-
J Clin Monit Comput · Feb 2024
Review Meta AnalysisPerformance of closed-loop systems for intravenous drug administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
- Ana Spataru, Paola Eiben, and Annette Pluddemann.
- Department of Neurocritical Care, Southampton General Hospital, Hampshire, SO164YO, UK. ana.spataru@nhs.net.
- J Clin Monit Comput. 2024 Feb 1; 38 (1): 5185-18.
AbstractClosed-loop drug delivery systems are autonomous computers able to administer medication in response to changes in physiological parameters (controlled variables). While limited evidence suggested that closed-loop systems can perform better than manual drug administration in certain settings, this technology remains a research tool with an uncertain risk/benefit profile. Our aim was comparing the performance of closed-loop systems with manual intravenous drug administration in adults. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Embase from inception until November 2022, without restriction to language. We assessed for inclusion randomised controlled trials comparing closed-loop and manual administration of intravenous drugs in adults, intraoperatively or in the Intensive Care Unit. We identified 32 studies on closed-loop administration of propofol, noradrenaline, phenylephrine, insulin, neuromuscular blockers, and vasodilators. Most studies were at moderate or high risk of bias. The results showed that closed-loop systems reduced the duration of blood pressure outside prespecified targets during noradrenaline (MD 14.9%, 95% CI 9.6-20.2%, I2 = 66.6%) and vasodilators administration (MD 7.4%, 95% CI 5.2-9.7%, I2 = 62.3%). Closed-loop systems also decreased the duration of recovery after propofol (MD 1.3 min, 95% CI 0.4-2.1 min, I2 = 58.6%) and neuromuscular blockers (MD 9.0 min, 95% CI 7.9-10.0 min, I2 = 0%). The certainty of the evidence was low or very low for most outcomes. Automatic technology may be used to improve the hemodynamic profile during noradrenaline and vasodilators administration and reduce the duration of postanaesthetic recovery.Registration: This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022336950) on the 7th of June 2022.© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.