Objective To determine the efficacy and prognosis of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods Trials were located through electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Springer, and Foreign Journals Integration System (from the start date to March 2008). We also checked the bibliographies of retrieved articles. Statistical analysis was performed with The Cochrane Collaboration’s software RevMan 4.2.10. Results A total of 19 trials involving 1 236 patients were included. Results showed that: (1) NPPV vs. conventional therapy: NPPV was superior to conventional therapy in terms of intubation rate (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.27 to 0.49), failure rate (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.43 to 0.90), and mortality (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.69). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the NPPV group compared with the conventional group (WMD – 3.83, 95%CI – 5.78 to – 1.89), but the length of ICU stay was similar. The changes of PaO2, PaCO2, and pH were much more obvious in the NPPV group compared with the conventional group. The change of respiratory rate was more significant in the NPPV group compared with the conventional group (WMD – 3.75, 95%CI – 5.48 to – 2.03). At discharge and follow-up, there were no significant differences in FEV1, pH, PaCO2, PaO2, and vital capacity between the two groups. (2) NPPV vs. invasive ventilation: the mortality was similar between the two groups. The incidence of complications was lower in the NPPV group compared with the invasive group (RR 0.38, 95%CI 0.20 to 0.73). The length of ICU stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and weaning time were shorter in the NPPV group than those of the invasive group. At discharge and follow-up, clinical conditions were similar between the two groups. Conclusion The limited current evidence showed that NPPV was superior to conventional therapy in improving intubation rate, mortality, short term of blood-gas change, the change of respiratory rate; and superior to invasive ventilation in the length of hospital stay and the incidence of complication. There were no difference among them in discharge and follow-up.
Objective To carry out a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in comparison with midazolam as preoperative drug. Methods All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about dexmedetomidine as preoperative drug compared with midazolam were identified. Meta analysis was performed by using the statistical software RevMan 4.2.10 on the basis of strict quality evaluation. Results Thirteen RCTs involving 806 patients were included. The results of meta analyses showed that dexmedetomidine was better than midazolam in decreasing perioperative blood pressure and heart rate, decreasing dosage of anesthetics, shortening of emergence time, and decreasing the occurrence of agitation, while the occurrence of perioperative hypotention and bradycardia of dexmedetomidine was much more than midazolam. The statistical outcomes showed that there were no differences between the two drugs in the satisfactory score, postoperative sedation score, the number of people needing analgesia, and occurrence of nausea and vomitting. Conclusion Significant advantages in favour of dexmedetomidine as preoperative drug are observed. Dexmedetomidine is safe except for more incidences of hypotension and bradycardia.
Objective We aimed to determine the efficacy and complication of sevoflurane maintenance in children. Methods Trials were collected through electronic searches of MEDLINE, EBSCO, OVID, Springer, Foreign Journals Integration System, CNKI, and CMBdisk (from the date of building the database to April 2008). We also checked the bibliographies of retrieved articles. Results A total of 20 trials involving 1 592 patients were included. The Metaanalysis showed: ① Recovery time: sevoflurane was similar with propofol [WMD=0.22, 95%CI (–2.86, 3.30)], but slower than desflurane [WMD=5.01, 95%CI (2.87, 7.16)], and faster than isoflurane [WMD= –0.55, 95%CI (– 0.74, –0.37)]; ② Discharge time: sevoflurane was similar with propofol [WMD= –4.39, 95%CI (–10.02, 1.25)], desflurane[WMD=1.13, 95%CI (–3.25, 5.51)], and isoflurane [WMD= –8.17, 95%CI (–17.94, 1.60)]; ③ Postoperative agitation: sevoflurane was much more obvious than propofol [RR=5.53, 95%CI (2.99, 10.21)], but superior than desflurane [RR=0.55, 95%CI (0.35, 0.88)], and similar with isoflurane [RR=1.24, 95%CI (0.85, 1.800]; ④ Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV): sevoflurane was much more severe than propofol [RR=2.17, 95%CI (1.21, 3.90)], and no difference with desflurane [RR=0.88, 95%CI (0.61, 1.25)]; ⑤ Oculocardiac reflex: sevoflurane was less than propofol [RD= – 0.42, 95%CI (–0.56, –0.27)], and no difference with desflurane [RR=0.93, 95%CI (0.61, 1.41)]. Conclusion The limited current evidence shows no difference between sevoflurane and propofol in recovery time, while the effect of sevoflurane is faster than isoflurane and slower than desflurane. There are no differences among sevoflurane, desflurane, isoflurane, and propofol in discharge time. The incidence of postoperative agitation of sevoflurane is higher than that of propofol, but lower than that of other inhaled anesthetics. The incidence of PONV of sevoflurane is higher than that of propofol. The incidence of oculocardiac reflex of sevoflurane is lower than that of propofol and similar with that of desflurane.
Objective To determine the efficiency and safety of dexmedetomidine in general anesthesia. Methods Trials were located through electronic searches of the PubMed, EBSCO, OVID, Springer, Foreign Journals Integration System, CNKI, CMBdisk (from the date of establishment of the databases to April 2008). Bibliographies of the retrieved articles were also checked. Result A total of 25 trials involving 1 241 patients were included. The Meta-analysis showed: dexmedetomidine reduced peri-operative heart rate and blood pressure, reduced the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomitting [RR=0.57, 95%CI (0.38, 0.84)], postoperative agitation [RR=0.29, 95%CI (0.17, 0.51)], shivering [RR=0.45, 95%CI (0.29, 0.68)], increase the occurrence of bradycardia [RR=2.16, 95%CI (1.58, 2.95)], hypotension [RR=2.97, 95%CI (1.42, 6.18)]. Dexmedetomidine reduced administration of thiopental, isoflurane and fentanyl, while there was no difference in muscle relaxant. Dexmedetomidine showed no difference in emergency time compared with the control group. As a result of low incidence of adverse reaction, dexmedetomidine showed superior in discharge time [WMD15.17, 95%CI (3.87, 26.46)]. Conclusions The limited current evidence shows that dexmedetomidine is better in maintaining the hemodynamic balance; reducing occurrence of nausea, vomiting, agitation and shivering; and reducing doses of anesthetics. In emergency time, dexmedetomidine shows no difference except discharge time.