Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28074295›Full record

ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2017

[Neuraxial anaesthesia and NOACs].

T Standl

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 99% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

T StandlKlinik für Anästhesie, Operative Intensiv- u. Palliativmedizin, Städtisches Klinikum Solingen gGmbH, Gotenstraße 1, 42653, Solingen, Deutschland. standl@klinikumsolingen.de.
Städtisches Klinikum Solingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiovascular comorbidities in surgical patients are frequent and have a substantial impact on the postoperative outcome. Neuraxial blockades are able to reduce perioperative morbidity and mortality. The increasing use of new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) requires a high level of attention, especially in patients undergoing neuraxial blockades or requiring postoperative analgesia.

objectiveThe goal of this article is to present the benefit of neuraxial anaesthesia and analgesia in patients with cardiovascular risks and perioperative management of NOAC in this setting. MATERIALS AND

methodsReview of the respective literature in PubMed during the last 25 years as well as presentation of the S1 guideline "Neuraxial anaesthesia and thrombo-embolic prophylaxis/antithrombotic medication" of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI).

resultsThoracic epidural anaesthesia and analgesia contribute to an improved outcome in surgical patients with high cardiovascular risk. In order to avoid severe complications in patients on NOACs undergoing neuraxial blockades the S1 guideline of the DGAI must be respected and close interdisciplinary consultations between anaesthetist, cardiologist and surgeon are mandatory.

conclusionIn consideration of the respective guideline neuraxial blockades can be performed in cardiovascular risk patients on NOACs, since these techniques contribute to an improved postoperative outcome.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, EpiduralAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAnticoagulantsCardiovascular DiseasesGuideline AdherenceHumansPerioperative CareRisk FactorsThromboembolismTreatment OutcomeVitamin KAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAnticoagulantsVitamin KCardiovascular diseasesEpidural analgesiaPerioperative managementPostoperative periodTreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID28074295
OpenAlexW2570875088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.