-
Anaesthesia Jun 2019Intra-operative remifentanil is associated with increased postoperative analgesic requirements and opioid consumption. Dexmedetomidine has characteristics suggesting it... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Intra-operative remifentanil is associated with increased postoperative analgesic requirements and opioid consumption. Dexmedetomidine has characteristics suggesting it may substitute for intra-operative remifentanil during general anaesthesia, but existing literature has reported conflicting results. We undertook this meta-analysis to investigate whether general anaesthesia including dexmedetomidine would result in less postoperative pain than general anaesthesia including remifentanil. The MEDLINE and PubMed electronic databases were searched up to October 2018. Only randomised trials including patients receiving general anaesthesia and comparing dexmedetomidine with remifentanil administration were included. Meta-analyses were performed mostly employing a random effects model. The primary outcome was pain score at rest (visual analogue scale, 0-10) at two postoperative hours. The secondary outcomes included: pain score at rest at 24 postoperative hours; opioid consumption at 2 and 24 postoperative hours; and rates of hypotension, bradycardia, shivering and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Twenty-one randomised trials, including 1309 patients, were identified. Pain scores at rest at two postoperative hours were lower in the dexmedetomidine group, with a mean difference (95%CI) of -0.7 (-1.2 to -0.2), I = 85%, p = 0.004, and a moderate quality of evidence. Secondary pain outcomes were also significantly better in the dexmedetomidine group. Rates of hypotension, shivering and postoperative nausea and vomiting were at least twice as frequent in patients who received remifentanil. Time to analgesia request was longer, and use of postoperative morphine and rescue analgesia were less, with dexmedetomidine, whereas episodes of bradycardia were similar between groups. There is moderate evidence that intra-operative dexmedetomidine during general anaesthesia improves pain outcomes during the first 24 postoperative hours, when compared with remifentanil, with fewer side effects.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthesia, General; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Intraoperative Care; Pain, Postoperative; Remifentanil
PubMed: 30950522
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14657 -
Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics Nov 2016Preclinical and clinical evidence suggest an association between anesthesia and cognitive disorders ranging from postoperative chronic dysfunction to Alzheimer's... (Review)
Review
Preclinical and clinical evidence suggest an association between anesthesia and cognitive disorders ranging from postoperative chronic dysfunction to Alzheimer's disease. Recent clinical insights are summarized in this paper. Areas covered: This systematic review was conducted and written in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review database. A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS was accomplished according to a written protocol that included: clinical trials on humans, articles in English, papers published between April 2010 and February 2016 and complete studies. Expert commentary: There is a growing interest in establishing the possible relationship between anesthesia and the onset and progression of cognitive disorders. Further studies are required to determine the methods of monitoring anesthesia in older adults with dementia undergoing surgical procedures.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Anesthesia; Cognition; Cognition Disorders; Humans; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 27329271
DOI: 10.1080/14737175.2016.1203256 -
Anaesthesia Aug 2021Post-dural puncture headache is one of the most undesirable complications of spinal anaesthesia. Previous pairwise meta-analyses have either compared groups of needles... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Post-dural puncture headache is one of the most undesirable complications of spinal anaesthesia. Previous pairwise meta-analyses have either compared groups of needles or ranked individual needles based on the pooled incidence of post-dural puncture headache. These analyses have suggested both the gauge and needle tip design as risk-factors, but failed to provide an unbiased comparison of individual needles. This network meta-analysis compared the odds of post-dural puncture headache with needles of varying gauge and tip design. We searched randomised controlled trials in medical databases. The primary outcome measure of the network meta-analysis was the incidence of post-dural puncture headache. Secondary outcomes were procedural failure, backache and non-specific headache. Overall, we compared 11 different needles in 61 randomised controlled trials including a total of 14,961 participants. The probability of post-dural puncture headache and procedural failure was lowest with 26-G atraumatic needles. The 29-G cutting needle was more likely than three atraumatic needles to have the lowest odds of post-dural puncture headache, although with increased risk of procedural failure. The probability rankings were: 26 atraumatic > 27 atraumatic > 29 cutting > 24 atraumatic > 22 atraumatic > 25 atraumatic > 23 cutting > 22 cutting > 25 cutting > 27 cutting = 26 cutting for post-dural puncture headache; and 26 atraumatic > 25 cutting > 22 cutting > 24 atraumatic > 22 atraumatic > 25 atraumatic > 26 cutting > 29 cutting > 27 atraumatic = 27 cutting for procedural success. Meta-regression by type of surgical population (obstetric/non-obstetric) and participant position (sitting/lateral) did not alter these rank orders. This analysis provides an unbiased comparison of individual needles that does not support the use of simple rules when selecting the optimal needle. The 26-G atraumatic needle is most likely to enable successful insertion while avoiding post-dural puncture headache but, where this is not available, our probability rankings can help clinicians select the best of available options.
Topics: Anesthesia, Spinal; Humans; Needles; Post-Dural Puncture Headache
PubMed: 33332606
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15320 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Mar 2022During general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery, there remain knowledge gaps regarding the effect of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy on patient-centred outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
During general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery, there remain knowledge gaps regarding the effect of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy on patient-centred outcomes.
METHODS
Included clinical trials investigated goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery and reported at least one patient-centred postoperative outcome. PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant articles on March 8, 2021. Two investigators performed abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and bias assessment. The primary outcomes were mortality and hospital length of stay, whereas 15 postoperative complications were included based on availability. From a main pool of comparable trials, meta-analyses were performed on trials with homogenous outcome definitions. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE).
RESULTS
The main pool consisted of 76 trials with intermediate risk of bias for most outcomes. Overall, goal-directed haemodynamic therapy might reduce mortality (odds ratio=0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.09) and shorten length of stay (mean difference=-0.72 days; 95% CI, -1.10 to -0.35) but with low certainty in the evidence. For both outcomes, larger effects favouring goal-directed haemodynamic therapy were seen in abdominal surgery, very high-risk surgery, and using targets based on preload variation by the respiratory cycle. However, formal tests for subgroup differences were not statistically significant. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy decreased risk of several postoperative outcomes, but only infectious outcomes and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia might decrease mortality, hospital length of stay, and several postoperative complications. Only infectious postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty in the evidence.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; General Surgery; Hemodynamics; Humans; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 34916049
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2021.10.046 -
Medicine Apr 2019The optimal anesthetic technique remains debated in patients undergoing total-hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this meta-analysis was to test the efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The optimal anesthetic technique remains debated in patients undergoing total-hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this meta-analysis was to test the efficacy of general and spinal anesthesia for patients undergoing THA.
METHODS
In January 2018, we searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Google database. Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the use of general and spinal anesthesia for patients undergoing THA were retrieved. The primary outcome was to compare the total blood loss. The secondary outcomes were the occurrence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), the occurrence of nausea, and the length of hospital stay. Software Stata 12.0 was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Five RCTs with 487 THAs were finally included for meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia in terms of the total blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -20.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] -84.50 to 43.05, P = .524; I = 87.8%) and the occurrence of DVT (risk ratio (RR) = 0.85, 95% CI 0.24-3.01, P = .805; I = 70.5%). Compared with general anesthesia, spinal anesthesia was a significant reduction in the occurrence of nausea (RR = 3.04, 95% CI 1.69-5.50, P = .000; I = 0.0%) and the length of hospital stay (WMD = 1.00, 95% CI 0.59-1.41, P = .000; I = 94.7%).
CONCLUSION
Spinal anesthesia was superior than general anesthesia in terms of the occurrence of nausea and shorten the length of hospital stay. The quality and number of included studies was limited; thus, a greater number of high-quality RCTs is still needed to further identify the effects of spinal anesthesia on reducing the blood loss after THA.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, Spinal; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Humans; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 31008923
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014925 -
Stroke Oct 2017There is currently controversy on the ideal anesthesia strategy during mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke. We performed a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
There is currently controversy on the ideal anesthesia strategy during mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients undergoing general anesthesia (GA group) and those receiving either local anesthesia or conscious sedation (non-GA group).
METHODS
A literature search on anesthesia and endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke was performed. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we evaluated the following outcomes: recanalization rate, good functional outcome at 90 days (modified Rankin Score≤2), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, death, vascular complications, respiratory complications, procedure time, and time to groin puncture.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 19 observational studies), including 4716 patients (1819 GA and 2897 non-GA) were included. In the nonadjusted analysis, patients in the GA group had higher odds of death (odds ratio [OR], 2.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.66-2.45) and respiratory complications (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.22-2.37) and lower odds of good functional outcome (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.64) compared with the non-GA group. There was no difference in procedure time between the 2 primary comparison groups. When adjusting for baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, GA was still associated with lower odds of good functional outcome (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29-0.94). When considering studies performed in the stent-retriever/aspiration era, there was no significant difference in good neurological outcome rates (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67-1.06).
CONCLUSIONS
Acute ischemic stroke patients undergoing intra-arterial therapy may have worse outcomes when treated with GA as compared with conscious sedation/local anesthesia. However, major limitations of current evidence (ie, retrospective studies and selection bias) indicate a need for adequately powered, multicenter randomized controlled trials to answer this question.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, Local; Brain Ischemia; Cerebral Revascularization; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28904228
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.017786 -
Anaesthesia Jan 2020Spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section commonly causes maternal hypotension. This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared methods to prevent hypotension... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section commonly causes maternal hypotension. This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared methods to prevent hypotension in women receiving spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We selected randomised controlled trials that compared an intervention to prevent hypotension with another intervention or inactive control by searching MEDLINE and Embase, Web of Science to December 2018. There was no language restriction. Two reviewers extracted data on trial characteristics, methods and outcomes. We assessed risk of bias for individual trials (Cochrane tool) and quality of evidence (GRADE checklist). We assessed 109 trials (8561 women) and 12 different methods that resulted in 30 direct comparisons. Methods ranked by OR (95%CI) from most effective to least effective were: metaraminol 0.11 (0.04-0.26); norepinephrine 0.13 (0.06-0.28); phenylephrine 0.18 (0.11-0.29); leg compression 0.25 (0.14-0.43); ephedrine 0.28 (0.18-0.43); colloid given before induction of anaesthesia 0.38 (0.24-0.61); angiotensin 2, 0.12 (0.02-0.75); colloid given after induction of anaesthesia 0.52 (0.30-0.90); mephentermine 0.09 (0.01-1.30); crystalloid given after induction of anaesthesia 0.78 (0.46-1.31); and crystalloid given before induction of anaesthesia 1.16 (0.76-1.79). Phenylephrine caused maternal bradycardia compared with control, OR (95%CI) 0.23 (0.07-0.79). Ephedrine lowered umbilical artery pH more than phenylephrine, standardised mean difference (95%CI) 0.78 (0.47-1.49). We conclude that vasopressors should be given to healthy women to prevent hypotension during caesarean section with spinal anaesthesia.
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Spinal; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Hypotension; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 31531852
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14841 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jan 2018The QoR-15 is a patient-reported outcome questionnaire that measures the quality of recovery after surgery and anaesthesia. We aimed to perform a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The QoR-15 is a patient-reported outcome questionnaire that measures the quality of recovery after surgery and anaesthesia. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the measurement properties of the QoR-15.
METHODS
Studies reporting measurement properties or interpretability of the QoR-15 after surgery were eligible for inclusion. All languages were included in the PubMed and Embase search. The COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measurements were followed. Criteria for good measurement properties outlined in the consensus-based guidelines for selecting outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials were applied. A metaanalysis and synthesis of data across studies was performed.
RESULTS
Nine hundred and thirty-three titles were identified, and six articles were included in the study. The study population comprised 1548 patients undergoing a variety of surgical elective procedures. The QoR-15 was validated in English, Danish, Chinese, and Portuguese. High-quality evidence for good content validity, good internal consistency (Cronbach's α of 0.836), and essential unidimensionality of the QoR-15 as a measurement of postoperative quality of recovery was found. There was at least moderate-quality evidence of good reliability of the QoR-15 (intraclass correlation of 0.989) and good error of measurement (standard error of measurement of 1.85). The upper 95% confidence limit of the smallest detectable change was 3.63, and the minimal clinical important difference was 8.0.
CONCLUSIONS
The QoR-15 fulfils requirements for outcome measurement instruments in clinical trials and is the first measurement instrument of postoperative quality of recovery to undergo a systematic review according to the COSMIN checklist.
Topics: Anesthesia; Anesthesia Recovery Period; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results; Self Report; Surveys and Questionnaires; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29397134
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2017.11.013 -
Paediatric Anaesthesia Apr 2022Concern for a role of anesthesia in neurotoxicity in children originated from neonatal rodent and nonhuman primate (NHP) models, yet prospective clinical studies have... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Concern for a role of anesthesia in neurotoxicity in children originated from neonatal rodent and nonhuman primate (NHP) models, yet prospective clinical studies have largely not supported this concern. The goal of this study was to conduct an objective assessment of published NHP study rigor in design, execution, and reporting.
METHODS
A MEDLINE search from 2005 to December 2021 was performed. Inclusion criteria included full-length original studies published in English under peer-reviewed journals. We documented experimental parameters on anesthetic dosing, monitoring, vitals, and experimental outcomes.
RESULTS
Twenty-three manuscripts were included. Critical issues identified in study design included: lack of blinding in data acquisition (57%) and analysis (100%), supratherapeutic (4-12 fold) maintenance dosing in 22% of studies, lack of sample size justification (91%) resulting in a mean (SD) sample size of 6 (3) animals per group. Critical items identified in the conduct and reporting of studies included: documentation of anesthesia provider (0%), electrocardiogram monitoring (35%), arterial monitoring (4%), spontaneous ventilation employed (35%), failed intubations resulting in comingling ventilated and unventilated animals in data analysis, inaccurate reporting of failed intubation, and only 50% reporting on survival. Inconsistencies were noted in drug-related induction of neuroapoptosis and region of occurrence. Further, 67%-100% of behavior outcomes were not significantly different from controls.
CONCLUSIONS
Important deficits in study design, execution, and reporting were identified in neonatal NHP studies. These results raise concern for the validity and reliability of these studies and may explain in part the divergence from results obtained in human neonates.
Topics: Anesthesia; Anesthesiology; Animals; Primates; Prospective Studies; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 35066973
DOI: 10.1111/pan.14401 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Jun 2021Intraoperative handoffs between anesthesia clinicians are critical for care continuity. However, such handoffs pose a significant threat to patient safety. This...
Intraoperative handoffs between anesthesia clinicians are critical for care continuity. However, such handoffs pose a significant threat to patient safety. This systematic review synthesizes the empirical evidence on the (a) effect of intraoperative handoffs on outcomes and (b) effect of intraoperative handoff tools on outcomes. All studies on intraoperative handoffs and handoff tools published until September 2019, in any study setting and population, and with no prespecified criteria on the type of comparison and outcome were included. Data extracted from the included studies were aggregated to identify common patterns related to the type of surgery, clinician(s) involved, patient population, handoff tool, the tool design approach (where relevant), tool implementation strategies, and finally, all reported clinical and process outcomes. Quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. All included studies used adult patients. Eight studies were retrospective cohort studies that used administrative or electronic health record (EHR)-based databases to investigate the effects of intraoperative handoffs on morbidity and mortality. These studies included a total of 680,855 surgeries, with 139,426 of these surgeries having at least 1 handoff (20.47%). Seven of the studies found a positive association between intraoperative handoffs and considered outcomes. However, a pooled meta-analysis across these studies was not feasible across the retrospective studies due to differing surgical populations and varying definitions of the considered outcomes. Six studies used a nonrandomized prospective design to evaluate the effects of handoff tools on process-based outcomes such as clinician satisfaction, information transfer, handoff duration, and adherence. Five of the 6 handoff tools were checklist based. All prospective tool-based studies relied on small samples and reported a significant improvement on the considered process-based outcomes. The median quality score among retrospective (median [interquartile range {IQR}] = 9 [1]) was significantly higher than that of prospective (median [IQR] = 5 [1.5]) studies (U = 21, P = .0017). This systematic review provides a unique appraisal of the current state of intraoperative handoff research. To improve the quality and outcomes of handoffs, future efforts should focus on design and implementation of standardized handoff tools integrated within EHR systems, consider the use of similar metrics for evaluating handoff process and clinical outcomes, and improve the execution and reporting of studies using standard protocols and guidelines.
Topics: Anesthesia; Humans; Intraoperative Care; Patient Handoff; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34032660
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005367