Impact factor 0.175

Signa Vitae

A Journal In Intensive Care And Emergency Medicine

Tag: meta-analysis

Continuous infusion versus bolus injection of furosemide in pediatric patients after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized studies

Abstract

Introduction. Acute renal failure and fluid retention are common problems in pediatric patients after cardiac surgery. Furosemide, a loop diuretic drug, is frequently administered to increase urinary output. The aim of the present study was to compare efficacy and complications of continuous infusion of furosemide vs bolus injection among pediatric patients after cardiac surgery.

Methods. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in compliance with The Cochrane Collaboration and the Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analysis (QUORUM) guidelines. The following inclusion criteria were employed for potentially relevant studies: a) random treatment allocation, b) comparison of furosemide bolus vs continuous infusion, c) surgical or intensive care pediatric patients. Non-parallel design randomized trials (e.g. cross-over), duplicate publications and non-human experimental studies were excluded.

Results. Up to August 2008, only three studies were found, with 92 patients randomized (50 to continuous infusion and 42 to bolus treatment). Overall analysis showed that continuous infusion and bolus administration were equally effective in achieving the predefined urinary output, and were associated with a similar amount of administered furosemide (WMD=-1.71 mg/kg/day [-5.20; +1.78], p for effect=0.34, p for heterogeneity<0.001, I2=99.0). However, in the continuous infusion group, patients had a significantly reduced urinary output (WMD=-0.48 ml/kg/day [-0.88; -0.08], p for effect=0.02, p for heterogeneity <0.70, I2=0%).

Conclusions. Existing data comparing furosemide bolus injection with a continuous infusion are insufficient to confidently assess the best way to administer furosemide to pediatric patients after cardiac surgery. Larger studies are needed before any recommendations can be made.

Key words: furosemide, cardiac surgery, meta-analysis, intensive care unit, paediatric, acute kidney failure

Read More

Nesiritide and clinically relevant outcomes in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized studies

Abstract

B-type natriuretic peptide is a cardiac hormone that relaxes vascular smooth muscle and causes arterial dilatation. Nesiritide has been  associated with increased urine output; reduced diuretic requirements; and suppression of aldosterone, endothelin, and norepinephrine. We have independently conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials to determine the impact of nesiritide on renal replacement therapy and death in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We performed a meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled studies including 560 patients (280 receiving nesiritide and 280 assigned to the control group). Two unblinded reviewers selected randomized trials studying  nesiritide  in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Nesiritide doses ranged from 0.005 mcg/kg/min to 0.01 mcg/kg/min. Nesiritide did not reduce postoperative creatinine peak values: -0.16 [-0.42, 0.10], p for effect=0.23, p for heterogeneity<0.01, I2=90.5%) or the need for  renal replacement therapy (1/177 in the nesiritide group vs 4/176 in the control group OR 0.39 [0.07, 2.06], p for effect=0.27, p for heterogeneity=0.70, I2=0%). We observed an interesting trend toward a reduction in mortality in the nesiritide group:13/280 (4.6%) vs 22/280 (7.8%) OR 0.57 [0.28, 1.15], p for effect=0.12, p for heterogeneity=0.43, I2=0%. Nesiritide did not reduce time of mechanical ventilation -8.77 hours [-21.42, 3.88], p=0.17, length of hospital stay -2.67 days [-6.50, 1.16], p=0.17 or intensive care unit (ICU) stay -0.94 days [-2.83, 0.95], p=0.33. In conclusion, further randomized controlled trials are needed to support the hypothesis that nesiritide improves clinically relevant outcomes in cardiac surgery.

Key words: Nesiritide, meta-analysis, cardiac surgery, renal replacement therapy, mortality.

Read More

Continuous infusion versus bolus injection of furosemide in critically ill patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Introduction. Fluid overload and a positive fluid balance are common in the intensive care unit (ICU). Furosemide is frequently administered to increase  urine output. A bolus injection is the traditional mode of administration, but many concerns have been raised about possible intravascular volume fluctuations, toxicity and enhanced tolerance. Furosemide related adverse effects can be enhanced in critically ill patients. Continuous infusion should allow better hemodynamic stability, less side effects  and an easier achievement of the desired diuretic effect. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects and complications of continuous furosemide infusion  with those of bolus injections in critically ill patients in the ICU.
Methods. Studies were searched in PubMed (updated January 2009). Backward snowballing of included papers was performed. International experts were contacted for further studies.
The inclusion criteria were: random allocation to treatment, comparison of furosemide bolus vs continuous infusion, performed in surgical or intensive care patients. The exclusion criteria were: non-parallel design randomized trials, duplicate publications, non-human experimental studies, no outcome data.
Results. Four eligible randomized clinical trials were identified, including 129 patients (64 to continuous infusion and 65 to bolus treatment). Continuous perfusion was not associated with a significant reduction in risk of mortality as compared to bolus injection
Conclusions. Furosemide in continuous perfusion was not associated with a significant reduction in risk of hospital mortality as compared to bolus administration in critically ill patients in ICU, but existing data are insufficient to confidently assess the best way to administer  furosemide . Applying a protocol to drive furosemide therapy could be more relevant than the chosen mode of administration.

Key words: furosemide, kidney Failure, intensive care, drug therapy, meta-analysis, diuretics

Read More

Vasopressin and epinephrine versus epinephrine in management of patients with cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective. A combination of vasopressin and epinephrine may be more effective than epinephrine alone in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but evidence is lacking to make clinical recommendations. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy of vasopressin and epinephrine used together versus epinephrine alone in cardiac arrest (CA).

Methods. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized trials comparing the efficacy of vasopressin and epinephrine versus epinephrine alone in adults with cardiac arrest. The primary outcome was the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and the survival rate on admission and discharge .We also analyzed ROSC in subgroups of patients presenting with different arrest rhythms, such as asystole, pulseless electrical activity (PEA), ventricular fibrillation (VF).

Results. We analyzed 6 randomized trials out of 485 articles. We did not find evidence supporting the superiority of vasopressin and epinephrine used in combination, except for the survival rate at 24h 2.99 95% CI(1.43,6.28). No evidence supports the conclusion that vasopressin combined with epinephrine is better than epinephrine alone for ROSC, even amongst subgroups of patients.

Conclusion. This systematic review of the efficacy of vasopressin and epinephrine use found that its combined use is better for 24h survival rate but only in one study which included 122 patients. Further investigation will be needed to support the use of this combination for cardiac arrest management.

 

Key words: cardiopulmonary resuscitation, meta-analysis, epinephrine, vasopressin

Read More

© 2015. Signa Vitae. Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.