-
Anaesthesia Oct 2016Propofol is used both for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. Recent evidence shows that propofol has analgesic properties. This meta-analysis evaluated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Propofol is used both for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. Recent evidence shows that propofol has analgesic properties. This meta-analysis evaluated differences in postoperative analgesia between general anaesthetic maintenance with intravenous propofol and inhalational anaesthetics. Fourteen trials met inclusion criteria and were included. Our outcomes were pain scores 2 and 24 h after surgery. No significant difference in pain scores was found at 2 h after surgery (Hedge's g (95% CI) -0.120 (-0.415-0.175) (p = 0.425). Propofol was associated with a statistically significant, albeit marginal, reduction in pain scores 24 h after surgery (Hedge's g (95% CI) -0.134 (-0.248 to -0.021) (p = 0.021). Data were insufficient to allow a meaningful analysis regarding 24-h morphine-equivalent consumption. Propofol was associated with reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting (relative risk (95%CI) 0.446 (0.304-0.656) (p < 0.0001). In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggests that propofol improves postoperative analgesia compared with inhalational anaesthesia 24 h after surgery, with a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Humans; Intraoperative Care; Pain, Postoperative; Propofol
PubMed: 27506326
DOI: 10.1111/anae.13578 -
Journal of Intensive Care Aug 2021Patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) is a common problem in patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) in the intensive care unit (ICU), and may accelerate...
BACKGROUND
Patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) is a common problem in patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) in the intensive care unit (ICU), and may accelerate lung injury and diaphragm mis-contraction. The impact of PVA on clinical outcomes has not been systematically evaluated. Effective interventions (except for closed-loop ventilation) for reducing PVA are not well established.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the impact of PVA on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing MV (Part A) and the effectiveness of interventions for patients undergoing MV except for closed-loop ventilation (Part B). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO-ICTRP until August 2020. In Part A, we defined asynchrony index (AI) ≥ 10 or ineffective triggering index (ITI) ≥ 10 as high PVA. We compared patients having high PVA with those having low PVA.
RESULTS
Eight studies in Part A and eight trials in Part B fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In Part A, five studies were related to the AI and three studies were related to the ITI. High PVA may be associated with longer duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference, 5.16 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.38 to 7.94; n = 8; certainty of evidence [CoE], low), higher ICU mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.73; 95% CI 1.76 to 4.24; n = 6; CoE, low), and higher hospital mortality (OR, 1.94; 95% CI 1.14 to 3.30; n = 5; CoE, low). In Part B, interventions involving MV mode, tidal volume, and pressure-support level were associated with reduced PVA. Sedation protocol, sedation depth, and sedation with dexmedetomidine rather than propofol were also associated with reduced PVA.
CONCLUSIONS
PVA may be associated with longer MV duration, higher ICU mortality, and higher hospital mortality. Physicians may consider monitoring PVA and adjusting ventilator settings and sedatives to reduce PVA. Further studies with adjustment for confounding factors are warranted to determine the impact of PVA on clinical outcomes. Trial registration protocols.io (URL: https://www.protocols.io/view/the-impact-of-patient-ventilator-asynchrony-in-adu-bsqtndwn , 08/27/2020).
PubMed: 34399855
DOI: 10.1186/s40560-021-00565-5 -
Journal of Pain Research 2021General anaesthesia is the commonly provided for breast cancer surgery, but the effects of inhalational anaesthesia and propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia on short-...
BACKGROUND
General anaesthesia is the commonly provided for breast cancer surgery, but the effects of inhalational anaesthesia and propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia on short- and long-term outcomes after breast cancer surgery are not clear. In this study, we conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore the superior anaesthetic for breast cancer surgery patients.
METHODS
We searched the Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang databases (up to January, 2021) for RCTs in which inhalational anaesthesia and propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia were compared and short- and long-term outcomes were assessed in breast cancer surgical patients. The meta-analysis was performed by Stata 12.0.
RESULTS
Twenty RCTs with a total of 2201 patients were included. Compared with inhalational anaesthesia, propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia was associated with more postoperative rescue analgesia ( =0%, RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.07-1.30, =0.001) but a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) ( =25.5%, RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.62-0.81, <0.001) and postoperative rescue antiemetics ( =0%, RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58-0.82, <0.001). Propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia preserved nature killer cell cytotoxicity ( =86.2%, SMD: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.13-1.39, =0.018), decreased IL-6 level ( =98.0%, SMD: -3.09, 95% CI: -5.70- -0.48, =0.021) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio ( =0%, SMD: -0.28, 95% CI: -0.53- -0.03, =0.030), and increased 2-year recurrence-free survival rate ( =0%, RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.00-1.20, =0.043) but did not affect recurrence or the overall survival rate (>0.05).
CONCLUSION
Propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia increases postoperative rescue analgesia but reduces PONV compared with inhalational anaesthesia in breast cancer surgery. The benefit of propofol over inhalational anaesthetics in the preservation of anti-cancer immunity is obvious, but it is difficult to conclude that propofol can exert long-term benefits due to the small sample size.
PubMed: 34295185
DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S315360 -
Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and... Apr 2024Propofol is the most commonly used hypnotic agent used during sedation and general anesthesia (GA) practice, offering faster recovery compared to benzodiazepines.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Propofol is the most commonly used hypnotic agent used during sedation and general anesthesia (GA) practice, offering faster recovery compared to benzodiazepines. However, cardiovascular impact of propofol and pain at injection are commonly encountered side effects. Ciprofol is a novel disubstituted phenol derivative, and there is growing evidence regarding its clinical use.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search (updated on 23 July 2023) to evaluate safety and efficacy of ciprofol in comparison to propofol in patients undergoing procedures under sedation or GA. We focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only, extrapolating data on onset and offset, and on the side effects and the pain at injection.
RESULTS
The search revealed 14 RCTs, all conducted in China. Eight RCTs studied patients undergoing sedation, and six focused on GA. Bolus of ciprofol for sedation or induction of GA varied from 0.2 to 0.5 mg/kg. In four studies using ciprofol for maintenance of GA, it was 0.8-2.4 mg/kg/h. Ciprofol pharmacokinetics seemed characterized by slower onset and offset as compared to propofol. Pain during injection was less frequent in the ciprofol group in all the 13 studies reporting it. Eight studies reported "adverse events" as a pooled outcome, and in five cases, the incidence was higher in the propofol group, not different in the remaining ones. Occurrence of hypotension was the most commonly investigated side effects, and it seemed less frequent with ciprofol.
CONCLUSION
Ciprofol for sedation or GA may be safer than propofol, though its pharmacokinetics may be less advantageous.
PubMed: 38589912
DOI: 10.1186/s44158-024-00159-1 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the...
Efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of sedation with DEX during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with a view to providing evidence-based references for clinical decision-making. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DEX with different sedatives comparators (such as propofol, midazolam, and ketamine) for sedation in a variety of adult gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 1 July 2022. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI were used for continuous outcomes or dichotomous outcomes, respectively, and a random-effect model was selected regardless of the significance of the heterogeneity. Forty studies with 2,955 patients were assessed, of which 1,333 patients were in the DEX group and 1,622 patients were in the control (without DEX) group. The results suggested that the primary outcomes of sedation level of DEX are comparable to other sedatives, with similar RSS score and patient satisfaction level, and better in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of body movements or gagging (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.97; = 0.04; I = 68%), and a reduced additional requirement for other sedatives, and increased endoscopist satisfaction level (SMD: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.77; = 0.03; I = 86%). In terms of secondary outcomes of adverse events, DEX may benefit patients in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of hypoxia (RR:0.34; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.55; < 0.0001; I = 52%) and cough (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54; = 0.0004; I = 0%), no significant difference in the risk of hypotension, while an increased risk of bradycardia (RR: 3.08; 95% CI: 2.12 to 4.48; < 0.00001; I = 6%). This meta-analysis indicates that DEX is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy because of its benefits for patients in some clinical outcomes. Remarkably, DEX is comparable to midazolam and propofol in terms of sedation level. In conclusion, DEX provides an additional option in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced.
PubMed: 38034988
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1241714 -
Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Jan 2021Postoperative delirium (POD) is a condition of cerebral dysfunction and a common complication after surgery. This study aimed to compare and determine the relative...
BACKGROUND
Postoperative delirium (POD) is a condition of cerebral dysfunction and a common complication after surgery. This study aimed to compare and determine the relative efficacy of pharmacological interventions for preventing POD using a network meta-analysis.
METHODS
We performed a systematic and comprehensive search to identify and analyze all randomized controlled trials until June 29, 2020, comparing two or more pharmacological interventions, including placebo, to prevent or reduce POD. The primary outcome was the incidence of POD. We performed a network meta-analysis and used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values and rankograms to present the hierarchy of the pharmacological interventions evaluated.
RESULTS
According to the SUCRA value, the incidence of POD decreased in the following order: the combination of propofol and acetaminophen (86.1%), combination of ketamine and dexmedetomidine (86.0%), combination of diazepam, flunitrazepam, and pethidine (84.8%), and olanzapine (75.6%) after all types of anesthesia; combination of propofol and acetaminophen (85.9%), combination of ketamine and dexmedetomidine (83.2%), gabapentin (82.2%), and combination of diazepam, flunitrazepam, and pethidine (79.7%) after general anesthesia; and ketamine (87.1%), combination of propofol and acetaminophen (86.0%), and combination of dexmedetomidine and acetaminophen (66.3%) after cardiac surgery. However, only the dexmedetomidine group showed a lower incidence of POD than the control group after all types of anesthesia and after general anesthesia.
CONCLUSIONS
Dexmedetomidine reduced POD compared with the control group. The combination of propofol and acetaminophen and the combination of ketamine and dexmedetomidine seemed to be effective in preventing POD. However, further studies are needed to determine the optimal pharmacological intervention to prevent POD.
PubMed: 33445233
DOI: 10.17085/apm.20079 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2023This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the efficacy of acupuncture therapy (including manual acupuncture and electroacupuncture)...
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the efficacy of acupuncture therapy (including manual acupuncture and electroacupuncture) performed before or during gastrointestinal endoscopy with propofol as the main sedative, compared with placebo, sham acupuncture, or no additional treatment other than the same sedation.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Databases (CBM), Wanfang database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), SinoMed, and Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP) to collect randomized controlled trials published before 5 November 2022. Bias assessment of the included RCTs was performed according to Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). Stata16.0 software was used to perform statistical analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias analysis. The primary outcome was sedative consumption, and the secondary outcomes included the incidence of adverse events and wake-up time.
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies with 1331 participants were included. The results showed that sedative consumption [mean difference (MD) = -29.32, 95% CI (-36.13, -22.50), < 0.001], wake-up time [MD = -3.87, 95% CI (-5.43, -2.31), < 0.001] and the incidence of adverse events including hypotension, nausea and vomiting, and coughing ( < 0.05) were significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group.
CONCLUSION
Acupuncture combined with sedation reduces sedative consumption and wake-up time compared with sedation alone in gastrointestinal endoscopy; this combined approach allows patients to regain consciousness more quickly after examination and lower the risk of adverse effects. However, with the limited quantity and quality of relevant clinical studies, caution must be applied until more high-quality clinical studies verify and refine the conclusions.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?, identifier: CRD42022370422.
PubMed: 37396891
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1189429 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016Brain tumour surgery usually is carried out with the patient under general anaesthesia. Over past years, both intravenous and inhalational anaesthetic agents have been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Brain tumour surgery usually is carried out with the patient under general anaesthesia. Over past years, both intravenous and inhalational anaesthetic agents have been used, but the superiority of one agent over the other is a topic of ongoing debate. Early and rapid emergence from anaesthesia is desirable for most neurosurgical patients. With the availability of newer intravenous and inhalational anaesthetic agents, all of which have inherent advantages and disadvantages, we remain uncertain as to which technique may result in more rapid early recovery from anaesthesia.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of intravenous versus inhalational techniques for rapid emergence from anaesthesia in patients undergoing brain tumour surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 6) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1966 to June 2014) and Embase via Ovid SP (1980 to June 2014). We also searched specific websites, such as www.indmed.nic.in, www.cochrane-sadcct.org and www.Clinicaltrials.gov (October 2014). We reran the searches for all databases in March 2016, and when we update the review, we will deal with the two studies of interest found through this search that are awaiting classification.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the use of intravenous anaesthetic agents such as propofol and thiopentone with inhalational anaesthetic agents such as isoflurane and sevoflurane for maintenance of general anaesthesia during brain tumour surgery. Primary outcomes were emergence from anaesthesia (assessed by time to follow verbal commands, in minutes) and adverse events during emergence, such as haemodynamic changes, agitation, desaturation, muscle weakness, nausea and vomiting, shivering and pain. Secondary outcomes were time to eye opening, recovery from anaesthesia using the Aldrete or Modified Aldrete score (i.e. time to attain score ≥ 9, in minutes), opioid consumption, brain relaxation (as assessed by the surgeon on a 4- or 5-point scale) and complications of anaesthetic techniques, such as intraoperative haemodynamic instability in terms of hypotension or hypertension (mmHg), increased or decreased heart rate (beats/min) and brain swelling.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standardized methods in conducting the systematic review, as described by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two review authors independently extracted details of trial methods and outcome data from reports of all trials considered eligible for inclusion. We performed all analyses on an intention-to-treat basis. We used a fixed-effect model when we found no evidence of significant heterogeneity between studies, and a random-effects model when heterogeneity was likely. For assessments of the overall quality of evidence for each outcome that included pooled data from RCTs only, we downgraded the evidence from 'high quality' by one level for serious (or by two levels for very serious) study limitations (risk of bias), indirectness of evidence, serious inconsistency, imprecision of effect or potential publication bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 RCTs with 1833 participants. We determined that none of the RCTs were of high methodological quality. For our primary outcomes, pooled results from two trials suggest that time to emergence from anaesthesia, that is, time needed to follow verbal commands, was longer with isoflurane than with propofol (mean difference (MD) -3.29 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.41 to -1.18, low-quality evidence), and time to emergence from anaesthesia was not different with sevoflurane compared with propofol (MD 0.28 minutes slower with sevoflurane, 95% CI -0.56 to 1.12, four studies, low-quality evidence). Pooled analyses for adverse events suggest lower risk of nausea and vomiting with propofol than with sevoflurane (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.91, low-quality evidence) or isoflurane (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78) and greater risk of haemodynamic changes with propofol than with sevoflurane (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.17), but no differences in the risk of shivering or pain. Pooled analyses for brain relaxation suggest lower risk of tense brain with propofol than with isoflurane (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.17, low-quality evidence), but no difference when propofol is compared with sevoflurane.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The finding of our review is that the intravenous technique is comparable with the inhalational technique of using sevoflurane to provide early emergence from anaesthesia. Adverse events with both techniques are also comparable. However, we derived evidence of low quality from a limited number of studies. Use of isoflurane delays emergence from anaesthesia. These results should be interpreted with caution. Randomized controlled trials based on uniform and standard methods are needed. Researchers should follow proper methods of randomization and blinding, and trials should be adequately powered.
PubMed: 27611234
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010467.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015Sedation reduces patient levels of anxiety and stress, facilitates the delivery of care and ensures safety. Alpha-2 agonists have a range of effects including sedation,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sedation reduces patient levels of anxiety and stress, facilitates the delivery of care and ensures safety. Alpha-2 agonists have a range of effects including sedation, analgesia and antianxiety. They sedate, but allow staff to interact with patients and do not suppress respiration. They are attractive alternatives for long-term sedation during mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the safety and efficacy of alpha-2 agonists for sedation of more than 24 hours, compared with traditional sedatives, in mechanically-ventilated critically ill patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 10, 2014), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 October 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 9 October 2014), CINAHL (1982 to 9 October 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (1982 to 9 October 2014), ISI Web of Science (1987 to 9 October 2014), Chinese Biological Medical Database (1978 to 9 October 2014) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1979 to 9 October 2014), the World Health Organization international clinical trials registry platform (to 9 October 2014), Current Controlled Trials metaRegister of controlled trials active registers (to 9 October 2014), the ClinicalTrials.gov database (to 9 October 2014), the conference proceedings citation index (to 9 October 2014) and the reference lists of included studies and previously published meta-analyses and systematic reviews for relevant studies. We imposed no language restriction.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing alpha-2 agonists (clonidine or dexmedetomidine) versus alternative sedatives for long-term sedation (more than 24 hours) during mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We performed meta-analyses when more than three studies were included, and selected a random-effects model due to expected clinical heterogeneity. We calculated the geometric mean difference for continuous outcomes and the risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes. We described the effects by values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We considered two-sided P < 0.05 to be statistically significant.
MAIN RESULTS
Seven studies, covering 1624 participants, met the inclusion criteria. All included studies investigated adults and compared dexmedetomidine with traditional sedatives, including propofol, midazolam and lorazepam. Compared with traditional sedatives, dexmedetomidine reduced the geometric mean duration of mechanical ventilation by 22% (95% CI 10% to 33%; four studies, 1120 participants, low quality evidence), and consequently the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) by 14% (95% CI 1% to 24%; five studies, 1223 participants, very low quality evidence). There was no evidence that dexmedetomidine decreased the risk of delirium (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.14; seven studies, 1624 participants, very low quality evidence) as results were consistent with both no effect and appreciable benefit. Only one study assessed the risk of coma, but lacked methodological reliability (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.86, very low quality evidence). Of all the adverse events included, the most commonly reported one was bradycardia, and we observed a doubled (111%) increase in the incidence of bradycardia (RR 2.11; 95% CI 1.39 to 3.20; six studies, 1587 participants, very low quality evidence). Our meta-analysis provided no evidence that dexmedetomidine had any impact on mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.24; six studies, 1584 participants, very low quality evidence). We observed high levels of heterogeneity in risk of delirium (I² = 70%), but due to the limited number of studies we were unable to determine the source of heterogeneity through subgroup analyses or meta-regression. We judged six of the seven studies to be at high risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this review, we found no eligible studies for children or for clonidine. Compared with traditional sedatives, long-term sedation using dexmedetomidine in critically ill adults reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. There was no evidence for a beneficial effect on risk of delirium and the heterogeneity was high. The evidence for risk of coma was inadequate. The most common adverse event was bradycardia. No evidence indicated that dexmedetomidine changed mortality. The general quality of evidence ranged from very low to low, due to high risks of bias, serious inconsistency and imprecision, and strongly suspected publication bias. Future studies could pay more attention to children and to using clonidine
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Bradycardia; Clonidine; Conscious Sedation; Critical Illness; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Lorazepam; Midazolam; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Selection Bias; Time Factors
PubMed: 25879090
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010269.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Pain on propofol injection is an untoward effect and this condition can reduce patient satisfaction. Intravenous lidocaine injection has been commonly used to attenuate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pain on propofol injection is an untoward effect and this condition can reduce patient satisfaction. Intravenous lidocaine injection has been commonly used to attenuate pain on propofol injection. Although many studies have reported that lidocaine was effective in reducing the incidence and severity of pain, nevertheless, no systematic review focusing on lidocaine for preventing high-intensity pain has been published.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to determine the efficacy and adverse effects of lidocaine in preventing high-intensity pain on propofol injection.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 To October 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1988 to October 2014), LILACS (1992 to October 2014) and searched reference lists of articles.We reran the search in November 2015. We found 11potential studies of interest, those studies were added to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will be fully incorporated into the formal review findings when we update the review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using intravenous lidocaine injection as an intervention to decrease pain on propofol injection in adults. We excluded studies without a placebo or control group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We collected selected studies with relevant criteria. We identified risk of bias in five domains according to the following criteria: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, adequacy of blinding, completeness of outcome data and selective reporting. We performed meta-analysis by direct comparisons of intervention versus control. We estimated the summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals using the random-effects Mantel-Haenszel method in RevMan 5.3. We used the I(2) statistic to assess statistical heterogeneity. We assessed overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 87 studies, 84 of which (10,460 participants) were eligible for quantitative analysis in the review. All participants, aged 13 years to 89 years, were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients undergoing elective surgery. Each study was conducted in a single centre in high- , middle- and low-income countries worldwide. According to the risk of bias assessment, all except five studies were identified as being of satisfactory methodological quality, allowing 84 studies to be combined in the meta-analysis. Five of the 84 studies were assessed as high risk of bias: one for participant and personnel blinding, one for incomplete outcome data, and three for other potential sources of bias.The overall incidence of pain and high-intensity pain following propofol injection in the control group were 64% (95% CI 60% to 67.9%) and 38.1% (95% CI 33.4% to 43.1%), respectively while those in the lidocaine group were 30.2% (95% CI 26.7% to 33.7%) and 11.8% (95% CI 9.7% to 13.8%). Both lidocaine admixture and pretreatment were effective in reducing pain on propofol injection (lidocaine admixture OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.25, 31 studies, 4927 participants, high-quality evidence; lidocaine pretreatment OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.18, 43 RCTs, 4028 participants, high-quality evidence). Similarly, lidocaine administration could considerably decrease the incidence of pain when premixed with the propofol (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.24, 36 studies, 5628 participants, high-quality evidence) or pretreated prior to propofol injection (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.18, 52 studies, 4832 participants, high-quality evidence). Adverse effects of lidocaine administration were rare. Thrombophlebitis was reported in only two studies (OR not estimated, low-quality evidence). No studies reported patient satisfaction.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the quality of the evidence was high. Currently available data from RCTs are sufficient to confirm that both lidocaine admixture and pretreatment were effective in reducing pain on propofol injection. Furthermore, there were no significant differences of effect between the two techniques.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anesthesia; Anesthesiology; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Lidocaine; Middle Aged; Pain; Propofol
PubMed: 26888026
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007874.pub2