Evidence Hub

Heterogeneity and bias in animal models of lipid emulsion therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Michael R. Fettiplace, A. Pichurko

Clinical toxicology, 2020

60 participants · 20 citations

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Clinicians utilize lipid emulsion to treat local anesthetic toxicity and non-local anesthetic toxicities, a practice supported by animal experimentation and clinical experience. Prior meta-analysis confirmed a mortality benefit of lipid emulsion in animal models of local anesthetic toxicity but the benefit of lipid emulsion in models of non-local anesthetic toxicity remains unanswered. Further, swine suffer an anaphylactoid reaction from lipid emulsions calling into question their role as a model system to study lipid, so we examined swine and non-swine dependent outcomes in models of intravenous lipid emulsion. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the use of lipid emulsion therapy in animal models of cardiac toxicity. We quantified mortality using a random-effects odds-ratio method. Secondary outcomes included survival in the following subgroups: local-anesthetic systemic toxicity, non-local anesthetic toxicity, swine-based models, and non-swine models (e.g., rat, rabbit and dog). We assessed for heterogeneity with Cochran’s Q and I2. We examined bias with Egger’s test & funnel plot analysis. Results Of 2784 references screened, 58 met criteria for inclusion. Treatment with lipid emulsion reduced chance of death in all models of toxicity with an odds ratio of death of 0.26 (95% CI 0.16–0.44, Z-5.21, p < 0.00001, Cohen’s-d = 0.72, n = 60). Secondary outcomes confirmed a reduced chance of death in models of local…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 60 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