| 1. |
- Evans, Shannon, et al.
(författare)
-
Doxapram for the prevention and treatment of apnea in preterm infants
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. - 1465-1858. ; 2023:10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Apnea of prematurity is a common problem in preterm infants that may have significant consequences on their development. Methylxanthines (aminophylline, theophylline, and caffeine) are effective in the treatment of apnea of prematurity. Doxapram is used as a respiratory stimulant in cases refractory to the methylxanthine treatment. Objectives: To evaluate the benefits and harms of doxapram administration on the incidence of apnea and other short-term and longer-term clinical outcomes in preterm infants. Search methods: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was March 2023. Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the role of doxapram in prevention and treatment of apnea of prematurity and prevention of reintubation in preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation). We included studies comparing doxapram with either placebo or methylxanthines as a control group, or when doxapram was used as an adjunct to methylxanthines and compared to methylxanthines alone as a control group. We included studies of doxapram at any dose and route. Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were clinical apnea, need for positive pressure ventilation after initiation of treatment, failed apnea reduction after two to seven days, and failed extubation (defined as unable to wean from invasive intermittent positive pressure ventilation [IPPV] and extubate or reintubation for IPPV within one week). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Main results: We included eight RCTs enrolling 248 infants. Seven studies (214 participants) provided data for meta-analysis. Five studied doxapram for treatment of apnea in preterm infants. Three studied doxapram to prevent reintubation in preterm infants. None studied doxapram in preventing apnea in preterm infants. All studies administered doxapram intravenously as continuous infusions. Two studies used doxapram as an adjunct to aminophylline compared to aminophylline alone and one study as an adjunct to caffeine compared to caffeine alone. When used to treat apnea, compared to no treatment, doxapram may result in a slight reduction in failed apnea reduction (risk ratio [RR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20 to 1.05; 1 study, 21 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxapram on need for positive pressure ventilation after initiation of treatment (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.74; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Doxapram may result in little to no difference in side effects causing cessation of therapy (0 events in both groups; risk difference [RD] 0.00, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.17; 1 study, 21 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to alternative treatment, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxapram on failed apnea reduction (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.45; 4 studies, 84 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxapram on need for positive pressure ventilation after initiation of treatment (RR 2.40, 95% CI 0.11 to 51.32; 2 studies, 37 participants; very-low certainty evidence; note 1 study recorded 0 events in both groups. Thus, the RR and CIs were calculated from 1 study rather than 2). Doxapram may result in little to no difference in side effects causing cessation of therapy (0 events in all groups; RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.15 to 0.15; 37 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). As adjunct therapy to methylxanthine, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxapram on failed apnea reduction after two to seven days (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.17; 1 study, 10 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported on clinical apnea, chronic lung disease at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA), death at any time during initial hospitalization, long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in the three comparisons, and need for positive pressure ventilation and side effects when used as adjunct therapy to methylxanthine. In studies to prevent reintubation, when compared to alternative treatment, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxapram on failed extubation (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.83; 1 study, 25 participants; very low-certainty evidence). As adjunct therapy to methylxanthine, doxapram may result in a slight reduction in 'clinical apnea' after initiation of treatment (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.98; 1 study, 56 participants; low-certainty evidence). Doxapram may result in little to no difference in failed extubation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.62; 1 study, 56 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxapram on side effects causing cessation of therapy (RR 6.42, 95% CI 0.80 to 51.26; 2 studies, 85 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported need for positive pressure ventilation, chronic lung disease at 36 weeks' PMA, long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in the three comparisons; failed extubation when compared to no treatment; and clinical apnea, death at any time during initial hospitalization, and side effects when compared to no treatment or alternative treatment. We identified two ongoing studies, one conducted in Germany and one in multiple centers in the Netherlands and Belgium. Authors' conclusions: In treating apnea of prematurity, doxapram may slightly reduce failure in apnea reduction when compared to no treatment and there may be little to no difference in side effects against both no treatment and alternative treatment. The evidence is very uncertain about the need for positive pressure ventilation when compared to no treatment or alternative treatment and about failed apnea reduction when used as alternative or adjunct therapy to methylxanthine. For use to prevent reintubation, doxapram may reduce apnea episodes when administered in adjunct to methylxanthine, but with little to no difference in failed extubation. The evidence is very uncertain about doxapram's effect on death when used as adjunct therapy to methylxanthine and about failed extubation when used as alternative or adjunct therapy to methylxanthine. There is a knowledge gap about the use of doxapram as a therapy to prevent apnea. More studies are needed to clarify the role of doxapram in the treatment of apnea of prematurity, addressing concerns about long-term outcomes. The ongoing studies may provide useful data.
|
|
| 2. |
- Lim, Jia Yi, et al.
(författare)
-
Dexmedetomidine for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. - 1465-1858. ; 2024:5
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Dexmedetomidine is a selective alpha-2 agonist with minimal impact on the haemodynamic profile. It is thought to be safer than morphine or stronger opioids, which are drugs currently used for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants. Dexmedetomidine is increasingly being used in children and infants despite not being licenced for analgesia in this group. Objectives: To determine the overall effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine for sedation and analgesia in newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation compared with other non-opioids, opioids, or placebo. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trial registries in September 2023. Selection criteria: We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine compared with other non-opioids, opioids, or placebo for sedation and analgesia in neonates (aged under four weeks) requiring mechanical ventilation. Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were level of sedation and level of analgesia. Our secondary outcomes included days on mechanical ventilation, number of infants requiring additional medication for sedation or analgesia (or both), hypotension, neonatal mortality, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Main results: We identified no eligible studies for inclusion. We identified four ongoing studies, two of which appear to be eligible for inclusion; they will compare dexmedetomidine with fentanyl in newborn infants requiring surgery. We listed the other two studies as awaiting classification pending assessment of full reports. One study will compare dexmedetomidine with morphine in asphyxiated newborns undergoing hypothermia, and the other (mixed population, age up to three years) will evaluate dexmedetomidine versus ketamine plus dexmedetomidine for echocardiography. The planned sample size of the four studies ranges from 40 to 200 neonates. Data from these studies may provide some evidence for dexmedetomidine efficacy and safety. Authors' conclusions: Despite the increasing use of dexmedetomidine, there is insufficient evidence supporting its routine use for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants on mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, data on dexmedetomidine safety are scarce, and there are no data available on its long-term effects. Future studies should address the efficacy, safety, and long-term effects of dexmedetomidine as a single drug therapy for sedation and analgesia in newborn infants.
|
|
| 3. |
- Marques, Keri A, et al.
(författare)
-
Methylxanthine for the prevention and treatment of apnea in preterm infants
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. - 1361-6137. ; 10:10
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Very preterm infants often require respiratory support and are therefore exposed to an increased risk of chronic lung disease and later neurodevelopmental disability. Although methylxanthines are widely used to prevent and treat apnea associated with prematurity and to facilitate extubation, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of different types of methylxanthines.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of methylxanthines on the incidence of apnea, death, neurodevelopmental disability, and other longer-term outcomes in preterm infants (1) at risk for or with apnea, or (2) undergoing extubation.SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and three trial registers (November 2022).SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized trials in preterm infants, in which methylxanthines (aminophylline, caffeine, or theophylline) were compared to placebo or no treatment for any indication (i.e. prevention of apnea, treatment of apnea, or prevention of re-intubation).DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 studies (2705 infants), evaluating the use of methylxanthine in preterm infants for: any indication (one study); prevention of apnea (six studies); treatment of apnea (five studies); and to prevent re-intubation (six studies). Death or major neurodevelopmental disability (DMND) at 18 to 24 months. Only the Caffeine for Apnea of Prematurity (CAP) study (enrolling 2006 infants) reported on this outcome. Overall, caffeine probably reduced the risk of DMND in preterm infants treated with caffeine for any indication (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.97; risk difference (RD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 10 to 50; 1 study, 1869 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). No other trials reported DMND. Results from the CAP trial regarding DMND at 18 to 24 months are less precise when analyzed based on treatment indication. Caffeine probably results in little or no difference in DMND in infants treated for prevention of apnea (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.24; RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.09; 1 study, 423 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably results in a slight reduction in DMND in infants treated for apnea of prematurity (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.00; NNTB 16, 95% CI 7 to > 1000; 1 study, 767 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) or to prevent re-intubation (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.99; RD -0.08, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.00; NNTB 12, 95% CI 6 to >1000; 1 study, 676 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Death. In the overall analysis of any methylxanthine treatment for any indication, methylxanthine used for any indication probably results in little or no difference in death at hospital discharge (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; I2 = 5%; 7 studies, 2289 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months. In the CAP trial, caffeine probably reduced the risk of major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.96; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.02; NNTB 16, 95% CI 10 to 50; 1 study, 1869 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), including a reduction in the risk of cerebral palsy or gross motor disability (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.88; RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to -0.01; NNTB 33, 95% CI 20 to 100; 1 study, 1810 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and a marginal reduction in the risk of developmental delay (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.00; NNTB 20, 95% CI 11 to > 1000; 1 study, 1725 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Any apneic episodes, failed apnea reduction after two to seven days (< 50% reduction in apnea) (for infants treated with apnea), and need for positive-pressure ventilation after institution of treatment. Methylxanthine used for any indication probably reduces the occurrence of any apneic episodes (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.52; I2 = 47%; RD -0.38, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.25; I2 = 49%; NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 4; 4 studies, 167 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), failed apnea reduction after two to seven days (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.70; I2 = 0%; RD -0.31, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.17; I2 = 53%; NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 6; 4 studies, 174 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce receipt of positive-pressure ventilation after institution of treatment (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.96; I2 = 0%; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.01; I2 = 49%; NNTB 16, 95% CI 9 to 100; 9 studies, 373 infants; low-certainty evidence). Chronic lung disease. Methylxanthine used for any indication reduces chronic lung disease (defined as the use of supplemental oxygen at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age) (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.85; I2 = 0%; RD -0.10, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.06; I2 = 18%; NNTB 10, 95% CI 7 to 16; 4 studies, 2142 infants; high-certainty evidence). Failure to extubate or the need for re-intubation within one week after initiation of therapy. Methylxanthine used for the prevention of re-intubation probably results in a large reduction in failed extubation compared with no treatment (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71; I2 = 0%; RD -0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.15; I2 = 69%; NNTB 4, 95% CI 2 to 6; 6 studies, 197 infants; moderate-certainty evidence).AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Caffeine probably reduces the risk of death, major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months, and the composite outcome DMND at 18 to 24 months. Administration of any methylxanthine to preterm infants for any indication probably leads to a reduction in the risk of any apneic episodes, failed apnea reduction after two to seven days, cerebral palsy, developmental delay, and may reduce receipt of positive-pressure ventilation after institution of treatment. Methylxanthine used for any indication reduces chronic lung disease (defined as the use of supplemental oxygen at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age).
|
|
| 4. |
- Rotter, Thomas, et al.
(författare)
-
What Is Lean Management in Health Care? : Development of an Operational Definition for a Cochrane Systematic Review
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Evaluation & the Health Professions. - : Sage Publications. - 0163-2787 .- 1552-3918. ; 42:3, s. 366-390
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Industrial improvement approaches such as Lean management are increasingly being adopted in health care. Synthesis is necessary to ensure these approaches are evidence based and requires operationalization of concepts to ensure all relevant studies are included. This article outlines the process utilized to develop an operational definition of Lean in health care. The literature search, screening, data extraction, and data synthesis processes followed the recommendations outlined by the Cochrane Collaboration. Development of the operational definition utilized the methods prescribed by Kinsman et al. and Wieland et al. This involved extracting characteristics of Lean, synthesizing similar components to establish an operational definition, applying this definition, and updating the definition to address shortcomings. We identified two defining characteristics of Lean health-care management: (1) Lean philosophy, consisting of Lean principles and continuous improvement, and (2) Lean activities, which include Lean assessment activities and Lean improvement activities. The resulting operational definition requires that an organization or subunit of an organization had integrated Lean philosophy into the organization?s mandate, guidelines, or policies and utilized at least one Lean assessment activity or Lean improvement activity. This operational definition of Lean management in health care will act as an objective screening criterion for our systematic review. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence-based operational definition of Lean management in health care.
|
|
