MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400885915 · doi:10.1186/s13741-024-00439-y

The impact of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in the patients undergoing anesthesia or sedation: systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· article· en· W4400885915 on OpenAlex
Tatiana S. do Nascimento, Rodrigo O. L. Pereira, Eduardo Habib Bechelane Maia, Tetsu Ohnuma, Mariana Gaya da Costa, Eric Slawka, Carlos Galhardo, Vijay Krishnamoorthy

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePerioperative Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEnhanced Recovery After Surgery
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeAnesthesiaSedationGastric emptyingRandomized controlled trialHypoglycemiaOdds ratioInternal medicineInsulinStomach

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist receptors (GLP-1RAs), medications used for glycemic control and weight loss, are increasing worldwide. In the perioperative period, the major concern related to GLP-1RA is gastric emptying delay and risk of aspiration. This meta-analysis and systematic review compared the risks and benefits of using GLP-1 agonist receptors and control in surgical and nonsurgical procedures under anesthesia or sedation. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane for randomized controlled trials and observational studies involving patients > 18 years undergoing elective surgeries or procedures. Outcomes of interest were pre-procedural gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, residual gastric content assessed by endoscopy, pulmonary aspiration during anesthesia/sedation, perioperative glycemic control, postoperative inotropic support, nausea/vomiting (PONV), atrial fibrillation, and 30-day mortality rate. We used a random effects model, with odds ratio and mean difference computed for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. Results Fourteen randomized and observational studies with 2143 adult patients undergoing elective surgeries and procedures were included. GLP-1RA resulted in increased pre-procedural GI symptoms ( OR 7.66; 95% CI 3.42, 17.17; p < 0.00001; I 2 = 0%) and elevated residual gastric content ( OR 6.08; 95% CI 2.86, 12.94; p < 0.00001; I 2 = 0%). GLP-1RA resulted in lower glycemic levels ( MD − 0.73; 95% CI − 1.13, − 0.33; p = 0.0003; I 2 = 90%) and lower rate of rescue insulin administration ( OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.23, 0.68 p = 0.0009; I 2 = 35%). There was no significant difference in rate of perioperative hypoglycemia ( OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.29, 1.24; p = 0.17; I 2 = 0%), hyperglycemia ( OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.59, 1.34; p = 0.58; I 2 = 38%), need for postoperative inotropic support ( OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.33, 1.01; p = 0.05; I 2 = 0%), atrial fibrillation ( OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.52, 2.01; p = 0.95; I 2 = 16%), rate of PONV ( OR 1.35; 95% CI 0.82, 2.21; p = 0.24; I 2 = 0%), and 30-day mortality rate ( OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.14, 2.05; p = 0.25; I 2 = 0%). Conclusion Compared to control , pre-procedural GLP-1RA increased the rate of GI symptoms and the risk of elevated residual gastric content despite adherence to fasting guidelines. GLP-1RA improved glycemic control and decreased the rate of rescue insulin administration. There was no significant difference in the rates of perioperative hypo or hyperglycemia, postoperative inotropic support, PONV, atrial fibrillation, and 30-day mortality.

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.304 · 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