-
European Review For Medical and... Feb 2023Myoclonus is one of the main complications of etomidate anesthesia, which would develop into serious consequences during surgery. The present analysis was performed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Myoclonus is one of the main complications of etomidate anesthesia, which would develop into serious consequences during surgery. The present analysis was performed to evaluate systematically the effect of propofol on preventing etomidate-induced myoclonus in adult patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Systematic electronic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, OVID, Wanfang and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from inception to May 20, 2021, without any language restrictions. All randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of propofol on preventing etomidate-induced myoclonus were enrolled. The primary outcome included the incidence and degree of etomidate-induced myoclonus.
RESULTS
1,420 patients (with 602 received etomidate anesthesia and 818 received propofol plus etomidate anesthesia) from 13 studies were eventually included. Whatever the intravenous propofol dose for anesthesia induction 0.8-2 mg/kg (RR:4.04, 95% CI [2.42,6.74] p<0.0001, I2=56.5%), or the dose of propofol for anesthesia induction 0.5-0.8 mg/kg (RR:3.26, 95% CI [2.03,5.22] p<0.0001, I2=0%), or the dose of propofol for anesthesia induction 0.25-0.5mg/kg (RR:1.68, 95% CI [1.1,2.56] p=0.0160, I2=0%), combination of propofol and etomidate could significantly decrease the occurrence of etomidate-related myoclonus (RR=2.99, 95% CI [2.40, 3.71] p<0.0001, I2=43.4%), compared with etomidate alone. In addition, propofol plus etomidate attenuated the incidence of mild (RR:3.40, 95% CI [1.7,6.82] p=0.0010, I2=54.3%), moderate (RR:5.4, 95% CI [3.01, 9.67] p<0.0001, I2=12.6%), severe (RR:4.15, 95% CI [2.11, 8.13] p<0.0001, I2=0%) of etomidate-induced myoclonus without adverse effects except for the increased incidence of pain on injection (RR:0.47, 95% CI [0.26, 0.83] p=0.0100, I2=41.5%) compared with etomidate alone.
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analysis currently generates the evidence of combination of propofol with the dosage of 0.25-2 mg/kg and etomidate can alleviate the occurrence and severity of etomidate-induced myoclonus, with decreased incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and comparative side effects of hemodynamic and respiratory depression of patients in comparison with etomidate alone.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Anesthesia, General; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Etomidate; Myoclonus; Pain; Propofol
PubMed: 36876671
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202302_31366 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous system (CNS) with rapid onset of action and few adverse effects. The drug can be administered by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a procedure (diagnostic or therapeutic).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL to January 2016), MEDLINE in Ovid (1966 to January 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016). We imposed no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials in which midazolam, administered to participants of any age, by any route, at any dose or any time before any procedure (apart from dental procedures), was compared with placebo or other medications including sedatives and analgesics.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. We performed a separate analysis for each different drug comparison.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 30 trials (2319 participants) of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy (16 trials), bronchoscopy (3), diagnostic imaging (5), cardioversion (1), minor plastic surgery (1), lumbar puncture (1), suturing (2) and Kirschner wire removal (1). Comparisons were: intravenous diazepam (14), placebo (5) etomidate (1) fentanyl (1), flunitrazepam (1) and propofol (1); oral chloral hydrate (4), diazepam (2), diazepam and clonidine (1); ketamine (1) and placebo (3); and intranasal placebo (2). There was a high risk of bias due to inadequate reporting about randomization (75% of trials). Effect estimates were imprecise due to small sample sizes. None of the trials reported on allergic or anaphylactoid reactions. Intravenous midazolam versus diazepam (14 trials; 1069 participants)There was no difference in anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.62; 175 participants; 2 trials) or discomfort/pain (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.49; 415 participants; 5 trials; I² = 67%). Midazolam produced greater anterograde amnesia (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.66; 587 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence). Intravenous midazolam versus placebo (5 trials; 493 participants)One trial reported that fewer participants who received midazolam were anxious (3/47 versus 15/35; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in discomfort/pain identified in a further trial (3/85 in midazolam group; 4/82 in placebo group; P = 0.876; very low-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate (4 trials; 268 participants)Midazolam increased the risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; moderate-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus placebo (3 trials; 176 participants)Midazolam reduced pain (midazolam mean 2.56 (standard deviation (SD) 0.49); placebo mean 4.62 (SD 1.49); P < 0.005) and anxiety (midazolam mean 1.52 (SD 0.3); placebo mean 3.97 (SD 0.44); P < 0.0001) in one trial with 99 participants. Two other trials did not find a difference in numerical rating of anxiety (mean 1.7 (SD 2.4) for 20 participants randomized to midazolam; mean 2.6 (SD 2.9) for 22 participants randomized to placebo; P = 0.216; mean Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Inventory score 47.56 (SD 11.68) in the midazolam group; mean 52.78 (SD 9.61) in placebo group; P > 0.05). Intranasal midazolam versus placebo (2 trials; 149 participants)Midazolam induced sedation (midazolam mean 3.15 (SD 0.36); placebo mean 2.56 (SD 0.64); P < 0.001) and reduced the numerical rating of anxiety in one trial with 54 participants (midazolam mean 17.3 (SD 18.58); placebo mean 49.3 (SD 29.46); P < 0.001). There was no difference in meta-analysis of results from both trials for risk of incomplete procedures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.12; downgraded to low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no high-quality evidence to determine if midazolam, when administered as the sole sedative agent prior to a procedure, produces more or less effective sedation than placebo or other medications. There is low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam reduced anxiety when compared with placebo. There is inconsistent evidence that oral midazolam decreased anxiety during procedures compared with placebo. Intranasal midazolam did not reduce the risk of incomplete procedures, although anxiolysis and sedation were observed. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Administration, Oral; Adult; Anxiety; Child; Chloral Hydrate; Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures; Diazepam; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Injections, Intravenous; Midazolam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Therapeutics
PubMed: 27198122
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009491.pub2 -
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 -
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 -
EClinicalMedicine Jun 2024General anaesthesia is provided to more than 300 million surgical patients worldwide, every year. It is administered either through total intravenous anaesthesia, using...
BACKGROUND
General anaesthesia is provided to more than 300 million surgical patients worldwide, every year. It is administered either through total intravenous anaesthesia, using only intravenous agents, or through inhalational anaesthesia, using volatile anaesthetic agents. The debate on how this affects postoperative patient outcome is ongoing, despite an abundance of published trials. The relevance of this topic has grown by the increasing concern about the contribution of anaesthetic gases to the environmental impact of surgery. We aimed to summarise all available evidence on relevant patient outcomes with total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials for works published from January 1, 1985 to August 1, 2023 for randomised controlled trials comparing total intravenous anaesthesia using propofol versus inhalational anaesthesia using the volatile anaesthetics sevoflurane, desflurane or isoflurane. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full text articles, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Outcomes were derived from a recent series of publications on consensus definitions for Standardised Endpoints for Perioperative trials (StEP). Primary outcomes covered mortality and organ-related morbidity. Secondary outcomes were related to anaesthetic and surgical morbidity. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023430492).
FINDINGS
We included 317 randomised controlled trials, comprising 51,107 patients. No difference between total intravenous and inhalational anaesthesia was seen in the primary outcomes of in-hospital mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.67-1.66, 27 trials, 3846 patients), 30-day mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70-1.36, 23 trials, 9667 patients) and one-year mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.88-1.48, 13 trials, 9317 patients). Organ-related morbidity was similar between groups except for the subgroup of elderly patients, in which total intravenous anaesthesia was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40-0.97, 11 trials, 3834 patients) and a better score on postoperative cognitive dysfunction tests (standardised mean difference 1.68, 95% CI 0.47-2.88, 9 trials, 4917 patients). In the secondary outcomes, total intravenous anaesthesia resulted in a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.56-0.67, 145 trials, 23,172 patients), less emergence delirium (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29-0.56, 32 trials, 4203 patients) and a higher quality of recovery score (QoR-40 mean difference 6.45, 95% CI 3.64-9.25, 17 trials, 1835 patients).
INTERPRETATION
The results indicate that postoperative mortality and organ-related morbidity was similar for intravenous and inhalational anaesthesia. Total intravenous anaesthesia offered advantages in postoperative recovery.
FUNDING
Dutch Society for Anaesthesiology (NVA).
PubMed: 38774674
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102636 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 6, 2015).Failure to respond to antiepileptic drugs in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 6, 2015).Failure to respond to antiepileptic drugs in patients with uncontrolled seizure activity such as refractory status epilepticus (RSE) has led to the use of anaesthetic drugs. Coma is induced with anaesthetic drugs to achieve complete control of seizure activity. Thiopental sodium and propofol are popularly used for this purpose. Both agents have been found to be effective. However, there is a substantial lack of evidence as to which of the two drugs is better in terms of clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy, adverse effects, and short- and long-term outcomes of refractory status epilepticus (RSE) treated with one of the two anaesthetic agents, thiopental sodium or propofol.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (16 August 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 16 August 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 16 August 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (16 August 2016), and the South Asian Database of Controlled Clinical Trials (16 August 2016). Previously we searched IndMED, but this was not accessible at the time of the latest update.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs (regardless of blinding) assessing the control of RSE using either thiopental sodium or propofol in patients of any age and gender.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors screened the search results and reviewed the abstracts of relevant and eligible trials before retrieving the full-text publications.
MAIN RESULTS
One study with a total of 24 participants was available for review. This study was a small, single-blind, multicentre trial studying adults with RSE receiving either propofol or thiopental sodium for the control of seizure activity. This study was terminated early due to recruitment problems. For our primary outcome of total control of seizures after the first course of study drug, there were 6/14 patients versus 2/7 patients in the propofol and thiopental sodium groups, respectively (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 5.61, low quality evidence). Mortality was seen in 3/14 patients versus 1/7 patients in the propofol and thiopental sodium groups, respectively (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.19 to 11.93, low quality evidence). Our third primary outcome of length of ICU stay was not reported. For our secondary outcomes of adverse events, infection was seen in 7/14 patients versus 5/7 patients in the propofol and thiopental sodium groups, respectively (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.41). Hypotension during administration of study drugs and requiring use of vasopressors was seen in 7/14 patients versus 4/7 patients in the propofol and thiopental sodium groups, respectively (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.38 to 2.00). The other severe complication noted was non-fatal propofol infusion syndrome in one patient. Patients receiving thiopental sodium required more days of mechanical ventilation when compared with patients receiving propofol: (median (range) 17 days (5 to 70 days) with thiopental sodium versus four days (2 to 28 days) with propofol). At three months there was no evidence of a difference between the drugs with respect to outcome measures such as control of seizure activity and functional outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review we have found no new studies.There is a lack of robust, randomised, controlled evidence to clarify the efficacy of propofol and thiopental sodium compared to each other in the treatment of RSE. There is a need for large RCTs for this serious condition.
Topics: Adult; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Anticonvulsants; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Humans; Propofol; Respiration, Artificial; Status Epilepticus; Thiopental
PubMed: 28155226
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009202.pub4 -
Research Square Aug 2023To meta-analyze clinical efficacy and safety of ketamine compared with other anesthetic agents in the course of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in major depressive...
OBJECTIVE
To meta-analyze clinical efficacy and safety of ketamine compared with other anesthetic agents in the course of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in major depressive episode (MDE).
METHODS
PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, GoogleScholar, and US and European trial registries were searched from inception through May 23, 2023, with no language limits. We included RCTs with (1) a diagnosis of MDE; (2) ECT intervention with ketamine and/or other anesthetic agents; and (3) measures included: depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, remission or response rates, and serious adverse events. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to compare ketamine and 7 other anesthetic agents. Hedges' standardized mean differences (SMDs) were used for continuous measures, and relative risks (RRs) were used for other binary outcomes using random-effects models.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies were included in the systematic review. A total of 2,322 patients from 17 RCTs were included in the NMA. The overall pooled SMD of ketamine, as compared with a propofol reference group, was -2.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.79 to -0.64) in depressive symptoms, indicating that ketamine had better antidepressant efficacy than propofol. In a sensitivity analysis, however, ketamine-treated patients had a worse outcome in cognitive performance than propofol-treated patients (SMD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.09). No other statistically significant differences were found.
CONCLUSIONS
Ketamine-assisted ECT is tolerable and may be efficacious in improving depressive symptoms, but a relative adverse impact on cognition may be an important clinical consideration. Anesthetic agents should be considered based on patient profiles and/or preferences to improve effectiveness and safety of ECT use.
PubMed: 37609159
DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3182771/v1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015In cardiac ischaemia, the accumulation of adenosine may lead to or exacerbate bradyasystole and diminish the effectiveness of catecholamines administered during... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In cardiac ischaemia, the accumulation of adenosine may lead to or exacerbate bradyasystole and diminish the effectiveness of catecholamines administered during resuscitation. Aminophylline is a competitive adenosine antagonist. Case studies suggest that aminophylline may be effective for atropine-resistant bradyasystolic arrest.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of aminophylline in the treatment of patients in bradyasystolic cardiac arrest, primarily survival to hospital discharge. We also considered survival to admission, return of spontaneous circulation, neurological outcomes and adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in November 2014. We checked the reference lists of retrieved articles, reviewed conference proceedings, contacted experts and searched further using Google.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous aminophylline with administered placebo in adults with non-traumatic, normothermic bradyasystolic cardiac arrest who were treated with standard advanced cardiac life support (ACLS).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed the studies and extracted the included data. We contacted study authors when needed. Pooled risk ratio (RR) was estimated for each study outcome. Subgroup analysis was predefined according to the timing of aminophylline administration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five trials in this analysis, all of which were performed in the prehospital setting. The risk of bias was low in four of these studies (n = 1186). The trials accumulated 1254 participants. Aminophylline was found to have no effect on survival to hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 2.74) or on secondary survival outcome (survival to hospital admission: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.39; return of spontaneous circulation: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.49). Survival was rare (6/1254), making data about neurological outcomes and adverse events quite limited. The planned subgroup analysis for early administration of aminophylline included 37 participants. No one in the subgroup survived to hospital discharge.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The prehospital administration of aminophylline in bradyasystolic arrest is not associated with improved return of circulation, survival to admission or survival to hospital discharge. The benefits of aminophylline administered early in resuscitative efforts are not known.
Topics: Aged; Aminophylline; Bradycardia; Cardiotonic Agents; Female; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Male; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 26593309
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006781.pub3 -
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2023Studies investigating the cardioprotective effect of volatile anesthetics on cardiac troponins in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) surgery remain... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Studies investigating the cardioprotective effect of volatile anesthetics on cardiac troponins in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) surgery remain controversial. This current study was conducted to systematically evaluate the impact of volatile anesthetics and propofol on patients undergoing OPCAB surgery.
METHODS
A computerized search of electronic databases was conducted up to July 21, 2023, to identify relevant studies using appropriate search terms. The primary outcomes of interest were the levels of myocardial injury biomarkers (e.g., cTnI, cTnT), while secondary outcomes included extubation time, length of ICU stay, 30-day mortality, transfusion and thrombosis, and postoperative recovery, which were compared between two anesthesia techniques.
RESULTS
A search of databases produced 14 relevant studies with a combined total of 703 patients. Among them, 355 were allocated to the volatile anesthetics group and 348 to the propofol group. Our study reveals a statistically significant reduction in myocardial injury biomarkers among patients who received volatile anesthetics compared to those who received propofol ( < .001). Subgroup analysis showed that patients using sevoflurane had lower postoperative cardiac troponins levels compared to propofol ( = .01). However, desflurane and isoflurane currently have no significant advantage over propofol (all > 0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative mechanical ventilation time, length of ICU stay, and mortality between the two groups (all > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
This study suggested that volatile anesthetics, specifically sevoflurane, in adult OPCAB surgery provide a better cardioprotective effect than propofol.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42023444277).
PubMed: 38034375
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1271557