SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Induction strategies for preventing hemodynamic changes after intubation in non-cardiac surgery patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tracheal intubation and laryngoscopy during general anesthesia induce significant hemodynamic changes. Although generally transient, these physiological perturbations may precipitate critical cardiovascular events in high-risk populations. Anesthesiologists have used various drug combinations to suppress this response. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to identify a drug combination that can better suppress hemodynamic fluctuations caused by tracheal intubation in non-cardiac surgical patients. Methods: We searched 3 different medical literature databases. A NMA was performed on the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs were evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A random effects network meta-analysis was performed within a frequentist framework. The effects of each pharmacological strategy on intraoperative hemodynamics in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery were compared. Endpoints included ΔMean Arterial Pressure (ΔMAP) and ΔHeart Rate (ΔHR). Results: The network meta-analysis included 10 studies and 791 patients. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, Oxycodone-Propofol-Lidocaine (87.4%) demonstrated superior efficacy in controlling fluctuations in MAP, followed by Fentanyl-Propofol-Dexmedetomidine (82.9%) and Fentanyl-Propofol-Clonidine (81.6%). Fen-Pro-Dex (94.8%) demonstrated superior efficacy in controlling fluctuations in HR, followed by Fentanyl-Propofol-Lidocaine (Epidural) (83.3%), Fentanyl-Propofol-Remifentanil (79.1%). Conclusion: Among patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery, Oxy-Pro-Lid was preferred for attenuating post-intubation changes in MAP, whereas Fen-Pro-Dex provided superior control of HR fluctuations. These findings may help guide the selection of induction pharmacological strategies, although more randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results and clarify optimal dosing. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024591333, identifier CRD42024591333.
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.