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.

Are thromboelastometric and thromboelastographic parameters associated with mortality in septic patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Thromboelastometry/elastography (ROTEM/TEG) showed promising results for diagnosis of sepsis-induced coagulopathy, but their association with the outcome is unclear. Our aim was to assess any difference in ROTEM/TEG measurements between septic survivors and non-survivors. METHODS: Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were investigated. The research aimed to include any randomized or observational study: i) on septic adult patients admitted to Intensive Care Unit (ICU) or Emergency Department (ED); ii) including ROTEM/TEG; iii) assessing mortality. RESULTS: Seven prospective and four retrospective observational studies (952 patients) were included. According to the INTEM/kaolin-assay, clotting time (CT)/R (standardized mean difference(SMD) -0.29, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.09, p = 0.004) and clot formation time (CFT)/K (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.06, p = 0.02) were shorter in survivors. According to the EXTEM-assay, CT was shorter (MD -11.66 s, 95% CI -22.59 to -0.73, p = 0.04), while MCF was higher (MD 3.49 mm, 95% CI 0.43 to 6.55, p = 0.03) in survivors. A hypocoagulable profile was more frequent in non-survivors (OR 0.31, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.55, p < 0.0001). Overall, the risk of bias of the included studies was moderate and the quality of evidence low. CONCLUSIONS: Hypocoagulability and lower MCF in EXTEM may be associated with higher mortality in sepsis.

Serratus anterior plane block for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The serratus anterior plane block (SAPb) is a promising interfascial plane technique able to provide profound thoracic analgesia. As only a few studies with quite small patient samples are presently available, the analgesic efficacy of adding SAPb to general anaesthesia in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), compared with general anaesthesia only, remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: Our primary aim was to assess the analgesic efficacy of SAPb for VATS peri-operative pain control. The secondary aims were to evaluate differences in postoperative opioid use, intra-operative hypotension, postoperative side-effects and complications, time to chest tube removal, length of hospital stay. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-analyses.DATA SOURCES PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library, searched up to 6 December 2019.ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA RCTs including adult patients undergoing VATS who received single shot SAPb (cases), compared with general anaesthesia (controls). RESULTS: Seven RCTs, with a total of 489 patients were included. SAPb reduced pain scores peri-operatively, compared with controls: 6 h [mean difference -1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.35 to -1.37, P < 0.001]; 12 h (mean difference -1.45, 95% CI -1.66 to -1.25, P < 0.001); 24 h (mean difference -0.98, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.56, P < 0.001). SAPb also reduced the use of postoperative opioids (mean difference: -4.81 mg of intravenous morphine equivalent, 95% CI -8.41 to -1.22, P < 0.03) and decreased the incidence of nausea and vomiting (risk ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.79, P < 0.002). CONCLUSION: Compared with general anaesthesia only and if no other locoregional techniques are used, SAPb significantly reduces postoperative pain and nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing VATS. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation rating are, nonetheless, quite low, due to high heterogeneity. Well designed and properly powered RCTs are necessary to confirm these preliminary findings.