Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults.

BACKGROUND: Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, such as neostigmine, have traditionally been used for reversal of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents. However, these drugs have significant limitations, such as indirect mechanisms of reversal, limited and unpredictable efficacy, and undesirable autonomic responses. Sugammadex is a selective relaxant-binding agent specifically developed for rapid reversal of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blockade induced by rocuronium. Its potential clinical benefits include fast and predictable reversal of any degree of block, increased patient safety, reduced incidence of residual block on recovery, and more efficient use of healthcare resources. OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade caused by non-depolarizing neuromuscular agents in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 2 May 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (WebSPIRS Ovid SP), Embase (WebSPIRS Ovid SP), and the clinical trials registries www.controlled-trials.com, clinicaltrials.gov, and www.centerwatch.com. We re-ran the search on 10 May 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published, or language. We included adults, classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I to IV, who received non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents for an elective in-patient or day-case surgical procedure. We included all trials comparing sugammadex versus neostigmine that reported recovery times or adverse events. We included any dose of sugammadex and neostigmine and any time point of study drug administration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts to identify trials for eligibility, examined articles for eligibility, abstracted data, assessed the articles, and excluded obviously irrelevant reports. We resolved disagreements by discussion between review authors and further disagreements through consultation with the last review author. We assessed risk of bias in 10 methodological domains using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and examined risk of random error through trial sequential analysis. We used the principles of the GRADE approach to prepare an overall assessment of the quality of evidence. For our primary outcomes (recovery times to train-of-four ratio (TOFR) > 0.9), we presented data as mean differences (MDs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and for our secondary outcomes (risk of adverse events and risk of serious adverse events), we calculated risk ratios (RRs) with CIs. MAIN RESULTS: We included 41 studies (4206 participants) in this updated review, 38 of which were new studies. Twelve trials were eligible for meta-analysis of primary outcomes (n = 949), 28 trials were eligible for meta-analysis of secondary outcomes (n = 2298), and 10 trials (n = 1647) were ineligible for meta-analysis.We compared sugammadex 2 mg/kg and neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg for reversal of rocuronium-induced moderate neuromuscular blockade (NMB). Sugammadex 2 mg/kg was 10.22 minutes (6.6 times) faster then neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg (1.96 vs 12.87 minutes) in reversing NMB from the second twitch (T2) to TOFR > 0.9 (MD 10.22 minutes, 95% CI 8.48 to 11.96; I2 = 84%; 10 studies, n = 835; GRADE: moderate quality).We compared sugammadex 4 mg/kg and neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg for reversal of rocuronium-induced deep NMB. Sugammadex 4 mg/kg was 45.78 minutes (16.8 times) faster then neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg (2.9 vs 48.8 minutes) in reversing NMB from post-tetanic count (PTC) 1 to 5 to TOFR > 0.9 (MD 45.78 minutes, 95% CI 39.41 to 52.15; I2 = 0%; two studies, n = 114; GRADE: low quality).For our secondary outcomes, we compared sugammadex, any dose, and neostigmine, any dose, looking at risk of adverse and serious adverse events. We found significantly fewer composite adverse events in the sugammadex group compared with the neostigmine group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.74; I2 = 40%; 28 studies, n = 2298; GRADE: moderate quality). Risk of adverse events was 28% in the neostigmine group and 16% in the sugammadex group, resulting in a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8. When looking at specific adverse events, we noted significantly less risk of bradycardia (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34; I2= 0%; 11 studies, n = 1218; NNTB 14; GRADE: moderate quality), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.97; I2 = 0%; six studies, n = 389; NNTB 16; GRADE: low quality) and overall signs of postoperative residual paralysis (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.57; I2 = 0%; 15 studies, n = 1474; NNTB 13; GRADE: moderate quality) in the sugammadex group when compared with the neostigmine group. Finally, we found no significant differences between sugammadex and neostigmine regarding risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.25; I2= 0%; 10 studies, n = 959; GRADE: low quality).Application of trial sequential analysis (TSA) indicates superiority of sugammadex for outcomes such as recovery time from T2 to TOFR > 0.9, adverse events, and overall signs of postoperative residual paralysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Review results suggest that in comparison with neostigmine, sugammadex can more rapidly reverse rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block regardless of the depth of the block. Sugammadex 2 mg/kg is 10.22 minutes (˜ 6.6 times) faster in reversing moderate neuromuscular blockade (T2) than neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg (GRADE: moderate quality), and sugammadex 4 mg/kg is 45.78 minutes (˜ 16.8 times) faster in reversing deep neuromuscular blockade (PTC 1 to 5) than neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg (GRADE: low quality). With an NNTB of 8 to avoid an adverse event, sugammadex appears to have a better safety profile than neostigmine. Patients receiving sugammadex had 40% fewer adverse events compared with those given neostigmine. Specifically, risks of bradycardia (RR 0.16, NNTB 14; GRADE: moderate quality), PONV (RR 0.52, NNTB 16; GRADE: low quality), and overall signs of postoperative residual paralysis (RR 0.40, NNTB 13; GRADE: moderate quality) were reduced. Both sugammadex and neostigmine were associated with serious adverse events in less than 1% of patients, and data showed no differences in risk of serious adverse events between groups (RR 0.54; GRADE: low quality).

Aerosolized prostacyclins for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a critical condition that is associated with high mortality and morbidity. Aerosolized prostacyclin has been used to improve oxygenation despite the limited evidence available so far.This review was originally published in 2010 and updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of aerosolized prostacyclin in adults and children with ARDS. SEARCH METHODS: In this update, we searched CENTRAL (2017, Issue 4); MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), ISI BIOSIS Previews, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and three trials registers. We handsearched the reference lists of the latest reviews, randomized and non-randomized trials, and editorials, and cross-checked them with our search of MEDLINE. We contacted the main authors of included studies to request any missed, unreported or ongoing studies. The search was run from inception to 5 May 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published or language. We contacted trial investigators and study authors to retrieve relevant and missing data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently abstracted data and resolved any disagreements by discussion. Our primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. We planned to perform subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the effect of aerosolized prostacyclin in adults and children, and on various clinical and physiological outcomes. We assessed the risk of bias through assessment of methodological trial components and the risk of random error through trial sequential analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs with 81 participants.One RCT involved 14 critically ill children with ARDS (very low quality of evidence), and one RCT involved 67 critically ill adults (very low quality evidence).Only one RCT (paediatric trial) provided data on mortality and found no difference between intervention and control. However, this trial was eligible for meta-analysis due to a cross-over design.We assessed the benefits and harms of aerosolized prostacyclin. One RCT found no difference in improvement of partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio (mean difference (MD) -25.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -60.48 to 9.78; P = 0.16; 67 participants, very low quality evidence).There were no adverse events such as bleeding or organ dysfunction in any of the included trials. Due to the limited number of RCTs, we were unable to perform the prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses or trial sequential analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are unable to tell from our results whether the intervention has an important effect on mortality because the results were too imprecise to rule out a small or no effect. Therefore, no current evidence supports or refutes the routine use of aerosolized prostacyclin for people with ARDS. There is an urgent need for more RCTs.

Antithrombin III for critically ill patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

PURPOSE: Antithrombin III (AT III) is an anticoagulant with anti-inflammatory properties. We assessed the benefits and harms of AT III in critically ill patients. METHODS: We searched from inception to 27 August 2015 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CAB, BIOSIS and CINAHL. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published or language. RESULTS: We included 30 RCTs with a total of 3933 participants. The majority of included trials were at high risk of bias. Combining all trials, regardless of bias, showed no statistically significant effect of AT III on mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88-1.03, I (2) = 0%, fixed-effect model, 29 trials, 3882 participants). Among those with severe sepsis and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), AT III showed no impact on mortality (RR 0.95, 95% Cl 0.88-1.03, I (2) = 0%, fixed-effect model, 12 trials, 2858 participants). We carried out multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the benefits and harms of AT III and to examine the impact of risk of bias. AT III significantly increased bleeding events (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.35-1.84, I (2) = 0%, fixed-effect model, 11 trials, 3019 participants). However, for all other outcome measures and analyses, the results did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support AT III substitution in any category of critically ill participants including those with sepsis and DIC. AT III did not show an impact on mortality, but increased the risk of bleeding.

Antithrombin III for critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Critical illness is associated with uncontrolled inflammation and vascular damage which can result in multiple organ failure and death. Antithrombin III (AT III) is an anticoagulant with anti-inflammatory properties but the efficacy and any harmful effects of AT III supplementation in critically ill patients are unknown. This review was published in 2008 and updated in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To examine:1. The effect of AT III on mortality in critically ill participants.2. The benefits and harms of AT III.We investigated complications specific and not specific to the trial intervention, bleeding events, the effect on sepsis and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and in hospital in general. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to 27 August 2015: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP,), CAB, BIOSIS and CINAHL. We contacted the main authors of trials to ask for any missed, unreported or ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published, or language. We contacted the investigators and the trial authors in order to retrieve missing data. In this updated review we include trials only published as abstracts. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Our primary outcome measure was mortality. Two authors each independently abstracted data and resolved any disagreements by discussion. We presented pooled estimates of the intervention effects on dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We performed subgroup analyses to assess risk of bias, the effect of AT III in different populations (sepsis, trauma, obstetrics, and paediatrics), and the effect of AT III in patients with or without the use of concomitant heparin. We assessed the adequacy of the available number of participants and performed trial sequential analysis (TSA) to establish the implications for further research. MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 RCTs with a total of 3933 participants (3882 in the primary outcome analyses).Combining all trials, regardless of bias, showed no statistically significant effect of AT III on mortality with a RR of 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.03), I² statistic = 0%, fixed-effect model, 29 trials, 3882 participants, moderate quality of evidence). For trials with low risk of bias the RR was 0.96 (95% Cl 0.88 to 1.04, I² statistic = 0%, fixed-effect model, 9 trials, 2915 participants) and for high risk of bias RR 0.94 (95% Cl 0.77 to 1.14, I² statistic = 0%, fixed-effect model, 20 trials, 967 participants).For participants with severe sepsis and DIC the RR for mortality was non-significant, 0.95 (95% Cl 0.88 to 1.03, I² statistic = 0%, fixed-effect model, 12 trials, 2858 participants, moderate quality of evidence).We conducted 14 subgroup and sensitivity analyses with respect to the different domains of risk of bias, but detected no statistically significant benefit in any subgroup analyses.Our secondary objective was to assess the benefits and harms of AT III. For complications specific to the trial intervention the RR was 1.26 (95% Cl 0.83 to 1.92, I² statistic = 0%, random-effect model, 3 trials, 2454 participants, very low quality of evidence). For complications not specific to the trial intervention, the RR was 0.71 (95% Cl 0.08 to 6.11, I² statistic = 28%, random-effects model, 2 trials, 65 participants, very low quality of evidence). For complications other than bleeding, the RR was 0.72 ( 95% Cl 0.42 to 1.25, I² statistic = 0%, fixed-effect model, 3 trials, 187 participants, very low quality of evidence). Eleven trials investigated bleeding events and we found a statistically significant increase, RR 1.58 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.84, I² statistic = 0%, fixed-effect model, 11 trials, 3019 participants, moderate quality of evidence) in the AT III group. The amount of red blood cells administered had a mean difference (MD) of 138.49 (95% Cl -391.35 to 668.34, I² statistic = 84%, random-effect model, 4 trials, 137 participants, very low quality of evidence). The effect of AT III in patients with multiple organ failure (MOF) was a MD of -1.24 (95% Cl -2.18 to -0.29, I² statistic = 48%, random-effects model, 3 trials, 156 participants, very low quality of evidence) and for patients with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score (APACHE) at II and III the MD was -2.18 (95% Cl -4.36 to -0.00, I² statistic = 0%, fixed-effect model, 3 trials, 102 participants, very low quality of evidence). The incidence of respiratory failure had a RR of 0.93 (95% Cl 0.76 to 1.14, I² statistic = 32%, random-effects model, 6 trials, 2591 participants, moderate quality of evidence). AT III had no statistically significant impact on the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 2.20 days, 95% Cl -1.21 to 5.60, I² statistic = 0%, fixed-effect model, 3 trials, 190 participants, very low quality of evidence); on the length of stay in the ICU (MD 0.24, 95% Cl -1.34 to 1.83, I² statistic = 0%, fixed-effect model, 7 trials, 376 participants, very low quality of evidence) or on the length of stay in hospital in general (MD 1.10, 95% Cl -7.16 to 9.36), I² statistic = 74%, 4 trials, 202 participants, very low quality of evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support AT III substitution in any category of critically ill participants including the subset of patients with sepsis and DIC. We did not find a statistically significant effect of AT III on mortality, but AT III increased the risk of bleeding events. Subgroup analyses performed according to duration of intervention, length of follow-up, different patient groups, and use of adjuvant heparin did not show differences in the estimates of intervention effects. The majority of included trials were at high risk of bias (GRADE; very low quality of evidence for most of the analyses). Hence a large RCT of AT III is needed, without adjuvant heparin among critically ill patients such as those with severe sepsis and DIC, with prespecified inclusion criteria and good bias protection.

suPAR as a biomarker for risk of readmission and mortality in the acute medical setting.

INTRODUCTION: The urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) and its ligand (suPAR) are involved in numerous physiological and pathological pathways. Previous studies have shown that an elevated plasma suPAR level is associated with disease severity and mortality. The aim of this prospective observational study was to determine if the suPAR level was associated with readmission and mortality in the acute medical setting. METHODS: Plasma suPAR levels were measured in 1,036 patients at admission. Follow-up ranged 3-10 months. Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the relative contribution of different risk factors to mortality and readmission. The ANOVA test and Pearson's chi-squared test were used to compare suPAR tertile level with various variables. RESULTS: The highest suPAR tertile level was significantly associated with mortality within 30 days after discharge, with a 6.66 hazard ratio (HR). Similar associations were found with readmission within the maximum observation period (HR = 2.26) and within 30 days (HR = 2.08), although the latter became insignificant when covariates were included. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms previous findings of increased mortality and adds the finding that increased long-term readmission rates are associated with elevated suPAR levels. The present data do, however, not indicate that suPAR may serve as an independent biomarker for increased risk of short-term readmission in the acute medical setting. FUNDING: This study was funded by a grant from ViroGates A/S, the company that produces the suPARnostic assay. TRIAL REGISTRATION: No: H-B-2009-075.

Selenium supplementation for critically ill adults.

BACKGROUND: Selenium is a trace mineral essential to health and has an important role in immunity, defence against tissue damage and thyroid function. Improving selenium status could help protect against overwhelming tissue damage and infection in critically ill adults. This Cochrane review was originally published in 2004 updated in 2007 and again 2015. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to examine the effect of nutrition supplemented with selenium or ebselen on mortality in critically ill patients.The secondary objective was to examine the relationship between selenium or ebselen supplementation and number of infections, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit stay and length of hospital stay. SEARCH METHODS: In this update, we searched the current issue of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 5); MEDLINE (Ovid SP, to May 20, 2014), EMBASE (Ovid SP, to May 20, 2014), CAB, BIOSIS and CINAHL. We handsearched the reference lists of the newest reviews and cross-checked with our search in MEDLINE. We contacted the main authors of included studies to request any missed, unreported or ongoing studies. The latest search was performed up to 21 May 2014. The search is now from inception until 21 May 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published or language. We contacted the trial investigators and authors in order to retrieve relevant and missing data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and we resolved any disagreements by discussion. Our primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. We performed several subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the effects of selenium in critically ill patients. We presented pooled estimates of the effects of intervention as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the risk of bias through assessment of trial methodological components and the risk of random error through trial sequential analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included six new RCTs in this review update. In total we included 16 RCTs (2084 participants) in this review. Most trials were at high risk of bias. The availability of outcome data was limited and trials involving selenium supplementation were, with the exception of one trial, small regarding sample size. Thus the results must be interpreted with caution.Thirteen trials of intravenous sodium selenite showed a statistically significant reduction in overall mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.93, 1391 participants, very low quality of evidence). However, the overall point estimate on mortality is primarily influenced by trials of high risk of bias. Meta-analysis of three trials of ebselen had a RR of 0.83 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.34, 693 participants, very low quality of evidence).Nine trials of intravenous sodium selenite were analysed for 28 days mortality with no statistically significant difference (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02, 1180 participants, very low quality of evidence) while three trials were analysed for 90 days mortality with similar findings (RR 0.96, 95% Cl 0.78 to 1.18, 614 participants, very low quality of evidence).Two trials of ebselen were analysed for 90 days mortality and were not found to yield any benefit (RR 0.72, 95% Cl 0.42 to 1.22, 588 participants, very low quality of evidence).For mortality among intensive care patients selenium supplementation failed to indicate any statistically significant advantage (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01, nine trials, 1168 participants, very low quality of evidence).Six trials of intravenous sodium selenite found no statistically significant difference for participants developing infection (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.23, 934 patients, very low quality of evidence). Similarly, three trials of ebselen provided data for participants developing infections (pyrexia, respiratory infections or meningitis) with no obvious benefit (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.02, 685 participants, very low quality of evidence).Our analyses showed no effect of selenium or ebselen on adverse events (Selenium: RR 1.03, 95% Cl 0.85 to 1.24; six trials, 925 participants ; Ebselen: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.36; two trials, 588 participants, very low quality of evidence).No clear evidence emerged in favour of selenium supplementation for outcomes such as number of days on a ventilator (mean difference (MD) -0.86, 95% CI -4.39 to 2.67, four trials, 191 participants, very low quality of evidence), length of intensive care unit stay (MD 0.54, 95% CI -2.27 to 3.34, seven trials, 934 participants, very low quality of evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD -3.33, 95% Cl -5.22 to -1.44, five trials, 693 participants, very low quality of evidence).The quality of trial methodology was low. Due to high risk of bias in the included trials, results must be interpreted with caution. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite publication of a number of trials, the current evidence to recommend supplementation of critically ill patients with selenium or ebselen remains disputed. Trials are required which overcome the methodological inadequacies of the reviewed studies, particularly in relation to sample size, design and outcomes.