Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Auricular stimulation for preoperative anxiety - A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials.
Usichenko, Taras I; Hua, Kevin; Cummings, Mike; Nowak, Andreas; Hahnenkamp, Klaus; Brinkhaus, Benno; Dietzel, Joanna.
Afiliação
  • Usichenko TI; Department of Anesthesiology, University Medicine of Greifswald, Germany; Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. Electronic address: usichent@mcmaster.ca.
  • Hua K; Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medicine, Berlin, Germany.
  • Cummings M; British Medical Acupuncture Society, London, UK.
  • Nowak A; Department of Anesthesiolgy and Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine & Pain Management, Dresden Municipal Hospital, Dresden, Germany.
  • Hahnenkamp K; Department of Anesthesiology, University Medicine of Greifswald, Germany.
  • Brinkhaus B; Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medicine, Berlin, Germany.
  • Dietzel J; Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medicine, Berlin, Germany.
J Clin Anesth ; 76: 110581, 2022 02.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34781116
ABSTRACT
STUDY

OBJECTIVE:

Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that auricular stimulation (AS) is safe and effective in treatment of preoperative anxiety; however, a systematic evaluation is lacking. The aim was to summarize the evidence on efficacy and safety of AS for preoperative anxiety, as well as for other outcomes.

DESIGN:

We conducted a systematic review of RCTs including patients from all available populations. The search was done through MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ISI Web of Science and Scopus Database from inception to June 2020. Study selection and data extraction were performed in by 2 independent reviewers with ability to resolve disagreements by a third author. Meta-analyses as well as the risk of bias and evidence quality assessments were performed according to the Cochrane 6.2, 2021 handbook recommendations.

INTERVENTIONS:

We compared AS with pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for different outcomes. MEASUREMENTS We assessed the repercussion of the evaluated interventions over anxiety scores and their safety, physiological parameters, perioperative medications requirement and intensity of postoperative pain. MAIN

RESULTS:

We have included 15 studies with 1603 patients. AS has presented reduced anxiety scores as compared to the sham control (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) -0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.09 to -0.36, p < 0.0001; 8 trials; 701 patients; heterogeneity I2 80%; GRADE moderate certainty) and to no intervention (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.58 to -0.45, p = 0.0004; 4 trials; 420 patients; heterogeneity I2 84%; GRADE very low certainty). There was no difference between AS and benzodiazepines (SMD -0.03; 95% CI -0.34 to 0.28; p = 0.84; 3 trials; 158 patients; heterogeneity I2 0%; GRADE very low certainty). No trials reported serious adverse effects of AS.

CONCLUSIONS:

AS may be useful in treatment of preoperative anxiety. Due to heterogenous certainty in effect estimates, further research is needed to clarify the actual efficacy of AS for preoperative anxiety.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ansiedade / Transtornos de Ansiedade Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Clin Anesth Assunto da revista: ANESTESIOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ansiedade / Transtornos de Ansiedade Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Clin Anesth Assunto da revista: ANESTESIOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article