-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.
OBJECTIVES
• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, General; Antiemetics; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Placebos; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33075160
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2 -
Minerva Anestesiologica Jun 2022Postoperative delirium is a frequent occurrence in the elderly surgical population. As a comprehensive list of predictive factors remains unknown, an opioid-sparing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Postoperative delirium is a frequent occurrence in the elderly surgical population. As a comprehensive list of predictive factors remains unknown, an opioid-sparing approach incorporating regional anesthesia techniques has been suggested to decrease its incidence. Due to the lack of conclusive evidence on the topic, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the potential impact of regional anesthesia and analgesia on postoperative delirium.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane central register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched for randomized trials comparing regional anesthesia or analgesia to systemic treatments in patients having any type of surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We pooled the results separately for each of these two applications by random effects modelling. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence and strength of conclusions.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Eighteen trials (3361 subjects) were included. Using regional techniques for surgical anesthesia failed to reduce the risk of postoperative delirium, with a relative risk (RR) of 1.21 (95% CI: 0.79 to 1.85); P=0.3800. In contrast, regional analgesia reduced the relative risk of perioperative delirium by a RR of 0.53 (95% CI: 0.42 to 0.68; P<0.0001), when compared to systemic analgesia. Post-hoc subgroup analysis for hip fracture surgery yielded similar findings.
CONCLUSIONS
These results show that postoperative delirium may be decreased when regional techniques are used in the postoperative period as an analgesic strategy. Intraoperative regional anesthesia alone may not decrease postoperative delirium since there are other factors that may influence this outcome.
Topics: Aged; Anesthesia, Conduction; Anesthesia, Local; Delirium; Hip Fractures; Humans
PubMed: 35164487
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.22.16076-1 -
Journal of Clinical Nursing Dec 2022Games are increasingly being used as a means of alleviating pain and anxiety in paediatric patients, in the view that this form of distraction is effective, non-invasive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Games are increasingly being used as a means of alleviating pain and anxiety in paediatric patients, in the view that this form of distraction is effective, non-invasive and non-pharmacological.
AIMS
To determine whether a game-based intervention (via gamification or virtual reality) during the induction of anaesthesia reduces preoperative pain and anxiety in paediatric patients.
METHODS
A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and using RevMan software. The review was based on a search of the EMBASE, CINAHL, Medline, SciELO and Scopus databases, conducted in July 2021. No restriction was placed on the year of publication.
RESULTS
26 studies were found, with a total study population of 2525 children. Regarding pain reduction, no significant differences were reported. For anxiety during anaesthesia induction, however, a mean difference of -10.62 (95% CI -13.85, -7.39) on the Modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale, in favour of game-based intervention, was recorded.
CONCLUSIONS
Game-based interventions alleviate preoperative anxiety during the induction of anaesthesia in children. This innovative and pleasurable approach can be helpful in the care of paediatric surgical patients.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
In children, preoperative management is a challenging task for healthcare professionals, and game-based strategies could enhance results, improving patients' emotional health and boosting post-surgery recovery. Distractive games-based procedures should be considered for incorporation in the pre-surgery clinical workflow in order to optimise healthcare.
Topics: Humans; Child; Anxiety; Anesthesia, General; Anxiety Disorders; Emotions; Pain
PubMed: 35075716
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.16227 -
Australian Dental Journal Mar 2022Anxiety is an adaptive emotional response to potentially threatening or dangerous situations; moderated by the sympathetic nervous system. Dental anxiety is common and... (Review)
Review
Anxiety is an adaptive emotional response to potentially threatening or dangerous situations; moderated by the sympathetic nervous system. Dental anxiety is common and presents before, during or after dental treatment. The physiological response includes an increase in heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and cardiac output. Consequently, extensive distress leads to avoidance of dental treatment and multiple failed appointments, impacting both oral and general health. Dental anxiety can generate a variety of negative consequences for both the dentist and the patient. Evidence-based strategies are essential for mitigating and relieving anxiety in the dental clinic. Psychotherapeutic behavioural strategies can modify the patient's experience through a minimally invasive approach with nil or negligible side effects, depending on patient characteristics, anxiety level and clinical situations. These therapies involve muscle relaxation, guided imagery, physiological monitoring, utilizing biofeedback, hypnosis, acupuncture, distraction and desensitization. Pharmacological intervention utilizes either relative analgesia (nitrous oxide), conscious intravenous sedation or oral sedation, which can have undesirable side effects, risks and contraindications. These modalities increase the cost and availability of dental treatment.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Dental Anxiety; Dental Clinics; Conscious Sedation; Anesthesia; Anesthesia, Dental
PubMed: 35735746
DOI: 10.1111/adj.12926 -
Minerva Anestesiologica Dec 2022The aim of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam compared with propofol when used for procedural sedation and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam compared with propofol when used for procedural sedation and general anesthesia.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Data sources were PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicaTrials.gov, searched up to March 21, 2022. RCTs comparing remimazolam and propofol in patients undergoing procedural sedation or general anesthesia were searched. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean difference, 95% CIs, and P values were estimated for end points using the fixed- and random-effects statistical model. The trial sequential analysis was used for sensitivity analysis.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Ten studies with 1813 patients were included. Compared with propofol, remimazolam had lower success rate of sedation/general anesthesia (RR, 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.03; P=0.004; N.=1402). However, remimazolam had lower incidence of hypoxia, hypotension, and injection pain than propofol. No difference in incidence of nausea and vomiting, time to awake and to discharge was found. Subgroup studies showed that remimazolam had lower success rate than propofol when used for procedural sedation, not general anesthesia. The trial sequential analysis adjusted confidence interval was 1.01 to 1.04 for success rate.
CONCLUSIONS
Remimazolam could be alternatively used in procedural sedation and general anesthesia. Additional research is needed to develop higher quality evidence on the use of remimazolam, especially in general anesthesia.
Topics: Humans; Anesthesia, General; Benzodiazepines; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Hypotension; Propofol
PubMed: 36326772
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.22.16817-3 -
Medicine Apr 2019The optimal anesthetic technique remains debated in patients undergoing total-hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this meta-analysis was to test the efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The optimal anesthetic technique remains debated in patients undergoing total-hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this meta-analysis was to test the efficacy of general and spinal anesthesia for patients undergoing THA.
METHODS
In January 2018, we searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Google database. Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the use of general and spinal anesthesia for patients undergoing THA were retrieved. The primary outcome was to compare the total blood loss. The secondary outcomes were the occurrence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), the occurrence of nausea, and the length of hospital stay. Software Stata 12.0 was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Five RCTs with 487 THAs were finally included for meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia in terms of the total blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -20.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] -84.50 to 43.05, P = .524; I = 87.8%) and the occurrence of DVT (risk ratio (RR) = 0.85, 95% CI 0.24-3.01, P = .805; I = 70.5%). Compared with general anesthesia, spinal anesthesia was a significant reduction in the occurrence of nausea (RR = 3.04, 95% CI 1.69-5.50, P = .000; I = 0.0%) and the length of hospital stay (WMD = 1.00, 95% CI 0.59-1.41, P = .000; I = 94.7%).
CONCLUSION
Spinal anesthesia was superior than general anesthesia in terms of the occurrence of nausea and shorten the length of hospital stay. The quality and number of included studies was limited; thus, a greater number of high-quality RCTs is still needed to further identify the effects of spinal anesthesia on reducing the blood loss after THA.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, Spinal; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Humans; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 31008923
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014925 -
Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain... Aug 2021The aim of this review was to update the recommendations for optimal pain management after open and laparoscopic or robotic prostatectomy. Optimal pain management is... (Review)
Review
The aim of this review was to update the recommendations for optimal pain management after open and laparoscopic or robotic prostatectomy. Optimal pain management is known to influence postoperative recovery, but patients undergoing open radical prostatectomy typically experience moderate dynamic pain in the immediate postoperative day. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery may be associated with decreased pain levels as opposed to open surgery. We performed a systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) with PROcedure SPECific Postoperative Pain ManagemenT (PROSPECT) methodology. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English language, from January 2015 until March 2020, assessing postoperative pain, using analgesic, anaesthetic and surgical interventions, were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases. Of the 1797 studies identified, 35 RCTs and 3 meta-analyses met our inclusion criteria. NSAIDs and COX-2 selective inhibitors proved to lower postoperative pain scores. Continuous intravenous lidocaine reduced postoperative pain scores during open surgery. Local wound infiltration showed positive results in open surgery. Bilateral transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block was performed at the end of surgery and lowered pain scores in robot-assisted procedures, but results were conflicting for open procedures. Basic analgesia for prostatic surgery should include paracetamol and NSAIDs or COX-2 selective inhibitors. TAP block should be recommended as the first-choice regional analgesic technique for laparoscopic/robotic radical prostatectomy. Intravenous lidocaine should be considered for open surgeries.
Topics: Abdominal Muscles; Humans; Male; Neoplasms; Nerve Block; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prostatectomy
PubMed: 34197976
DOI: 10.1016/j.accpm.2021.100922 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Nov 2022We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary RCTs to determine the clinical effectiveness of spinal vs general anaesthesia (SA vs GA) in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Clinical effectiveness and safety of spinal anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery using a consensus-based core outcome set and patient-and public-informed outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary RCTs to determine the clinical effectiveness of spinal vs general anaesthesia (SA vs GA) in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery using a consensus-based core outcome set, and outcomes defined as important by patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives.
METHODS
RCTs comparing any of the core outcomes (mortality, time from injury to surgery, acute coronary syndrome, hypotension, acute kidney injury, delirium, pneumonia, orthogeriatric input, being out of bed at day 1 postoperatively, and pain) or PPI-defined outcomes (return to preoperative residence, quality of life, and mobility status) between SA and GA were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (2000 to February 2022). Pooled relative risks (RRs) and mean differences (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were estimated.
RESULTS
There was no significant difference in the risk of delirium comparing SA vs GA (RR=1.07; 95% CI, 0.90-1.29). Comparing SA vs GA, the RR for mortality was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.22-1.44) in-hospital, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.52-2.23) at 30 days, and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.55-2.12) at 90 days. Spinal anaesthesia reduced the risk of acute kidney injury compared with GA: RR=0.59 (95% CI, 0.39-0.89). There were no significant differences in the risk of other outcomes. Few studies reported PPI-defined outcomes, with most studies reporting on one to three core outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Except for acute kidney injury, there were no differences between SA and GA in hip fracture surgery when using a consensus-based core outcome set and patient and public involvement-defined outcomes. Most studies reported limited outcomes from the core outcome set, and few reported outcomes important to patients, which should be considered when designing future RCTs.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42021275206.
Topics: Humans; Anesthesia, Spinal; Consensus; Quality of Life; Postoperative Complications; Anesthesia, General; Hip Fractures; Treatment Outcome; Delirium; Acute Kidney Injury; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36270701
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.07.031 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Feb 2023Postoperative delirium (POD) is the most common serious postoperative complication in older adults. It has uncertain aetiology, limited preventative strategies, and poor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative delirium (POD) is the most common serious postoperative complication in older adults. It has uncertain aetiology, limited preventative strategies, and poor long-term outcomes. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the effect of processed electroencephalography (pEEG)-guided general anaesthesia during surgery on POD incidence.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) electronic databases. Studies of adult patients having general anaesthesia for any surgery where pEEG was used and POD was an outcome measure were included. Full-text reports of RCTs published from database inception until August 28, 2021, were included. Trials were excluded if sedation rather than general anaesthesia was administered, or the setting was intensive care. The primary outcome was POD assessed by validated tools. The study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO.
RESULTS
Nine studies, which included 4648 eligible subjects, were identified. The incidence of POD in the pEEG-guided general anaesthesia or lighter pEEG target group was 19.0% (440/2310) compared with 23.3% (545/2338) in the usual care or deeper pEEG target group (pooled odds ratio=0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.00; P=0.054). Significant heterogeneity was detected (I=53%).
CONCLUSIONS
Our primary analysis demonstrated a highly sensitive result with a pooled analysis of trials in which the intervention group adhered to manufacturer's recommended guidelines, showing reduced incidence of POD with pEEG guidance. High clinical heterogeneity limits inferences from this and any future meta-analyses.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
CRD42020199404 (PROSPERO).
Topics: Humans; Aged; Emergence Delirium; Anesthesia, General; Postoperative Complications; Electroencephalography
PubMed: 35183345
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.01.006 -
International Journal of Obstetric... Aug 2021Spinal anesthesia is the standard for elective cesarean section but spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension remains an important problem. Accurate prediction of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Spinal anesthesia is the standard for elective cesarean section but spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension remains an important problem. Accurate prediction of hypotension could enhance clinical decision-making, alter management, and facilitate early intervention. We performed a systematic review of predictors of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension and their predictive value during cesarean section.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of predictors of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension in elective cesarean section. The quality of studies was assessed and predictors were grouped in domains based on the type of predictor.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight studies (n=3086 patients) were included. In most studies, patients received 500-1000 mL crystalloid preload or 500-2000 mL crystalloid coload. Vasopressors for post-spinal hypotension were boluses of ephedrine 5-15 mg and/or phenylephrine 25-100 µg in most studies. The hypotension rate varied from 29% to 80% based on the definition. For analysis, >30 predictors were classified into seven domains: demographic characteristics, baseline hemodynamic variables, baseline sympathovagal balance, postural stress testing, peripheral perfusion indices, blood volume and fluid responsiveness indices, and genetic polymorphism.
CONCLUSIONS
Environmental and individual factors increased outcome variability, which restricted the value of the autonomic nervous system and peripheral perfusion indices for prediction of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension. Supine stress tests may reflect parturients' cardiovascular tolerance during hemodynamic fluctuations and may optimize the predictive value of static state predictors. Future research for predicting spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension should focus on composite and dynamic parameters during the supine stress tests.
Topics: Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Spinal; Cesarean Section; Colloids; Female; Humans; Hypotension; Hypotension, Controlled; Observational Studies as Topic; Phenylephrine; Pregnancy; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 34034957
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2021.103175