Explore the vast range of titles available.

The aim of this systematic review was to document efficacy, safety and quality of evidence of analgesic interventions after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This PRISMA-compliant and PROSPERO-registered review includes all-language randomized controlled trials of medication-based analgesic interventions after TKA. Bias was evaluated according to Cochrane methodology. Outcomes were opioid consumption (primary), pain scores at rest and during mobilization, adverse events, and length of stay. Interventions investigated in three or more trials were meta-analysed. Outcomes were evaluated using forest plots, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), L'Abbe Plots and trial sequential analysis. The included 113 trials, investigating 37 different analgesic interventions, were characterized by unclear/high risk of bias, low assay sensitivity and considerable differences in pain assessment tools, basic analgesic regimens, and reporting of adverse events. In meta-analyses single and continuous femoral nerve block (FNB), intrathecal morphine, local infiltration analgesia, intraarticular injection of local anaesthetics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and gabapentinoids demonstrated significant analgesic effects. The 24-hour morphine-sparing effects ranged from 4.2 mg (CI: 1.3, 7.2; intraarticular local anaesthetics), to 16.6 mg (CI: 11.2, 22; single FNB). Pain relieving effects at rest at 6 hours ranged from 4 mm (CI: -10, 2; gabapentinoids), to 19 mm (CI: 8, 31; single FNB), and at 24 hours from 3 mm (CI: -2, 8; gabapentinoids), to 16 mm (CI: 8, 23; continuous FNB). GRADE-rated quality of evidence was generally low. A low quality of evidence, small sample sizes and heterogeneity of trial designs prohibit designation of an optimal procedure-specific analgesic regimen after TKA.

PurposeNew-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is common and associated with increased morbidity and mortality. However, its clinical importance and management in critically ill patients are not well described. The aim of this scoping review is to assess the epidemiology and management strategies of NOAF during critical illness.MethodThe review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for studies assessing the incidence, outcome and management strategies of NOAF in adult critically ill patients. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsA total of 99 studies were included, of which 79 were observational and 20 were interventional. The incidence of NOAF varied from 1.7% to 43.9% with considerable inter-population variation (very low quality of evidence). Commonly identified risk factors for NOAF included higher age, cardiovascular comorbidities and sepsis. The occurrence of NOAF was associated with adverse outcomes, including stroke, prolonged length of stay and mortality (very low quality of evidence). We found limited data on the optimal management strategy with no evidence for firm benefit or harm for any intervention (very low/low quality of evidence).ConclusionsThe definition and incidence of NOAF in critically ill patients varied considerably and many risk factors were identified. NOAF seemed to be associated with adverse outcomes, but data were very limited and current management strategies are not evidence-based.

Purpose Echocardiography is frequently used in the hemodynamic evaluation of critically ill patients, but inaccurate measurements may lead to wrong clinical decisions. The aim of our systematic review was to investigate the interchangeability of echocardiography with thermodilution technique in measuring cardiac output and its changes. Methods In August 2015 we systematically searched electronic databases and included studies investigating the echocardiographic measurement of cardiac output compared with thermodilution technique using the Bland–Altman method. Two authors independently reviewed the studies and extracted data on type of measurements, clinical setting and characteristics, and those of the Bland–Altman and trending ability analyses. Results We identified 13,834 citations and included 24 studies in the final analysis. The median number of participants was 32 (range 8–65). Most of the studies assessed left-sided heart structures and the majority had small bias, wide limits of agreement, and high percentage error between echocardiography and thermodilution. In only two of the 24 studies the precision of each technique (echocardiography and thermodilution) was assessed before comparing them. In the single study evaluating trending ability using valid methodology, agreement was observed between echocardiography and thermodilution in detecting the directional changes in cardiac output, but the magnitude of changes varied considerably. Conclusions The majority of studies comparing echocardiography with thermodilution were difficult to interpret, but current evidence does not support interchangeability between these techniques in measuring cardiac output. The techniques may be interchangeable in tracking directional changes in cardiac output, but this has to be confirmed in large high-quality studies.

Objective To assess the effects of fluid therapy with hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin on mortality, kidney injury, bleeding, and serious adverse events in patients with sepsis.Design Systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.Data sources Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Biosis Previews, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Current Controlled Trials, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Centerwatch to September 2012; hand search of reference lists and other systematic reviews; contact with authors and relevant pharmaceutical companies.Study selection Eligible trials were randomised clinical trials comparing hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 with either crystalloid or human albumin in patients with sepsis. Published and unpublished trials were included irrespective of language and predefined outcomes.Data extraction Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data on methods, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias. Risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with fixed and random effects models.Results Nine trials that randomised 3456 patients with sepsis were included. Overall, hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin did not affect the relative risk of death (1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.22, 3414 patients, eight trials), but in the predefined analysis of trials with low risk of bias the relative risk of death was 1.11 (1.00 to 1.23, trial sequential analysis (TSA) adjusted 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.29, 3016 patients, four trials). In the hydroxyethyl starch group, renal replacement therapy was used more (1.36, 1.08 to 1.72, TSA adjusted 1.03 to 1.80, 1311 patients, five trials), and the relative risk of acute kidney injury was 1.18 (0.99 to 1.40, TSA adjusted 0.90 to 1.54, 994 patients, four trials). More patients in the hydroxyethyl starch group were transfused with red blood cells (1.29, 1.13 to 1.48, TSA adjusted 1.10 to 1.51, 973 patients, three trials), and more patients had serious adverse events (1.30, 1.02 to 1.67, TSA adjusted 0.93 to 1.83, 1069 patients, four trials). The transfused volume of red blood cells did not differ between the groups (mean difference 65 mL, 95% confidence interval −20 to 149 mL, three trials).Conclusion In conventional meta-analyses including recent trial data, hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin increased the use of renal replacement therapy and transfusion with red blood cells, and resulted in more serious adverse events in patients with sepsis. It seems unlikely that hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 provides overall clinical benefit for patients with sepsis.