-
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 Medicine Nov 2023(1) Purpose: to systematically evaluate the recovery following sedation and anesthesia with remimazolam combined with flumazenil in comparison to propofol. (2) Methods:... (Review)
Review
(1) Purpose: to systematically evaluate the recovery following sedation and anesthesia with remimazolam combined with flumazenil in comparison to propofol. (2) Methods: Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, were systematically searched from their inception up to 22 October 2023. Included in this analysis were randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared remimazolam-flumazenil with propofol for the recovery from sedation and anesthesia in adults. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Pooled risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using either fixed-effects or random-effects models, and the results were visualized in forest plots. (3) Results: Nine RCTs involving 745 patients who underwent general anesthesia in three different countries were included. Compared to propofol, the remimazolam-flumazenil combination shortened the emergence time (MD = -4.34 min, 95% CI = [-6.88, -1.81], = 0.0008, low certainty), extubation time (MD = -4.26 min, 95% CI = [-6.81, -1.7], = 0.0011, low certainty), and the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay (MD = -4.42 min, 95% CI = [-7.45, -1.38], = 0.0044, low certainty), while reducing the incidence of respiratory depression (RR = 0.2, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.89], = 0.03, high certainty) after general anesthesia. However, this combination was associated with a higher incidence of re-sedation (RR = 4.15, 95% CI = [1.31, 13.13], = 0.01, moderate certainty). (4) Conclusions: Based on the existing evidence, the combination of remimazolam and flumazenil accelerates recovery from general anesthesia and lowers the risk of respiratory depression compared to propofol. However, it is important to consider the higher risk of re-sedation when using this combination in clinical practice. Due to limitations in the quality of the evidence, it is advisable to interpret the results of meta-analyses with caution.
PubMed: 38068368
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12237316 -
Minerva Anestesiologica 2023This review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the side effects and efficacy of esketamine combined with propofol in procedural sedation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
This review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the side effects and efficacy of esketamine combined with propofol in procedural sedation and analgesia.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies occurring between their inceptions and September 2022. The primary outcome was the incidence of sedation-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, total consumption of propofol and body movement.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Data from a total of seven RCTs enrolling 808 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooling of data showed that compared with other drug regimens, the esketamine and propofol combination was associated with a reduction in the risk of hypotension (relative risk [RR]: 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25 to 0.56) and bradycardia (RR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.80) as well as an increase in the risk of agitation (RR: 6.29, 95% CI: 1.15 to 34.32). The results also indicated a decrease in propofol consumption (standardized mean difference: -1.45, 95% CI: -2.39 to -0.50) with the use of the esketamine and propofol combination. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in respiratory depression, nausea/vomiting, recovery time or body movement.
CONCLUSIONS
Esketamine combined with propofol has an advantage in reducing the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia during procedural sedation and analgesia, but it may increase the risk of agitation in the recovery phase. More studies of high quality are needed before the widespread adoption of the combination of esketamine and propofol.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Bradycardia; Pain; Analgesia; Hypotension
PubMed: 36988407
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.23.17100-8 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel intravenous anesthetic agent that bears structural similarity to propofol and displays favorable pharmacodynamic characteristics such as...
Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel intravenous anesthetic agent that bears structural similarity to propofol and displays favorable pharmacodynamic characteristics such as rapid onset and offset. The meta-analysis aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol in clinical practice. Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library were searched from inception to April 2023. The primary outcome was success rate of sedation/anesthetic induction and differences in sedation/induction time. The secondary outcomes included risks of hemodynamic instability, respiratory complications, and pain on injection, as well as recovery profiles, satisfaction score, and top-up dose requirement. Twelve RCTs (sedation: = 6, anesthetic induction, = 6, all conducted in China) involving 1,793 patients (age: 34-58 years) published from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Pooled results revealed no differences in success rate [risk ratio (RR) = 1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99 to 1.01, I = 0%, 1,106 patients, = 1] and time required for successful anesthetic induction/sedation [mean difference (MD) = 7.95 s, 95% CI: -1.09 to 16.99, I = 97%, 1,594 patients, = 0.08]. The risks of top-up dose requirement (RR = 0.94, = 0.48), cardiopulmonary complications [i.e., bradycardia (RR = 0.94, = 0.67), tachycardia (RR = 0.83, = 0.68), hypertension (RR = 1.28, = 0.2), hypoxemia/pulmonary depression (RR = 0.78, = 0.24)], and postoperative nausea/vomiting (RR = 0.85, = 0.72), as well as discharge time (MD = 1.39 min, = 0.14) and satisfaction score (standardized MD = 0.23, = 0.16) did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the ciprofol group had lower risks of hypotension (RR = 0.85, = 0.02) and pain on injection (RR = 0.17, < 0.00001) than the propofol group. The time to full alertness was statistically shorter in the propofol group (i.e., 0.66 min), but without clinical significance. Our results demonstrated similar efficacy between ciprofol and propofol for sedation and anesthetic induction, while ciprofol was associated with lower risks of hypotension and pain on injection. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol in pediatric or the elderly populations. (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/), identifier (CRD42023421278).
PubMed: 37818194
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1225288 -
Endoscopy International Open Sep 2023Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy lacks established quality indicators. We conducted an umbrella systematic review of potential quality indicators for the... (Review)
Review
Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy lacks established quality indicators. We conducted an umbrella systematic review of potential quality indicators for the detection of UGI cancer and dysplasia. Bibliographic databases were searched up to December 2021 for systematic reviews and primary studies. Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy, detection rates or the association of endoscopy or endoscopist-related factors with UGI cancer or dysplasia detection were included. AMSTAR2 and JBI checklists were used to assess systematic review and primary study quality. Clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis and findings are summarized narratively. Eight systematic reviews and nine primary studies were included. Image enhancement, especially narrow band imaging, had high diagnostic accuracy for dysplasia and early gastric cancer (pooled sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.89) and specificity 0.97 (0.97-0.98)). Higher detection rates with longer endoscopy examination times were reported in three studies, but no difference was observed in one study. Endoscopist biopsy rate was associated with increased gastric cancer detection (odds ratio 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-2.9). Early esophageal cancer (0.17% vs 0.14%, =0.04) and gastric cancer (0.16% vs 0.12%, =0.02) detection rates were higher with propofol sedation compared to no sedation. Endoscopies performed by trained endoscopists on dedicated Barrett's surveillance lists had higher detection rates (8% vs 3%, <0.001). The neoplasia detection rate during diagnostic endoscopies for Barrett's esophagus was 7% (95% CI 4%-10%). Image enhancement use, longer examination times, biopsy rate and propofol sedation are potential quality indicators for UGI endoscopy. Neoplasia detection rate and dedicated endoscopy lists are additional potential quality indicators for Barrett's esophagus.
PubMed: 37719799
DOI: 10.1055/a-2117-8621 -
Pain Physician Nov 2023Remimazolam is a novel ultrashort-effect benzodiazepine. In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration approved it for procedural sedation. Remimazolam is beneficial for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Hemodynamic Influences of Remimazolam Versus Propofol During the Induction Period of General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
BACKGROUND
Remimazolam is a novel ultrashort-effect benzodiazepine. In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration approved it for procedural sedation. Remimazolam is beneficial for consistent sedation and quick recovery in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. Propofol is one of the most commonly used intravenous anesthetics in clinical practice. Recently, only a few studies have compared propofol with remimazolam for general anesthesia induction.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the hemodynamic effects of remimazolam and propofol during the induction of general anesthesia.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials.
METHODS
The authors retrieved the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for studies published through September 30, 2022, which reported relevant prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing remimazolam with propofol for general anesthesia. The primary outcome was hemodynamic changes, including the absolute value of fluctuation of mean arterial pressure (delta MAP) and heart rate delta HR). The secondary outcomes were the following 2 indicators: the occurrence of total adverse events and the quality of recovery from general anesthesia at 24 hours postsurgery. RevMan 5.4.1 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre for The Cochrane Collaboration) and trial sequential analysis were used to execute the statistical analyses. The different domains of bias were judged by the Cochrane risk of the bias assessment tool.
RESULTS
The authors identified 189 papers in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Eight articles with 964 patients were selected. The included studies had moderate quality. For primary outcomes, the lower delta HR (mean difference [MD] = -4.99; 95% CI, -7.97 to -2.00; I² = 41.6%; P = 0.001] and delta MAP (MD = -5.91; 95% CI. -8.57 to -3.24; I² = 0%; P < 0.0001) represent more stable hemodynamic characteristics in the remimazolam group. Regarding secondary outcomes, a considerably lower incidence of total adverse events was noted in the remimazolam group than that for the propofol group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.58; I² = 63%; P < 0.00001). In comparison to the propofol group, remimazolam achieved an advantage score of quality of recovery -15 in 24 hours postsurgery (MD = 5.31, 95% CI, 1.51 to 9.12; I² = 87%; P = 0.006).
LIMITATION
Firstly, there are only a handful of published RCTs on the administration of remimazolam in general anesthesia. In addition, due to patient privacy, we could not extract individual patient data, therefore we could not combine and assess any variations in patient characteristics.
CONCLUSION
Evidence suggests that remimazolam has a lower hemodynamic effect during general anesthesia and fewer perioperative adverse effects after general anesthesia than propofol; however, which agent is superior regarding quality benefit in postoperative recovery based on the studies included here remains inconclusive. Additional RCTs with updated meta-analyses to enlarge the sample size and properly analyze the benefit-to-risk ratio to patients are needed to determine the evidence for such a relatively new medicine.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anesthesia, General; Benzodiazepines; Hemodynamics
PubMed: 37976477
DOI: No ID Found -
BMC Anesthesiology Jul 2023The number of non-intubated general anesthesia outside the operating room is growing as the increasing demand for comfort treatment. Non-intubated general anesthesia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Analysis of the efficacy of subclinical doses of esketamine in combination with propofol in non-intubated general anesthesia procedures - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The number of non-intubated general anesthesia outside the operating room is growing as the increasing demand for comfort treatment. Non-intubated general anesthesia outside the operating room requires rapid onset of anesthesia, smoothness, quick recovery, and few postoperative complications. Traditional anesthetic regimens (propofol alone or propofol and opioids/dezocine/midazolam, etc.) have severe respiratory and circulatory depression and many systemic adverse effects. In this paper, we compare the effectiveness and safety of propofol and subclinical doses of esketamine with other traditional regimens applied to non-intubated general anesthesia through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and Sinomed databases for the period from January 2000 to October 2022. We rigorously screened the literature according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, while risk assessment of the studies was performed using The Cochrane Collaboration's tool, and statistical analysis of the data was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. The main outcome indicators we evaluated were the various hemodynamic parameters and incidence of various adverse effects between the experimental and control groups after induction of anesthesia.
RESULTS
After a rigorous screening process, a total of 14 papers were included in the final meta-analysis. After risk bias assessment, three of the papers were judged as low risk and the others were judged as having moderate to high risk. Forest plots were drawn for a total of 16 indicators. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in HR' WMD 3.27 (0.66, 5.87), MAP' WMD 9.68 (6.13, 13.24), SBP' WMD 5.42 (2.11, 8.73), DBP' WMD 4.02 (1.15, 6.88), propofol dose' SMD -1.39 (-2.45, -0.33), hypotension' RR 0.30 (0.20, 0.45), bradycardia' RR 0.33 (0.14, 0.77), hypoxemia or apnea' RR 0.45 (0.23, 0.89), injection pain' RR 0.28 (0.13, 0.60), intraoperative choking' RR 0.62 (0.50, 0.77), intraoperative body movements' RR 0.48 (0.29, 0.81) and overall incidence of adverse reactions' RR 0.52 (0.39, 0.70).The indicators that were not statistically different were time to wake up' WMD - 0.55 (-1.29, 0.19), nausea and vomiting 0.84' RR (0.43, 1.67), headache and dizziness' RR 1.57 (0.98, 2.50) and neuropsychiatric reaction' RR 1.05 (0.28, 3.93). The funnel plot showed that the vast majority of studies fell within the funnel interval, but the symmetry was relatively poor.
CONCLUSION
In non-intubated general anesthesia, the combination of subclinical doses of esketamine and propofol did reduce circulatory and respiratory depression, injection pain, and other adverse effects, while the incidence of esketamine's own side effects such as neuropsychiatric reactions did not increase, and the combination of the two did not cause the occurrence of new and more serious adverse reactions, and the combination of the two was safe and effective.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPREO registration number: CRD 42022368966.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Ketamine; Anesthesia, General; Pain; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37479982
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02135-8 -
Current Pain and Headache Reports Apr 2024The combination of ketamine with propofol and dexmedetomidine has gained popularity for sedation and general anesthesia in different populations. In our meta-nalysis, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
The combination of ketamine with propofol and dexmedetomidine has gained popularity for sedation and general anesthesia in different populations. In our meta-nalysis, we helped the anesthesiologists to know the efficiency and the efficacy of both combinations in adult and pediatric patients.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to August 1, 2023. Our outcome parameters for efficacy were recovery time, pain score, and physician satisfaction while for safety were the related cardiorespiratory, neurological, and gastrointestinal adverse events.
RECENT FINDINGS
Twenty-two trials were included with a total of 1429 patients. We found a significantly longer recovery time in the ketadex group of 7.59 min (95% CI, 4.92, 10.26; I = 94%) and a significantly less pain score of - 0.72 (95% CI, - 1.10, - 0.34; I = 0%). Adults had a significantly better physician satisfaction score with the ketofol group, odds ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.12, 0.71; I = 0%). Recovery agitations were higher in the ketofol group with an odds ratio of 0.48 (95% CI, 0.24, 0.98; I = 36%). Furthermore, we found a significant difference between the combinations with a higher incidence in the ketadex group with pooled odds ratio of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.06, 2.88; I = 15%). Ketadex was associated with lower pain scores, hypoxic events and airway obstruction, and emergence agitation. At the same time, ketofol had much more clinician satisfaction which might be attributed to the shorter recovery time and lower incidence of nausea and vomiting. Therefore, we suppose that ketadex is the better combination in periprocedural sedation for both adult and pediatric patients who are not at greater risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Propofol; Dexmedetomidine; Ketamine; Anesthesia, General; Vomiting; Pain; Hypnotics and Sedatives
PubMed: 38214834
DOI: 10.1007/s11916-023-01208-0 -
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 -
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