Early invasive versus conservative strategies for unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction in the stent era.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;3:CD004815

Authors: Hoenig MR, Aroney CN, Scott IA

BACKGROUND: In patients with unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) two strategies are possible, either a routine invasive strategy where all patients undergo coronary angiography shortly after admission and, if indicated, coronary revascularization; or a conservative strategy where medical therapy alone is used initially, with selection of patients for angiography based on clinical symptoms or investigational evidence of persistent myocardial ischemia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits of an invasive compared to conservative strategy for treating UA/NSTEMI in the stent era. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 1), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched (1996 to February 2008) with no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Included studies were prospective trials comparing invasive with conservative strategies in UA/NSTEMI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified five studies (7818 participants). Using intention-to-treat analysis with random-effects models, summary estimates of relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined for primary end-points of all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, all-cause death or non-fatal myocardial infarction, and refractory angina. Further analysis of included studies was undertaken based on whether glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists were used routinely. Heterogeneity was assessed using Chi(2) and variance (I(2) statistic) methods. MAIN RESULTS: In the all-study analysis, mortality during initial hospitalization showed a trend to hazard with an invasive strategy (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.64). The invasive strategy did not reduce death on longer-term follow up. Myocardial infarction rates assessed at 6 to 12 months (5 trials) and 3 to 5 years (3 trials) were significantly decreased by an invasive strategy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86; and RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.92 respectively). The incidence of early (< 4 month) and intermediate (6 to 12 month) refractory angina were both significantly decreased by an invasive strategy (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.68; and RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83 respectively), as were early and intermediate rehospitalization rates (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41to 0.88; and RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.74 respectively). The invasive strategy was associated with a two-fold increase in the RR of peri-procedural myocardial infarction (as variably defined) and a 1.7-fold increase in the RR of (minor) bleeding with no hazard of stroke. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to a conservative strategy for UA/NSTEMI, an invasive strategy is associated with reduced rates of refractory angina and rehospitalization in the shorter term and myocardial infarction in the longer term. However, the invasive strategy is associated with a doubled risk of procedure-related heart attack and increased risk of bleeding and procedural biomarker leaks. Available data suggest that an invasive strategy may be particularly useful in those at high risk for recurrent events.

PMID: 20238333 [PubMed - in process]

Anticonvulsants for alcohol withdrawal.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;3:CD005064

Authors: Minozzi S, Amato L, Vecchi S, Davoli M

BACKGROUND: Alcohol abuse and dependence represents a most serious health problem worldwide with major social, interpersonal and legal interpolations. Besides benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants are often used for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal symptoms. Anticonvulsants drugs are indicated for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome, alone or in combination with benzodiazepine treatments. In spite of the wide use, the exact role of the anticonvulsants for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal has not yet bee adequately assessed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anticonvulsants in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group' Register of Trials (December 2009), PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL (1966 to December 2009), EconLIT (1969 to December 2009). Parallel searches on web sites of health technology assessment and related agencies, and their databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness, safety and overall risk-benefit of anticonvulsants in comparison with a placebo or other pharmacological treatment. All patients were included regardless of age, gender, nationality, and outpatient or inpatient therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened and extracted data from studies. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-six studies, with a total of 4076 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Comparing anticonvulsants with placebo, no statistically significant differences for the six outcomes considered.Comparing anticonvulsant versus other drug, 19 outcomes considered, results favour anticonvulsants only in the comparison carbamazepine versus benzodiazepine (oxazepam and lorazepam) for alcohol withdrawal symptoms (CIWA-Ar score): 3 studies, 262 participants, MD -1.04 (-1.89 to -0.20), none of the other comparisons reached statistical significance.Comparing different anticonvulsants no statistically significant differences in the two outcomes considered.Comparing anticonvulsants plus other drugs versus other drugs (3 outcomes considered), results from one study, 72 participants, favour paraldehyde plus chloral hydrate versus chlordiazepoxide, for the severe-life threatening side effects, RR 0.12 (0.03 to 0.44). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results of this review do not provide sufficient evidence in favour of anticonvulsants for the treatment of AWS. There are some suggestions that carbamazepine may actually be more effective in treating some aspects of alcohol withdrawal when compared to benzodiazepines, the current first-line regimen for alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Anticonvulsants seem to have limited side effects, although adverse effects are not rigorously reported in the analysed trials.

PMID: 20238337 [PubMed - in process]

Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;3:CD007798

Authors: Webster J, Osborne S, Rickard C, Hall J

BACKGROUND: Centers for Disease Control Guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bacteraemia. Catheter insertion is an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the catheter remains functional and there are no signs of inflammation. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their Specialised Register (last searched October 2009) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (last searched Issue Issue 4, 2009). We also searched MEDLINE (last searched October 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: In five trials (3408 participants) there was a 44% reduction in suspected catheter-related bacteraemia in the clinically-indicated group (0.2 versus 0.4%) but this was not statistically significant (odds ratio (OR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.94; P = 0.37). Phlebitis was assessed in six trials (3455 patients); there was a non-significant increase in phlebitis in the clinically-indicated group (9% versus 7.2%); the OR was 1.24 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.60; P = 0.09). We also measured phlebitis per 1000 device days using data from five trials, (8779 device days). No statistical differences in the incidence of phlebitis per 1,000 device days was found (clinically indicated 1.6 cases per 1,000 catheter days versus 1.5 cases per 1,000 catheter days in the routine-replacement group).The combined OR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.32; P = 0.77). Cost was measured in two trials (961 patients). Cannulation costs were significantly reduced in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference (MD) -6.21; 95% CI -9.32 to -3.11; P = < 0.000). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review found no conclusive evidence of benefit in changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, health care organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would also be welcomed by patients, who would be spared the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications.

PMID: 20238356 [PubMed - in process]