Ferreira, Rafael Oliva Morgado

Summary Introduction Postoperative delirium is a common complication following cardiac surgery. Despite its known impact on patient outcomes, effective preventative strategies remain elusive. We aimed to perform a comprehensive Bayesian network meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials assessing the effect of pharmacological interventions on the incidence of postoperative delirium. Methods Databases were searched from inception to September 2024. Our search was updated in January 2025. Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials reporting the incidence of postoperative delirium in patients having cardiac surgery treated with pharmacological interventions. Bayesian models were used to estimate risk ratios (RR) and mean differences with 95%CrI through Markov chain Monte Carlo. Interventions were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Sensitivity analyses and grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation assessment were conducted to evaluate the robustness and certainty of evidence. Results Seventy‐nine randomised controlled trials comprising 24,827 patients were included, with 29 pharmacological interventions compared. Dexmedetomidine combined with melatonin was the most effective intervention, reducing the incidence of postoperative delirium compared with placebo (risk ratio 0.31, 95%CrI 0.13–0.69; low certainty). Dexmedetomidine with melatonin also significantly decreased intensive care unit stay (2.4 days, 95%CrI ‐3.50–1.10) and hospital stay (1.32 days, 95%CrI ‐2.09 to ‐0.57). Other interventions, including ketamine and risperidone, showed potential efficacy but with low or very low certainty of evidence. Discussion We identified dexmedetomidine with melatonin as the most effective pharmacological strategy for preventing postoperative delirium following cardiac surgery. Whilst these findings highlight potential benefits, the low certainty of evidence underscores the need for more high‐quality primary evidence.

BACKGROUND: The supraglottic airway device (SGD) was introduced as a breakthrough in airway management. The Fastrach emerged as the first commercially available intubating SGD, drawing extensive investigation. I-gel is a more recent device that has gained popularity, can be used as an intubating SGD, and replaced Fastrach in many institutions. However, there is uncertainty regarding the comparison between these devices in terms of efficacy for intubation and ventilation, and safety in an airway rescue situation. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing I-gel and Fastrach SGD in adult patients undergoing intubation. The primary outcome was the first-pass success rate for tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes were tracheal intubation time, SGD insertion time and success, and complications. We computed risk ratios (RRs) to assess binary end points and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the primary outcome and its subgroup analysis ( P < .05 was considered statistically significant) and 99% CI after Bonferroni correction for the secondary outcomes ( P < .01 was considered statistically significant). RESULTS: This study included a total of 14 RCTs encompassing 1340 patients. The results indicated a significant difference in the first-pass success rate favoring Fastrach (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67–0.98; P = .03; I² = 91%). In the subgroup analysis, when a flexible scope was utilized through I-gel, providers achieved a better tracheal intubation first-pass success rate (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01–1.11; P = .03; I² = 0%), compared with the Fastrach. Overall intubation success rates (RR, 0.92; 99% CI, 0.82–1.04; P = .08, I² = 92%) and time (WMD - 1.03 seconds; 99% CI, -4.75 to 2.69; P = .48; I² = 84%) showed no significant difference irrespective of the device used. There was no significant difference regarding device insertion time by the providers (WMD -6.48 seconds; 99% CI, -13.23 to 0.27; P = .01; I 2 = 98%). Success rates of the providers’ initial SGD insertion and complications such as sore throat (RR, 1.01; 99% CI, 0.65–1.57; P = .95, I² = 33%) and blood presence post-SGD removal (RR, 0.89; 99% CI, 0.42–1.86; P = .68, I² = 0%) showed no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, a higher first-pass success rate was observed with the use of Fastrach when compared to I-gel. However, the use of I-gel might result in a better intubation success rate with the flexible scope-guided intubation. There are no significant differences in performance in terms of the success rate for intubation overall, time for device insertion, or time to intubation or complications regardless of the device used.