UNASSIGNED: Hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. Severe manifestations, despite being infrequent, can be life-threatening and represent an issue when re-administration of ICM is required. Clear recommendations on prevention and management of relapses are still lacking.
UNASSIGNED: We present the cases of two patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome requiring urgent coronary angiography, with an anamnesis of ICM-induced drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome. Both patients safely underwent a coronary angiography with the use of a different ICM (iobitridol) to the one linked to hypersensitivity manifestations, after premedication with corticosteroids and H1 antagonists.
UNASSIGNED: Our experience highlights that in clinical situations in which the use of ICM is urgently needed, premedication with corticosteroids and H1 antagonists together with the choice of an alternative contrast agent (when the culprit is known) represents an effective strategy to perform a potentially life-saving procedure while avoiding serious systemic allergic reactions.

Background: Oral midazolam is the most commonly used sedative premedication agent in pediatric patients. While effective, oral midazolam cannot reduce the incidence of emergence agitation. Oral dexmedetomidine may be effective in providing satisfactory sedation and reduce the incidence of emergence agitation, although the results of different randomized controlled trials are conflicting. Methods: This study enrolled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining premedication with oral dexmedetomidine versus oral midazolam in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and the Web of Science database were searched from their inception until June 2023. The outcomes were the incidence of satisfactory preoperative sedation, satisfactory sedation during separation from parents, satisfactory sedation during anesthesia induction using an anesthesia mask, and the incidence of emergence agitation. Results: A total of 9 RCTs comprising 885 patients were analyzed. Our data revealed comparable effects of dexmedetomidine and midazolam with respect to satisfactory preoperative sedation and a satisfactory incidence of sedation during parental separation and mask acceptance before anesthesia induction. Notably, our data revealed that the rate of emergence agitation was significantly lower in pediatric patients receiving dexmedetomidine (n = 162) than in those receiving midazolam (n = 159) (odds ratio = 0.16; 95% confidence interval: 0.06 to 0.44; p < 0.001; I2 = 35%). Conclusions: Data from this meta-analysis revealed comparable effects for premedication with oral dexmedetomidine or oral midazolam with respect to satisfactory sedation; furthermore, premedication with oral dexmedetomidine more effectively mitigated emergence agitation in pediatric patients receiving general anesthesia compared with oral midazolam.

This review delves into the challenge of pediatric anesthesia, underscoring the necessity for tailored perioperative approaches due to children\'s distinctive anatomical and physiological characteristics. Because of the vulnerability of pediatric patients to critical incidents during anesthesia, provider skills are of primary importance. Yet, almost equal importance must be granted to the adoption of a careful preanesthetic mindset toward patients and their families that recognizes the interwoven relationship between children and parents. In this paper, the preoperative evaluation process is thoroughly examined, from the first interaction with the child to the operating day. This evaluation process includes a detailed exploration of the medical history of the patient, physical examination, optimization of preoperative therapy, and adherence to updated fasting management guidelines. This process extends to considering pharmacological or drug-free premedication, focusing on the importance of preanesthesia re-evaluation. Structural resources play a critical role in pediatric anesthesia; components of this role include emphasizing the creation of child-friendly environments and ensuring appropriate support facilities. The results of this paper support the need for standardized protocols and guidelines and encourage the centralization of practices to enhance clinical efficacy.

Many premedication agents with opioid-sparing properties have been used in patients undergoing various elective surgeries. Memantine is an N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist that has been used by many researchers as an opioid-sparing strategy. Various databases like PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched after registering the review protocol in PROSPERO for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy and safety of memantine premedication in adult patients undergoing various elective surgeries. The risk of bias (RoB-2) scale was used to assess the quality of evidence. From the 225 articles that were identified after a database search, 3 studies were included for a qualitative systematic review and a quantitative meta-analysis. The pooled analysis revealed that the use of memantine provided better pain scores at 2nd (mean difference: -0.82, 95% CI: -1.60, -0.05, P = 0.04) with significant heterogeneity (P = 0.06; I² =71%), and 6 hours postoperatively (mean difference: -1.80, 95% CI: -2.23, -1.37, P < 0.00001), but not at 1 hour. The sedation scores at 1 hour were higher in the memantine group but comparable in the 2nd hour. The number of doses of rescue analgesia and nausea/vomiting in the postoperative period was comparable in both groups. The results of this review suggest that memantine premedication could provide better pain scores in the immediate postoperative period with acceptable adverse effects. However, the current evidence is insufficient to suggest the routine use of memantine as a premedication before elective surgeries.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) are the most frequent early complications of hand surgeries. However, the indications still remain uncertain for antibiotic prophylaxis in elective clean soft tissue surgeries of the hand and upper limb. Therefore, a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis on the prevention of SSI in these types of surgeries.
METHODS: An electronic search was performed in the following databases: MEDLINE/Pubmed, PMC/Pubmed, Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics, Embase/Elsevier, Scopus/Elsevier, BVS/Lilacs, and the Cochrane Library, with no restrictions regarding publication language or date. The primary outcome of interest was the occurrence of SSI following elective clean soft tissue surgeries of the hand and upper limb according to the administration of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis and no antibiotic prophylaxis. Surgeries involving simultaneous bone procedures or orthopedic implants were excluded. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I are Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and non-randomized studies of interventions. The magnitude of the intervention effect was estimated using the relative risk (RR). The meta-analysis was performed with the Review Manager and R software tools, using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model and a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results with p ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS: The initial search yielded 1175 titles, from which 12 articles met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review, and 10 were included in the subsequent meta-analysis. The majority of these studies were nonrandomized intervention trials, exhibiting a moderate risk of bias. According to our review, preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis did not have a statistically significant impact on the incidence of SSI (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.91-1.40, p = 0.28). The overall quality of evidence for this outcome was rated as low. Moderate statistical heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 44%), and the prespecified sensitivity analysis highlighted the consistency of the results.
CONCLUSIONS: While these results were consistent with the findings from individual studies included in this review, it is important to note that, given the threshold of p ≤ 0.05 for statistical significance, no definitive conclusions can be drawn from the quantitative analysis of the data obtained.
METHODS: Level 2.
BACKGROUND: CRD42023417786.

Emergence agitation (EA) is a prevalent complication in children following general anesthesia. Several studies have assessed the relationship between melatonin or its analogs and the incidence of pediatric EA, yielding conflicting results. This meta-analysis aims to assess the effects of premedication with melatonin or its analogs on preventing EA in children after general anesthesia.
PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, clinicaltrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched until 25 November 2022. We included randomized controlled trials that assessed EA in patients less than 18 years old who underwent general anesthesia. We excluded studies that did not use a specific evaluation to assess EA.
Nine studies (951 participants) were included in this systematic review. Melatonin significantly reduced the incidence of EA compared with placebos (risk ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.61, P < 0.01) and midazolam (risk ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.73, P < 0.01). Dexmedetomidine remarkably decreased the incidence of EA compared with melatonin (risk ratio 2.04, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.73, P = 0.02).
Melatonin premedication significantly decreases the incidence of EA compared with placebos and midazolam. Dexmedetomidine premedication has a stronger effect than melatonin in preventing EA. Nevertheless, further studies are warranted to reinforce and validate the conclusion on the efficacy of melatonin premedication in mitigating EA in pediatric patients.

UNASSIGNED: To compare the effects of intranasal dexmedetomidine (Dex) and oral midazolam in the preoperative medication of children by using a method of meta-analysis.
UNASSIGNED: Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of intranasal Dex vs. oral midazolam in pediatric premedication were collected. Stata 15.0 statistical software was used to analyze the collected data. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as effect sizes.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 11 studies with 824 children were included, containing 415 patients in the Dex group and 409 patients in the midazolam group. Compared with the oral midazolam group, the intranasal Dex group had a better preoperative sedation effect at parent-child separation (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.14-1.64) and anesthesia induction (RR = 2.08, 95% CI: 1.03-4.22). In addition, there was no significant difference in the incidence of analgesia remedy (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.36-1.00) the acceptance of anesthesia masks (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.83-1.12), and incidence of adverse events between (RR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.06-1.13, P = 0.072) between the intranasal Dex and oral midazolam groups.
UNASSIGNED: Compared with oral midazolam, intranasal Dex has better sedative effects of parent-child separation and anesthesia induction in pediatric premedication, but there was no difference in the incidence of anesthesia remedy, anesthesia mask acceptance, and incidence of adverse events. Therefore, compared with oral midazolam, intranasal Dex is a better choice for premedication in children.

UNASSIGNED: Patients undergoing hysterectomy by open or laparoscopic approach experience moderate to severe postoperative pain. A multimodal analgesic approach is recommended for these patients. This study reviews the analgesic efficacy of duloxetine, a selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor used as an adjuvant for opioid-sparing postoperative analgesia.
UNASSIGNED: After registering the protocol in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO), databases like PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for randomised controlled trials using relevant keywords to find studies in which duloxetine premedication was compared to a placebo in patients undergoing hysterectomy. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to assess the quality of evidence.
UNASSIGNED: The qualitative systematic review included five of the 88 studies identified. The overall risk of bias in the included studies was very high. In all the studies, 60 mg oral duloxetine was used, and the control group was placebo. In two studies, duloxetine premedication was administered 2 h before and 24 h after surgery. In the other three studies, a single dose of 60 mg duloxetine was only administered 2 h before surgery. A pooled meta-analysis was not performed due to fewer studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria and even fewer studies with consistent reporting of various outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: The evidence is insufficient to advocate routine duloxetine premedication in patients undergoing hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present umbrella review was to answer the following question: \"Does the use of NSAIDs as premedication increase the efficacy of the standard inferior alveolar nerve block on teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis?\"
METHODS: Systematic reviews with and without meta-analyses that evaluated the influence of premedication on anesthetic efficacy of the inferior alveolar nerve in symptomatic irreversible pulpitis of mandibular molars were searched in six electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Grey Literature Reports), without the restriction of language or year of publication. A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies.
RESULTS: Twelve systematic reviews were included. Only one did not perform a meta-analysis. The AMSTAR 2 overall confidence ranged from very low to high. In general, the main findings of the systematic reviews were that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (e.g., ibuprofen, oxicam, diclofenac, association of ibuprofen with acetaminophen, and ketorolac) increased the success rate of the inferior alveolar nerve block.
CONCLUSIONS: From the \"very low\" to \"high\"-quality evidence available, this umbrella review concluded that NSAIDs as premedication acts through cyclooxygenase pathways and block the synthesis of specific prostaglandins that complicate the mechanism of action of the anesthesia, improving its success rate.
CONCLUSIONS: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can increase the success rate of the anesthetic technique of inferior alveolar nerve block efficacy in situations of mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

Midazolam hydrochloride is a widely accepted benzodiazepine for premedication in pediatric patients. However, there is no consistent conclusion regarding which route of administration is best. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of oral versus intranasal midazolam premedication in children.
The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to June 2022, for randomized controlled trials comparing oral versus intranasal midazolam. Primary outcomes included satisfactory mask acceptance for induction and satisfactory sedation at separation from parents. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, incidence of nasal irritation, postoperative recovery time, and hemodynamic changes.
Data from 14 studies involving a total of 901 children were obtained. The results indicated that intranasal and oral midazolam premedication in children provided similar satisfactory mask acceptance for induction (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.93-1.13; P=0.64; I2=0%), satisfactory sedation at separation from parents (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.89-1.10; P=0.90; I2=57%), and postoperative recovery time (WMD, -8.01; 95% CI, -20.16-4.14; P=0.20; I2=85%). Additionally, intranasal midazolam premedication was associated with lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.96; P=0.03; I2=0%) and shorter onset time.
Differences between intranasal and oral midazolam in satisfactory mask acceptance for induction, satisfactory sedation at separation from parents, and postoperative recovery time were not significant. Intranasal midazolam premedication was associated with shorter onset time and higher incidence of nasal irritation.