The increased morbidity and mortality following cardiopulmonary bypass （CPB） may be due to the development of systemic inflammatory response syndrome （SIRS）. Leukocyte, especially neutrophil, plays a crucial role in SIRS during and after CPB, so the leukocyte removal by filtrations appears to be a logical anti-inflammatory strategy. Many articles reported that leukocyte depletion filter can decrease the potential adverse effects during CPB and reduce the morbidity and mortality following CPB. But the protective effects of the filter varied greatly from paper to paper. This may be due to the different design and biocompatibility of the filter at present, But, because the leukocyte plays a central role in SIRS, leukocyte depletion filter would be an important apparatus in therapy of noninfectious inflammation induced by CPB after it was improved.
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of nerve-stimulator-guide needle placement in the peripheral nerve blockade. Methods The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, OVID, VIP, CNKI and CBM were searched. The quality of the included studies was evaluated by three reviewers, and meta-analysis was performed. Results Twenty studies involving 1 287 participants related to needle placement in the peripheral nerve blockade were included. There were only 2 studies that described a detailed randomization method and allocation concealment and blinding, and the others were inadequate. Meta-analysis based on the included studies showed that: ① Absolute success ratio: nerve-stimulator-guide was higher than eliciting paraesthesia (OR= 4.05, 95%CI 2.57 to 6.36, Plt;0.00001) and anatomy localization (OR=30.3, 95%CI 1.73 to 532.74, P=0.02), but lower than ultrasound-guide-localization (OR=0.27, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.74, P=0.01). ② Onset time of the block: nerve-stimulator-guide was similar to eliciting paraesthesia (WMD= –1.70, 95%CI –?4.50 to 0.95, P=0.08), faster than arteriopalmus localization (WMD= 8.38, 95%CI 0.72 to 16.04, Plt;0.000 01), but slower than ultrasound-guide-localization (WMD= 8.38, 95%CI 0.72 to 16.04, P=0.04). ③ Ratio of complication associated to block: nerve-stimulator-guide was similar to eliciting paraesthesia (OR= 1.01, 95%CI 0.55 to 1.86, P=0.97), anatomy localization (WMD= 0.06, 95%CI 0.00 to 1.21, P=0.07) and arteriopalmus localization (WMD= 8.82, 95%CI 0.10 to 4.11, P=0.65), but higher than ultrasound-guide-localization (OR= 5.03, 95%CI 1.74 to 14.49, P=0.003). ④ Time to block: nerve-stimulator-guide was similar to eliciting paraesthesia (WMD=0.02, 95%CI –0.46 to 0.51, P=0.92), shorter than arteriopalmus localization (WMD= –4.00, 95%CI –5.58 to –2.42, Plt;0.000 01) and longer than ultrasound-guide-localization (WMD= 1.90, 95%CI 0.47 to 3.33, P=0.009). ⑤ Patient-accepted ratio: nerve-stimulator-guide was higher than eliciting paraesthesia (OR=2.32, 95%CI 1.02 to 5.30, P=0.05), and similar to arteriopalmus localization (OR=8.14, 95%CI 0.88 to 75.48, P=0.06). Conclusion Nerve-stimulator-guide location is a precise, effective and safe localization method. Due to moderate risk of selection bias and detection bias of included studies, the evidence is not b. Our results suggest that well-designed double-blind randomized controlled and larger-scale trials on the use of nerve stimulator in the peripheral nerve block are needed.