MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884785146 · doi:10.1186/s12871-018-0549-x

Postoperative complications with neuromuscular blocking drugs and/or reversal agents in obstructive sleep apnea patients: a systematic review

2018· review· en· W2884785146 on OpenAlexafffund
Khawaja Rashid Hafeez, Arvind Tuteja, Mandeep Singh, David T. Wong, Mahesh Nagappa, Frances Chung, Jean Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Anesthesiology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph's HospitalVictoria HospitalWestern UniversityToronto Sleep InstituteToronto Western HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreWomen's College HospitalSt Joseph's Health CareUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersFeinberg School of MedicineUniversity of TorontoNorthwestern University
KeywordsMedicineObstructive sleep apneaObservational studyPolysomnographyRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisAdverse effectAnesthesiaAnesthesiologyEvidence-based medicineApneaIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neuromuscular blocking drugs (NMBD) are administered intra-operatively to facilitate intubation and to achieve muscle relaxation for surgical procedures. Incomplete reversal of NMBD can lead to adverse events in the postoperative period. Patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may be at higher risk of complications related to the use of NMBD. The objectives of this systematic review were to determine whether: 1) OSA patients are at higher risk of postoperative complications from the use of NMBD than non-OSA patients, and 2) the choice of NMBD reversal agent affects the risk of postoperative complications in OSA patients. METHODS: A literature search of multiple databases was conducted up to April 2017. The inclusion criteria were: (1) adult surgical patients (≥18 years old) with OSA diagnosed by polysomnography, or history, or suspected by screening questionnaire; (2) patients who were given NMBD and/or NMBD reversal agents intraoperatively; (3) reports on postoperative adverse events, particularly respiratory events were available; (4) published studies were in English; and (5) RCTs or observational cohort studies. The quality of evidence was determined by the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine levels of evidence. RESULTS: Out of 4123 studies, five studies (2 RCTs and 3 observational studies) including 1126 patients were deemed eligible. These studies were heterogeneous precluding a meta-analysis of the results. Two of three studies (1 RCT, 2 observational studies) reported that OSA patients given NMBD may be at higher risk of developing postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) like hypoxemia, residual neuromuscular blockade or respiratory failure compared to non-OSA patients. Two studies (1 RCT, 1 observational study) reported that OSA patients who were reversed with sugammadex vs. neostigmine had less PPCs and chest radiographic changes, but the quality of the included studies was Oxford level of evidence: low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: OSA patients who receive intraoperative NMBD may be at higher risk for postoperative hypoxemia, respiratory failure and residual neuromuscular blockade compared to non-OSA patients. There is some, albeit very limited evidence that NMBD reversal with sugammadex may be associated with less PPCs than neostigmine in patients with OSA. More high-quality studies are needed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC AnesthesiologySame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207