No abstract

Background: Unintended perioperative hypothermia is a significant complication for patients undergoing anesthesia. Different measures are routinely undertaken to prevent hypothermia and its consequences. The evidence comparing the impact of self-warming blankets and forced-air warming is scarce. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of self-warming blankets compared to forced-air devices regarding the incidence of perioperative hypothermia. Methods: We searched the Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Scopus for relevant studies from inception until December 2022. We included comparative studies with patients allocated to undergo warming using a self-warming blanket or forced air warming. All concerned outcomes were pooled as odds ratios or mean differences (MDs) in the meta-analysis models using Review Manager (RevMan version 5.4). Results: Our results from 8 studies (597 patients) favored self-warming blankets over forced-air devices in terms of core temperature at 120 and 180 minutes after induction of general anesthesia (MD = 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.14–0.51], P = .0006), (MD = 0.62, 95% CI [0.09–1.14], P = .02), respectively. However, the overall effect did not favor either of the 2 groups for the incidence of hypothermia (odds ratio = 0.69, 95% CI [0.18–2.62]). Conclusion: Ultimately, self-warming blankets have a more significant effect than forced-air warming systems in terms of maintaining normothermia of core temperature after induction anesthesia. However, the present evidence is not enough to verify the efficacy of the 2 warming techniques in the incidence of hypothermia. Further studies with large sample sizes are recommended.

Background Sweating is a physiologic mechanism of human thermoregulation. Hyperhidrosis is defined as a somatic disorder where the sweating is exaggerated in an exact area because the sweat glands are hyperfunctioning. It negatively affects the quality of life of the patients. We aim to investigate patient satisfaction and the effectiveness of oxybutynin in treating hyperhidrosis. Methods We prospectively registered the protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis on PROSPERO (CRD 42022342667). This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported according to the PRISMA statement guidelines. We searched three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) from inception until June 2, 2022, using MeSH terms. We include studies comparing patients with hyperhidrosis who received oxybutynin or a placebo. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (ROB2) for randomized controlled trials. The risk ratio was calculated for categorical variables, and the mean difference was calculated for continuous variables using the random effect model with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Six studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 293 patients. In all studies, patients were assigned to receive either Oxybutynin or Placebo. Oxybutynin represented an HDSS improvement (RR = 1.68 95% CI [1.21, 2.33], p = 0.002). It also can improve the quality of life. There is no difference between oxybutynin and placebo regarding dry mouth (RR = 1.68 95% CI [1.21, 2.33], p = 0.002). Conclusion Our study suggests that using oxybutynin as a treatment for hyperhidrosis is significant and needs to be highlighted for clinicians. However, more clinical trials are needed to grasp the optimum benefit.

Objectives Iron overload in patients with thalassemia represents a serious complication by affecting numerous organ systems. This meta‐analysis aims to establish an evidence regarding the effect of amlodipine on cardiac iron overload in thalassemia patients. Methods We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and EMBASE for all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcomes were cardiac T2* and myocardial iron concentration (MIC). Secondary outcomes were liver iron concentration (LIC), risk of Gastrointestinal (G.I.) upset and risk of lower limb edema. We used Hedges' g to pool continuous outcomes, while odds ratio was used for dichotomous outcomes. Results Seven RCTs were eligible for this systematic review and meta‐analysis, comprising of 233 patients included in the analysis. Amlodipine had a statistically significant lower MIC (Hedges' g = −0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] [−1.40, −0.24], p < .001) and higher cardiac T2* (Hedges' g = 0.36, 95% CI [0.10, 0.62], p = .03). Amlodipine was comparable to standard chelation therapy in terms of the risk of lower limb edema and GI upset. Conclusion Our meta‐analysis found that amlodipine significantly increases cardiac T2* and decreases MIC, hence decreasing the incidence of cardiomyopathy‐related iron overload in thalassemia patients.