-
Digestive Endoscopy : Official Journal... Sep 2018Previous randomized controlled trials have reported conflicting findings comparing propofol combination therapy (PCT) with propofol monotherapy (PMT) for sedation of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Previous randomized controlled trials have reported conflicting findings comparing propofol combination therapy (PCT) with propofol monotherapy (PMT) for sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Therefore, a systematic review was carried out to compare the efficacy and safety of PCT and PMT in such patients.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and safety of PCT and PMT for sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Primary endpoints were incidence of respiratory complications, hypotension and arrhythmia, dose of propofol used, and recovery time. Procedure duration and the satisfaction of patients and doctors were also evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 2250 patients from 22 studies were included in the final analysis. The combined analysis did not show any difference between PCT and PMT in the incidence of respiratory complications (risk ratio [RR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.23; I = 58.34%), hypotension (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.78; I = 72.13%), arrhythmia (RR,1.40; 95% CI, 0.74 to 2.64; I = 43.71%), recovery time (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.16; 95% CI, -0.49 to 0.81; I = 95.9%), procedure duration (SMD, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.14; I = 0.0%), patient satisfaction (SMD, 0.13; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.52; I = 89.63%) or doctor satisfaction (SMD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.17; I = 0.00%). However, the dose of propofol used was significantly lower in PCT than in PMT (SMD, -1.38; 95% CI, -1.99 to -0.77; I = 97.70%).
CONCLUSION
PCT showed comparable efficacy and safety to PMT with respect to respiratory complications, hypotension and arrhythmia, recovery time, procedure duration, patient satisfaction, and doctor satisfaction. However, the average dose of propofol used was higher in PMT.
Topics: Conscious Sedation; Drug Therapy, Combination; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29526045
DOI: 10.1111/den.13050 -
Journal of Neurosurgery. Pediatrics Oct 2023Awake craniotomy (AC) is employed to maximize tumor resection while preserving neurological function in eloquent brain tissue. This technique is used frequently in...
OBJECTIVE
Awake craniotomy (AC) is employed to maximize tumor resection while preserving neurological function in eloquent brain tissue. This technique is used frequently in adults but remains poorly established in children. Its use has been limited due to concern for children's neuropsychological differences compared with adults and how these differences may interfere with the safety and feasibility of the procedure. Among studies that have reported pediatric ACs, complication rates and anesthetic management vary. This systematic review was performed to comprehensively analyze outcomes and synthesize anesthetic protocols of pediatric ACs.
METHODS
The authors followed PRISMA guidelines to extract studies that reported AC in children with intracranial pathologies. The Medline/PubMed, Ovid, and Embase databases were searched from database inception to 2021, using the terms ("awake") AND ("Pediatric*" OR "child*") AND (("brain" AND "surgery") OR "craniotomy"). Data extracted included patient age, pathology, and anesthetic protocol. Primary outcomes assessed were premature conversion to general anesthesia, intraoperative seizures, completion of monitoring tasks, and postoperative complications.
RESULTS
Thirty eligible studies published from 1997 to 2020 were included that described a total of 130 children ranging in age from 7 to 17 years who had undergone AC. Of all patients reported, 59% were male and 70% had left-sided lesions. Procedure indications included the following etiologies: tumors (77.6%), epilepsy (20%), and vascular disorders (2.4%). Four (4.1%) of 98 patients required conversion to general anesthesia due to complications or discomfort during AC. In addition, 8 (7.8%) of 103 patients experienced intraoperative seizures. Furthermore, 19 (20.6%) of 92 patients had difficulty completing monitoring tasks. Postoperative complications occurred in 19 (19.4%) of 98 patients and included aphasia (n = 4), hemiparesis (n = 2), sensory deficit (n = 3), motor deficit (n = 4), or others (n = 6). The most commonly reported anesthetic techniques were asleep-awake-asleep protocols using propofol, remifentanil or fentanyl, a local scalp nerve block, and with or without dexmedetomidine.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this systematic review suggest the tolerability and safety of ACs in the pediatric population. Although pediatric intracranial pathologies pose etiologies that certainly may benefit from AC, there is a need for surgeons and anesthesiologists to perform individualized risk-benefit analyses due to the risks associated with awake procedures in children. Age-specific, standardized guidelines for preoperative planning, intraoperative mapping, monitoring tasks, and anesthesia protocols will help to continue minimizing complications, while improving tolerability, and streamlining workflow in the treatment of this patient population.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Male; Child; Adolescent; Female; Brain Neoplasms; Wakefulness; Retrospective Studies; Craniotomy; Postoperative Complications; Anesthetics; Seizures
PubMed: 37410631
DOI: 10.3171/2023.4.PEDS22296 -
Cureus Jul 2022Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is a treatment approach involving treating patients with agents with dissociative, sedative, or analgesic properties to suppress... (Review)
Review
An Analytical Comparison Between Ketamine Alone and a Combination of Ketamine and Propofol (Ketofol) for Procedural Sedation and Analgesia From an Emergency Perspective: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is a treatment approach involving treating patients with agents with dissociative, sedative, or analgesic properties to suppress their consciousness to variable levels. Ketamine and propofol have been used historically for PSA. Because they each have their demerits, it was postulated that combining both drugs (ketofol) would result in a mixture with additive properties and lessen or eliminate the demerits attributed to each drug. The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare ketamine alone and a combination of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) for procedural sedation and analgesia from an emergency perspective. A systematic search was conducted on published studies from the databases of Scopus, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, APA PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial (CENTRAL) until July 2022. The articles that were published on the online databases were authored between January 2007 and 2018. The selected papers were scanned and examined to check whether they met the eligibility criteria for the study. The search produced six articles that were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. All six articles that passed the eligibility criteria were viable for the analysis. All the trials focused on the effectiveness of ketofol versus ketamine for PSA from an emergency perspective. Ketofol was found to be safe and more effective in comparison to ketamine for PTA.
PubMed: 36042988
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.27318 -
Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy &... Feb 2017Etomidate and propofol played an important role in the sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Etomidate and propofol played an important role in the sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare their efficacy and safety.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of etomidate versus propofol for the anesthesia of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were included. Two investigators independently searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. The primary outcomes were anesthesia duration and recovery time. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect model.
RESULTS
Six randomized controlled trials involving 1115 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with propofol, etomidate resulted in comparable anesthesia duration [standard mean difference (Std. MD)=-0.03; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.16 to 0.10; P=0.66], recovery time (Std. MD=0.25; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.92; P=0.47), mean arterial pressure at intubation (Std. MD=0.44; 95% CI, -0.26 to 1.15; P=0.21), heart pulse at intubation (Std. MD=0.93; 95% CI, -0.69 to 2.55; P=0.26), SPO2 at intubation (Std. MD=-0.52; 95% CI, -1.04 to 0.01; P=0.05), patient satisfaction [odds risk (OR)=0.42; 95% CI, 0.11-1.66; P=0.22], hypotension (OR=0.14; 95% CI, 0.02-1.22; P=0.07), changes of heart rate (OR=0.97; 95% CI, 0.61-1.53; P=0.88), nausea-vomiting (OR=2.02; 95% CI, 0.73-5.57; P=0.17), and the reduction in apnea or hyoxemia (OR=0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.64; P=0.0002), and injection pain (OR=0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08; P<0.00001), but the increase in myoclonus (OR=8.54; 95% CI, 3.14-23.20; P<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
Between etomidate and propofol, no significant difference was revealed regarding anesthesia duration, recovery time, mean arterial pressure at intubation, heart pulse at intubation, SPO2 at intubation, patient satisfaction, hypotension, changes of heart rate and nausea-vomiting. Compared with propofol, etomidate showed reduced apnea or hyoxemia, and injection pain, but with an increased myoclonus.
Topics: Anesthesia Recovery Period; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Apnea; Arterial Pressure; Colonoscopy; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Etomidate; Gastroscopy; Heart Rate; Humans; Hypotension; Hypoxia; Myoclonus; Pain; Patient Satisfaction; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28079763
DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000373 -
International Journal of Clinical and... 2015Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) has been suggested as an alternative method for sedative colonoscopy. However, as any new techniques, PCS introduction as a potential... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) has been suggested as an alternative method for sedative colonoscopy. However, as any new techniques, PCS introduction as a potential alternative to traditional intravenous sedation (IVS) has brought about challenges. To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages between PCS and IVS more comprehensively, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature.
METHODS
Several databases were searched from inception to 1 April, 2015, for trials comparing PCS with IVS for colonoscopy. The outcomes of interest included time for cecal intubation, rate of complete colonoscopy, dose of sedative drugs used, pain scores, recovery time, complications. Inconsistency was quantified using I (2) statistics.
RESULTS
In all, 12 trials were finally selected (1091 patients, with 545 in the PCS group, and 546 in the IVS group). The total propofol used, time for cecal intubation, rate of complete colonoscopy and pain score had no statistical difference between the two groups. However, PCS showed a reduction in the recovery time, incidence of oxygen desaturation and hypotension. The rates of other complications and patients' willingness to repeat the same sedation had no statistical difference between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
PCS is as feasible and effective as traditional IVS for colonoscopy, and there is a tendency that PCS shows its superiority in recovery time, incidence for oxygen saturation and hypotension.
PubMed: 26884890
DOI: No ID Found -
Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia 2023Brugada syndrome (BrS) is a major risk factor for sudden cardiac death and ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Several drugs are contraindicated in patients with BrS,... (Review)
Review
Brugada syndrome (BrS) is a major risk factor for sudden cardiac death and ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Several drugs are contraindicated in patients with BrS, including some commonly administered drugs during anesthesia or in the perioperative period; however, there is still a paucity of evidence regarding BrS and common anesthetic pharmaceuticals. We conducted a systematic literature search (PubMed, updated October 10, 2022), including all studies reporting pharmacological management of BrS patients during anesthesia or intensive care, with a specific focus on proarrhythmic effects and possible pharmacological interactions in the context of BrS. The search revealed 44 relevant items, though only three original studies. Two randomized controlled studies were identified, one comparing propofol and etomidate for the induction of general anesthesia and one investigating lidocaine with or without epinephrine for local anesthesia; there was also one prospective study without a control group. The other studies were case series (n = 5, for a total of 19 patients) or case reports (n = 36). Data are reported on a total population of 199 patients who underwent general or local anesthesia. None of the studies evaluated BrS patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). We found the studies focusing on the pharmacological management of BrS patients undergoing general or local anesthesia to be of generally poor quality. However, it appears that propofol can be used safely, without an increase in arrhythmic events. Regional anesthesia is possible, and lidocaine might be preferred over longer-acting local anesthetics. Considering the quality of the included studies and their anecdotal evidence, it seems increasingly important to conduct large multicenter studies or promote international registries with high-quality data on the anesthesiological management of these patients.
PubMed: 37601502
DOI: 10.4103/sja.sja_205_23 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Sep 2023Neuraxial opioids provide effective analgesia for Caesarean delivery, however, pruritus can be a troubling side-effect. Effective agents to prevent pruritus are needed.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Neuraxial opioids provide effective analgesia for Caesarean delivery, however, pruritus can be a troubling side-effect. Effective agents to prevent pruritus are needed. Our objective was to perform an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis to provide clinicians with a comparison of relative efficacy of available interventions to reduce the incidence of pruritus, induced by either intrathecal or epidural single-shot morphine, in women undergoing Caesarean delivery.
METHODS
Databases systematically searched (up to January 2022) included PubMed MEDLINE, Web of Science, EBSCO CINAHL, Embase, LILACS, and two Cochrane databases. We included randomised, controlled trials involving adult female patients undergoing Caesarean delivery. We pooled trials comparing interventions used for preventing pruritus after Caesarean delivery and performed a Bayesian model network meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The final primary network included data from comparisons of 14 distinct interventions (including placebo) used to reduce the incidence of pruritus in 6185 participants. We judged five interventions to be 'definitely superior' to placebo: propofol, opioid agonist-antagonists (neuraxial), opioid antagonists, opioid agonist-antagonists (systemic), and serotonin antagonists. For the network evaluating the incidence of severe pruritus (warranting additional therapeutic treatment of pruritus), data were available for 14 interventions (including placebo) in 4489 patients. For this outcome, we judged three interventions to be 'definitely superior' to placebo: dopamine antagonists (neuraxial) and systemic and neuraxial opioid agonist-antagonists.
CONCLUSION
Our analysis found several interventions to be effective in reducing the incidence of pruritus. Although sub-hypnotic doses of propofol appear to have an antipruritic effect, replication of this finding and further investigation of optimal dosing are warranted.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL
PROSPERO (CRD42022367058).
Topics: Pregnancy; Adult; Humans; Female; Morphine; Analgesics, Opioid; Propofol; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Cesarean Section; Pruritus
PubMed: 37455197
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.05.028 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Oct 2016Many studies have compared propofol-based anesthesia with inhalational anesthesia. Results from several studies have shown improved postoperative analgesia after... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many studies have compared propofol-based anesthesia with inhalational anesthesia. Results from several studies have shown improved postoperative analgesia after propofol anesthesia, but other studies showed contradictory results. There are no large prospective studies that compare postoperative pain after propofol versus inhalational anesthesia. This meta-analysis was designed to focus on this question.
METHODS
A systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials that compared propofol-based anesthesia with volatile agents-based anesthesia in adults undergoing surgery was conducted. Published data were pooled for the meta-analysis with Review Manager (ie, RevMan). The main outcomes included postoperative pain intensity, opioid consumption, need for rescue analgesics, and time to first analgesia.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine clinical trials with a combined subject population of 4520 patients came within the purview of this meta-analysis. The investigated volatile agents included isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane. Compared with inhalational anesthetics, the propofol use was associated with a reduced postoperative pain intensity at rest at 30 minutes, 1 hour, and 12 hours (mean difference in pain scores, 30 minutes, -0.48 [visual analog scale, 0-10]; 99% confidence interval [CI], -1.07 to 0.12, P = 0.04) and reduced morphine-equivalent consumption 0 to 24 hours postoperatively (mean difference in morphine-equivalent consumption, -2.68 mg; 99% CI, -6.17 to 0.82; P = 0.05). Fewer patients required postoperative rescue analgesics during 0 to 24 hours after surgery under propofol anesthesia (risk ratio, 0.87; 99% CI, 0.74-1.03; P = 0.04). In addition, patients anesthetized with propofol required administration of postoperative analgesia later than those anesthetized with volatiles (mean difference in time to first analgesic administration, 6.12 minutes; 99% CI, 0.02-12.21; P = 0.01). Considering that Z statistic in RevMan 5.3 does not perform optimally in highly heterogeneous samples among groups or many combinations of groups with small sample sizes, a P value of <.01 was considered statistically significant. On the basis of this threshold, none of the aforementioned results are statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS
The current results are affected by substantial heterogeneity, which makes it difficult to predict significant differences in postoperative pain control between propofol anesthesia and inhalational anesthesia. Further large, randomized controlled trials are needed to corroborate these results and to detect differences (if any) between propofol and inhalational anesthesia on postoperative pain.
Topics: Anesthetics, Inhalation; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Humans; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27636574
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001504 -
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) Jun 2016Cocaine abuse is a major worldwide health problem. Patients with acute cocaine toxicity presenting to the emergency department may require urgent treatment for... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Cocaine abuse is a major worldwide health problem. Patients with acute cocaine toxicity presenting to the emergency department may require urgent treatment for tachycardia, dysrhythmia, hypertension, and coronary vasospasm, leading to pathological sequelae such as acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and death.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to review the current evidence for pharmacological treatment of cardiovascular toxicity resulting from cocaine abuse.
METHODS
MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), OpenGrey, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2015. Articles on pharmacological treatment involving human subjects and cocaine were selected and reviewed. Evidence was graded using Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. Treatment recommendations were compared to current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. Special attention was given to adverse drug events or treatment failure. The search resulted in 2376 articles with 120 eligible involving 2358 human subjects. Benzodiazepines and other GABA-active agents: There were five high-quality (CEBM Level I/II) studies, three retrospective (Level III), and 25 case series/reports (Level IV/V) supporting the use of benzodiazepines and other GABA-active agents in 234 subjects with eight treatment failures. Benzodiazepines may not always effectively mitigate tachycardia, hypertension, and vasospasm from cocaine toxicity. Calcium channel blockers: There were seven Level I/II, one Level III, and seven Level IV/V studies involving 107 subjects and one treatment failure. Calcium channel blockers may decrease hypertension and coronary vasospasm, but not necessarily tachycardia. Nitric oxide-mediated vasodilators: There were six Level I/II, one Level III, and 25 Level IV/V studies conducted in 246 subjects with 11 treatment failures and two adverse drug events. Nitroglycerin may lead to severe hypotension and reflex tachycardia. Alpha-adrenoceptor blocking drugs: There were two Level I studies and three case reports. Alpha-1 blockers may improve hypertension and vasospasm, but not tachycardia, although evidence is limited. Alpha-2-adrenoceptor agonists: There were two high-quality studies and one case report detailing the successful use of dexmedetomidine. Beta-blockers and β/α-blockers: There were nine Level I/II, seven Level III, and 34 Level IV/V studies of β-blockers, with 1744 subjects, seven adverse drug events, and three treatment failures. No adverse events were reported for use of combined β/α-blockers such as labetalol and carvedilol, which were effective in attenuating both hypertension and tachycardia. Antipsychotics: Seven Level I/II studies, three Level III studies, and seven Level IV/V case series and reports involving 168 subjects have been published. Antipsychotics may improve agitation and psychosis, but with inconsistent reduction in tachycardia and hypertension and risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects. Other agents: There was only one high level study of morphine, which reversed cocaine-induced coronary vasoconstriction but increased heart rate. Other agents reviewed included lidocaine, sodium bicarbonate, amiodarone, procainamide, propofol, intravenous lipid emulsion, propofol, and ketamine.
CONCLUSIONS
High-quality evidence for pharmacological treatment of cocaine cardiovascular toxicity is limited but can guide acute management of associated tachycardia, dysrhythmia, hypertension, and coronary vasospasm. Future randomized prospective trials are needed to evaluate new agents and further define optimal treatment of cocaine-toxic patients.
Topics: Benzodiazepines; Calcium Channel Blockers; Cardiovascular System; Cocaine; Cocaine-Related Disorders; Evidence-Based Medicine; Heart Rate; Humans; Hypertension; Nitric Oxide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tachycardia; Vasodilator Agents
PubMed: 26919414
DOI: 10.3109/15563650.2016.1142090 -
Scientific Reports Mar 2017Sedatives are commonly used for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICU). However, a variety of sedatives are available and their efficacy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Sedatives are commonly used for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICU). However, a variety of sedatives are available and their efficacy and safety have been compared in numerous trials with inconsistent results. To resolve uncertainties regarding usefulness of these sedatives, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials comparing sedatives in mechanically ventilated ICU patients were included. Graph-theoretical methods were employed for network meta-analysis. A total of 51 citations comprising 52 RCTs were included in our analysis. Dexmedetomidine showed shorter MV duration than lorazepam (mean difference (MD): 68.7; 95% CI: 18.2-119.3 hours), midazolam (MD: 10.2; 95% CI: 7.7-12.7 hours) and propofol (MD: 3.4; 95% CI: 0.9-5.9 hours). Compared with dexmedetomidine, midazolam was associated with significantly increased risk of delirium (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.17-5.19). Our study shows that dexmedetomidine has potential benefits in reducing duration of MV and lowering the risk of delirium.
Topics: Critical Care; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Intensive Care Units; Odds Ratio; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Publication Bias; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 28322337
DOI: 10.1038/srep44979