6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Preoperative α-blockade versus no blockade for pheochromocytoma–paraganglioma patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Background:

          Surgical resection of pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas (PPGLs) is associated with a significant risk of intraoperative hemodynamic instability and cardiovascular complications. α-blockade remains the routine preoperative medical preparation despite controversies over the lack of evidence. We presented an updated meta-analysis to ulteriorly evaluate the potential efficacy of preoperative α-blockade versus no blockade for PPGL patients undergoing surgery.

          Materials and methods:

          Randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies assessing preoperative α-blockade for PPGL surgery in adults were identified through a systematic literature search via MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL up to November 2022. Outcome data of intraoperative hemodynamic parameters and major postoperative events were extracted. Mean difference and risk ratio were synthesized as appropriate for each outcome to determine the cumulative effect size.

          Results:

          Fifteen nonrandomized studies involving 3542 patients were finally eligible. Intraoperatively, none of the analyzed hemodynamic parameters differed between patients with or without α-blockade: maximum and minimum systolic blood pressure, hypertensive and hypotensive hemodynamic instability episodes, and peak heart rate, subgroup analysis of normotensive PPGL patients yielded similar results with the overall effects. Postoperatively, α-blockade was associated with prolonged hypotension and vasopressor usage (risk ratio: 4.21, 95% CI: 1.17–15.18, P=0.03). ICU admission, length of stay, overall cardiovascular morbidity, and mortality were similar between the two groups.

          Conclusions:

          Preoperative α-blockade ensured neither more stable intraoperative hemodynamics nor better perioperative outcome over no blockade for PPGL surgery. However, large-volume randomized controlled trials are still warranted to ascertain these findings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

              Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Int J Surg
                Int J Surg
                JS9
                International Journal of Surgery (London, England)
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                1743-9191
                1743-9159
                May 2023
                11 April 2023
                : 109
                : 5
                : 1470-1480
                Affiliations
                Surgery
                α-blockade, meta-analysis, paraganglioma, pheochromocytoma

                Comments

                Comment on this article