Evidence Hub

Effect of peri-operative pharmacological interventions on postoperative delirium in patients having cardiac surgery: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Queiroz I, Barbosa LM, Gallo Ruelas M, Araújo B, Defante MLR, Tavares AH, Florencio de Mesquita C, Pimentel T et al.

Anaesthesia, 2026

24,827 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

Introduction: Postoperative delirium is a common complication following cardiac surgery. Despite its known impact on patient outcomes, effective preventative strategies remain elusive. We aimed to perform a comprehensive Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessing the effect of pharmacological interventions on the incidence of postoperative delirium.

Methods: Databases were searched from inception to September 2024. Our search was updated in January 2025. Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials reporting the incidence of postoperative delirium in patients having cardiac surgery treated with pharmacological interventions. Bayesian models were used to estimate risk ratios (RR) and mean differences with 95%CrI through Markov chain Monte Carlo. Interventions were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Sensitivity analyses and grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation assessment were conducted to evaluate the robustness and certainty of evidence.

Results: Seventy-nine randomised controlled trials comprising 24,827 patients were included, with 29 pharmacological interventions compared. Dexmedetomidine combined with melatonin was the most effective intervention, reducing the incidence of postoperative delirium compared with placebo (risk ratio 0.31, 95%CrI 0.13-0.69; low certainty). Dexmedetomidine with melatonin also significantly decreased intensive care unit stay (2.4 days, 95%CrI…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 24,827 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free