-
BMC Geriatrics Nov 2023Postoperative delirium (POD) is an important complication for older patients and recent randomised controlled trials have showed a conflicting result of the effect of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative delirium (POD) is an important complication for older patients and recent randomised controlled trials have showed a conflicting result of the effect of deep and light anesthesia.
METHODS
We included randomised controlled trials including older adults that evaluated the effect of anesthetic depth on postoperative delirium from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. We considered deep anesthesia as observer's assessment of the alertness/ sedation scale (OAA/S) of 0-2 or targeted bispectral (BIS) < 45 and the light anesthesia was considered OAA/S 3-5 or targeted BIS > 50. The primary outcome was incidence of POD within 7 days after surgery. And the secondary outcomes were mortality and cognitive function 3 months or more after surgery. The quality of evidence was assessed via the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach.
RESULTS
We included 6 studies represented 7736 patients aged 60 years and older. We observed that the deep anesthesia would not increase incidence of POD when compared with the light anesthesia when 4 related studies were pooled (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.63-3.08, P = 0.41, I = 82%, low certainty). And no significant was found in mortality (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.93-1.35, P = 0.23, I = 0%, high certainty) and cognitive function (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.67-1.91, P = 0.64, I = 13%, high certainty) 3 months or more after surgery between deep anesthesia and light anesthesia.
CONCLUSIONS
Low-quality evidence suggests that light general anesthesia was not associated with lower POD incidence than deep general anesthesia. And High-quality evidence showed that anesthetic depth did not affect the long-term mortality and cognitive function.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
CRD42022300829 (PROSPERO).
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Aged; Emergence Delirium; Delirium; Anesthetics; Anesthesia, General; Cognition; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37932677
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-023-04432-w -
Pain Physician Oct 2023Opioid-based general anesthesia was previously used to alleviate perioperative pain; however, several complications associated with using anesthesia have raised several... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Opioid-based general anesthesia was previously used to alleviate perioperative pain; however, several complications associated with using anesthesia have raised several concerns. Various studies have investigated the application prospect of using opioid-free general anesthesia, such as dexmedetomidine, as an opioid substitute.
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore and highlight the safety and effectiveness of dexmedetomidine as an opioid substitute for opioid-free anesthesia.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
We screened for suitable clinical trials from electronic databases, including "PubMed," "Cochrane Library," "EMBASE," and "Web of Science." Eligible trials were included in this meta-analysis.
METHODS
The quality of the screened randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was determined using the risk of bias assessment criteria by the Cochrane Collaboration tool. We used the "Review Manager 5.3" and "Stata 10.0" software to perform the meta-analysis. We evaluated the quality of evidence using the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation" approach.
RESULTS
For the analysis, we included 32 RCTs encompassing 2,509 patients. In the opioid-free group, the 2-hour postoperative pain score of patients (mean difference = -0.53, 95% CI: -1.00, -0.07; P = 0.02, I2=78%) was significantly lower compared to those in the opioid-based group. In addition, several patients required rescue analgesia (risk ratio = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.84, P < 0.05, I2 = 71%) and opioids postsurgery. However, the duration of extubation and postanesthesia care unit, as well as the incidences of bradycardia, were high in patients receiving dexmedetomidine as opioid-free general anesthesia.
LIMITATIONS
Subgroup analysis for different anesthesia-maintaining drugs had not been conducted. The heterogeneity did not reduce after subgroup analysis. Different doses of dexmedetomidine had not been evaluated.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings indicate that opioid-free general anesthesia based on dexmedetomidine could be effective; however, prolonged extubation time and cardiovascular complications are a few risks associated with dexmedetomidine.
Topics: Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Anesthesia, General; Analgesia
PubMed: 37847917
DOI: No ID Found -
International Journal of Surgery... Nov 2023Propofol is the most widely used intravenous anesthetic in endoscopic surgery, but is associated with several adverse reactions. Public research has shown that... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Propofol is the most widely used intravenous anesthetic in endoscopic surgery, but is associated with several adverse reactions. Public research has shown that remimazolam, a safe general anesthetic, is increasingly being used as a substitute for propofol in clinical operations. Our meta-analysis aimed to analyze whether the adverse reaction rate of remimazolam in endoscopic surgery is acceptable and whether the surgical success rate is not lower than that of propofol.
AIM
This meta-analysis examined the adverse events and efficacy of remimazolam vs. propofol during endoscopic surgery.
METHOD
MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched. Seven studies comparing remimazolam and propofol were included in our meta-analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Cochrane manual were used to assess the quality of the results published in all included studies to ensure that our meta-analysis results are reliable and worthwhile.
RESULTS
Compared to propofol, the use of remimazolam reduced postoperative injection pain [relative risk (RR)=0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.12, P <0.00001], postoperative hypotension (RR=0.45, 95% CI: 0.28-0.73, P =0.001), and postoperative respiratory depression (RR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.08-0.47, P =0.0002); however, it also slightly reduced the success rate of the operation [risk difference (RD)=-0.02, 95% CI: -0.04 to -0.01, P =0.0007]. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of bradycardia symptoms after the operation (RD=-0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.01, P =0.35), recovery time after the operation [standardized mean difference (SMD)=0.68, 95% CI: -0.43 to 1.80, P =0.23] or discharge time (SMD=0.17, 95% CI: -0.58 to 0.23, P =0.41). We also performed a subgroup analysis of each corresponding outcome.
CONCLUSION
Our analysis showed that remimazolam may be a safer shock option than propofol for endoscopic surgery. However, further research is required to determine their utility.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Anesthesia, Intravenous; Endoscopy; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37534687
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000638 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Nov 2023To assess the incidence of postoperative delirium and its outcomes in older non-cardiac surgical patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
To assess the incidence of postoperative delirium and its outcomes in older non-cardiac surgical patients.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis with multiple databases searched from inception to February 22, 2022.
SETTING
Postoperative assessments.
PATIENTS
Non-cardiac and non-neurological surgical patients aged ≥60 years with and without postoperative delirium. Included studies must report ≥1 postoperative outcome. Studies with a small sample size (N < 100 subjects) were excluded.
MEASUREMENTS
Outcomes comprised the pooled incidence of postoperative delirium and its postoperative outcomes, including mortality, complications, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, length of stay, and non-home discharge. For dichotomous and continuous outcomes, OR and difference in means were computed, respectively, with a 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifty-four studies (20,988 patients, 31 elective studies, 23 emergency studies) were included. The pooled incidence of postoperative delirium was 19% (95% CI: 16%, 23%) after elective surgery and 32% (95% CI: 25%, 39%) after emergency surgery. In elective surgery, postoperative delirium was associated with increased mortality at 1-month (OR: 6.60; 95% CI: 1.58, 27.66), 6-month (OR: 5.69; 95% CI: 2.33, 13.88), and 1-year (OR: 2.87; 95% CI: 1.63, 5.06). The odds of postoperative complications, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, prolonged length of hospital stay, and non-home discharge were also higher in delirium cases. In emergency surgery, patients with postoperative delirium had greater odds of mortality at 1-month (OR: 3.56; 95% CI: 1.77, 7.15), 6-month (OR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.88, 3.61), and 1-year (OR: 2.30; 95% CI: 1.77, 3.00).
CONCLUSIONS
Postoperative delirium was associated with higher odds of mortality, postoperative complications, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, length of hospital stay, and non-home discharge. Prevention and perioperative management of delirium may optimize surgical outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Emergence Delirium; Delirium; Hospitalization; Postoperative Complications; Length of Stay
PubMed: 37515876
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111221 -
Anaesthesia Dec 2023Acute postoperative pain remains a critical treatment priority and has prompted a search for technologies and techniques to assist with intra-operative analgesic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Acute postoperative pain remains a critical treatment priority and has prompted a search for technologies and techniques to assist with intra-operative analgesic monitoring and management. Anaesthetists traditionally rely on clinical judgement to guide intra-operative analgesia, but several emerging technologies such as the nociception level index herald the possibility of routine intra-operative analgesia monitoring. However, the impact of devices like nociception level index on postoperative outcomes has not been proven. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles which compared nociception level index-guided analgesia to standard care. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and opioid consumption during the first 60-120 min after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and duration of stay in the post-anaesthesia care unit. Ten studies, collectively including 662 patients and published between 2019 and 2023, met inclusion criteria for both the qualitative systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis. Risk of methodological bias was generally low or unclear, and six studies reported a significant conflict of interest relevant to their findings. Our meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. It found statistically significant benefits of nociception level index-guided analgesia for early postoperative pain (mean (95%CI) difference -0.46 (-0.88 to -0.03) on an 11-point scale, p = 0.03), and opioid requirement (mean (95%CI) difference -1.04 (-1.94 to -0.15) mg intravenous morphine equivalent, p = 0.02). Our meta-analysis of the current literature finds that nociception level index-guided analgesia statistically significantly reduces reported postoperative pain intensity and opioid consumption but fails to show clinically relevant outcomes. We found no evidence that nociception level index-guided analgesia affected postoperative nausea and vomiting nor duration of stay in the post-anaesthesia care unit.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Nociception; Analgesia; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37864430
DOI: 10.1111/anae.16148 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Aug 2023Sedation of critically ill patients with inhaled anaesthetics may reduce lung inflammation, time to extubation, and ICU length of stay compared with intravenous (i.v.)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sedation of critically ill patients with inhaled anaesthetics may reduce lung inflammation, time to extubation, and ICU length of stay compared with intravenous (i.v.) sedatives. However, the impact of inhaled anaesthetics on cognitive and psychiatric outcomes in this population is unclear. In this systematic review, we aimed to summarise the effect of inhaled anaesthetics on cognitive and psychiatric outcomes in critically ill adults.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for case series, retrospective, and prospective studies in critically ill adults sedated with inhaled anaesthetics. Outcomes included delirium, psychomotor and neurological recovery, long-term cognitive dysfunction, ICU memories, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and instruments used for assessment.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included in distinct populations of post-cardiac arrest survivors (n=4), postoperative noncardiac patients (n=3), postoperative cardiac patients (n=2), and mixed medical-surgical patients (n=4). Eight studies reported delirium incidence, two neurological recovery, and two ICU memories. One study reported on psychomotor recovery, long-term cognitive dysfunction, anxiety, depression, and PTSD. A meta-analysis of five trials found no difference in delirium incidence between inhaled and i.v. sedatives (relative risk 0.95 [95% confidence interval: 0.59-1.54]). Compared with i.v. sedatives, inhaled anaesthetics were associated with fewer hallucinations and faster psychomotor recovery but no differences in other outcomes. There was heterogeneity in the instruments used and timing of these assessments.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the limited evidence available, there is no difference in cognitive and psychiatric outcomes between adults exposed to volatile sedation or intravenous sedation in the ICU. Future studies should incorporate outcome assessment with validated tools during and after hospital stay.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL
PROSPERO CRD42021236455.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Critical Illness; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Anesthetics; Delirium; Cognition; Intensive Care Units
PubMed: 37344338
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.05.004 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Oct 2023The analgesia nociception index (ANI) has emerged as a potential measurement for objective pain assessment during general anesthesia. This systematic review and... (Review)
Review
The analgesia nociception index (ANI) has emerged as a potential measurement for objective pain assessment during general anesthesia. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of ANI in assessing intra- and post-operative pain in patients undergoing general anesthesia. We conducted a comprehensive search of Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, public clinical trial databases (ClinicalTrials and Clinical Research Information Service), and OpenSIGLE to identify relevant studies published prior to May 2023 and included studies that evaluated the accuracy and effectiveness of ANI for intra- or post-operative pain assessment during general anesthesia. Among the 962 studies identified, 30 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review, and 17 were included in the meta-analysis. For predicting intra-operative pain, pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under curve of ANI were 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.79-0.83; I = 68.2%), 0.93 (95% CI = 0.92-0.93; I = 99.8%), 2.32 (95% CI = 1.33-3.30; I = 61.7%), and 0.77 (95% CI = 0.76-0.78; I = 87.4%), respectively. ANI values and changes in intra-operative hemodynamic variables showed statistically significant correlations. For predicting post-operative pain, pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of ANI were 0.90 (95% CI = 0.87-0.93; I = 58.7%), 0.51 (95% CI = 0.49-0.52; I = 99.9%), and 3.38 (95% CI = 2.87-3.88; I = 81.2%), respectively. ANI monitoring in patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia is a valuable measurement for predicting intra- and post-operative pain. It reduces the use of intra-operative opioids and aids in pain management throughout the perioperative period.
PubMed: 37888072
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13101461 -
PloS One 2023Anesthesia is correlated with the prognosis of cancer surgery. However, evidence from prospective studies focusing on breast cancer is currently limited. This systematic...
OBJECTIVE
Anesthesia is correlated with the prognosis of cancer surgery. However, evidence from prospective studies focusing on breast cancer is currently limited. This systematic review aimed to investigate the effect of anesthesia-related interventions on oncological outcomes following breast cancer surgery in prospective studies.
METHODS
Literature searches were performed from inception to June. 2023 in the Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, and ClinicalTrials databases. The main inclusion criteria comprised a minimum of one-year follow-up duration, with oncological outcomes as endpoints. Anesthesia-related interventions encompassed, but were not limited to, type of anesthesia, anesthetics, and analgesics. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
RESULTS
A total of 9 studies were included. Anesthesia-related interventions included paravertebral nerve block (3), pectoral nerve block (1), sevoflurane (2), ketorolac (2), and infiltration of lidocaine (1). Cancer recurrence, metastasis, disease-free survival, or (and) overall survival were assessed. Among all included studies, only infiltration of lidocaine was found to prolong disease-free survival and overall survival.
CONCLUSION
Regional anesthesia and propofol did not improve oncological outcomes following breast cancer surgery. The anti-tumorigenic effect of ketorolac warrants future studies with larger sample sizes. Perioperative infiltration of lidocaine around the tumor may be a promising anti-tumorigenic intervention that can prolong overall survival in patients with early breast cancer.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Ketorolac; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Anesthesia, Conduction; Lidocaine
PubMed: 38127958
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296158 -
BMJ Open Nov 2023The optimal puncture technique for neuraxial anaesthesia in different populations is unclear. We sought to obtain data from randomised controlled trials comparing the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The optimal puncture technique for neuraxial anaesthesia in different populations is unclear. We sought to obtain data from randomised controlled trials comparing the impact of ultrasound-guided technology and traditional positioning technology on the success rate of neuraxial anaesthesia.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis using study populations, interventions, intervention comparisons, outcome measures and study types.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of science were searched until 31 September 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing three types of neuraxial anaesthesia: ultrasound-assisted, ultrasound real-time guidance and conventional positioning to describe which neuraxial anaesthesia modality is best for patients and to recommend the appropriate one for different populations.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Five independent reviewers retrieved, screened and edited included studies using standardised methods. Assess risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration and Evidence Project tools. Network meta-analysis was performed using STATA V.15 statistical software.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies containing three different interventions were included. The SUCRA values of first-pass success rates for the three neuraxial anaesthesia methods were real-time guidance (82.8%), ultrasound-assisted (67.1%) and traditional positioning (0.1%). Both ultrasound techniques improved first-pass success rates compared with traditional localization, but there was no significant difference between the two. Subgroup analysis showed that the use of real-time ultrasound guidance for neuraxial anaesthesia in pregnant and patients with obesity improved first-pass success rates. Ultrasound-assisted technology can improve first-attempt success rates in older patients with abnormal lumbar spine anatomy.
CONCLUSION
Compared with conventional positioning, ultrasound guidance technology can improve the first-pass success rate of neuraxial anaesthesia, but there is no significant difference between ultrasound-assisted and real-time guidance technology. The results of subgroup analysis tell us that the most suitable neuraxial anaesthesia method is different for different groups of people.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO number: CRD42022376041.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Spinal Puncture; Anesthesia, Epidural; Lumbar Vertebrae; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 37918920
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071253 -
Neuromodulation : Journal of the... Oct 2023This study aims to describe the state of literature regarding the use of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) during spinal cord stimulator surgery. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
This study aims to describe the state of literature regarding the use of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) during spinal cord stimulator surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of the use of IONM during spinal cord stimulation (SCS) surgery was performed using the following three data bases: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase. Research techniques included systematic research following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol by Cochrane, and backward searching. Qualitative analysis of included articles was performed using the methodologic index for nonrandomized studies assessment tool. Direction of effect, consistency across studies, and cost-effectiveness were narratively synthesized.
RESULTS
A total of 15 records were identified through data base searching. All records used IONM methods under general anesthesia for guidance of epidural lead placement. IONM techniques used for determining lateralization in the found articles were compound muscle action potentials (CMAPs) (n = 8), somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) (n = 3) or both (n = 4). Motor evoked potentials were used in three trials for neuroprotection purposes. Two studies were comparative, and 12 were noncomparative.
CONCLUSIONS
We found a good body of level II evidence that using IONM during SCS surgery is a valid alternative to awake surgery and may even be superior regarding pain management, cost-effectiveness, and postoperative neurologic deficits. In direct comparison, the found evidence suggested using CMAP provided more consistently favorable results than using SSEP for midline placement of epidural leads under general anesthesia. Selection of IONM modality should be made on the basis of pathophysiology of disease, individual IONM experience, and the individual patient.
Topics: Humans; Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring; Spinal Cord Stimulation; Brain Neoplasms; Wakefulness; Neurosurgical Procedures; Evoked Potentials, Motor; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37802585
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurom.2023.06.010