Comparative efficacy of anaesthetic methods for closed reduction of paediatric forearm fractures: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Forearm fractures in children often require closed reduction in the emergency setting. The choice of anaesthesia influences the degree of pain relief, which determines the success of reduction. Main methods of anaesthesia include procedural sedation and analgesia, haematoma block, intravenous regional anaesthesia (IVRA) and regional nerve blocks. However, their comparative effectiveness is unclear. This study aims to synthesise peer-reviewed evidence and identify the most effective, in terms of pain reduction, and safest anaesthetic method. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 15 June 2021. Randomised controlled trials comparing anaesthetic methods for the closed reduction of paediatric forearm fractures in the emergency setting were included. Two reviewers independently screened, collected data and assessed the risk of bias for the selected outcomes. The primary outcome was pain during reduction. Secondary outcomes included pain after reduction, adverse effects, satisfaction, adequacy of sedation/anaesthesia, success of reduction and resource use. RESULTS: 1288 records were screened and 9 trials, which studied 936 patients in total, were included. Four trials compared the main methods of anaesthesia. Within the same method of anaesthesia, one compared administrative routes, one compared procedural techniques, one compared different drugs, one compared the use of adjuncts and one compared different doses of the same drug. One study found better pain outcomes with infraclavicular blocks compared with procedural sedation and analgesia. Lidocaine was superior in analgesic effect to prilocaine in IVRA in one study. One study found lower pain scores with moderate-dose than low-dose lidocaine in IVRA. CONCLUSION: Few randomised controlled trials compared anaesthetic methods in the closed reduction of paediatric forearm fractures. High heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Overall, current data are insufficient to guide the choice of anaesthetic method in emergency settings. More adequately powered trials, conducted using standardised methods, are required.

Impact of Cardiac Arrest Centers on the Survival of Patients With Nontraumatic Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background The role of cardiac arrest centers (CACs) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest care systems is continuously evolving. Interpretation of existing literature is limited by heterogeneity in CAC characteristics and types of patients transported to CACs. This study assesses the impact of CACs on survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest according to varying definitions of CAC and prespecified subgroups. Methods and Results Electronic databases were searched from inception to March 9, 2021 for relevant studies. Centers were considered CACs if self-declared by study authors and capable of relevant interventions. Main outcomes were survival and neurologically favorable survival at hospital discharge or 30 days. Meta-analyses were performed for adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and crude odds ratios. Thirty-six studies were analyzed. Survival with favorable neurological outcome significantly improved with treatment at CACs (aOR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.52-2.26]), even when including high-volume centers (aOR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.18-1.91]) or including improved-care centers (aOR, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.75-2.59]) as CACs. Survival significantly increased with treatment at CACs (aOR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.59-2.32]), even when including high-volume centers (aOR, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.38-2.18]) or when including improved-care centers (aOR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.71-2.26]) as CACs. The treatment effect was more pronounced among patients with shockable rhythm (P=0.006) and without prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (P=0.005). Conclusions were robust to sensitivity analyses, with no publication bias detected. Conclusions Care at CACs was associated with improved survival and neurological outcomes for patients with nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest regardless of varying CAC definitions. Patients with shockable rhythms and those without prehospital return of spontaneous circulation benefited more from CACs. Evidence for bypassing hospitals or interhospital transfer remains inconclusive.