4.7 Article

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions to prevent postoperative delirium: a network meta-analysis

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-91314-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. Seoul National University Hospital (SNUH) Research Fund [2320170030]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study comprehensively compared the pharmacological interventions to prevent postoperative delirium, finding that dexmedetomidine, haloperidol, and atypical antipsychotics were more effective than placebo in reducing delirium incidence. Dexmedetomidine and atypical antipsychotics had the highest probabilities to be the best interventions, but there were significant heterogeneity and small study effects that prevented firm conclusions.
Many pharmacologic agents were investigated for the effect to prevent delirium. We aimed to comprehensively compare the effect of the pharmacological interventions to prevent postoperative delirium. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized trials was performed using random effects model. PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase were searched on 20 January 2021. Randomized trials comparing the effect of a drug to prevent postoperative delirium with another drug or placebo in adult patients undergoing any kind of surgery were included. Primary outcome was the postoperative incidence of delirium. Eighty-six trials with 26,992 participants were included. Dexmedetomidine, haloperidol, and atypical antipsychotics significantly decreased the incidence of delirium than placebo [dexmedetomidine: odds ratio 0.51, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.40-0.66, moderate quality of evidence (QOE); haloperidol: odds ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.37-0.95, moderate QOE; atypical antipsychotics: odds ratio 0.27, 95% CrI 0.14-0.51, moderate QOE]. Dexmedetomidine and atypical antipsychotics had the highest-ranking probabilities to be the best. However, significant heterogeneity regarding diagnostic time window as well as small study effects precludes firm conclusion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据