Question · asked by 1 review
Neuraxial vs general anaesthesia: Myocardial infarction ‐ Spinal anaesthesia
- Population
- people who underwent a lower limb revascularisation
- Intervention
- Neuraxial
- Comparison
- general anaesthesia
- Outcome
- Myocardial infarction ‐ Spinal anaesthesia
Neuraxial showed no clear difference in myocardial infarction－Spinal anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 100%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Neuraxial vs general anaesthesia Myocardial infarction－Spinal anaesthesia · participants with lower‐limb revascularization Neuraxial showed no clear difference in myocardial infarction－Spinal anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia (low certainty). Neuraxial anaesthesia for lower‐limb revascularization (2013) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 1.89 [0.5, 7.21] | 2 studies · 306 participants | Low |
Neuraxial vs general anaesthesia Myocardial infarction ‐ Spinal anaesthesia · patients with lower‐limb revascularization Neuraxial showed no clear difference in myocardial infarction ‐ Spinal anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia (low certainty). Neuraxial anaesthesia for lower‐limb revascularization (2010) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD007083.PUB2, superseded | OR 1.89 [0.5, 7.21] | 2 studies · 306 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neuraxial anaesthesia for lower‐limb revascularization 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.