SynthesisActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2025
Cocaine to prevent bleeding during nasotracheal intubation: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cocaine to prevent bleeding during nasotracheal intubation: A systematic review.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNasotracheal intubation is associated with a risk of epistaxis. Decongestion of the nasal mucosa reduces the risk of epistaxis, and different vasoconstrictors may be used. Cocaine has both decongestive and analgesic properties, but it also has side effects. In this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate if cocaine decreases the occurrence and severity of epistaxis when administered topically to the nasal mucosa before nasotracheal intubation.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines based on a predefined protocol. We included randomized clinical trials comparing nasal cocaine to active comparators or placebo for nasotracheal intubation. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility and performed data extraction. Relative risk with 95% confidence intervals was calculated. Predefined primary outcome measures were the occurrence and severity of epistaxis. Secondary outcomes were pain, mechanical complications, and patient-centered side effects. The risk of bias was evaluated using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomized trials, and certainty of evidence on outcome level was assessed according to GRADE.
resultsSix trials (n = 457) were included; one trial was judged as having a low risk of bias. All six trials provided information on the occurrence of epistaxis. The meta-analysis did not support a difference in the occurrence of epistaxis between cocaine and its comparators (fixed effect: relative risk 0.90 [95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.09, I
conclusionThis systematic review with meta-analysis demonstrated that the quantity and certainty of evidence on cocaine used for nasotracheal intubation is low and that there is no firm evidence for the benefits and harms of cocaine compared to other vasoconstrictors and topical analgetics or placebo. Consequently, sufficiently powered randomized trials assessing patient-centered outcomes, including outcomes on side effects, should be conducted before firm conclusions on cocaine for nasotracheal intubation can be drawn. EDITORIAL COMMENT: Epistaxis can occur with nasotracheal intubation, and topical drug vasoconstrictor effects have been used to reduce this risk. This analysis shows that the evidence base supporting the use of cocaine for reducing the risk of epistaxis in nasotracheal intubation is uncertain.
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.