ReviewSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Anesthesiological management of Brugada syndrome patients: A systematic review.
Review in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07655102 (BRUGADA-ANAESTHESIA Registry), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
BRUGADA-ANAESTHESIA Registry: Prospective Multicentre Observational Registry of Peri-procedural Anaesthesia, Sedation and Related Medication Exposure in Patients With Brugada Syndrome
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brugada syndrome (BrS) is a major risk factor for sudden cardiac death and ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Several drugs are contraindicated in patients with BrS, including some commonly administered drugs during anesthesia or in the perioperative period; however, there is still a paucity of evidence regarding BrS and common anesthetic pharmaceuticals. We conducted a systematic literature search (PubMed, updated October 10, 2022), including all studies reporting pharmacological management of BrS patients during anesthesia or intensive care, with a specific focus on proarrhythmic effects and possible pharmacological interactions in the context of BrS. The search revealed 44 relevant items, though only three original studies. Two randomized controlled studies were identified, one comparing propofol and etomidate for the induction of general anesthesia and one investigating lidocaine with or without epinephrine for local anesthesia; there was also one prospective study without a control group. The other studies were case series (n = 5, for a total of 19 patients) or case reports (n = 36). Data are reported on a total population of 199 patients who underwent general or local anesthesia. None of the studies evaluated BrS patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). We found the studies focusing on the pharmacological management of BrS patients undergoing general or local anesthesia to be of generally poor quality. However, it appears that propofol can be used safely, without an increase in arrhythmic events. Regional anesthesia is possible, and lidocaine might be preferred over longer-acting local anesthetics. Considering the quality of the included studies and their anecdotal evidence, it seems increasingly important to conduct large multicenter studies or promote international registries with high-quality data on the anesthesiological management of these patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.