Pharmacological agents for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department and intensive care unit: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of various i.v. pharmacologic agents used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED) and ICU. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to enable direct and indirect comparisons between available medications. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed from inception to 2 March 2023 for RCTs comparing two or more procedural sedation and analgesia medications in all patients (adults and children >30 days of age) requiring emergent procedures in the ED or ICU. We focused on the outcomes of sedation recovery time, patient satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs). We performed frequentist random-effects model network meta-analysis and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate certainty in estimates. RESULTS: We included 82 RCTs (8105 patients, 78 conducted in the ED and four in the ICU) of which 52 studies included adults, 23 included children, and seven included both. Compared with midazolam-opioids, recovery time was shorter with propofol (mean difference 16.3 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.4-24.3 fewer minutes; high certainty), and patient satisfaction was better with ketamine-propofol (mean difference 1.5 points, 95% CI 0.3-2.6 points, high certainty). Regarding AEs, compared with midazolam-opioids, respiratory AEs were less frequent with ketamine (relative risk [RR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96; high certainty), gastrointestinal AEs were more common with ketamine-midazolam (RR 3.08, 95% CI 1.15-8.27; high certainty), and neurological AEs were more common with ketamine-propofol (RR 3.68, 95% CI 1.08-12.53; high certainty). CONCLUSION: When considering procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED and ICU, compared with midazolam-opioids, sedation recovery time is shorter with propofol, patient satisfaction is better with ketamine-propofol, and respiratory adverse events are less common with ketamine.

Intracranial hemorrhage in patients treated for SARS-CoV-2 with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is routinely used in patients with severe respiratory failure and has been increasingly needed during the COVID-19 pandemic. In patients treated with ECMO, significant intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) risk exists due to circuit characteristics, anticoagulation, and disease characteristics. ICH risk may be substantially higher in COVID-19 patients than patients treated with ECMO for other indications. METHODS: We systematically reviewed current literature regarding ICH during ECMO treatment of COVID-19. We utilized Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases. Meta-analysis was performed for included comparative studies. Quality assessment was performed using MINORS criteria. RESULTS: A total of 54 studies with 4000 ECMO patients were included, all retrospective. Risk of bias was increased via MINORS score primarily due to retrospective designs. ICH was more likely in COVID-19 patients (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.23, 2.42). Mortality among COVID patients on ECMO with ICH was 64.0%, compared with 41% in patients without ICH (RR1.9, 95% 1.44, 2.51). CONCLUSION: This study suggests increased hemorrhage rates in COVID-19 patients on ECMO compared to similar controls. Hemorrhage reduction strategies may include atypical anticoagulants, conservative anticoagulation strategies, or biotechnology advances in circuit design and surface coatings.

Vestibular suppressants for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is a common cause of acute dizziness. Medication use for its treatment remains common despite guideline recommendations against their use. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vestibular suppressants in patients with BPPV compared to placebo, no treatment, or canalith repositioning maneuvers (CRMs). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until March 25, 2022. for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antihistamines, phenothiazines, anticholinergics, and/or benzodiazepines to placebo, no treatment, or a CRM. RESULTS: Five RCTs, enrolling 296 patients, were included in the quantitative analysis. We found that vestibular suppressants may have no effect on symptom resolution at the point of longest follow-up (14-31 days in four studies) when evaluated as a continuous outcome (standardized mean difference -0.03 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.53 to 0.47). Conversely, CRMs may improve symptom resolution at the point of longest follow-up as a dichotomous outcome when compared to vestibular suppressants (relative risk [RR] 0.63, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.78). Vestibular suppressants had an uncertain effect on symptom resolution within 24 h (mean difference [MD] 5 points, 95% CI -16.92 to 26.94), repeat emergency department (ED)/clinic visits (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.15), patient satisfaction (MD 0 points, 95% CI -1.02 to 1.02), and quality of life (MD -1.2 points, 95% CI -2.96 to 0.56). Vestibular suppressants had an uncertain effect on adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with BPPV, vestibular suppressants may have no effect on symptom resolution at the point of longest follow-up; however, there is evidence toward the superiority of CRM over these medications. Vestibular suppressants have an uncertain effect on symptom resolution within 24 h, repeat ED/clinic visits, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and adverse events. These data suggest that a CRM, and not vestibular suppressants, should be the primary treatment for BPPV.

Probiotics in Critical Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety and efficacy of probiotics or synbiotics on morbidity and mortality in critically ill adults and children. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and unpublished sources from inception to May 4, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: We performed a systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared enteral probiotics or synbiotics to placebo or no treatment in critically ill patients. We screened studies independently and in duplicate. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent reviewers extracted data in duplicate. A random-effects model was used to pool data. We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-five RCTs enrolled 8,483 patients. Probiotics may reduce ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) (relative risk [RR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89 and risk difference [RD], 6.9% reduction; 95% CI, 2.7-10.2% fewer; low certainty), healthcare-associated pneumonia (HAP) (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89; RD, 5.5% reduction; 95% CI, 8.2-2.0% fewer; low certainty), ICU length of stay (LOS) (mean difference [MD], 1.38 days fewer; 95% CI, 0.57-2.19 d fewer; low certainty), hospital LOS (MD, 2.21 d fewer; 95% CI, 1.18-3.24 d fewer; low certainty), and duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (MD, 2.53 d fewer; 95% CI, 1.31-3.74 d fewer; low certainty). Probiotics probably have no effect on mortality (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.87-1.04 and RD, 1.1% reduction; 95% CI, 2.8% reduction to 0.8% increase; moderate certainty). Post hoc sensitivity analyses without high risk of bias studies negated the effect of probiotics on VAP, HAP, and hospital LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Low certainty RCT evidence suggests that probiotics or synbiotics during critical illness may reduce VAP, HAP, ICU and hospital LOS but probably have no effect on mortality.

BET 2: Ability of a normal gait examination to rule out cerebellar stroke in acute vertigo.

A short-cut review was carried out to establish whether a normal gait examination can rule out cerebellar stroke in patients with acute vertigo. 16 studies were relevant to the question. The author, year and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results and study weaknesses of these papers are tabulated. The clinical bottom line is that a normal gait examination cannot rule out a cerebellar stroke but the presence of an abnormal gait can be associated.