Efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygenation against peri- and post-procedural hypoxemia in patients with obesity: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Efficacy and safety of gefapixant for chronic cough: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of gefapixant in adults with chronic cough remain unclear. Our objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of gefapixant using updated evidence.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Embase databases were searched from inception through September 2022. Subgroup analysis based on dose of gefapixant (i.e. ≤20, 45-50 and ≥100 mg twice daily for low, moderate and high doses, respectively) was performed to explore a potential dose-dependent effect.

RESULTS

Five studies involving seven trials showed the efficacy of moderate- or high-dose gefapixant for reducing objective 24-h cough frequency (estimated relative reduction 30.9% and 58.5%, respectively) (i.e. primary outcome) and awake cough frequency (estimated relative reduction 47.3% and 62.8%, respectively). Night-time cough frequency was only reduced with high-dose gefapixant. Consistently, the use of moderate- or high-dose gefapixant significantly alleviated cough severity and improved cough-related quality of life, but increased the risk of all-cause adverse events (AEs), treatment-related AEs and ageusia/dysgeusia/hypogeusia. Subgroup analysis showed dose dependency in both efficacy and AEs with a cut-off dose being ≥45 mg twice daily.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis revealed dose-dependent efficacy and adverse effects of gefapixant against chronic cough. Further studies are required to investigate the feasibility of moderate-dose (i.e. 45-50 mg twice daily) gefapixant in clinical practice.

The use of remimazolam versus propofol for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The primary objective of this study was to compare the risk of hypotension, as well as the induction and recovery characteristics between remimazolam and propofol in patients receiving surgery under general anesthesia. Methods: The Embase, Medline, Google scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to March 2022 for randomized controlled trials The primary outcome was the risk of post-induction hypotension between the two agents, while the secondary outcomes included anesthetic depth, induction efficacy, time to loss of consciousness (LOC), hemodynamic profiles, time to eye opening, extubation time as well as the incidence of injection pain and postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV). Results: Meta-analysis of eight studies published from 2020 to 2022 involving 738 patients revealed a significantly lower risk of post-induction hypotension with the use of remimazolam compared to that with propofol [risk ratio (RR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43 to 0.75, p < 0.0001, I2 = 12%, five studies, 564 patients]. After anesthetic induction, the anesthetic depth measured by bispectral index (BIS) was lighter in the remimazolam group than that in the propofol group (MD = 9.26, 95% confidence interval: 3.06 to 15.47, p = 0.003, I2 = 94%, five studies, 490 patients). The time to loss of consciousness was also longer in the former compared to the latter (MD = 15.49 s, 95%CI: 6.53 to 24.46, p = 0.0007, I2 = 61%, three studies, 331 patients). However, the use of remimazolam correlated with a lower risk of injection pain (RR = 0.03, 95%CI: 0.01 to 0.16, p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%, three studies, 407 patients) despite comparable efficacy of anesthetic induction (RR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.9 to 1.06, p = 0.57, I2 = 76%, two studies, 319 patients). Our results demonstrated no difference in time to eye opening, extubation time, and risk of PONV between the two groups. Conclusion: Remimazolam was associated with a lower risk of post-induction hypotension after anesthetic induction compared with propofol with similar recovery characteristics. Further studies are required to support our findings. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Identifier: CRD42022320658.

Usefulness of Analgesia Nociception Index for guiding intraoperative opioid administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This study primarily aimed at investigating the efficacy of Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) for guiding intraoperative opioid administration in patients receiving surgery under general anesthesia.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The Medline, Embase, Google scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to April 2022 for randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was intraoperative opioid administration, while the secondary outcomes included postoperative opioid consumption, pain score, emergency time, risk of nausea/vomiting (PONV), and Postanesthesia Care Unit (PACU) stay.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Six studies including 399 participants (published from 2015 to 2022) focused on non-cardiac surgery, including spine surgery (two trials), breast surgery (two trials), gynecologic surgery (one trial), and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (one trial) were included. Meta-analysis revealed no difference in intraoperative opioid administration with the use of ANI-guided analgesia compared to the control group that used conventional clinical measurements (e.g., heart rate) to guide opioid use [standardized mean difference (SMD)=-0.17, 95% CI: -0.56 to 0.22, P=0.39, I²=72%, six trials, 399 participants]. Gender-based subgroup analysis showed effectiveness of ANI for reducing opioid administration in female patients (SMD=-0.53, P=0.02). There were no differences in postoperative recovery characteristics including pain score [Mean difference (MD): -0.03, P=0.79], opioid consumption (SMD: -0.34, P=0.08), emergence time (MD=1.12, P=0.47), length of stay in the PACU (MD: -0.56, P=0.83), and risk of PONV [risk ratio(RR): 0.75, P=0.46] between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Analgesia nociception index-guided analgesia was unable to reduce intraoperative opioid administration compared to monitoring using conventional clinical parameters. Further studies are required to support our findings.

Efficacy of High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy in Obese Patients during the Perioperative Period: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background. Obesity is a risk factor for severe airway obstruction and hypoxemia. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is considered as a novel method for oxygen therapy, but the efficacy of HFNC for obese patients is controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of HFNC compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in obese patients during the perioperative period. Methods. We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Google scholar databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of HFNC with COT in obese patients during the perioperative period. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia, while the secondary outcomes included the lowest SpO2, the need for additional respiratory support, and the hospital length of stay (LOS). Results. Twelve trials with 798 obese patients during the perioperative period were included. Compared with COT, HFNC reduced the incidence of hypoxemia (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.83; $P=0.002$ ; I2 = 24%; 8 RCTs; n = 458), increased the lowest SpO2 (MD, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.53 to 4.22; $P<0.0001$ ; I2 = 32%; 5 RCTs; n = 264), decreased the need for additional respiratory support (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.88; $P=0.02$ ; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs; n = 305), and shortened the hospital LOS (MD, −0.31; 95% CI, −0.57 to −0.04; $P=0.02$ ; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs; n = 214). Conclusions. This meta-analysis showed that compared with COT, the use of HFNC was able to reduce the incidence of hypoxemia, increase the lowest SpO2, decrease the need for additional respiratory support, and shorten the hospital LOS in obese patients during the perioperative period. Well-organized trials with large sample size should be conducted to support our findings.

Impact of prior bariatric surgery on risk and severity of COVID-19 infection: A meta-analysis of observational studies

BACKGROUND

The association of prior bariatric surgery (BS) with infection rate and prognosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies to address this issue.

METHODS

We searched databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception to May, 2022. The primary outcome was risk of mortality, while secondary outcomes included risk of hospital/intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury (AKI), and infection rate.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 151,475 patients were analyzed. Meta-analysis showed lower risks of mortality [odd ratio (OR)= 0.42, 95% CI: 0.27-0.65, p < 0.001, I² = 67%; nine studies; 151,113 patients, certainty of evidence (COE):moderate], hospital admission (OR=0.56, 95% CI: 0.36-0.85, p = 0.007, I² =74.6%; seven studies; 17,810 patients; COE:low), ICU admission (OR=0.5, 95% CI: 0.37-0.67, p < 0.001, I² =0%; six studies; 17,496 patients, COE:moderate), mechanical ventilation (OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.37-0.72, p < 0.001, I² =57.1%; seven studies; 137,992 patients, COE:moderate) in patients with prior BS (BS group) than those with obesity without surgical treatment (non-BS group). There was no difference in risk of AKI (OR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.41-1.32, p = 0.304, I² =83.6%; four studies; 129,562 patients, COE: very low) and infection rate (OR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.89-1.22, p = 0.572, I² =0%; four studies; 12,633 patients, COE:low) between the two groups. Subgroup analysis from matched cohort studies demonstrated associations of prior BS with lower risks of mortality, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and AKI.

CONCLUSION

Our results showed a correlation between prior BS and less severe COVID-19, which warrants further investigations to verify.