Phenobarbital treatment of alcohol withdrawal in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Author:

Lee Carmen M.1ORCID,Dillon David G.2ORCID,Tahir Peggy M.3,Murphy Charles E.4ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Emergency Medicine Highland Hospital, Alameda Health System California USA

2. University of California Davis School of Medicine California USA

3. University of California San Francisco Library California USA

4. University of California San Francisco School of Medicine California USA

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveDespite frequent treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in the emergency department (ED), evidence for phenobarbital (PB) as an ED alternative therapy is mixed. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis comparing safety and efficacy of PB to benzodiazepines (BZDs) for treatment of AWS in the ED.MethodsWe searched articles and references published in English in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase from inception through May 2022. We included randomized trials and cohort studies comparing treatment with PB to BZD controls and excluded studies focused on non‐AWS conditions. Review was conducted by two blinded investigators and a third author; eight of 59 (13.6%) abstracts met inclusion criteria for review and meta‐analysis using a random‐effects model. Treatment superiority was evaluated through utilization, pharmacologic, and clinical outcomes. Primary outcomes for meta‐analysis were the proportion of patients (1) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), (2) admitted to the hospital, (3) readmitted to the ED after discharge, and (4) who experienced adverse events.ResultsEight studies (two randomized controlled trials, six retrospective cohorts) comprised data from 1507 patients in 2012 treatment encounters for AWS. All studies were included in meta‐analysis for adverse events, seven for hospital admission, five for ICU admission, and three for readmission to the ED after discharge. Overall methodological quality was low‐moderate, risk of bias moderate‐high, and statistical heterogeneity moderate. Pooled relative risk of ICU admission for those treated with PB versus BZD was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54–1.55). Risk for admission to the hospital was 0.98 (95% CI 0.89–1.07) and for any adverse event was 1.1 (95% CI 0.78–1.57); heterogeneity prevented meta‐analysis for ED readmission.ConclusionsThe current literature base does not show that treatment with PB significantly reduces ICU admissions, hospital admissions, ED readmissions, or adverse events in ED patients with AWS compared with BZDs alone.

Funder

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Emergency Medicine,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3