OBJECTIVES: To describe the effects of electrical stimulation (ES) therapy in the 4-week management of two sub-acute spinal cord-injured (SCI) individuals (C7 American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) B and T9 AIS (B)).
SETTING: University Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
METHODS: A diagnostic tilt-table test was conducted to confirm the presence of orthostatic hypotension (OH) based on the current clinical definitions. Following initial assessment, subjects underwent 4 weeks of ES therapy 4 times weekly for 1 h per day. Post-tests tilt table challenge, both with and without ES on their rectus abdominis, quadriceps, hamstrings and gastrocnemius muscles, was conducted at the end of the study (week 5). Subjects' blood pressures (BP) and heart rates (HR) were recorded every minute during pre-test and post-tests. Orthostatic symptoms, as well as the maximum tolerance time that the subjects could withstand head up tilt at 60°, were recorded.
RESULTS: Subject A improved his orthostatic symptoms, but did not recover from clinically defined OH based on the 20-min duration requirement. With concurrent ES therapy, 60° head up tilt BP was 89/62 mm Hg compared with baseline BP of 115/71 mm Hg. Subject B fully recovered from OH demonstrated by BP of 105/71 mm Hg during the 60° head up tilt compared with baseline BP of 124/77 mm Hg. Both patients demonstrated longer tolerance time during head up tilt with concomitant ES (subject A: pre-test 4 min, post-test without ES 6 min, post-test with ES 12 min; subject B: pre-test 4 min, post-test without ES 28 min, post-test with ES 60 min).
CONCLUSIONS: Weekly ES therapy had positive effect on OH management in sub-acute SCI individuals.
STUDY DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial.
SETTING: Tertiary level hospital in Malaysia.
PATIENTS: 77 patients undergoing elective Caesarean delivery.
INTERVENTION: Differing speeds of spinal injection.
MEASUREMENTS: Systolic blood pressure was assessed every minute for the first 10min and incidence of hypotension (reduction in blood pressure of >30% of baseline) was recorded. The use of vasopressor and occurrence of nausea/vomiting were also recorded.
MAIN RESULTS: 36 patients in SLOW group and 41 patients in FAST group were recruited into the study. There was no significant difference in blood pressure drop of >30% (p=0.497) between the two groups. There was no difference in the amount of vasopressor used and incidence of nausea/vomiting in both groups.
CONCLUSION: In our study population, there was no difference in incidence of hypotension and nausea/vomiting when spinal injection time is prolonged beyond 15s to 60s.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02275897. Registered on 15 October 2014.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and ProQuest were searched. Studies were included if participants were more than 60 years, were set within the community or within long-term care and diagnosis was based on a postural drop in systolic blood pressure (BP) ≥20 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥10 mmHg. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Random and quality effects models were used for pooled analysis.
RESULTS: Of 23,090 identified records, 20 studies were included for community-dwelling older people (n = 24,967) and six were included for older people in long-term settings (n = 2,694). There was substantial variation in methods used to identify OH with differing supine rest duration, frequency and timing of standing BP, measurement device, use of standing and tilt-tables and interpretation of the diagnostic drop in BP. The pooled prevalence of OH in community-dwelling older people was 22.2% (95% CI = 17, 28) and 23.9% (95% CI = 18.2, 30.1) in long-term settings. There was significant heterogeneity in both pooled results (I2 > 90%).
CONCLUSIONS: OH is very common, affecting one in five community-dwelling older people and almost one in four older people in long-term care. There is great variability in methods used to identify OH.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Web of Science, ProQuest, and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry were searched. Studies were included if they randomized adults with orthostatic hypotension to droxidopa or to control, and outcomes related to symptoms, daily activity, blood pressure, or adverse events. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias was judged against the Cochrane risk of bias tool and quality of evidence measured using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. A fixed-effects model was used for pooled analysis.
RESULTS: Of 224 identified records, four studies met eligibility, with a pooled sample size of 494. Study duration was between 1 and 8 weeks. Droxidopa was effective at reducing dizziness [mean difference -0.97 (95% confidence interval -1.51, -0.42)], overall symptoms [-0.52 (-0.98, -0.06)] and difficulty with activity [-0.86 (-1.34, -0.38)]. Droxidopa was also effective at improving standing SBP [3.9 (0.1, 7.69)]. Rates of adverse events were similar between droxidopa and control groups, including supine hypertension [odds ratio 1.93 (0.87, 4.25)].
CONCLUSION: Droxidopa is well tolerated and effective at reducing the symptoms associated with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension without increasing the risk of supine hypertension.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID CRD42015024612.
METHODS: 10 010 high-risk noncardiac surgical patients were randomized aspirin or placebo and clonidine or placebo. Neuraxial block was defined as intraoperative spinal anaesthesia, or thoracic or lumbar epidural anaesthesia. Postoperative epidural analgesia was defined as postoperative epidural local anaesthetic and/or opioid administration. We used logistic regression with weighting using estimated propensity scores.
RESULTS: Neuraxial block was not associated with the primary outcome [7.5% vs 6.5%; odds ratio (OR), 0.89; 95% CI (confidence interval), 0.73-1.08; P=0.24], death (1.0% vs 1.4%; OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.53-1.35; P=0.48), myocardial infarction (6.9% vs 5.5%; OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74-1.12; P=0.36) or stroke (0.3% vs 0.4%; OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.44-2.49; P=0.91). Neuraxial block was associated with less clinically important hypotension (39% vs 46%; OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.00; P=0.04). Postoperative epidural analgesia was not associated with the primary outcome (11.8% vs 6.2%; OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.89-2.48; P=0.13), death (1.3% vs 0.8%; OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.35-1.99; P=0.68], myocardial infarction (11.0% vs 5.7%; OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.90-2.61; P=0.11], stroke (0.4% vs 0.4%; OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.18-2.32; P=0.50] or clinically important hypotension (63% vs 36%; OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.95-2.09; P=0.09).
CONCLUSIONS: Neuraxial block and postoperative epidural analgesia were not associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes among POISE-2 subjects.
METHODS: To determine whether the effect of perioperative β-blockade on the primary composite event, clinically significant hypotension, myocardial infarction, stroke, and death varies with age, we interrogated data from the perioperative ischemia evaluation (POISE) study. The POISE study randomly assigned 8351 patients, aged ≥45 years, in 23 countries, undergoing major noncardiac surgery to either 200 mg metoprolol CR daily or placebo for 30 days. Odds ratios or hazard ratios for time to events, when available, for each of the adverse effects were measured according to decile of age, and interaction term between age and treatment was calculated. No adjustment was made for multiple outcomes.
RESULTS: Age was associated with higher incidences of the major outcomes of clinically significant hypotension, myocardial infarction, and death. Age was associated with a minimal reduction in resting heart rate from 84.2 (standard error, 0.63; ages 45-54 years) to 80.9 (standard error, 0.70; ages >85 years; P < .0001). We found no evidence of any interaction between age and study group regarding any of the major outcomes, although the limited sample size does not exclude any but large interactions.
CONCLUSIONS: The effect of perioperative β-blockade on the major outcomes studied did not vary with age. Resting heart rate decreases slightly with age. Our data do not support a recommendation for the use of perioperative β-blockade in any age subgroup to achieve benefits but avoid harms. Therefore, current recommendations against the use of β-blockers in high-risk patients undergoing noncardiac surgery apply across all age groups.