ABSTRACT
Objective: To compare outcomes in patients with repeated implantation failure undergoing Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection/In vitro fertilization (IVF/ICSI) plus immunosuppressants such as prednisolone, prednisone, or cyclosporine A versus the use of IVF/ICSI alone. Data source: Databases were systematically searched in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases in September 2023. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials and observational studies with the outcomes of interest were included. Data collect: We computed odds ratios (ORs) for binary endpoints, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.The main outcomes were live birth, miscarriage, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy, and biochemical pregnancy. Data synthesis: Seven studies with 2,829 patients were included. Immunosuppressive treatments were used in 1,312 (46.37%). Cyclosporine A improved implantation rate (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.01-2.18) and clinical pregnancy (1.89, 95% CI 1.14-3.14). Compared to non-immunosuppressive treatment, prednisolone and prednisone did not improve live birth (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88-1.46) and miscarriage (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.07-2.09). Prednisolone showed no significant effect in patients undergoing IVF/ICSI, clinical pregnancy (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.76-2.36), or implantation rate (OR 1.36; 95% CI 0.76-2.42). Conclusion: Cyclosporine A may promote implantation and clinical pregnancy rates. However, given the limited sample size, it is important to approach these findings with caution. Our results indicate that prednisolone and prednisone do not have any beneficial effects on clinical outcomes of IVF/ICSI patients with repeated implantation failure. PROSPERO: CRD42023449655.
Subject(s)
Embryo Implantation , Immunosuppressive Agents , Humans , Female , Pregnancy , Immunosuppressive Agents/therapeutic use , Cyclosporine/therapeutic use , Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic , Pregnancy Rate , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted , Prednisolone/therapeutic use , Prednisolone/administration & dosage , Prednisone/therapeutic useABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) remains a challenge in healthcare, contributing to prolonged hospital stays, increased healthcare costs, and adverse patient outcomes, including mortality. Effective preoperative skin disinfection interventions, such as povidone-iodine (PVI) and chlorhexidine (CHG), are widely used but their efficacy remains debated. To address this gap, this meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of PVI and CHG. METHOD: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to June 2024 to identify studies comparing PVI versus CHG for preoperative skin antisepsis. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) for binary outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A random-effects model was used with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Data were analysed using R software (version 4.4.0), and heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. FINDINGS: Sixteen randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included, involving a total of 13,721 patients, among whom 6,836 (49.8%) received PVI. Compared to CHG, PVI was associated with a non-significant reduction in deep SSI (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.66 - 1.50; p = 0.994), but an increased risk of overall SSI (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.06 - 1.48; p = 0.007) and superficial SSI (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.25 - 2.24; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PVI as preoperative skin antisepsis demonstrated a non-significant reduction in deep SSI compared to CHG but was associated with an increased risk of overall and superficial SSI. Despite these findings, PVI remains an effective option, especially in resource-limited settings. Further research is needed to optimise its use and improve infection prevention strategies in clinical practice.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: After recently published randomized clinical trials, the choice of the best anesthetic procedure for mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessel occlusion (LVO) is not definite. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of general anesthesia (GA) versus conscious sedation (CS) in patients with AIS who underwent MT, explicitly focusing on procedural and clinical outcomes and the incidence of adverse events. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing GA versus CS in patients who underwent MT due to LVO-AIS. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for binary outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Random effects models were used for all outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. RESULTS: Eight RCTs (1,300 patients) were included, of whom 650 (50%) underwent GA. Recanalization success was significantly higher in the GA group (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.26-2.24; p < 0.04) than in CS. No significant difference between groups were found for good functional recovery (OR 1.13; IC 95% 0.76-1.67; p = 0.56), incidence of pneumonia (OR 1.23; IC 95% 0.56- 2,69; p = 0.61), three-month mortality (OR 0.99; IC 95% 0.73-1.34; p = 0.95), or cerebral hemorrhage (OR 0.97; IC 95% 0.68-1.38; p = 0.88). CONCLUSION: Despite the increase in recanalization success rates in the GA group, GA and CS show similar rates of good functional recovery, three-month mortality, incidence of pneumonia, and cerebral hemorrhage in patients undergoing MT.
ANTECEDENTES: A trombectomia mecânica (TM) é o padrão de tratamento para pacientes com acidente vascular cerebral isquêmico agudo (AVCI) devido à oclusão de grandes vasos (OGV). No entanto, ainda não está claro qual é o procedimento anestésico mais benéfico para a TM. OBJETIVO: Nosso objetivo foi comparar a eficácia e a segurança da anestesia geral (AG) versus sedação consciente (SC) em pacientes com AVCI submetidos à TM, focando especificamente nos resultados procedimentais e clínicos, bem como na incidência de eventos adversos. MéTODOS: Foram realizadas buscas sistemáticas nas bases PubMed, Embase e Cochrane por ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECRs) comparando AG versus SC em pacientes submetidos à TM devido a AVCI por OGV. Razões de chances (ORs) foram calculadas para desfechos binários, com intervalos de confiança de 95% (ICs). Modelos de efeitos aleatórios foram usados para todos os resultados. A heterogeneidade foi avaliada com estatísticas I2. RESULTADOS: Oito ensaios clínicos randomizados (1.300 pacientes) foram incluídos, dos quais 650 (50%) foram submetidos à AG. O sucesso da recanalização foi significativamente maior no grupo AG (OR 1,68; IC 95% 1,262,24; p < 0,04) em comparação com SC. No entanto, não houve diferença significativa entre os grupos para recuperação funcional adequada (OR 1,13; IC 95% 0,761,67; p = 0,56), incidência de pneumonia (OR 1,23; IC 95% 0,56- 2,69; p = 0,61), mortalidade em três meses (OR 0,99; IC 95% 0,73- 1,34; p = 0,95) ou hemorragia cerebral (OR 0,97; IC 95% 0,68- 1,38; p = 0,88). CONCLUSãO: Apesar do aumento significativo nas taxas de sucesso de recanalização no grupo AG, AG e SC mostram taxas semelhantes de recuperação funcional, mortalidade, pneumonia e hemorragia em pacientes com AVCI submetidos à TM.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia, General , Conscious Sedation , Ischemic Stroke , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Thrombectomy , Humans , Anesthesia, General/methods , Conscious Sedation/methods , Ischemic Stroke/surgery , Thrombectomy/methods , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Abstract Background After recently published randomized clinical trials, the choice of the best anesthetic procedure for mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessel occlusion (LVO) is not definite. Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of general anesthesia (GA) versus conscious sedation (CS) in patients with AIS who underwent MT, explicitly focusing on procedural and clinical outcomes and the incidence of adverse events. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing GA versus CS in patients who underwent MT due to LVO-AIS. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for binary outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Random effects models were used for all outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Results Eight RCTs (1,300 patients) were included, of whom 650 (50%) underwent GA. Recanalization success was significantly higher in the GA group (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.26-2.24; p < 0.04) than in CS. No significant difference between groups were found for good functional recovery (OR 1.13; IC 95% 0.76-1.67; p = 0.56), incidence of pneumonia (OR 1.23; IC 95% 0.56- 2,69; p = 0.61), three-month mortality (OR 0.99; IC 95% 0.73-1.34; p = 0.95), or cerebral hemorrhage (OR 0.97; IC 95% 0.68-1.38; p = 0.88). Conclusion Despite the increase in recanalization success rates in the GA group, GA and CS show similar rates of good functional recovery, three-month mortality, incidence of pneumonia, and cerebral hemorrhage in patients undergoing MT.
Resumo Antecedentes A trombectomia mecânica (TM) é o padrão de tratamento para pacientes com acidente vascular cerebral isquêmico agudo (AVCI) devido à oclusão de grandes vasos (OGV). No entanto, ainda não está claro qual é o procedimento anestésico mais benéfico para a TM. Objetivo Nosso objetivo foi comparar a eficácia e a segurança da anestesia geral (AG) versus sedação consciente (SC) em pacientes com AVCI submetidos à TM, focando especificamente nos resultados procedimentais e clínicos, bem como na incidência de eventos adversos. Métodos Foram realizadas buscas sistemáticas nas bases PubMed, Embase e Cochrane por ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECRs) comparando AG versus SC em pacientes submetidos à TM devido a AVCI por OGV. Razões de chances (ORs) foram calculadas para desfechos binários, com intervalos de confiança de 95% (ICs). Modelos de efeitos aleatórios foram usados para todos os resultados. A heterogeneidade foi avaliada com estatísticas I2. Resultados Oito ensaios clínicos randomizados (1.300 pacientes) foram incluídos, dos quais 650 (50%) foram submetidos à AG. O sucesso da recanalização foi significativamente maior no grupo AG (OR 1,68; IC 95% 1,26-2,24; p < 0,04) em comparação com SC. No entanto, não houve diferença significativa entre os grupos para recuperação funcional adequada (OR 1,13; IC 95% 0,76-1,67; p = 0,56), incidência de pneumonia (OR 1,23; IC 95% 0,56- 2,69; p = 0,61), mortalidade em três meses (OR 0,99; IC 95% 0,73- 1,34; p = 0,95) ou hemorragia cerebral (OR 0,97; IC 95% 0,68- 1,38; p = 0,88). Conclusão Apesar do aumento significativo nas taxas de sucesso de recanalização no grupo AG, AG e SC mostram taxas semelhantes de recuperação funcional, mortalidade, pneumonia e hemorragia em pacientes com AVCI submetidos à TM.
ABSTRACT
Abstract Objective To compare outcomes in patients with repeated implantation failure undergoing Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection/In vitro fertilization (IVF/ICSI) plus immunosuppressants such as prednisolone, prednisone, or cyclosporine A versus the use of IVF/ICSI alone. Data source Databases were systematically searched in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases in September 2023. Study Selection Randomized clinical trials and observational studies with the outcomes of interest were included. Data collect We computed odds ratios (ORs) for binary endpoints, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.The main outcomes were live birth, miscarriage, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy, and biochemical pregnancy. Data synthesis Seven studies with 2,829 patients were included. Immunosuppressive treatments were used in 1,312 (46.37%). Cyclosporine A improved implantation rate (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.01-2.18) and clinical pregnancy (1.89, 95% CI 1.14-3.14). Compared to non-immunosuppressive treatment, prednisolone and prednisone did not improve live birth (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88-1.46) and miscarriage (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.07-2.09). Prednisolone showed no significant effect in patients undergoing IVF/ICSI, clinical pregnancy (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.76-2.36), or implantation rate (OR 1.36; 95% CI 0.76-2.42). Conclusion Cyclosporine A may promote implantation and clinical pregnancy rates. However, given the limited sample size, it is important to approach these findings with caution. Our results indicate that prednisolone and prednisone do not have any beneficial effects on clinical outcomes of IVF/ICSI patients with repeated implantation failure. PROSPERO CRD42023449655