Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2024
Perioperative adverse cardiac events in maxillofacial surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chohan Mehak, Liu Winnie, Chowdhury Tumul
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Maxillofacial surgeries, including procedures to the face, oral cavity, jaw, and head and neck, are common in adults. However, they impose a risk of adverse cardiac events (ACEs). While ACEs are well understood for other non-cardiac surgeries, there is a paucity of data about maxillofacial surgeries. This systematic review and meta-analysis report the incidence and presentation of perioperative ACEs during maxillofacial surgery.
METHODS: We included primary studies that reported on perioperative ACEs in adults. To standardise reporting, ACEs were categorised as 1. heart rate and rhythm disturbances, 2. blood pressure disturbances, 3. ischaemic heart disease and 4. heart failure and other complications. The primary outcome was ACE presentation and incidence during the perioperative period. Secondary outcomes included the surgical outcome according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and trigeminocardiac reflex involvement. STATA version 17.0 and MetaProp were used to delineate proportion as effect size with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: Twelve studies (34,227 patients) were included. The incidence of perioperative ACEs was 2.58% (95% CI 1.70, 3.45, I2 = 96.17%, P = 0.001). Heart rate and rhythm disturbances resulted in the greatest incidence at 3.84% among the four categories. Most commonly, these ACEs resulted in intensive care unit admission (i.e. Clavien-Dindo score of 4).
CONCLUSION: Despite an incidence of 2.58%, ACEs can disproportionately impact surgical outcomes. Future research should include large-scale prospective studies that may provide a better understanding of the contributory factors and long-term effects of ACEs in patients during maxillofacial surgery.
METHODS: We included primary studies that reported on perioperative ACEs in adults. To standardise reporting, ACEs were categorised as 1. heart rate and rhythm disturbances, 2. blood pressure disturbances, 3. ischaemic heart disease and 4. heart failure and other complications. The primary outcome was ACE presentation and incidence during the perioperative period. Secondary outcomes included the surgical outcome according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and trigeminocardiac reflex involvement. STATA version 17.0 and MetaProp were used to delineate proportion as effect size with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: Twelve studies (34,227 patients) were included. The incidence of perioperative ACEs was 2.58% (95% CI 1.70, 3.45, I2 = 96.17%, P = 0.001). Heart rate and rhythm disturbances resulted in the greatest incidence at 3.84% among the four categories. Most commonly, these ACEs resulted in intensive care unit admission (i.e. Clavien-Dindo score of 4).
CONCLUSION: Despite an incidence of 2.58%, ACEs can disproportionately impact surgical outcomes. Future research should include large-scale prospective studies that may provide a better understanding of the contributory factors and long-term effects of ACEs in patients during maxillofacial surgery.