Single dose intra-articular morphine for pain control after knee arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Knee arthroscopy is a common procedure and is associated with postoperative pain. Intra-articular (IA) injection of morphine for pain control has been widely studied, but its analgesic effect after knee arthroscopy is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relative effects on pain relief and adverse events of IA morphine given for pain control after knee arthroscopy compared with placebo, other analgesics (local anaesthetics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), other opioids) and other routes of morphine administration. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2015), MEDLINE via Ovid (January 1966 to May 2015), EMBASE via Ovid (January 1988 to May 2015), and the reference lists of included articles. We also searched the metaRegister of controlled trials, clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We identified all the randomised, double-blind controlled trials that compared single dose IA morphine with other interventions for the treatment of postoperative pain after knee arthroscopy. We excluded studies with fewer than 10 participants in each group, using spinal or epidural anaesthesia, or assessing the analgesic effect of IA morphine on chronic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the quality of each trial and extracted information on pain intensity, supplementary analgesics consumption and adverse events. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 28 small, low quality studies (29 reports) involving 2564 participants. Of 20 studies (21 reports) comparing morphine with placebo, nine studies with adequate data were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the risk of bias was unclear. Overall, the quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was low to very low, downgraded primarily due to risk of bias, small study size, and imprecision.No statistical difference was found between 1 mg IA morphine and placebo in pain intensity (visual analogue scale (VAS)) at early phase (zero to two hours) (mean difference (MD) -0.50, 95% CI -1.15 to 0.14; participants = 297; studies = 7; low quality evidence), medium phase (two to six hours) (MD -0.47, 95% CI -1.09 to 0.14; participants = 297; studies = 7; low quality evidence) and late phase (six to 30 hours) (MD -0.88, 95% CI -1.81 to 0.04; participants = 297; studies = 7; low quality evidence). No significant difference was found between 1 mg and 2 mg morphine for pain intensity at early phase (MD -0.56, 95% CI -1.93 to 0.81; participants = 105; studies = 2; low quality evidence), while 4 mg/5 mg morphine provided better analgesia than 1 mg morphine at late phase (MD 0.67, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.25; participants = 97; studies = 3; low quality evidence). IA morphine was not better than local anaesthetic agents at early phase (MD 1.43, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.37; participants = 248; studies = 5; low quality evidence), NSAIDs at early phase (MD 0.95, 95% CI -0.95 to 2.85; participants = 80; studies = 2; very low quality evidence), sufentanil, fentanyl or pethidine for pain intensity. IA morphine was similar to intramuscular (IM) morphine for pain intensity at early phase (MD 0.21, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.90; participants = 72; studies = 2; very low quality evidence).Meta-analysis indicated that there was no difference between IA morphine and placebo or bupivacaine in time to first analgesic request. Eleven out of 20 studies comparing morphine with placebo reported adverse events and no statistical difference was obtained regarding the incidence of adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.36; participants = 314; studies = 8; low quality evidence). Seven of 28 studies reported participants' withdrawal. There were not enough data for withdrawals to be able to perform meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have not found high quality evidence that 1 mg IA morphine is better than placebo at reducing pain intensity at early, medium or late phases. No statistical difference was reported between IA morphine and placebo regarding the incidence of adverse events. The relative effects of 1 mg morphine when compared with IA bupivacaine, NSAIDs, sufentanil, fentanyl and pethidine are uncertain. The quality of the evidence is limited by high risk of bias and small size of the included studies, which might bias the results. More high quality studies are needed to get more conclusive results.

Perioperative angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers for preventing mortality and morbidity in adults.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative hypertension requires careful management. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) have shown efficacy in treating hypertension associated with surgery. However, there is lack of consensus about whether they can prevent mortality and morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the benefits and harms of administration of ACEIs or ARBs perioperatively for the prevention of mortality and morbidity in adults (aged 18 years and above) undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the current issue of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to 8 December 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 8 December 2014), and references of the retrieved randomized trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perioperative administration of ACEIs or ARBs with placebo in adults (aged 18 years and above) undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. We excluded studies in which participants underwent procedures that required local anaesthesia only, or participants who had already been on ACEIs or ARBs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs with a total of 571 participants in the review. Two of the seven trials involved 36 participants undergoing non-cardiac vascular surgery (infrarenal aortic surgery), and five involved 535 participants undergoing cardiac surgery, including valvular surgery, coronary artery bypass surgery, and cardiopulmonary bypass surgery. The intervention was started from 11 days to 25 minutes before surgery in six trials and during surgery in one trial. We considered all seven RCTs to carry a high risk of bias. The effects of ACEIs or ARBs on perioperative mortality and acute myocardial infarction were uncertain because the quality of the evidence was very low. The risk of death was 2.7% in the ACEIs or ARBs group and 1.6% in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 1.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 5.85). The risk of acute myocardial infarction was 1.7% in the ACEIs or ARBs group and 3.0% in the placebo group (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.14 to 2.26). ACEIs or ARBs may improve congestive heart failure (cardiac index) perioperatively (mean difference (MD) -0.60; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.50, very low-quality evidence). In terms of rate of complications, there was no difference in perioperative cerebrovascular complications (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.18 to 1.28, very low-quality evidence) and hypotension (RR 1.95; 95% CI 0.86 to 4.41, very low-quality evidence). Cardiac surgery-related renal failure was not reported. ACEIs or ARBs were associated with shortened length of hospital stay (MD -0.54; 95% CI -0.93 to -0.16, P value = 0.005, very low-quality evidence). These findings should be interpreted cautiously due to likely confounding by the clinical backgrounds of the participants. ACEIs or ARBs may shorten the length of hospital stay, (MD -0.54; 95% CI -0.93 to -0.16, very low-quality evidence) Two studies reported adverse events, and there was no evidence of a difference between the ACEIs or ARBs and control groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this review did not find evidence to support that perioperative ACEIs or ARBs can prevent mortality, morbidity, and complications (hypotension, perioperative cerebrovascular complications, and cardiac surgery-related renal failure). We found no evidence showing that the use of these drugs may reduce the rate of acute myocardial infarction. However, ACEIs or ARBs may increase cardiac output perioperatively. Due to the low and very low methodology quality, high risk of bias, and lack of power of the included studies, the true effect may be substantially different from the observed estimates. Perioperative (mainly elective cardiac surgery, according to included studies) initiation of ACEIs or ARBs therapy should be individualized.