4.7 Review

Melatonin and its analogues for the prevention of postoperative delirium: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF PINEAL RESEARCH
Volume 68, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jpi.12644

Keywords

melatonin; meta-analysis; postoperative delirium; ramelteon; systematic review

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81701955, 81871604]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2016A030310389, 2016A030313561, 2017A030313590]
  3. Outstanding Youths Development Scheme of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University [2016J011]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It remains unclear whether melatonin and its analogues prevent postoperative delirium (POD). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of melatonin and its analogues on POD prevention. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched. Primary outcome was the incidence of POD. Six randomized controlled trials, 2 cohort studies and 1 case-control study were included in this meta-analysis. Results showed that melatonin and its analogue ramelteon decreased the incidence of POD in the entire adult surgical population (odds ratio [OR] = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.84, P = .01). When administered at a higher dose (5 mg), melatonin was effective in reducing the POD incidence (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.20-0.52, P < .00001). Melatonin administered less than 5 elimination half-lives before the surgery significantly reduced the POD incidence (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.19-0.49, P < .00001). Current literature supports the effectiveness of melatonin and its analogue ramelteon in POD prevention. However, the present study was limited by the significant heterogeneity of the included studies. More studies are needed to ascertain the preventive effect of melatonin and its analogues on the incidence of delirium after cardiac and noncardiac surgeries.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available