MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912262415 · doi:10.1080/02699052.2019.1574328

Opioids and cerebral physiology in the acute management of traumatic brain injury: a systematic review

2019· review· en· W2912262415 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua Wiener, Amanda McIntyre, Shannon Janzen, Magdalena Mirkowski, Heather M. MacKenzie, Robert Teasell

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareWestern UniversityParkwood InstituteLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTraumatic brain injuryCerebral perfusion pressureAnesthesiaIntracranial pressureRemifentanilRandomized controlled trialBolus (digestion)OpioidMorphineCerebral blood flowInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Following traumatic brain injury (TBI), optimization of cerebral physiology is recommended to promote more favourable patient outcomes. Accompanying pain and agitation are commonly treated with sedative and analgesic agents, such as opioids. However, the impact of opioids on certain aspects of cerebral physiology is not well established. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the evidence on the effect of opioids on cerebral physiology in TBI during acute care. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in five electronic databases for articles published in English up to November 2017. Studies were included if: (1) the study sample was human subjects with TBI; (2) the sample size was ≥3; (3) subjects were given an opioid during acute care; and (4) any measure of cerebral physiology was evaluated. Cerebral physiology measures were intracranial pressure (ICP), cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), and mean arterial pressure (MAP). Subject and study characteristics, treatment protocol, and results were extracted from included studies. Randomized controlled trials were evaluated for methodological quality using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database tool. Levels of evidence were assigned using a modified Sackett scale. RESULTS: In total, 22 studies met inclusion criteria, from which six different opioids were identified: morphine, fentanyl, sufentanil, remifentanil, alfentanil, and phenoperidine. The evidence for individual opioids demonstrated equally either: (1) no effect on ICP, CPP, or MAP; or (2) an increase in ICP with associated decreases in CPP and MAP. In general, opioids administered by infusion resulted in the former outcome, whereas those given in bolus form resulted in the latter. There were no significant differences when comparing different opioids, with the exception of one study that found fentanyl was associated with lower ICP and CPP than morphine and sufentanil. There were no consistent results when comparing opioids to other non-opioid medications. CONCLUSION: Several studies have assessed the effect of opioids on cerebral physiology during the acute management of TBI, but there is considerable heterogeneity in terms of study methodology and findings. Opioids are beneficial in terms of analgesia and sedation, but bolus administration should be avoided to prevent additional or prolonged unfavourable alterations in cerebral physiology. Future studies should better elucidate the effects of different opioids as well as varying dosages in order to develop improved understanding as well as allow for tighter control of cerebral physiology. ABBREVIATIONS: CPP: Cerebral Perfusion Pressure, GCS: Glasgow Coma Scale, ICP: Intracranial Pressure, MAP: Mean Arterial Pressure, PEDro: Physiotherapy Evidence Database, RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial, TBI: Traumatic Brain Injury.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain InjurySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207