Effectiveness of dexmedetomidine on patient-centred outcomes in surgical patients: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
{"title":"Effectiveness of dexmedetomidine on patient-centred outcomes in surgical patients: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.06.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Dexmedetomidine is increasingly used for surgical patients requiring general anaesthesia. However, its effectiveness on patient-centred outcomes remains uncertain. Our main objective was to evaluate the patient-centred effectiveness of intraoperative dexmedetomidine for adult patients requiring surgery under general anaesthesia.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to October 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine with placebo, opioid, or usual care in adult patients requiring surgery under general anaesthesia were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. We synthesised data using a random-effects Bayesian regression framework to derive effect estimates and the probability of a clinically important effect. For continuous outcomes, we pooled instruments with similar constructs using standardised mean differences (SMDs) and converted SMDs and credible intervals (CrIs) to their original scale when appropriate. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Our primary outcome was quality of recovery after surgery. To guide interpretation on the original scale, the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) instrument was used (range 0–150 points, minimally important difference [MID] of 6 points).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We identified 49,069 citations, from which 44 RCTs involving 5904 participants were eligible. Intraoperative dexmedetomidine administration was associated with improvement in postoperative QoR-15 (mean difference 9, 95% CrI 4–14, <em>n</em>=21 RCTs, moderate certainty of evidence). We found 99% probability of any benefit and 88% probability of achieving the MID. There was a reduction in chronic pain incidence (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% CrI 0.19–0.79, <em>n</em>=7 RCTs, low certainty of evidence). There was also increased risk of clinically significant hypotension (OR 1.98, 95% CrI 0.84–3.92, posterior probability of harm 94%, <em>n</em>=8 RCTs) and clinically significant bradycardia (OR 1.74, 95% CrI 0.93–3.34, posterior probability of harm 95%, <em>n</em>=10 RCTs), with very low certainty of evidence for both. There was limited evidence to inform other secondary patient-centred outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Compared with placebo or standard of care, intraoperative dexmedetomidine likely results in meaningful improvement in the quality of recovery and chronic pain after surgery. However, it might increase clinically important bradycardia and hypotension.</p></div><div><h3>Systematic Review Protocol</h3><p>PROSPERO (CRD42023439896).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091224003465/pdfft?md5=6040267b132e865ad5cdaa04e76e9740&pid=1-s2.0-S0007091224003465-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091224003465","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Dexmedetomidine is increasingly used for surgical patients requiring general anaesthesia. However, its effectiveness on patient-centred outcomes remains uncertain. Our main objective was to evaluate the patient-centred effectiveness of intraoperative dexmedetomidine for adult patients requiring surgery under general anaesthesia.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to October 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine with placebo, opioid, or usual care in adult patients requiring surgery under general anaesthesia were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. We synthesised data using a random-effects Bayesian regression framework to derive effect estimates and the probability of a clinically important effect. For continuous outcomes, we pooled instruments with similar constructs using standardised mean differences (SMDs) and converted SMDs and credible intervals (CrIs) to their original scale when appropriate. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Our primary outcome was quality of recovery after surgery. To guide interpretation on the original scale, the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) instrument was used (range 0–150 points, minimally important difference [MID] of 6 points).

Results

We identified 49,069 citations, from which 44 RCTs involving 5904 participants were eligible. Intraoperative dexmedetomidine administration was associated with improvement in postoperative QoR-15 (mean difference 9, 95% CrI 4–14, n=21 RCTs, moderate certainty of evidence). We found 99% probability of any benefit and 88% probability of achieving the MID. There was a reduction in chronic pain incidence (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% CrI 0.19–0.79, n=7 RCTs, low certainty of evidence). There was also increased risk of clinically significant hypotension (OR 1.98, 95% CrI 0.84–3.92, posterior probability of harm 94%, n=8 RCTs) and clinically significant bradycardia (OR 1.74, 95% CrI 0.93–3.34, posterior probability of harm 95%, n=10 RCTs), with very low certainty of evidence for both. There was limited evidence to inform other secondary patient-centred outcomes.

Conclusions

Compared with placebo or standard of care, intraoperative dexmedetomidine likely results in meaningful improvement in the quality of recovery and chronic pain after surgery. However, it might increase clinically important bradycardia and hypotension.

Systematic Review Protocol

PROSPERO (CRD42023439896).

右美托咪定对外科手术患者以患者为中心的疗效:系统综述和贝叶斯荟萃分析。
背景:右美托咪定越来越多地用于需要全身麻醉的手术患者。然而,其对以患者为中心的结果的有效性仍不确定。我们的主要目的是评估术中使用右美托咪定对需要在全身麻醉下进行手术的成人患者以患者为中心的效果:我们对从开始到 2023 年 10 月的 MEDLINE、Embase、CENTRAL、Web of Science 和 CINAHL 进行了系统检索。纳入的随机对照试验(RCT)对需要进行全身麻醉手术的成年患者术中使用右美托咪定与安慰剂、阿片类药物或常规护理进行了比较。研究筛选、数据提取和偏倚风险评估由两名审稿人独立完成。我们采用随机效应贝叶斯回归框架对数据进行综合,以得出效应估计值和临床重要效应的概率。对于连续性结果,我们使用标准化均值差异(SMDs)对具有相似结构的工具进行了汇总,并在适当时将SMDs和可信区间(CrIs)转换为原始标度。我们采用建议评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)方法对证据的确定性进行了评估。我们的主要结果是术后恢复质量。为了指导对原始量表的解释,我们使用了恢复质量-15(QoR-15)工具(范围为 0-150 分,最小重要差异 [MID] 为 6 分):结果:我们确定了 49,069 篇引文,其中有 44 项涉及 5904 名参与者的研究符合条件。术中使用右美托咪定与术后QoR-15的改善有关(平均差异9,95% CrI 4-14,n=21项RCT,中度证据确定性)。我们发现任何获益的概率为 99%,达到 MID 的概率为 88%。慢性疼痛的发生率有所降低(几率比 [OR] 0.42,95% CrI 0.19-0.79,n=7 项 RCT,低度证据确定性)。临床显著低血压(OR 1.98,95% CrI 0.84-3.92,危害后验概率 94%,n=8 项研究数据)和临床显著心动过缓(OR 1.74,95% CrI 0.93-3.34,危害后验概率 95%,n=10 项研究数据)的风险也有所增加,两者的证据确定性都很低。有关其他以患者为中心的次要结果的证据有限:结论:与安慰剂或标准护理相比,术中使用右美托咪定可能会显著改善术后恢复质量和慢性疼痛。结论:与安慰剂或标准护理相比,术中使用右美托咪定可能会有意义地改善术后恢复质量和慢性疼痛,但可能会增加临床上重要的心动过缓和低血压:prospero(CRD42023439896)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信