Dose-response relationships of intravenous and perineural dexamethasone as adjuvants to peripheral nerve blocks: a systematic review and model-based network meta-analysis.

anaesthesia adjuvants bias dexamethasone dose–response relationship model-based meta-analysis nerve block network meta-analysis postoperative pain regional anaesthesia

Journal

British journal of anaesthesia
ISSN: 1471-6771
Titre abrégé: Br J Anaesth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0372541

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
27 Jan 2024
Historique:
received: 09 06 2023
revised: 15 12 2023
accepted: 19 12 2023
medline: 29 1 2024
pubmed: 29 1 2024
entrez: 28 1 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Superiority of perineural over intravenous dexamethasone at extending nerve block analgesia has been suggested but without considering the dose-response relationships for each route of administration. Randomised control studies that evaluated intravenous or perineural dexamethasone as an adjuvant to unilateral peripheral nerve blocks in adults were searched up to October 2023 in MEDLINE, Central, Google Scholar, and reference lists of previous systematic reviews. The Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool was used. A maximum effect (E A total of 118 studies were selected (9284 patients; 35 with intravenous dexamethasone; 106 with perineural dexamethasone; dose range 1-16 mg). Studies with unclear or high risk of bias overestimated the effect of dexamethasone. Bias-corrected estimates indicated a maximum fold increase in analgesia duration of 1.7 (95% credible interval (CrI) 1.4-1.9) with dexamethasone, with no difference between perineural and intravenous routes. Trial simulations indicated that 4 mg of perineural dexamethasone increased the mean duration of analgesia for long-acting local anaesthetics from 11.1 h (95% CrI 9.4-13.1) to 16.5 h (95% CrI 14.0-19.3) and halved the rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting. A similar magnitude of effect was observed with 8 mg of intravenous dexamethasone. Used as an adjuvant for peripheral nerve block, intravenous dexamethasone can be as effective as perineural dexamethasone in prolonging analgesic duration, but is less potent, hence requiring higher doses. The evidence is limited because of the observational nature of the dose-response relationships and the quality of the included studies. PROSPERO CRD42020141689.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Superiority of perineural over intravenous dexamethasone at extending nerve block analgesia has been suggested but without considering the dose-response relationships for each route of administration.
METHODS METHODS
Randomised control studies that evaluated intravenous or perineural dexamethasone as an adjuvant to unilateral peripheral nerve blocks in adults were searched up to October 2023 in MEDLINE, Central, Google Scholar, and reference lists of previous systematic reviews. The Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool was used. A maximum effect (E
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 118 studies were selected (9284 patients; 35 with intravenous dexamethasone; 106 with perineural dexamethasone; dose range 1-16 mg). Studies with unclear or high risk of bias overestimated the effect of dexamethasone. Bias-corrected estimates indicated a maximum fold increase in analgesia duration of 1.7 (95% credible interval (CrI) 1.4-1.9) with dexamethasone, with no difference between perineural and intravenous routes. Trial simulations indicated that 4 mg of perineural dexamethasone increased the mean duration of analgesia for long-acting local anaesthetics from 11.1 h (95% CrI 9.4-13.1) to 16.5 h (95% CrI 14.0-19.3) and halved the rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting. A similar magnitude of effect was observed with 8 mg of intravenous dexamethasone.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Used as an adjuvant for peripheral nerve block, intravenous dexamethasone can be as effective as perineural dexamethasone in prolonging analgesic duration, but is less potent, hence requiring higher doses. The evidence is limited because of the observational nature of the dose-response relationships and the quality of the included studies.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL UNASSIGNED
PROSPERO CRD42020141689.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38281844
pii: S0007-0912(23)00738-9
doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.12.021
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Paul J Zufferey (PJ)

Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France; Clinical Pharmacology Department, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France. Electronic address: paul.zufferey@chu-st-etienne.fr.

Robin Chaux (R)

Clinical Pharmacology Department, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France.

Pierre-Adrien Lachaud (PA)

Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France; Clinical Pharmacology Department, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France.

Xavier Capdevila (X)

Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Lapeyronie University Hospital, Montpellier, France; Basic Science Research Unit, INSERM UMR U1298, NeuroSciences Institute INM, Montpellier, France.

Julien Lanoiselée (J)

Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France; Clinical Pharmacology Department, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France.

Edouard Ollier (E)

Clinical Pharmacology Department, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France; Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), U1059, Vascular Dysfunction and Hemostasis, Saint-Etienne, France.

Classifications MeSH