Alpha-2 adrenergic agonists for the prevention of shivering following general anaesthesia (Review)

Transcription

1 Alpha-2 adrenergic agonists for the prevention of shivering following general anaesthesia (Review) Lewis SR, Nicholson A, Smith AF, Alderson P This is a reprint of a Cochrane review, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration and published in The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 8

2 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S HEADER ABSTRACT PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR THE MAIN COMPARISON BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES METHODS RESULTS Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure DISCUSSION AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES DATA AND ANALYSES Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 alpha-2 adrenergic agonist vs. other, Outcome 1 shivering Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Subgroup by alpha-2 adrenergic agonist, Outcome 1 Shivering Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Subgroup by premedication, Outcome 1 Shivering Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Subgroup by year of study, Outcome 1 Shivering Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Subgroup by blinding of outcome assessors, Outcome 1 Shivering Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 Sensitivity analysis. Blinding of personnel, Outcome 1 Shivering APPENDICES CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST SOURCES OF SUPPORT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTOCOL AND REVIEW NOTES i

3 [Intervention Review] Alpha-2 adrenergic agonists for the prevention of shivering following general anaesthesia Sharon R Lewis 1, Amanda Nicholson 2, Andrew F Smith 3, Phil Alderson 4 1 Patient Safety Research, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Lancaster, UK. 2 Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. 3 Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Lancaster, UK. 4 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, UK Contact address: Sharon R Lewis, Patient Safety Research, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Pointer Court 1, Ashton Road, Lancaster, LA1 1RP, UK. Sharon.Lewis@mbht.nhs.uk. sharonrlewis@googl .com. Editorial group: Cochrane Anaesthesia Group. Publication status and date: New, published in Issue 8, Review content assessed as up-to-date: 13 June Citation: Lewis SR, Nicholson A, Smith AF, Alderson P. Alpha-2 adrenergic agonists for the prevention of shivering following general anaesthesia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD DOI: / CD pub2. Background A B S T R A C T Shivering after general anaesthesia is common. It is unpleasant but can also have adverse physiological effects. Alpha-2 (α-2) adrenergic agonist receptors, which can lead to reduced sympathetic activity and central regulation of vasoconstrictor tone, are a group of drugs that have been used to try to prevent postoperative shivering. Objectives To assess the following: the effects of α-2 agonists on the prevention of shivering and subsequent complications after general anaesthesia in people undergoing surgery; the effects of α-2 agonists on the risk of inadvertent perioperative hypothermia; and whether any adverse effects are associated with these interventions. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE on 13 June Our search terms were relevant to the review question and limited to studies that assessed shivering or hypothermia. We also carried out searches of clinical trials registers, and forward and backward citation tracking. Selection criteria We considered all randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized studies, and cluster-randomized studies with adult participants undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia in which an α-2 agonist was compared with another α-2 agonist or a placebo for the prevention of shivering. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, consulting a third review author in the case of disagreements. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, including an assessment of risk of bias and use of GRADEpro software to interpret findings. 1

4 Main results We included 20 studies with 1401 surgical participants comparing an α-2 agonist against a control. Thirteen studies compared clonidine with a control, whilst seven compared dexmedetomidine with a control. The doses, methods, and time of administration varied between studies: three studies gave the drug orally or as an intravenous bolus preoperatively and nine intraoperatively; one study gave the drug as an infusion starting preoperatively and seven started at varying points from anaesthetic induction to the end of surgery. Whilst all the studies were described as randomized, many provided insufficient detail on methods used. We had anticipated that attempts would be made to reduce performance bias by blinding of personnel and participants, however this was detailed in only six of the papers. Similarly, in some studies detail was lacking on methods to reduce the risk of detection bias. We therefore downgraded the quality of evidence in our Summary of findings table by one level for risk of bias using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. All 20 included studies presented outcome data for postoperative shivering, and in meta-analysis α-2 agonists were shown to significantly reduce the risk of shivering (Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.43, P value < ). We found significant evidence of heterogeneity (I 2 = 80%) for this result that was not explained by sensitivity or subgroup analysis; we therefore downgraded the inconsistency of the evidence by one level. Although we did not feel that there were concerns with imprecision or indirectness of the data, we downgraded the quality of the evidence for the risk of publication bias following visual analysis of a funnel plot. Using GRADEpro, we rated the overall quality of the data for shivering as very low. Only one study reported the incidence of core hypothermia, whilst 12 studies measured core temperature. However, as the results for core temperature were reported in different styles, pooling the results was inappropriate. We found no studies with participant-reported outcomes such as experience of shivering or participant satisfaction. We found limited data for the outcomes of length of stay in the postanaesthetic care unit (three studies, 200 participants) and the following adverse effects: sedation (nine studies, 875 participants), bradycardia (eight studies, 716 participants), and hypotension (seven studies, 688 participants). Unpooled analysis suggested that sedation and bradycardia were significantly more common with dexmedetomidine than placebo, with all seven dexmedetomidine studies and none of the clonidine studies reporting statistically significantly higher levels of sedation as an adverse effect. Authors conclusions There is evidence that clonidine and dexmedetomidine can reduce postoperative shivering, but patients given dexmedetomidine may be more sedated. However, our assessment of the quality of this evidence is very low. P L A I N L A N G U A G E S U M M A R Y Alpha-2 adrenergic agonists to prevent shivering after general anaesthesia Background Shivering after general anaesthesia is common. As well as being unpleasant for the patient, it can increase pain and affect oxygen levels. Alpha-2 (α-2) adrenergic agonists are a group of drugs that have been tested for the purpose of preventing or treating shivering. We aimed with this review to consider whether α-2 agonists can be administered to reduce shivering after surgery without causing serious side effects. Study characteristics The evidence is current up to 13 June We found 20 relevant randomized controlled trials with 1401 participants undergoing surgical procedures with general anaesthesia. These studies compared an α-2 agonist (either clonidine or dexmedetomidine) with a control. The doses, methods, and time that the drugs were given varied between studies. Key results All studies reported results for shivering. Our analysis showed that α-2 agonists significantly reduce the risk of postoperative shivering when administered before or during surgery. However, our analysis also showed that there were significant differences between studies that we could not explain. Some study authors had also presented results for core temperature, length of stay in the recovery room, and clinical side effects of the drugs. Seven studies reported that participants given dexmedetomidine were more likely to have a higher level of sedation after surgery, and five studies reported that participants given dexmedetomidine were more likely to have bradycardia (slower heart rate). We did not combine these results in an analysis. None of the studies presented patient-reported outcomes. Quality of the evidence 2

5 We felt that the quality of the evidence was low and that some authors did not make enough of an effort to reduce the risk of bias in the methods, which could affect their results. For example, not all authors masked the anaesthetist or surgeon to which drug was given to each participant. This, along with some unexplained differences between studies and some concern about whether we could have missed some relevant results that had not been published, led us to assess the quality of the evidence for shivering as very low. We used GRADEpro software to assess evidence quality. Conclusion Alpha-2 agonists may reduce the number of people who shiver after surgical procedures, but they are likely to make people sleepier as a side effect. However, the evidence is from studies of very low quality. 3

6 S U M M A R Y O F F I N D I N G S F O R T H E M A I N C O M P A R I S O N [Explanation] Alpha-2 adrenergic agonist compared to placebo/control for the prevention of shivering following general anaesthesia Patient or population: people with surgical requirement for general anaesthesia Settings: Intervention: alpha-2 adrenergic agonist Comparison: placebo or control Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks*(95% CI) Relative effect (95% CI) Assumed risk Placebo or control Corresponding risk Alpha-2 adrenergic agonist Shivering Study population RR 0.28 (0.18 to 0.43) 570per per1000 (103to245) Moderate 513per per1000 (92to221) No of Participants (studies) 1391 (20 studies) Quality of the evidence (GRADE) verylow 1,2,3 Comments Incidence of core hypothermia - not measured Participant satisfaction/ experience of shivering - not measured See comment See comment Not estimable - See comment Comparison of core temperature measured at different intervals in 12 studies and reported in different styles. Not possible to combine data meaningfully See comment See comment Not estimable - See comment Not reported in any studies 4

7 *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention(and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Lowquality:Furtherresearchisverylikelytohaveanimportantimpactonourconfidenceintheestimateofeffectandislikelytochangetheestimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. 1 Of 20 studies, only 8 presented adequate methods of randomization; only 6 appropriately addressed performance bias; and 12 appropriately addressed detection bias. We therefore downgraded one level for study limitations. 2 Whilsttherewasaconsistencyofresultsbetweenstudies,wecalculatedahighlevelofheterogeneitywiththeI 2 statistic.wetherefore downgraded one level for inconsistency. 3 Therewasevidenceofpotentialpublicationbiasbyobservationofafunnelplotthatshowedasymmetrywithalackofnegativeresults. We therefore downgraded one level for publication bias. 5

8 B A C K G R O U N D Description of the condition Patient shivering after surgery is common. At least 10% of people who have undergone surgery shiver during recovery, and some estimates are as high as 66% (Alfonsi 2003; Eberhart 2005). Younger patients and those undergoing lengthy surgery or having a prosthesis, such as a joint or valve, placed inside their body are more likely to shiver (Eberhart 2005). The mechanism and pathophysiology of perioperative shivering are poorly understood, but shivering occurs primarily in response to core hypothermia, when the shivering threshold is passed. Hypothermia is a common and potentially serious side effect of surgery, occurring in up to 20% of patients (Harper 2008). Core temperature falls rapidly in the first hour of general anaesthesia due to inhibition of the usual thermoregulatory systems in the hypothalamus, which leads to peripheral vasodilatation and redistribution of body heat from the core to the periphery. This steep fall in temperature is followed by a slower, linear decrease perhaps related to a reduction in metabolic rate and heat production during anaesthesia. Increased heat loss from exposed skin and body surfaces and infusion of cool fluids also increase the risk of the core body temperature falling. After two to three hours, a phase is achieved when core hypothermia triggers thermoregulatory vasoconstriction, reducing heat loss from the skin, and metabolic heat production maintains a core temperature plateau (Kurz 1995; NICE Guideline CG65). Perioperative hypothermia is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and wound infections and can impair drug metabolism and clotting systems, increasing the risk of perioperative bleeding (Horosz 2013). The main ways of preventing inadvertent perioperative hypothermia (IPH) are temperature monitoring, forced air warming, and warming of intravenous fluids and blood products (NICE Guideline CG65). Currently there are three published Cochrane reviews, Alderson 2014, Campbell 2012, and Warttig 2014, and two Cochrane reviews in progress considering the prevention and treatment of IPH (Urrútia 2011; Warttig 2015). However, not all patients who shiver are hypothermic and not all hypothermic patients shiver (Eberhart 2005). Shivering may help increase body temperature, but it is uncomfortable for the patient, often increasing the sensation of cold. It can increase postoperative pain by disturbing the wound, increase intraocular pressure, and interfere with the monitoring equipment. Shivering can double oxygen consumption (Alfonsi 2003). Both anaesthetists and patients list shivering as an outcome to be avoided (Macario 1999; Macario 1999a). Description of the intervention Clonidine, mivazerol, and dexmedetomidine are centrally acting alpha-2 (α-2) adrenergic agonists, acting primarily on presynaptic α-2 receptors in the vasomotor centre in the brainstem. The activation of these receptors stimulates a negative feedback loop and leads to reduced sympathetic activity and reduced central regulation of vasoconstrictor tone (De Witte 2002). Clonidine is used to treat hypertension, particularly severe hypertension, as it has an effect after a single oral dose (Brenner 2013). The perioperative use of α-2 adrenergic agonists is increasing due to their sedative and analgesic effects; they have also been shown to decrease the required dose of anaesthetic agents (Jalonen 1997; Kamibayashi 2000). A Cochrane review found that the perioperative administration of α-2 agonists reduced the risk of perioperative mortality and cardiovascular events by 30% (Wijeysundera 2009). Other systematic reviews have also found reductions in perioperative risk in patients receiving clonidine, in Nishina 2002, or dexmedetomidine, in Biccard How the intervention might work Previous meta-analyses have demonstrated that clonidine is effective in both the prevention and treatment of shivering and the treatment of perioperative shivering (Kranke 2004). The mechanism of action is unclear, but it may act by lowering the core temperature at which shivering starts to occur (Alfonsi 2003; Buggy 2000). However, due to its vasomotor effects, specifically the associated reduction of vasomotor tone, clonidine has also been considered a potential risk factor for IPH. A meta-analysis for the NICE guideline found no evidence to support this risk (NICE Guideline CG65). Why it is important to do this review This systematic review and meta-analyses considered the effects of α-2 adrenergic agonists on IPH and shivering. Existing reviews on the effects of clonidine on IPH and shivering need updating. The search for the Kranke 2004 review on shivering was performed in 2003, and the search for evidence for the NICE guideline covers until the year 2007 (NICE Guideline CG65). A more recent review of agents to prevent shivering was restricted to only studies that showed a benefit (Park 2012). The effects of dexmedetomidine on IPH and shivering have not been summarized in a systematic review. More recent studies use this agent, and it is known to bind to the α-2 receptor more strongly than clonidine (Kamibayashi 2000). Potential adverse effects of these agents (such as rebound hypertension or hypotension) have not been summarized in a systematic review. 6

9 O B J E C T I V E S To assess the following: the effects of α-2 agonists on the prevention of shivering and subsequent complications after general anaesthesia in people undergoing surgery; the effects of α-2 agonists on the risk of IPH; and whether any adverse effects are associated with these interventions. M E T H O D S Criteria for considering studies for this review Types of studies We considered all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including quasi-randomized studies and cluster-randomized studies. Types of participants We included adults (over 18 years of age) undergoing elective and emergency surgery (including surgery for trauma) under general anaesthesia (GA). The α-2 agonists have multiple sites of action centrally and peripherally. The disruption of thermoregulatory systems differs between GA and regional or neuraxial block. In spinal or neuraxial anaesthesia, the peripheral vasodilatation is limited to the area of the block and is due to the peripheral blockade rather than central control. The initial heat loss may be less due to the smaller proportion of body area affected by the initial vasodilatation, but there is a risk of continued heat loss and serious hypothermia, as this vasodilatation is not discontinued by thermoregulatory vasoconstriction (NICE Guideline CG65). The mechanism of shivering is not fully understood and may differ between people having GA with or without neuraxial block. We therefore decided to restrict this review to GA cases in order to reduce heterogeneity between studies due to different pathways of action. Similarly, mechanisms of hypothermia and shivering may differ in obstetric patients, with shivering occurring in some women after normal delivery. We have therefore not included the following groups: patients undergoing operative procedures under local, regional, or neuraxial anaesthesia; patients receiving neuraxial anaesthesia for analgesia in addition to GA; patients who have been treated with therapeutic hypothermia (e.g. use of cardiopulmonary bypass); patients with isolated severe head injuries resulting in impaired temperature control; patients undergoing surgery for burns (e.g. for skin grafting); obstetric patients. Types of interventions We included intravenous, oral, or transdermal administration of α- 2 adrenergic agonists (clonidine, mivazerol, or dexmedetomidine) given before or during surgery specifically to prevent hypothermia or shivering. We aimed to include both: comparisons to a placebo or no treatment; comparisons between α-2 adrenergic agonists (e.g. between clonidine and dexmedetomidine) at equipotent doses. We did not include comparisons with other pharmacological agents or comparisons of different drug dosages of the same agent. We did not include studies of agents given to stop established shivering. Types of outcome measures Primary outcomes 1. Incidence of shivering occurring during 12 hours, measured from either the end of the surgical procedure or arrival of the participant at the postanaesthetic care unit (PACU) until the last time of follow-up. Shivering may be measured on a dichotomous present or absent scale or graded using scales such as the Crossley and Mahajan score (Crossley 1994). 2. Core hypothermia, either: incidence of core/ transitional temperature less than 36 o C at any time from induction of anaesthesia until 12 hours after the end of the surgical procedure or arrival at PACU; or core/ transitional temperature at 30, 60, 90, 120 minutes after induction, at the end of the surgical procedure, on arrival at PACU, or other times within 12 hours postoperatively. Core/ transitional temperature in this instance refers to the temperature measured directly at the tympanic membrane, bladder, oesophagus, pulmonary artery, nasopharynx, or rectum. 3. Participant-reported outcomes such as experience of shivering or satisfaction with recovery. Secondary outcomes 1. Major cardiovascular complications (cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal cardiac arrest) within 30 days of surgery 2. All-cause mortality within 30 days of surgery 3. Length of stay in PACU and on ward after surgery 4. Unplanned high dependency or intensive care unit admission 5. Adverse effects of drugs including sedation, bradycardia, hypotension Due to the large number of trials performed with these agents for other perioperative outcomes, such as cardiovascular complications, we did not include studies that did not report on any of our primary outcomes. 7

10 Search methods for identification of studies Electronic searches We searched for eligible trials in the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; 2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (via Ovid) (from 1946 to June 2014), and EMBASE (via Ovid) (from 1974 to June 2014). The Cochrane highly sensitive filter for RCTs was applied in MED- LINE and EMBASE. We have presented our search strategies in Appendix 1, Appendix 2, and Appendix 3. We searched using both MeSH headings (or equivalent structured vocabulary in other databases) and free text. See also Differences between protocol and review. We also searched trial registers ( and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( for ongoing trials. We included any publication that reported study data including abstracts, letters, and articles. We used no restrictions on language of publication. Searching other resources We undertook forward and backward citation tracking for key review articles and eligible articles identified from the electronic resources. This included reviews of the effects of α-2 adrenergic agonists on other outcomes such as cardiovascular events and perioperative risk (Wijeysundera 2009). Data collection and analysis Selection of studies The results of the searches were collated and duplicates removed. Two review authors (SL, AN) independently screened all titles and abstracts and removed studies that were likely ineligible. We included titles without abstracts at this stage if potentially relevant. Two review authors (SL, AN) independently reviewed the full texts of potentially relevant titles and recorded on study eligibility forms (included in Appendix 4). Differences that could not be resolved were referred to review author AS or review author PA. We recorded the numbers of papers retrieved and decisions made at each stage in a PRISMA flowchart. Data extraction and management Two review authors (SL, AS) independently extracted data from eligible studies using the form in Appendix 4. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Assessment of risk of bias in included studies We used the Cochrane Risk of bias tool to assess the quality of the study design and extent of potential bias (Higgins 2011a). We considered the following domains. Sequence generation Allocation concealment Blinding of participants, personnel, and outcomes assessors Incomplete outcome data Selective outcomes reporting Blinding of intervention and control groups in the studies eligible for this review is feasible, and we anticipated that most studies would attempt some form of blinding. We paid particular attention to the risk of performance bias in the included studies due to the uncertainty about underlying mechanisms of shivering and temperature control. A wide range of pharmacological agents have been shown to affect the risk of shivering, and it was important that the overall anaesthetic regimen and perioperative temperature control measures were similar in the intervention and control groups. We remained aware that detection bias could be influenced by the potentially subjective assessment of shivering. We did not anticipate that incomplete outcome data for shivering and temperature outcomes would be an important source of bias due to the short (12-hour) follow-up period, but considered losses to follow-up for other outcomes such as mortality and complications. Other sources of bias Cluster designs are feasible for this topic, with the anaesthetist, operating theatre, or hospital being the unit of randomization, but we did not expect to find many trials of this design on this topic. For any cluster-randomized trials that we included, we would have paid particular attention to the baseline characteristics of the participants and the type of surgery being undertaken. We completed a Risk of bias table for each included study as part of the data extraction form. For each outcome, we summarized Risk of bias assessments for each domain in Risk of bias graphs and figures, and across all domains in a Summary of findings table. Measures of treatment effect Study authors presented data for shivering either as dichotomous or using scales for degrees of shivering. Scales varied between studies and were open to subjective reporting. We decided to analyse such scale data as dichotomous, that is number of shivering events versus no shivering. Unit of analysis issues All studies were randomized with a parallel design. One study compared three different doses of the same drug with a placebo; for this study we combined the data from these three arms for the shivering outcome compared to the placebo. All other studies were two-arm comparison designs. 8

11 Dealing with missing data We performed sensitivity analysis to compare results for those studies where limited data was available. Assessment of heterogeneity We expected that the findings may differ between studies included in the review. This heterogeneity may be due to: type of α-2 agonist for comparison with placebo; dose of α-2 agonist given; time α-2 agonist given; anaesthetic and premedication agents given; method used to measure shivering; method and site used to measure temperature; methods used for temperature control during surgery (e.g. thermal insulation, warming of fluids, active warming); age group and comorbidity of participants; type of surgery; year of study. We assessed heterogeneity using I 2 statistic and investigated high levels of heterogeneity through subgroup analyses. Assessment of reporting biases We examined funnel plots to assess the potential for publication bias using visual assessment. Heterogeneity between studies may lead to asymmetry, and we considered this possibility when reviewing the results. In addition to studies with no published results, reporting bias may be present within a study with data on some outcomes collected but not reported. No studies included a reference to a published protocol, for example from a clinical trials register, and we did not attempt to contact authors to request a protocol. Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity Where appropriate, we completed subgroup analyses in order to investigate the potential sources of heterogeneity that are described above, using the I 2 statistic to assess any reduction. Sensitivity analysis We carried out sensitivity analyses to explore the potential impact of missing data, as described in the section Dealing with missing data. We also carried out analysis on results of the Risk of bias assessment and model of analyses. Summary of findings We used the principles of the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to provide an overall assessment of the evidence relating to our primary outcome of the incidence of shivering (Guyatt 2008). There was insufficient evidence to assess the outcomes relating to incidence of core hypothermia and participant satisfaction. The GRADE approach incorporates risk of bias, directness of evidence, heterogeneity of the data, precision of effect estimates, and risk of publication bias to give an overall measure of how confident we can be that our estimate of effect is correct. One review author (SL) used the GRADEpro software (GRADEpro) to create a Summary of findings table for each outcome. Review author AS checked this and agreed with it. R E S U L T S Description of studies Data synthesis We only completed meta-analysis for our primary outcome of shivering. Having converted all the individual study results into dichotomous data, we used Mantel-Haenszel model of risk ratios in RevMan 5.3. Pooled estimates had a 95% confidence interval. Results of the search Our searches identified a total of 4687 records. We considered the full text of 49 of these papers and identified 20 to include in the review. We identified one ongoing study through clinical trials registers. We have summarized this in Figure 1. 9

12 Figure 1. Study flow diagram. Included studies We found 20 studies with 1401 participants that met our inclusion criteria. Adult participants were scheduled for a wide variety of procedures of between one- and two-hours duration, with the exception of two studies, whose participants had surgery with a duration of two to three hours, in Aldehayat 2011, and over three hours, in Quintin 1991a. Most had participants who were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I or ASA II. Delaunay 1991 and Abdelmageed 2014 included only participants who were ASA I, and Sumpelmann 1994 included participants who were ASA I, II, or III. Thirteen studies compared clonidine against a control ( Buggy 1997; Delaunay 1991; Frank 1999; Grundmann 1997; Horn 1997; Horn 1998; Jabbary Moghaddam 2013; Mohammadi 2007; Quintin 1991a; Sahin 2002; Sumpelmann 1994; Vanderstappen 1996; Yildiz 2005), whilst seven compared dexmedetomidine against a control (Abdelmageed 2014; Aldehayat 2011; Bajwa 2012; Bicer 2006; Elvan 2008; Karaman 2013; Kim 2013). Controls were all saline, except for Jabbary Moghaddam 2013, which gave a placebo in the form of a vitamin C tablet, and Frank 1999 and Mohammadi 2007, which gave a placebo but did not say what it was. No studies compared one type of α-2 agonist with another. There were a variety of doses and methods of administration for clonidine and dexmedetomidine. For clonidine, five studies gave an intravenous (iv) bolus of 150 µg (Buggy 1997), 3 µg/kg (Horn 1997), 1.5 µg/kg (Horn 1998), 2 µg/kg (Sahin 2002), and 5 µg/kg (Sumpelmann 1994). Five studies gave clonidine as an iv infusion of 2 µg/kg over 20 minutes (Delaunay 1991), 4 µg/kg over 10 minutes (Frank 1999), 2 µg/kg in 10 ml saline over 2 minutes (Grundmann 1997, 5 µg/kg over 3 hours (Quintin 1991a), and 2 µg/kg over 10 minutes (Vanderstappen 1996). Two studies gave clonidine orally in a dose of 5 µg/kg, in Jabbary Moghaddam 2013, and 0.2 mg, in Mohammadi One study (Yildiz 2005), written in Turkish, gave a dose of 2 µg/kg, but we did not note the details of the administration method. For dexmedetomidine, three studies gave a dose of 1 µg/kg intravenously (Aldehayat 2011; Bajwa 2012; Bicer 2006), two studies gave a loading dose of 1 µg/ kg over 10 minutes followed by an infusion of 0.4 µg/kg/hour and 0.5 µg/kg/hour (Elvan 2008; Karaman 2013), one study gave a dose of 2.5 mg/kg intramuscularly (Abdelmageed 2014), and one study gave different doses to three study groups of 0.5 µg/kg,

13 µg/kg, and 1 µg/kg (Kim 2013). Timings of administration of the study drugs also differed. Two studies gave the intervention drug preoperatively at 90 minutes before surgery and at 30 minutes before surgery (Jabbary Moghaddam 2013; Mohammadi 2007), and one gave the drug prior to induction (Buggy 1997). Of those studies in which the drug was given intraoperatively, one gave the drug one hour before the end of surgery (Sumpelmann 1994), one at 45 minutes before the end of surgery (Abdelmageed 2014), one at 30 minutes before the end of surgery (Bajwa 2012), one at 20 minutes before the end of surgery (Aldehayat 2011), one at the time of wound closure (Bicer 2006), three at 5 minutes before extubation (Horn 1997; Horn 1998; Sahin 2002), and one at the end of anaesthesia (Yildiz 2005). Of those studies in which the drug was given as an infusion, one was started preoperatively 10 minutes before anaesthesia (Frank 1999), one immediately after induction (Vanderstappen 1996), two were started after intubation (Elvan 2008; Karaman 2013), one from the beginning of surgical incision (Quintin 1991a), one at 30 minutes before the end of surgery (Kim 2013), one at 5 minutes before the end of surgery (Grundmann 1997), and one at the end of surgery (Delaunay 1991). For details presented by study, see Characteristics of included studies. Ongoing studies We identified one ongoing study from our searches of clinical trials websites (IRCT N2). This study aims to assess postoperative shivering in people given either 0.2 mg clonidine or a placebo before anaesthesia. See Characteristics of ongoing studies. Studies awaiting classification There were no studies awaiting classification. Excluded studies We referenced 17 excluded studies (Apitzsch 2000; Arslan 2000; Bakhamees 2007; Bernard 1991; Bernard 1998; Eberhart 2000; Gao 2012; Hidalgo 2005; Lee 2013; Mizobe 2005; Onodera 2011; Piper 2000; Piper 2002; Piper 2004; Quintin 1991b; Rohrbach 1999; Wright 1990). A number of studies comparing an α-2 agonist with placebo assessed outcomes other than those listed in our review. We also excluded those studies which either did not report on shivering or temperature at all or which did not report shivering or temperature as their primary aim. Details of these studies are in Characteristics of excluded studies. We found three studies that had been retracted by the journals (Piper 2000; Piper 2002; Piper 2004), and we therefore agreed to exclude these studies, again see Characteristics of excluded studies. Risk of bias in included studies Two Turkish studies (Sahin 2002; Yildiz 2005), whilst still having sufficient data for inclusion, are awaiting translation of the full text. We were therefore unable to make judgements about their risk of bias and have not included this information below. For a summary of the risk of bias across domains and studies, see Figure 2. 11

14 Figure 2. Risk of bias summary: review authors judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study. 12

15 Allocation All studies were described as randomized, although only eight studies provided sufficient details of their methods of randomization (Abdelmageed 2014; Bajwa 2012; Elvan 2008; Jabbary Moghaddam 2013; Karaman 2013; Kim 2013; Mohammadi 2007; Quintin 1991a). Of these, only four studies adequately described a method used to conceal the allocation of the intervention to personnel and participants (Abdelmageed 2014; Bajwa 2012; Elvan 2008; Karaman 2013; Kim 2013). Blinding Blinding of intervention and control groups in the eligible studies for this review is feasible, and we anticipated that most studies would attempt some form of blinding. However, only six studies made significant attempts to blind the anaesthetists from the group allocation, allocating the preparation of the syringes to someone not involved in the study (Abdelmageed 2014; Bajwa 2012; Elvan 2008; Karaman 2013; Kim 2013; Mohammadi 2007). As other full-text studies did not provide such detail, we assumed that no attempts had been made to conceal the drug allocation from the anaesthetist, and we therefore judged these studies to be at high risk of performance bias for all included outcomes. Twelve studies attempted to reduce the risk of detection bias in the assessment of shivering, using an independent observer to record data (Abdelmageed 2014; Aldehayat 2011; Buggy 1997; Elvan 2008; Grundmann 1997; Horn 1997; Horn 1998; Jabbary Moghaddam 2013; Karaman 2013; Kim 2013; Mohammadi 2007; Vanderstappen 1996). Where other studies did not detail methods to reduce detection bias, we did not make a judgement and recorded this domain as unclear. Fewer studies reported who was responsible for assessing temperature outcomes and complications (Horn 1998; Kim 2013; Vanderstappen 1996). Some of these outcomes were measured at time points both in the operating room and in the recovery room, and we judged that if attempts were made to reduce performance bias in the operating room and if the assessment of shivering in the recovery room was also blinded, there would also be a low risk of detection bias for temperature outcomes and complications for these studies (Elvan 2008; Mohammadi 2007). The remaining studies did not report details for these domains, and we therefore did not make a judgement, recording these as unclear. Incomplete outcome data Nineteen of 20 included studies reported no or few apparent losses to the participant group and were therefore judged as at low risk of attrition bias. Elvan 2008 lost a high number of participants due to a comprehensive exclusion criteria. Selective reporting We did not seek previous published protocols for each of the included studies. Whilst all studies appeared to present results for outcomes indicated in their methods section, we did not feel this was sufficient to judge the potential for reporting bias. We therefore recorded this domain as unclear. Other potential sources of bias We paid attention to baseline characteristics to ensure that they were comparable and assessed all but one study as at low risk of bias for this. The baseline characteristics in Horn 1997 demonstrated some differences between the study groups, and whilst we felt that these differences were not clinically relevant to affect the study outcomes, they suggested that the randomization process may not have been rigorously pursued. We therefore judged this study as at high risk of bias for differences in baseline characteristics. Two studies were potentially at high risk of bias due to study funding from a pharmaceutical company, although the paper did not report whether the study drug had been provided by this company (Quintin 1991a; Vanderstappen 1996). Three studies reported data for time in recovery, however none of these studies mentioned whether a standardized discharge criteria was used, and we therefore judged this outcome as at high risk of bias. Effects of interventions See: Summary of findings for the main comparison Alpha-2 adrenergic agonist compared to placebo/control for the prevention of shivering following general anaesthesia Primary outcomes 1. Incidence of shivering Twenty studies with 1391 participants compared an α-2 adrenergic agonist with a placebo/saline and assessed postoperative shivering. Alpha-2 agonists were shown to significantly reduce the risk of shivering (Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.43, P value < ). See Analysis 1.1 and Figure 3. However, we found significant evidence of heterogeneity (I 2 = 80%, P value < ), a funnel plot of all studies contributing data also showed evidence of asymmetry (see Figure 4), and there were high levels of performance bias or insufficient detail from study authors (see Risk of bias in included studies). Using GRADE, we therefore downgraded the quality of this result for risk of bias, inconsistency, and possible 13

16 publication bias to very low (see Summary of findings for the main comparison). Figure 3. Forest plot of comparison: 1 alpha-2 adrenergic agonist vs. other, outcome: 1.1 shivering. 14

17 Figure 4. Funnel plot of comparison: Alpha-2 agonists versus placebo. Postoperative shivering 2. Core hypothermia We found only one study that reported on the incidence of hypothermia (Abdelmageed 2014), which was high in both groups with no statistical significance. However, 12 studies with 978 participants measured core temperature (Bicer 2006; Buggy 1997; Delaunay 1991; Elvan 2008; Grundmann 1997; Horn 1997; Horn 1998; Karaman 2013; Kim 2013; Mohammadi 2007; Quintin 1991a; Vanderstappen 1996). Times of measurement differed between studies, as did the style in which the results were reported, with some results presented in graphs and others as narrative description. Given these issues, we did not feel it appropriate to attempt to extract these data and combine in an analysis, nor did we import data for this outcome into the Summary of findings for the main comparison. Where possible, we included study authors own interpretation of these results in Characteristics of included studies. Of these 12 studies, two studies presented only mean core temperatures for each group, with no apparent significant difference between groups (Delaunay 1991; Mohammadi 2007). Three studies reported a fall in core temperature in both study groups but stated that there was no difference between intervention and control (Bicer 2006; Buggy 1997; Horn 1997). One study did not report a fall in temperature but stated that there were no differences in core temperature between groups (Horn 1998). Karaman 2013 reported a fall in temperature but did not compare between groups. It was not possible to extract data for three studies for which either the wrong temperature measurement was reported or the data were presented in a graph only (Grundmann 1997; Quintin 1991a; Vanderstappen 1996). For Kim 2013, we were able to interpret the data on the graph to say that whilst there was a fall in temperature for both groups, this was greater in the dexmedetomidine group. Only Elvan 2008 reported a statistically significant result for temperature between groups, reporting an equivalent fall intraoperatively but with postoperative temperatures in the dexmedetomidine group significantly lower (P value < 0.05). 3. Participant-reported outcomes None of the studies reported relevant participant-reported outcomes such as experience of shivering or satisfaction with recovery. We were therefore unable to incorporate this outcome into the Summary of findings table. 15

18 Secondary outcomes 1. Major cardiovascular complications None of the studies reported major cardiovascular complications such as cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or non-fatal cardiac arrest. 2. All-cause mortality None of the studies reported mortality. 3. Length of stay in postanaesthetic care unit Only three studies reported time in the recovery room. Buggy 1997 reported mean time in minutes with participants in the clonidine group spending slightly longer (25.1 (standard error of the mean 3.9)) than in the control group (23.6 (standard error of the mean 4.7)). In Mohammadi 2007, the reported mean time was also longer for the clonidine than placebo group (clonidine 48.5 (standard deviation ± 13.4), placebo 41.2 (standard deviation ± 14.6)). In Jabbary Moghaddam 2013 there was an apparent error in the reporting of recovery time, with different data in text and tables; we have therefore not reported these data. 4. Unplanned high dependency or intensive care unit admission None of the studies reported high dependency or intensive care unit admissions. 5. Adverse effects of drugs level of sedation than the control group (P value < for Elvan 2008 and the remaining six studies with a P value < 0.05). In the clonidine studies, Delaunay 1991 reported that participants in the clonidine group were slightly more sedated than the control, but that this was not statistically significant, and Vanderstappen 1996 reported that there were no statistically significant differences in sedation between groups. We have presented study data in Characteristics of included studies. b) Bradycardia Eight studies reported on bradycardia as an adverse event. Five of these studies reported a statistically significant difference between groups (P value < 0.05), with more bradycardia in the intervention group than the control (Abdelmageed 2014; Elvan 2008; Frank 1999; Karaman 2013; Quintin 1991a). Kim 2013, which had three groups of different doses of dexmedetomidine, reported significantly more bradycardia in the groups given 0.75 and 1.0 µg/ kg dexmedetomidine (P value < 0.05). Vanderstappen 1996 reported no difference in the number of participants with bradycardia between groups, and Sahin 2002 reported that there were no bradycardia events in any participants. We have presented study data in Characteristics of included studies. c) Hypotension Seven studies reported on hypotension as an adverse event. Six of these studies reported that there was no statistically significant difference between the intervention and control groups (Abdelmageed 2014; Elvan 2008; Karaman 2013; Kim 2013; Quintin 1991a; Vanderstappen 1996). Sahin 2002 reported that there were no hypotension events in any participants. We have presented study data in Characteristics of included studies. a) Sedation All seven dexmedetomidine studies, Abdelmageed 2014, Aldehayat 2011, Bajwa 2012, Bicer 2006, Elvan 2008, Karaman 2013, and Kim 2013, and two clonidine studies, Delaunay 1991 and Vanderstappen 1996, reported results for sedation. As study authors used a variety of scales to measure sedation at different time intervals, it was therefore not appropriate to combine results for this outcome. All authors of dexmedetomidine studies reported a statistically significant difference in sedation scores, with participants given dexmedetomidine more likely to have a higher Subgroup analysis We carried out subgroup analysis for type of α-2 agonist for the outcome of shivering. Both clonidine and dexmedetomidine were shown to reduce the risk of postoperative shivering (clonidine M- H, RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.53; dexmedetomidine M-H, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.38), and there was no statistically significant difference between groups (P value = 0.87). There remained a high level of heterogeneity in the clonidine group (I 2 = 78%) but not in the dexmedetomidine group (I 2 = 0%). See Analysis 2.1 and Figure 5. 16

19 Figure 5. Forest plot of comparison: Subgroup by alpha-2 adrenergic agonist for outcome 2.1: Shivering. There was no statistically significant difference between groups divided by whether or not participants received a premedication in addition to clonidine/dexmedetomidine (P value = 0.20) (see Analysis 3.1), nor any statistically significant difference between groups divided by those studies conducted prior to and after the year 2000 (P value = 0.98) (see Analysis 4.1). It was not possible to conduct subgroup analysis for dose of α-2 agonist as there were too many differences in doses to make meaningful comparisons between groups. Similarly, it was impractical to divide studies into groups for methods used to measure shivering, methods to control for temperature during surgery, age of participants, comorbidities, and type of surgery. As most shivering occurs during postanaesthetic care unit admission, it is important that outcome assessors are blinded to reduce any potential risk of bias. We performed subgroup analysis specifically on those studies that had a low risk for detection bias of shivering compared to those studies that we had judged at either high risk of bias or as unclear. There was no difference between subgroups, and both groups of studies had a statistically significant result with a reduction in postoperative shivering when α-2 agonists were given. See Analysis 5.1. Sensitivity analysis 1. Risk of bias We removed studies from analysis that had not provided sufficient information to be judged as well randomized, nor had taken adequate steps to ensure blinding of personnel. The effect estimate for postoperative shivering remained statistically significant (M- H, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.22 to P value < ) (see Analysis 6.1). 2. Effect measures Given the high level of heterogeneity with the effect estimate in Analysis 1.1, we presented a random-effects rather than a fixedeffect method for analysis (Higgins 2011, Section 9.5.3). A sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effect method also gave a statistically significant effect for our primary outcome of shivering (M-H, RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.47). 17