Efficacy of Nonpharmacological Antishivering Interventions: A Systematic Analysis

Efficacy of different warming methods for perioperative hypothermia prevention on body temperature and shivering among transurethral resection patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis study

PURPOSE

The present study attempts to assess the impacts of distinct warming strategies employed to avert perioperative hypothermia on core body temperature and shivering among transurethral resection patients.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of Turkish and English keywords across a range of databases, including PUBMED, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, Ovid, EBSCOhost, Yöktez, DergiPark, and TR Index, to identify studies on the subject published between January 1, 2001-2024. The search procedure yielded 11 studies to be recruited for meta-analysis. We analyzed the data using the trial version of Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software (CMA). The degree of heterogeneity was quantified using Higgins I2 tests, while we assessed publication bias through Kendall's Tau and Egger's regression analyses.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis focuses exclusively on the effects of forced air warming and irrigation fluid warming, as only these methods provided sufficient data to calculate effect size. Our findings demonstrated that while forced air warming significantly affected preoperative (g = 0.279), intraoperative (15th minute, T4) (g = 0.845), postoperative (g = 0.647) body temperature and postoperative shivering (g = -2.279), irrigation fluid warming had a significant impact on postoperative body temperature (g = 1.007) and intraoperative shivering (g = 0.188).

CONCLUSION

Overall, our results indicated that forced air warming and irrigation fluid warming can serve as a preventive measure against hypothermia and shivering among transurethral resection patients. Given that other forms of warming could not be included in this research, further studies are recommended to explore scholarly evidence on the efficacy of these methods.

Effect of Different Doses of Butorphanol on Postoperative Shivering in Elderly Patients: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Purpose

This study was designed to investigate the effects of different doses of butorphanol on postoperative shivering and quality of recovery in elderly patients.

Patients and Methods

A total of 147 elderly patients (aged 60 or older) scheduled for elective transurethral resection of the prostate were enrolled in the current study. Patients were randomly and evenly assigned into four groups: Group C (0.9% normal saline), Group B1 (butorphanol 0.01 mg/kg), Group B2 (butorphanol 0.02 mg/kg) and Group B3 (butorphanol 0.03 mg/kg). All drugs were diluted to 5mL and injected intravenously slowly 5 min before induction of anesthesia. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of postoperative shivering in the post-anesthesia care unit. Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) scores were assessed on postoperative day (POD) 1, 2 and 3. Perioperative core and skin temperature, extubation time and adverse events were also recorded.

Results

Patients among the four groups had comparable baseline characteristics. Compared with Group C, the incidence of shivering was significantly lower in Group B2 and B3 (P = 0.006 and P = 0.005, respectively). The QoR-40 scores on POD1 were significantly higher in all butorphanol groups than that in Group C (P < 0.0083). In Group B2 and B3, patients experienced lower pain intensity (P < 0.001). In addition, the incidence of catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) was lower in all butorphanol groups than in Group C (P < 0.0083).

Conclusion

Butorphanol 0.02 or 0.03 mg/kg could effectively prevent the occurrence of postoperative shivering in elderly patients scheduled for transurethral resection of the prostate, provided effective postoperative recovery and postoperative analgesia.

Consensus statement for perioperative care in lumbar spinal fusion: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) evidence-based protocols for perioperative care have led to improvements in outcomes in numerous surgical areas, through multimodal optimization of patient pathway, reduction of complications, improved patient experience and reduction in the length of stay. ERAS represent a relatively new paradigm in spine surgery.

PURPOSE

This multidisciplinary consensus review summarizes the literature and proposes recommendations for the perioperative care of patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery with an ERAS program.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a review article.

METHODS

Under the impetus of the ERAS® society, a multidisciplinary guideline development group was constituted by bringing together international experts involved in the practice of ERAS and spine surgery. This group identified 22 ERAS items for lumbar fusion. A systematic search in the English language was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and cohort studies were included, and the evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Consensus recommendation was reached by the group after a critical appraisal of the literature.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-six articles were included to develop the consensus statements for 22 ERAS items; one ERAS item (prehabilitation) was excluded from the final summary due to very poor quality and conflicting evidence in lumbar spinal fusion. From these remaining 21 ERAS items, 28 recommendations were included. All recommendations on ERAS protocol items are based on the best available evidence. These included nine preoperative, eleven intraoperative, and six postoperative recommendations. They span topics from preoperative patient education and nutritional evaluation, intraoperative anesthetic and surgical techniques, and postoperative multimodal analgesic strategies. The level of evidence for the use of each recommendation is presented.

CONCLUSION

Based on the best evidence available for each ERAS item within the multidisciplinary perioperative care pathways, the ERAS® Society presents this comprehensive consensus review for perioperative care in lumbar fusion.

Postanaesthetic shivering - from pathophysiology to prevention

Postoperative shivering is a common complication of anaesthesia. Shivering is believed to increase oxygen consumption, increase the risk of hypoxemia, induce lactic acidosis, and catecholamine release. Therefore, it might increase the postoperative complications especially in high-risk patients. Moreover, shivering is one of the leading causes of discomfort for postsurgical patients. Shivering is usually triggered by hypothermia. However, it occurs even in normothermic patients during the perioperative period. The aetiology of shivering has been understood insufficiently. Another potential mechanism is pain and acute opioid withdrawal (especially with the use of short-acting narcotics). Besides that shivering is poorly understood, the gold standard for the treatment and prevention has not been defined yet. Perioperative hypothermia prevention is the first method to avoid shivering. Many therapeutic strategies for treating shivering exist and most are empiric. Unfortunately, the overall quality of the antishivering guidelines is low. Two main strategies are available: pharmacological and non-pharmacological antishivering methods. The combination of forced-air warming devices and intravenous meperidine is the most validated method. We also analysed different medications but final conclusion about the optimal antishivering medication is difficult to be drawn due to the lack of high-quality evidence. Nevertheless, control of PS is possible and clinically effective with simple pharmacological interventions combined with non pharmacological methods. However, to be consistent with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice, future antishivering treatment protocols should optimize methodological rigor and transparency.

Systematic Quality Assessment of Published Antishivering Protocols

Shivering is a common side effect of targeted temperature modulation and general anesthesia. Antishivering strategies often employ a stepwise approach involving both pharmacological and physical interventions. However, approaches to treat shivering are often empiric and vary widely across care environments. We evaluated the quality of published antishivering protocols and guidelines with respect to methodological rigor, reliability, and consistency of recommendations.Using 4 medical databases, we identified 4027 publications that addressed shivering therapy, and excluded 3354 due to lack of relevance. After applying predefined eligibility criteria with respect to minimal protocol standards, 18 protocols/guidelines remained. Each was assessed using a modified Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (mAGREE II) instrument containing 23 quality items within 6 domains (maximal score 23). Among 18 protocols/guidelines, only 3 incorporated systematically reviewed recommendations, whereas 15 merely targeted practice standardization. Fifteen of 18 protocols/guidelines addressed shivering during therapeutic cooling in which skin counterwarming and meperidine were most commonly cited. However, their mAGREE II scores were within the lowest tertile (1 to 7 points) and the median for all 18 protocols was 5. The quality domains most commonly absent were stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, and editorial independence. Three of 18 protocols/guidelines addressed postanesthetic antishivering. Of these, the American Society of Anesthesiologists guidelines recommending forced-air warming and meperidine received the highest mAGREE II score (14 points), whereas the remaining 2 recommendations had low scores (<5 points).Current published antishivering protocols/guidelines lack methodological rigor, reliability, and strength, and even the highest scoring of the 18 protocols/guidelines fulfilled only 60% of quality items. To be consistent with evidence-based protocol/guideline development processes, future antishivering treatment algorithms should increase methodological rigor and transparency.

Therapeutic Hypothermia After Cardiac Arrest

OPINION STATEMENT

Resuscitated cardiac arrest continues to carry a poor prognosis despite advances in medical care. One such advance, therapeutic hypothermia, is neuroprotective and has been demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes in patients who remain unresponsive despite return of spontaneous circulation after arrhythmogenic cardiac arrest. Two landmark randomized controlled trials, both reported in 2002, led to endorsements by major American and European guidelines for therapeutic hypothermia as a viable treatment option for the prevention of adverse outcomes related to anoxic encephalopathy. Since then, significant research has been conducted to better understand the optimum strategies to maximize the neuroprotective effects of hypothermia. However, dissemination of therapeutic hypothermia guideline recommendations into clinical practice has been slow and incomplete. In this review article, we discuss the historical background and physiologic rationale for therapeutic hypothermia, review the recent literature supporting this intervention, and outline practical considerations.

Intrathecal Sufentanil Does Not Reduce Shivering During Neuraxial Anesthesia: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of intrathecal sufentanil in preventing shivering during neuraxial anesthesia.

MATERIAL/METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase for all randomized controlled trials (RCT) on use of intrathecal sufentanil for preventing shivering during neuraxial anesthesia. References of retrieved articles were also screened. The quality of the studies was evaluated by the method recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.3 software. The primary outcome was incidence and severity of shivering, and the secondary outcomes were drug-related complications of pruritus, nausea, vomiting, hypotension, and bradycardia.

RESULTS

Eight original RCTs investigating a total of 1032 patients, of whom 599 received sufentanil and 473 received placebo, met the inclusion criteria. Compared to the placebo group, sufentanil did not reduce incidence of shivering (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.01; P=0.06), but it increased the incidence of pruritus (OR, 12.52; 95% CI, 5.07 to 30.91; P<0.00001). Compared to the placebo group, sufentanil did not increase the incidence of nausea (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.16; P=0.16), hypotension (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.41; P=0.74), or bradycardia (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.82; P=0.70). In addition, sufentanil reduced the incidence of vomiting during neuraxial anesthesia (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.92; P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Neither epidural nor subarachnoid intrathecal sufentanil reduced shivering during neuraxial anesthesia, but it did increase the incidence of pruritus.