are considered high risk, but further research is needed regarding paravertebral blocks. CONCLUSION: The available evidence from systematic reviews and studies suggests varying levels of risk for different blocks and procedures that should be considered before decision-making.

Alternative Medical Interventions Versus Conventional Treatment of Renal Colic: An Updated Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the recent alternative medical interventions on renal colic pain and compare their efficiency with conventional treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) study, based on the PRISMA guidelines on online databases of PubMed, Scopus, and web of science. We quarried these databases with relevant keywords for clinical trial studies that aimed at reducing renal colic pain in patients refereeing to the ED from after January 2011 to February 2022. Randomized clinical trials that used the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for assessment of renal colic pain before and after medical interventions in adult patients were included in this study. NMA was conducted based on the continuous values of the mean difference of the pain after 30 and 60 minutes of the medication administration. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies that were meeting the inclusion criteria were included in our review with 2724 adult participants who were mostly male. Study arms included conventional medications (NSAID, Opioid, paracetamol), ketamine, MgSo4, desmopressin, and lidocaine. Based on the qualitative synthesis, ten studies (41.7%) did not find significant differences between conventional and alternative treatments. Also, there is no agreement on some more recent medications like using ketamine or desmopressin while MgSO4 and lidocaine use are supported by most studies. NMA revealed that desmopressin is significantly having worse pain reduction properties. NMA did not show any difference between ketamine, lidocaine, and MgSo4, versus the conventional treatment. CONCLUSION: To conclude, lidocaine and MgSo4 might be good alternative treatments for renal colic when conventional treatments are contraindicated or pain is not responding to those. Ketamine might be indicated in patient-based circumstances. Desmopressin may be agreeably avoided in further research or clinics.

Point-of-Care Tests' Role in Time Metrics of Urgent Interventions in Emergency Department; a Systematic Review of Literature.

Introduction: Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) could be helpful in clinical decisions, treatment selection, monitoring, prognostication, operational decision-making, and resource utilization. This study aimed to review the role of POCT in time metrics of performing urgent interventions in the emergency department (ED) or disposition time to proper care. Methods: This was a systematic review of the literature based on the PRISMA statement. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were searched for studies reporting the application of the POCT in the ED with outcomes of the time to intervention or disposition. Results: After reviewing 3708 articles, 16 studies with 100,224 participants were included in this systematic review. There were 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 5 retrospective cohorts, 2 prospective cohorts, and 4 before-after studies. All studies were performed in an ED setting except for one study of prehospital EMS air medical transport. Different panels, ultrasound, cardiac parameters, echocardiography, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) POCTs were used in the studies. Regarding the outcome measures, studies with many types of patients referring to ED used different indices of time to intervention or time to disposition. Studies on different shock circumstances used the time to the first bolus of hydration or vasopressor or intravenous antibiotics for septic shock patients and central venous catheterization (CVC) placement time in one study. Time to imaging was considered as the outcome in some studies. Overall, there was a high risk of bias, especially in case of the randomization methods, and non-blinded designs in RCTs. There was lower possibility of bias in non-randomized studies but the studies did not have enough follow-ups and in case of studies using advanced panels of POCT, results do not seem to be easily applicable to public health care in many countries. Conclusion: In synthesis of the evidence, all included studies were reporting the benefits of the POCT in decreasing the time to proper interventions and increasing the time to negative interventions in the last lines of critical care as well as the intubation and CVC placement.