Effect of convalescent plasma transfusion on outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

The aim of this review was to update evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma transfusion (CPT) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing CPT plus standard treatment versus standard treatment only in adults with COVID-19. Primary outcome measures were mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Twenty-Six RCT involving 19,816 patients were included in meta-analysis for mortality. Quantitative synthesis showed no statistically significant benefit of adding CPT to standard treatment (RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.92 to 1.02) with unimportant heterogeneity (Q(25) = 26.48, p = .38, I2 = 0.00%). Trim-and-fill-adjusted effect size was unimportantly changed and level of evidence was graded as high. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) indicated information size was adequate and CPT was futile. Seventeen trials involving 16,083 patients were included in meta-analysis for need of IMV. There was no statistically significant effect of CPT (RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.10) with unimportant heterogeneity (Q(16) = 9.43, p = .89, I2 = 3.30%). Trim-and-fill-adjusted effect size was trivially changed and level of evidence was graded as high. TSA showed information size was adequate and indicated futility of CPT. It is concluded with high level of certainty that CPT added to standard treatment of COVID-19 is not associated with reduced mortality or need of IMV compared with standard treatment alone. In view of these findings, further trials on efficacy of CPT in COVID-19 patients are probably not needed.

The practice of regional anesthesia during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international survey of members of three regional anesthesia societies.

PURPOSE: To determine the preferences and attitudes of members of regional anesthesia societies during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We distributed an electronic survey to members of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Regional Anaesthesia-UK, and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia & Pain Therapy. A questionnaire consisting of 19 questions was developed by a panel of experienced regional anesthesiologists and distributed by email to the participants. The survey covered the following domains: participant information, practice settings, preference for the type of anesthetic technique, the use of personal protective equipment, and oxygen therapy. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 729 participants from 73 different countries, with a response rate of 20.1% (729/3,630) for the number of emails opened and 8.5% (729/8,572) for the number of emails sent. Most respondents (87.7%) identified as anesthesia staff (faculty or consultant) and practiced obstetric and non-obstetric anesthesia (55.3%). The practice of regional anesthesia either expanded or remained the same, with only 2% of respondents decreasing their use compared with the pre-pandemic period. The top reasons for an increase in the use of regional anesthesia was to reduce the need for an aerosol-generating medical procedure and to reduce the risk of possible complications to patients. The most common reason for decreased use of regional anesthesia was the risk of urgent conversion to general anesthesia. Approximately 70% of the responders used airborne precautions when providing care to a patient under regional anesthesia. The most common oxygen delivery method was nasal prongs (cannula) with a surgical mask layered over it (61%). CONCLUSIONS: Given the perceived benefits of regional over general anesthesia, approximately half of the members of three regional anesthesia societies seem to have expanded their use of regional anesthesia techniques during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Déterminer les préférences et les attitudes des membres des sociétés d'anesthésie régionale pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. MéTHODE: Nous avons distribué un sondage électronique aux membres de l'American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, de Regional Anesthesia-UK et de l'European Society of Regional Anaesthesia & Pain Therapy. Un questionnaire composé de 19 questions a été élaboré par un panel d'anesthésiologistes régionaux d'expérience et distribué par courriel aux participants. Le sondage couvrait les domaines suivants : les renseignements sur les participants, les contextes de pratique, leur préférence quant au type de technique d'anesthésie, l'utilisation d'équipement de protection individuelle et l'oxygénothérapie RéSULTATS: Le sondage a été complété par 729 participants provenant de 73 pays différents, avec un taux de réponse de 20,1 % (729/3630) pour le nombre de courriels ouverts et de 8,5 % (729/8572) pour le nombre de courriels envoyés. La plupart des répondants (87,7 %) se sont identifiés comme anesthésiologistes (académique ou consultant) et pratiquaient l'anesthésie obstétricale et non obstétricale (55,3 %). Leur pratique de l'anesthésie régionale s'est étendue ou est demeurée inchangée, et seulement 2 % des répondants ont indiqué avoir diminué leur utilisation de cette pratique par rapport à la période pré-pandémique. Les principales raisons d'une augmentation de l'utilisation de l'anesthésie régionale étaient de réduire la nécessité d'une intervention médicale générant des aérosols et de réduire le risque de complications potentielles pour les patients. La raison la plus courante de diminution du recours à l'anesthésie régionale était le risque de conversion urgente à une anesthésie générale. Environ 70 % des intervenants ont utilisé des précautions en matière de propagation des aérosols lorsqu'ils procuraient des soins à un patient sous anesthésie régionale. La méthode d'administration d'oxygène la plus fréquemment utilisée était les canules nasales avec un masque chirurgical superposé (61 %). CONCLUSION: Compte tenu des avantages perçus de l'anesthésie régionale par rapport à l'anesthésie générale, environ la moitié des membres de trois sociétés d'anesthésie régionale semblent avoir élargi leur utilisation des techniques d'anesthésie régionale pendant la vague initiale de la pandémie de COVID-19.

Percutaneous Interventional Strategies for Migraine Prevention: A Systematic Review and Practice Guideline.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of percutaneous interventional treatments for prevention of migraine through a qualitative and (when possible) quantitative analysis. METHODS: An expert panel was asked to develop recommendations for the multidisciplinary preventive treatment of migraine, including interventional strategies. The committee conducted a systematic review and (when evidence was sufficient) a meta-analytic review by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria and the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias analysis available in the Covidence data management program. Clinical questions addressed adults with migraine who should be offered prevention. Examined outcomes included headache days, acute medication use, and functional impairment. Acute management of migraine was outside the scope of this guideline. RESULTS: The committee screened 1,195 studies and assessed 352 by full text, yielding 16 randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: As informed by evidence related to the preselected outcomes, adverse event profile, cost, and values and preferences of patients, onabotulinumtoxinA received a strong recommendation for its use for chronic migraine prevention and a weak recommendation against its use for episodic migraine prevention. Greater occipital nerve blocks received a weak recommendation for their use for chronic migraine prevention. For greater occipital nerve block, steroid received a weak recommendation against its use vs the use of local anesthetic alone. Occipital nerve with supraorbital nerve blocks, sphenopalatine ganglion blocks, cervical spine percutaneous interventions, and implantable stimulation all received weak recommendations for their use for chronic migraine prevention. The committee found insufficient evidence to assess trigger point injections in migraine prevention and highly discouraged the use of intrathecal medication.