Low Versus High Blood Pressure Targets in Critically Ill and Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Hypotension is associated with adverse outcomes in critically ill and perioperative patients. However, these assumptions are supported by observational studies. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aims to compare the impact of lower versus higher blood pressure targets on mortality. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Scholar from inception to February 10, 2024. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials comparing lower versus higher blood pressure targets in the management of critically ill and perioperative settings. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available. This review was registered in the Prospective International Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42023452928. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 2940 studies identified by the search string, 28 (12 in critically ill and 16 in perioperative settings) were included totaling 15,672 patients. Patients in the low blood pressure target group had lower mortality (23 studies included: 1019/7679 [13.3%] vs. 1103/7649 [14.4%]; relative risk 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%). This corresponded to a 97.4% probability of any increase in mortality with a Bayesian approach. These findings were mainly driven by studies performed in the ICU setting and with treatment lasting more than 24 hours; however, the magnitude and direction of the results were similar in the majority of sensitivity analyses including the analysis restricted to low risk of bias studies. We also observed a lower rate of atrial fibrillation and fewer patients requiring transfusion in low-pressure target groups. No differences were found in the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on pooled randomized trial evidence, a lower compared with a higher blood pressure target results in a reduction of mortality, atrial fibrillation, and transfusion requirements. Lower blood pressure targets may be beneficial but there is ongoing uncertainty. However, the present meta-analysis does not confirm previous findings and recommendations. These results might inform future guidelines and promote the study of the concept of protective hemodynamics.

Methylene Blue Reduces Mortality in Critically Ill and Perioperative Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Vasodilatory hypotension is common in critically ill and perioperative patients, and is associated with adverse outcomes. As a nitric oxide production inhibitor, methylene blue (MB) exerts its vasoconstrictor property and is an adjuvant for catecholamine-refractory vasodilatory shock. However, the effects of MB on clinically relevant outcomes remain unclear. Therefore, the authors performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials on MB in critically ill and perioperative patients. The authors searched through databases for randomized trials on MB in critically ill and perioperative patients, which yielded 11 studies consisting of 556 patients. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic parameters and organ dysfunction (PROSPERO: CRD42023409243). Nine out of the 11 included randomized trials reported mortality, which was significantly lower in the MB group (risk ratio, 0.60 [95% CI 0.43-0.84] p = 0.003), with findings confirmed in septic shock and cardiac surgery subgroups. The authors found reduced lengths of stay in the intensive care unit (mean difference [MD], -0.9 days [95% CI -1.06 to -0.77] p < 0.001) and in the hospital (MD, -2.2 days [95% CI, -2.68 to -1.70] p < 0.001) in the MB group. MB was associated with increased mean arterial pressure (MD, 8.4 mmHg [95% CI 5.01-11.75] p < 0.001) and systemic vascular resistance (MD, 94.5 dyn/s/cm5 [95% CI 17.73-171.15] p = 0.02), with no difference in cardiac output (standardized MD, 0.16 [95% CI, -0.25 to 0.57] p = 0.45). This meta-analysis showed that MB reverses vasodilation in critically ill and perioperative patients and might improve survival. Further adequately powered randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Intraoperative hypotension and postoperative outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.

INTRODUCTION: Intraoperative hypotension is associated with adverse postoperative outcomes; however these findings are supported only by observational studies. The aim of this meta-analysis of randomised trials was to compare the postoperative effects permissive management with targeted management of intraoperative blood pressure. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase up to June 2023 for studies comparing permissive (mean arterial pressure ≤60 mm Hg) with targeted (mean arterial pressure >60 mm Hg) intraoperative blood pressure management. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available. Secondary outcomes were atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, delirium, stroke, number of patients requiring transfusion, time on mechanical ventilation, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: We included 10 randomised trials including a total of 9359 patients. Mortality was similar between permissive and targeted blood pressure management groups (89/4644 [1.9%] vs 99/4643 [2.1%], odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.18, P=0.38, I2=0% with nine studies included). Atrial fibrillation (102/3896 [2.6%] vs 130/3887 [3.3%] odds ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.53-0.96, P=0.03, I2=0%), and length of hospital stay (mean difference -0.20 days, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.13, P<0.001, I2=0%) were reduced in the permissive management group. No significant differences were found in subgroup analysis for cardiac and noncardiac surgery. CONCLUSION: Pooled randomised evidence shows that a target intraoperative mean arterial pressure ≤60 mm Hg is not associated with increased mortality; nevertheless it is surprisingly associated with a reduced rate of atrial fibrillation and of length of hospital stay. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42023393725.

Mechanisms of Action of the Detrimental Effects of Propofol on Survival.

Due to its favorable pharmacologic features, propofol is the most commonly used hypnotic agent in perioperative and intensive care settings. However, it also has adverse effects like propofol infusion syndrome and an increased risk of infection. Growing evidence suggests that propofol may worsen clinical outcomes by inhibiting the organ-protective properties of other interventions, such as volatile anesthetics or remote ischemic preconditioning. This editorial describes possible mechanisms underlying the detrimental effects of propofol, and provides an overview of the results of clinical trials evaluating the effects of propofol in various settings.

Propofol and survival: an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is one of the most widely used hypnotic agents in the world. Nonetheless, propofol might have detrimental effects on clinically relevant outcomes, possibly due to inhibition of other interventions' organ protective properties. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate if propofol reduced survival compared to any other hypnotic agent in any clinical setting. METHODS: We searched eligible studies in PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials. The following inclusion criteria were used: random treatment allocation and comparison between propofol and any comparator in any clinical setting. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up available. We conducted a fixed-effects meta-analysis for the risk ratio (RR). Using this RR and 95% confidence interval, we estimated the probability of any harm (RR > 1) through Bayesian statistics. We registered this systematic review and meta-analysis in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022323143). RESULTS: We identified 252 randomized trials comprising 30,757 patients. Mortality was higher in the propofol group than in the comparator group (760/14,754 [5.2%] vs. 682/16,003 [4.3%]; RR = 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.20; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%; number needed to harm = 235), corresponding to a 98.4% probability of any increase in mortality. A statistically significant mortality increase in the propofol group was confirmed in subgroups of cardiac surgery, adult patients, volatile agent as comparator, large studies, and studies with low mortality in the comparator arm. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol may reduce survival in perioperative and critically ill patients. This needs careful assessment of the risk versus benefit of propofol compared to other agents while planning for large, pragmatic multicentric randomized controlled trials to provide a definitive answer.