-
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jul 2024Propofol and sevoflurane are two of the most commonly used anaesthetics for paediatric surgery. Data from some clinical trials suggest that postoperative pain incidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Propofol and sevoflurane are two of the most commonly used anaesthetics for paediatric surgery. Data from some clinical trials suggest that postoperative pain incidence is lower when propofol is used for maintenance of anaesthesia compared with sevoflurane, although this is not clear.
METHODS
This meta-analysis compared postoperative pain following maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol or sevoflurane in paediatric surgeries. PubMed Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared postoperative pain between sevoflurane and propofol anaesthesia in children. After quality assessment, a meta-analysis was carried out using bias-adjusted inverse heterogeneity methods, heterogeneity using I and publication bias using Doi plots.
RESULTS
In total, 13 RCTs with 1174 children were included. The overall synthesis suggested nearly two-fold higher odds of overall postoperative pain in the sevoflurane group compared with the propofol group (odds ratio [OR] 1.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-3.15, I=58.2%). Further, children in the sevoflurane group had higher odds of having higher pain scores (OR 3.18, 95% CI 1.83-5.53, I=20.9%), and a 60% increase in the odds of requiring postoperative rescue analgesia compared with propofol (OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.89-2.88, I=58.2%).
CONCLUSIONS
Children maintained on inhalational sevoflurane had higher odds of postoperative pain compared with those maintained on propofol. The results also suggest that sevoflurane is associated with higher odds of needing postoperative rescue analgesia compared with propofol.
REGISTRATION
The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with registration ID CRD42023445913.
Topics: Humans; Sevoflurane; Propofol; Pain, Postoperative; Child; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Child, Preschool; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38670899
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2024.03.022 -
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 -
Journal of Pain Research 2024To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ketamine in preventing propofol injection pain (PIP). (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ketamine in preventing propofol injection pain (PIP).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
The electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception until 2 August 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing ketamine with placebo or other interventions to alleviate PIP in adults were included. Fixed-effects or random-effects models were used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on the heterogeneity of the studies included.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs involving 2105 patients were included. In terms of reducing the incidence of PIP, ketamine is more effective than placebo (RR = 0.43, 95% CI = [0.34, 0.55], < 0.00001), lidocaine (RR = 0.70, 95% CI = [0.55, 0.90], = 0.005), dexmedetomidine (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = [0.40, 0.66], < 0.00001), and thiopental (RR = 0.25, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.83], = 0.02). In reducing the incidence of severe PIP, ketamine is superior to placebo (RR = 0.12, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.19], < 0.00001), and lidocaine (RR = 0.34, 95% CI = [0.21, 0.56], < 0.0001), except dexmedetomidine (RR = 0.20, 95% CI = [0.04, 1.13], = 0.07), and thiopental (RR = 0.33, 95% CI = [0.04, 3.10], = 0.33). Compared with mixed injection, separate injection of ketamine and propofol showed no significant difference in the incidence of PIP (RR = 0.96, 95% CI = [0.31, 3.00], = 0.95) and severe PIP (RR = 1.19, 95% CI = [0.07, 21.29], = 0.90). Based solely on the reports from the studies included, subanesthetic doses of ketamine are generally safe in preventing PIP.
CONCLUSION
A subanesthetic dose of ketamine can effectively and safely reduce the incidence of PIP and severe PIP in adults, and is more effective than lidocaine, dexmedetomidine, and thiopental.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42023455093.
PubMed: 38318331
DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S440250 -
Cureus Aug 2023Dexmedetomidine has been widely studied in many surgical settings, with possible benefits in lowering anesthetic requirements, improving perioperative hemodynamic... (Review)
Review
Dexmedetomidine in Patients Undergoing Transsphenoidal Resection of Pituitary Adenoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials.
Dexmedetomidine has been widely studied in many surgical settings, with possible benefits in lowering anesthetic requirements, improving perioperative hemodynamic stability, and improving postoperative outcomes. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effects of dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing transsphenoidal resection of pituitary adenoma, shedding light on its potential as an adjunctive agent in anesthesia for this specific surgical population. In this review, we searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from inception to July 20, 2023. A total of six randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of dexmedetomidine versus placebo in patients undergoing transsphenoidal resection of pituitary adenoma were included in this review. The outcomes of interest were extracted from the included studies as mean difference (MD) and standard deviation (SD), then analyzed using the Review Manager (RevMan, RevMan International Inc., New York, USA) software. Our literature search process retrieved 274 records. Of them, six studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was a significant difference between the dexmedetomidine group compared to the placebo group in terms of heart rate at the end of the surgery (MD = -16.5; CI = [-25.36 to -7.64]; P value = 0.0003) and after extubation (MD = -16.81; CI = [-23.18 to -10.43]; P values < 0.00001). Furthermore, dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) at after both intubation and extubation (MD = -9.11 and -21.5; CI = [-13.56 to -4.65] and [-30.93 to -12.06]; P values < 0.00001). This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that dexmedetomidine appears to have several potential benefits in patients undergoing transsphenoidal resection of pituitary adenoma. The use of dexmedetomidine was associated with reductions in heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, blood loss, and duration of surgery, while showing no significant difference in propofol dose or time to extubation of the trachea.
PubMed: 37641722
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.44132 -
EClinicalMedicine Feb 2024Sedation management has a major impact on outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients, but sedation strategies do not generally consider the differential effects of...
The influence of drugs used for sedation during mechanical ventilation on respiratory pattern during unassisted breathing and assisted mechanical ventilation: a physiological systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Sedation management has a major impact on outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients, but sedation strategies do not generally consider the differential effects of different sedatives on respiration and respiratory pattern. A systematic review was undertaken to quantitatively summarize the known effects of different classes of drugs used for sedation on respiratory pattern during both spontaneous breathing and assisted mechanical ventilation.
METHODS
This was a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to June 2020 to retrieve studies that measured respiratory parameters before and after the administration of opioids, benzodiazepines, intravenous and inhaled anaesthetic agents, and other hypnotic agents (PROSPERO #CRD42020190017). A random-effects meta-analytic model was employed to estimate the mean percentage change in each of the respiratory indices according to medication exposure with and without mechanical ventilation. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools.
FINDINGS
Fifty-one studies were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was generally deemed to be low for most studies. Respiratory rate decreased with the administration of opioids in both non-ventilated patients (18% decrease, 95% CI 12-24%) and ventilated patients (26% decrease, 95% CI 15-37%) and increased with inhaled anaesthetics in non-ventilated patients (83% increase, 95% CI 49-118%) and ventilated patients (50% increase, 28-72%). In non-ventilated patients, tidal volume decreased following administration of inhaled aesthetics (55% decrease, 95% CI 25-86%), propofol (36% decrease, 95% CI 20-52%), and benzodiazepines (28% decrease, 95% CI 17-40%); in patients receiving assisted mechanical ventilation, tidal volume was not significantly affected by sedation. Administration of other hypnotic agents was not associated with changes in respiratory rate or tidal volume.
INTERPRETATION
Different classes of drugs used for sedation exert differential effects on respiratory pattern, and this may influence weaning and outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients.
FUNDING
This study did not receive any funding support.
PubMed: 38235422
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102417 -
Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular... Apr 2024Intravenous non-volatile anaesthetics like propofol are commonly used in cardiac surgeries across several countries. Volatile anaesthetics like isoflurane may help in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison Between the Protective Effect of Isoflurane and Propofol on Myocardium During Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
OBJECTIVE
Intravenous non-volatile anaesthetics like propofol are commonly used in cardiac surgeries across several countries. Volatile anaesthetics like isoflurane may help in protecting the myocardium and minimize ischaemia-reperfusion injury. Hence, we did this review to compare the cardioprotective effect of isoflurane and propofol among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
METHODS
We conducted a search in the databases Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (or MEDLINE), Embase, PubMed Central®, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library from inception until April 2021. We carried out a meta-analysis with random-effects model and reported pooled risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) depending on the type of outcome.
RESULTS
We analysed 13 studies including 808 participants. Almost all were low-quality studies. For cardiac index, the pooled SMD was 0.14 (95% CI: -0.22 to 0.50); for cardiac troponin I, pooled SMD was 0.10 (95% CI: -0.28 to 0.48). For mortality, the RR was 3.00 (95% CI: 0.32 to 28.43); for MI, pooled RR was 1.58 (95% CI: 0.59 to 4.20); and for inotropic drug use, pooled RR was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.90 to 1.21). For length of intensive care unit stay, the pooled SMD was 0.13 (95% CI: -0.29 to 0.55), while pooled SMD for mechanical ventilation time was -0.02 (95% CI: -0.54 to 0.51).
CONCLUSION
Isoflurane did not have significant cardioprotective effect compared to propofol following CABG. Hence, the anaesthetists need to check some viable alternatives to manage these patients and reduce the rate of postoperative complications.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Isoflurane; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Coronary Artery Bypass; Myocardium; Anesthetics
PubMed: 38629941
DOI: 10.21470/1678-9741-2021-0424 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024The benefits of low-dose esketamine for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy remain unclear. As such, the present study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of...
The benefits of low-dose esketamine for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy remain unclear. As such, the present study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose esketamine for this procedure. Seven common databases were searched for clinical studies investigating low-dose esketamine for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. Subsequently, a meta-analysis was performed to synthesize and analyze the data extracted from studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed that, compared with propofol, low-dose esketamine in combination with propofol significantly reduced recovery time by 0.56 min (mean difference [MD] -0.56%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to -0.05, = 0.03), induction time by 9.84 s (MD -9.84, 95% CI -12.93 to -6.75, < 0.00001), propofol dosage by 51.05 mg (MD -51.05, 95% CI -81.53 to -20.57, = 0.01), and increased mean arterial pressure by 6.23 mmHg (MD 6.23, 95% CI 1.37 to 11.08, = 0.01). Meanwhile, low-dose esketamine reduced injection pain by 63% (relative risk [RR] 0.37, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.49, < 0.00001), involuntary movements by 40% (RR 0.60, 95% Cl 0.42 to 0.85, < 0.005), choking by 42% (RR 0.58, 95% Cl 0.38 to 0.88, = 0.01), bradycardia by 68% (RR 0.32, 95% Cl 0.18 to 0.58, = 0.0002), hypotension by 71% (RR 0.29, 95% Cl 0.21 to 0.40, < 0.00001), respiratory depression by 63% (RR 0.37, 95% 0.26 to 0.51, < 0.00001), additional cases of propofol by 53% (RR 0.47, 95% Cl 0.29 to 0.77, = 0.002), and increased hypertension by 1000% (RR 11.00, 95% Cl 1.45 to 83.28, = 0.02). There were no significant differences in mean heart rate, mean oximetry saturation, delirium, dizziness, vomiting, tachycardia, and hypoxemia. Subgroup analyses revealed that, compared with other dose groups, 0.25 mg/kg esketamine afforded additional benefits in recovery and induction time, mean arterial pressure, involuntary movements, hypoxemia, and respiratory depression. Low-dose esketamine was found to be safe and effective for providing anesthesia during gastrointestinal endoscopy, with 0.25 mg/kg identified as the optimal dose within the dosage ranges examined. However, caution should be exercised when administering this drug to patients with inadequate preoperative blood pressure control.
PubMed: 38645560
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1364546 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024The role of esketamine in pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy is still unclear. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of esketamine for pediatric...
OBJECTIVE
The role of esketamine in pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy is still unclear. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of esketamine for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy.
METHODS
Clinical trials of esketamine for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy were searched in eight common databases, up to October 2023. These clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). The risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as the effect sizes for dichotomous variables and continuity variables, respectively. When the heterogeneity test showed I < 50%, the fixed effects model was used for the meta-analysis and TSA; Otherwise, the random effects model was used for them.
RESULTS
In terms of efficacy endpoints, the meta-analysis showed that compared with placebo or blank, esketamine significantly decreased recovery time by 2.34 min (WMD -2.34; 95% Confidence interval [CI] -3.65, -1.02; = 0.0005) and propofol consumption by 0.70 mg/kg (WMD -0.70; 95% CI -0.98, -0.43; < 0.00001), and increased mean heart rate by 4.77 beats/min (WMD 4.77; 95% CI 2.67, 6.87; < 0.00001) and mean arterial pressure by 3.10 mmHg (WMD 3.10; 95% CI 1.52, 4.67; = 0.0001), while induction time and mean blood oxygen remained comparable. TSA indicated conclusive evidence for these benefits. In terms of safety endpoints, the meta-analysis revealed that esketamine significantly reduced involuntary movements by 59% (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.22, 0.76; = 0.005) and choking by 51% (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.26, 0.92; = 0.03), while significantly increasing dizziness by 98% (RR 1.98; 95% CI 1.11, 3.56; = 0.02) and there were no significant differences in total adverse events, respiratory depression, and vomiting. TSA demonstrated conclusive evidence for involuntary movements and dizziness. Low-dose analysis showed that esketamine at ≤0.3 mg/kg significantly reduced recovery time, propofol consumption and involuntary movements, and significantly increasing mean heart rate, with no increase in dizziness. The Begg's test ( = 0.327) and the Egger's test ( = 0.413) indicated no significant publication bias, yet the funnel plot suggested potential publication bias.
CONCLUSION
Esketamine is an effective adjuvant anesthesia for children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, the general dose of esketamine may increase the risk of dizziness, which can be avoided by administering a low dose (≤0.3 mg/kg).
PubMed: 38725661
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1379101 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2023Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a postoperative complication that often occurs in the elderly. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare...
BACKGROUND
Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a postoperative complication that often occurs in the elderly. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare intravenous anesthetics (propofol) with inhalation anesthetics (sevoflurane) regarding the occurrence of POCD in the elderly who underwent non-cardiac surgery.
METHODS
The investigators searched for published articles from the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and Clinicalkey databases. Clinical studies comparing the incidence of POCD in elderly patients undergoing intravenous or inhalation anesthesia in general were selected. Primary outcomes included the occurrence of POCD at 1, 3, and 7 days. The secondary outcomes were the patient's plasma S-100β protein levels (pg*mL) and delayed neurocognitive recovery incidence 5-7 days after surgery.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies including 3,817 patients were enrolled in the systematic review. Ten studies involving 1,829 patients were enrolled in the meta-analysis. The results demonstrate that there was no difference between the intravenous and inhalation groups in the incidence of POCD within 1-7 days (95% CI 0.73-1.26, = 0.77) and the occurrence of delayed neurocognitive recovery 5-7 days after surgery (95% CI -353.15 to -295.44, = 0.28). Plasma S-100β protein levels in the intravenous anesthesia group were lower than those in the inhalation group (95% CI 0.48-1.24, < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
For elderly patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery, inhalation anesthesia was comparable to intravenous anesthesia in terms of the occurrence of short-term POCD. Inhalation anesthesia may cause greater damage to the nervous system, with delayed recovery of cognitive function after 5-7 days showing no difference.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
identifier (CRD42021251317).
PubMed: 38034539
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1280013 -
Heliyon Feb 2024The association between anesthesia and long-term oncological outcome after cancer surgery remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the effect of...
BACKGROUNDS
The association between anesthesia and long-term oncological outcome after cancer surgery remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the effect of propofol-based anesthesia and inhalation anesthesia on long-term survival in cancer surgery.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library until November 15, 2023. The outcomes included overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). The hazard ratio (HR) and 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated with a random-effects model.
RESULTS
We included forty-two retrospective cohort studies and two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 686,923 patients. Propofol-based anesthesia was associated with improved OS (HR = 0.82, 95 % CI:0.76-0.88, P < 0.00001) and RFS (HR = 0.80, 95 % CI:0.73-0.88, P < 0.00001) than inhalation anesthesia after cancer surgery. However, these positive results were only observed in single-center studies (OS: HR = 0.76, 95 % CI:0.68-0.84, P < 0.00001; RFS: HR = 0.76, 95 % CI:0.66-0.87, P < 0.0001), but not in multicenter studies (OS: HR = 0.98, 95 % CI:0.94-1.03, P = 0.51; RFS: HR = 0.95, 95 % CI:0.87-1.04, P = 0.26). The subgroup analysis revealed that propofol-based anesthesia provided OS and RFS advantages in hepatobiliary cancer (OS: HR = 0.58, 95 % CI:0.40-0.86, P = 0.005; RFS: HR = 0.62, 95 % CI:0.44-0.86, P = 0.005), gynecological cancer (OS: HR = 0.52, 95 % CI:0.33-0.81, P = 0.004; RFS: HR = 0.51, 95 % CI:0.36-0.72, P = 0.0001), and osteosarcoma (OS: HR = 0.30, 95 % CI:0.11-0.81, P = 0.02; RFS: HR = 0.32, 95 % CI:0.14-0.75, P = 0.008) surgeries.
CONCLUSION
Propofol-based anesthesia may be associated with improved OS and RFS than inhalation anesthesia in some cancer surgeries. Considering the inherent weaknesses of retrospective designs and the strong publication bias, our findings should be interpreted with caution. Well-designed multicenter RCTs are still urgent to further confirm these findings.
PubMed: 38318020
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24791