Efficacy and safety of chloral hydrate in auditory brainstem response test: A systematic review and single‐arm meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of chloral hydrate in auditory brainstem response (ABR) tests.Setting and DesignIn this study, the authors systematically searched both English (Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science) and Chinese (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and VIP Chinese Science) databases. Two authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment. The pooled sedation failure rate and the pooled incidence of adverse events were calculated via a random‐effects model. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the sources of heterogeneity, and the PRISMA guideline was followed.ParticipantsPatients with ABR tests receiving chloral hydrate sedation.Main outcome measuresThe pooled sedation failure rate and the pooled incidence of adverse events.ResultsA total of 23 clinical studies were included in the final analysis. The pooled sedation failure rate of patients who received chloral hydrate sedation before ABR examination was 10.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) (6.7%, 15.0%), I2 = 95%, p < .01]. There were significant differences in the prevalence of sedation failure between sample sizes greater than 200 and those less than or equal to 200 (5.6% vs. 19.6%, p < .01) and between the studies that reported sleep deprivation and those that did not report sleep deprivation (7.1% vs. 18.9%, p < .01). The pooled incidence of adverse events was 10.32% [95% CI (5.83%, 14.82%), I2 = 98.1%, p < .01].ConclusionsChloral hydrate has a high rate of sedation failure, adverse events, and potential carcinogenicity. Therefore, replacing its use in ABR tests with safer and more effective sedatives is warranted.