-
International Journal of Surgery... Jan 2023Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common neurological system disorder in surgical patients. The choice of anesthetic can potentially reduce POCD. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common neurological system disorder in surgical patients. The choice of anesthetic can potentially reduce POCD. The authors performed this network meta-analysis to compare different anesthetic drugs in reducing the incidence of POCD for elderly people undergoing noncardiac surgery. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science for randomized controlled trials comparing the different anesthetic drugs for noncardiac surgery in elderly from inception until July, 2022. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD#42020183014). A total of 34 trials involving 4314 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery in elderly were included. The incidence of POCD for each anesthetic drug was placebo (27.7%), dexmedetomidine (12.9%), ketamine (15.2%), propofol (16.8%), fentanyl (23.9%), midazolam (11.3%), sufentanil (6.3%), sevoflurane (24.0%), and desflurane (28.3%). Pairwise and network meta-analysis showed dexmedetomidine was significantly reducing the incidence of POCD when compared with placebo. Network meta-analysis also suggested dexmedetomidine was significantly reducing the incidence of POCD when compared with sevoflurane. Sufentanil and dexmedetomidine ranked the first and second in reducing the incidence of POCD with the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value of 87.4 and 81.5%. Sufentanil and dexmedetomidine had the greatest possibility to reduce the incidence of POCD for elderly people undergoing noncardiac surgery.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Sevoflurane; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Dexmedetomidine; Postoperative Cognitive Complications; Sufentanil; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36799783
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018The use of anaesthetics in the elderly surgical population (more than 60 years of age) is increasing. Postoperative delirium, an acute condition characterized by reduced... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of anaesthetics in the elderly surgical population (more than 60 years of age) is increasing. Postoperative delirium, an acute condition characterized by reduced awareness of the environment and a disturbance in attention, typically occurs between 24 and 72 hours after surgery and can affect up to 60% of elderly surgical patients. Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a new-onset of cognitive impairment which may persist for weeks or months after surgery.Traditionally, surgical anaesthesia has been maintained with inhalational agents. End-tidal concentrations require adjustment to balance the risks of accidental awareness and excessive dosing in elderly people. As an alternative, propofol-based total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) offers a more rapid recovery and reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting. Using TIVA with a target controlled infusion (TCI) allows plasma and effect-site concentrations to be calculated using an algorithm based on age, gender, weight and height of the patient.TIVA is a viable alternative to inhalational maintenance agents for surgical anaesthesia in elderly people. However, in terms of postoperative cognitive outcomes, the optimal technique is unknown.
OBJECTIVES
To compare maintenance of general anaesthesia for elderly people undergoing non-cardiac surgery using propofol-based TIVA or inhalational anaesthesia on postoperative cognitive function, mortality, risk of hypotension, length of stay in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU), and hospital stay.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2017), Embase (1974 to November 2017), PsycINFO (1887 to November 2017). We searched clinical trials registers for ongoing studies, and conducted backward and forward citation searching of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with participants over 60 years of age scheduled for non-cardiac surgery under general anaesthesia. We planned to also include quasi-randomized trials. We compared maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol-based TIVA versus inhalational maintenance of anaesthesia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and synthesized findings.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 28 RCTs with 4507 randomized participants undergoing different types of surgery (predominantly cardiovascular, laparoscopic, abdominal, orthopaedic and ophthalmic procedures). We found no quasi-randomized trials. Four studies are awaiting classification because we had insufficient information to assess eligibility.All studies compared maintenance with propofol-based TIVA versus inhalational maintenance of anaesthesia. Six studies were multi-arm and included additional TIVA groups, additional inhalational maintenance or both. Inhalational maintenance agents included sevoflurane (19 studies), isoflurane (eight studies), and desflurane (three studies), and was not specified in one study (reported as an abstract). Some studies also reported use of epidural analgesia/anaesthesia, fentanyl and remifentanil.We found insufficient reporting of randomization methods in many studies and all studies were at high risk of performance bias because it was not feasible to blind anaesthetists to study groups. Thirteen studies described blinding of outcome assessors. Three studies had a high of risk of attrition bias, and we noted differences in the use of analgesics between groups in six studies, and differences in baseline characteristics in five studies. Few studies reported clinical trials registration, which prevented assessment of risk of selective reporting bias.We found no evidence of a difference in incidences of postoperative delirium according to type of anaesthetic maintenance agents (odds ratio (OR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 2.26; 321 participants; five studies; very low-certainty evidence); we noted during sensitivity analysis that using different time points in one study may influence direction of this result. Thirteen studies (3215 participants) reported POCD, and of these, six studies reported data that could not be pooled; we noted no difference in scores of POCD in four of these and in one study, data were at a time point incomparable to other studies. We excluded one large study from meta-analysis because study investigators had used non-standard anaesthetic management and this study was not methodologically comparable to other studies. We combined data for seven studies and found low-certainty evidence that TIVA may reduce POCD (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.87; 869 participants).We found no evidence of a difference in mortality at 30 days (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.45; 271 participants; three studies; very low-certainty evidence). Twelve studies reported intraoperative hypotension. We did not perform meta-analysis for 11 studies for this outcome. We noted visual inconsistencies in these data, which may be explained by possible variation in clinical management and medication used to manage hypotension in each study (downgraded to low-certainty evidence); one study reported data in a format that could not be combined and we noted little or no difference between groups in intraoperative hypotension for this study. Eight studies reported length of stay in the PACU, and we did not perform meta-analysis for seven studies. We noted visual inconsistencies in these data, which may be explained by possible differences in definition of time points for this outcome (downgraded to very low-certainty evidence); data were unclearly reported in one study. We found no evidence of a difference in length of hospital stay according to type of anaesthetic maintenance agent (mean difference (MD) 0 days, 95% CI -1.32 to 1.32; 175 participants; four studies; very low-certainty evidence).We used the GRADE approach to downgrade the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Reasons for downgrading included: study limitations, because some included studies insufficiently reported randomization methods, had high attrition bias, or high risk of selective reporting bias; imprecision, because we found few studies; inconsistency, because we noted heterogeneity across studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain whether maintenance with propofol-based TIVA or with inhalational agents affect incidences of postoperative delirium, mortality, or length of hospital stay because certainty of the evidence was very low. We found low-certainty evidence that maintenance with propofol-based TIVA may reduce POCD. We were unable to perform meta-analysis for intraoperative hypotension or length of stay in the PACU because of heterogeneity between studies. We identified 11 ongoing studies from clinical trials register searches; inclusion of these studies in future review updates may provide more certainty for the review outcomes.
Topics: Aged; Anesthesia, Inhalation; Anesthesia, Intravenous; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Cognition; Cognition Disorders; Delirium; Desflurane; Humans; Hypotension; Isoflurane; Methyl Ethers; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sevoflurane; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 30129968
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012317.pub2 -
Medicine Sep 2016The differences in the incidence and severity of emergence agitation (EA) and emergence times between desflurane and sevoflurane anesthesia have not been as clearly... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The differences in the incidence and severity of emergence agitation (EA) and emergence times between desflurane and sevoflurane anesthesia have not been as clearly elucidated in children as in adults.
METHODS
The design of the study is a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The study methodology is based on the Cochrane Review Methods. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify clinical trials comparing the incidence or severity of EA and emergence times in children anesthetized with desflurane or sevoflurane. Two reviewers independently assessed each study according to predefined inclusion criteria and extracted data from each study using a prespecified data extraction form. The data from each study were combined using a fixed effect or random effect model to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Funnel plots were used to assess publication bias. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the 1196 patients in these 14 studies, 588 received desflurane anesthesia and 608 received sevoflurane anesthesia. The incidence of EA was comparable between the 2 groups (pooled RR = 1.21; 95% CI: 0.96-1.53; I = 26%), and so was the severity of EA (EA score) between the 2 groups (SMD = 0.12; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.27; I = 0%). Extubation and awakening times were shorter in the desflurane group than in the sevoflurane group; the weighted mean differences were -2.21 (95% CI: -3.62 to -0.81; I = 93%) and -2.74 (95% CI: -3.80 to -1.69; I = 85%), respectively. No publication bias was found in the funnel plot. The subgroup analysis based on the type of EA scale showed a higher incidence of EA in the desflurane group than in the sevoflurane group in studies using 3-, 4-, or 5-point EA scales; the pooled RR was 1.38 (95% CI: 1.10-1.73; I = 37%).
CONCLUSION
The incidence and severity of EA were comparable between desflurane and sevoflurane anesthesia in children; however, emergence times, including extubation and awakening times, were shorter in desflurane anesthesia.
Topics: Adolescent; Anesthesia, Inhalation; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Child; Child, Preschool; Desflurane; Emergence Delirium; Humans; Incidence; Isoflurane; Methyl Ethers; Sevoflurane; Time Factors
PubMed: 27661046
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004927 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Mar 2021Whether propofol elicits a survival benefit over volatile anesthetics during cancer surgery remains inconclusive. The primary aim of this systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Whether propofol elicits a survival benefit over volatile anesthetics during cancer surgery remains inconclusive. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the effects of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with any volatile anesthesia on long-term oncological outcomes. The secondary aim is to compare propofol-based TIVA with specific volatile agents on long-term oncological outcomes.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception through March 3, 2020. Randomized control trials and observational studies that compared the effects of propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthesia on long-term oncological outcomes, which also reported hazard ratios (HR) as effect estimates, were considered eligible for inclusion. Using the inverse variance method with a random-effects model, HR and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Trial sequential analysis was incorporated to test if the results were subject to a type I or type II error.
RESULTS
Nineteen retrospective observational studies were included. Patients who received propofol-based TIVA during cancer surgery were associated with significantly better overall survival than those who received volatile anesthesia (HR = 0.79, 95% CI, 0.66-0.94, P = .008, I2 = 82%). In contrast, no statistically significant difference was observed in recurrence-free survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthesia during cancer surgery (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.61-1.07, P = .137, I2 = 85%). In the subgroup analysis by different volatile anesthetics, patients who received propofol-based TIVA were associated with better overall survival than those who received desflurane (HR = 0.54, 95% CI, 0.36-0.80, P = .003, I2 = 80%). In contrast, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and those who received sevoflurane (HR = 0.92, 95% CI, 0.74-1.14, P = .439, I2 = 70%). In the trial sequential analysis of overall survival, the cumulative Z curve reached the required heterogeneity-adjusted information size and crossed the traditional significance boundary. In contrast, in the trial sequential analysis of recurrence-free survival, the cumulative Z curve did not cross the traditional significance boundary. However, the required heterogeneity-adjusted information size has not yet been reached.
CONCLUSIONS
Propofol-based TIVA is generally associated with better overall survival than volatile anesthesia during cancer surgery. Further large-scaled, high-quality randomized control trials are warranted to confirm our findings.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Intravenous; Aged; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasms; Progression-Free Survival; Propofol; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 33105278
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005237 -
The British Journal of Surgery Sep 2022Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques are considered the gold standard of surgical interventions, but they have a high environmental cost. With global...
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques are considered the gold standard of surgical interventions, but they have a high environmental cost. With global temperatures rising and unmet surgical needs persisting, this review investigates the carbon and material footprint of MIS and summarizes strategies to make MIS greener.
METHODS
The MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases were interrogated between 1974 and July 2021. The search strategy encompassed surgical setting, waste, carbon footprint, environmental sustainability, and MIS. Two investigators independently performed abstract/full-text reviews. An analysis of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted per ton of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) or waste produced was generated.
RESULTS
From the 2456 abstracts identified, 16 studies were selected reporting on 5203 MIS procedures. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions ranged from 6 kg to 814 kg CO2e per case. Carbon footprint hotspots included production of disposables and anaesthetics. The material footprint of MIS ranged from 0.25 kg to 14.3 kg per case. Waste-reduction strategies included repackaging disposables, limiting open and unused instruments, and educational interventions. Robotic procedures result in 43.5 per cent higher GHG emissions, 24 per cent higher waste production, fewer DALYs averted per ton of CO2, and less waste than laparoscopic alternatives.
CONCLUSION
The increased environmental impact of robotic surgery may not sufficiently offset the clinical benefit. Utilizing alternative surgical approaches, reusable equipment, repackaging, surgeon preference cards, and increasing staff awareness on open and unused equipment and desflurane avoidance can reduce GHG emissions and waste.
Topics: Carbon Dioxide; Carbon Footprint; Greenhouse Gases; Humans; Laparoscopy; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 35726503
DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znac191 -
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 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Mar 2004In this systematic review we focused on postoperative recovery and complications using four different anesthetic techniques. The database MEDLINE was searched via PubMed... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
UNLABELLED
In this systematic review we focused on postoperative recovery and complications using four different anesthetic techniques. The database MEDLINE was searched via PubMed (1966 to June 2002) using the search words "anesthesia" and with ambulatory surgical procedures limited to randomized controlled trials in adults (>19 yr), in the English language, and in humans. A second search strategy was used combining two of the words "propofol," "isoflurane," "sevoflurane," or "desflurane". Screening and data extraction produced 58 articles that were included in the final meta-analysis. No differences were found between propofol and isoflurane in early recovery. However, early recovery was faster with desflurane compared with propofol and isoflurane and with sevoflurane compared with isoflurane. A minor difference was found in home readiness between sevoflurane and isoflurane (5 min) but not among the other anesthetics. Nausea, vomiting, headache, and postdischarge nausea and vomiting incidence were in favor of propofol compared with isoflurane (P < 0.05). A larger number of patients in the inhaled anesthesia groups required antiemetics compared with the propofol group. We conclude that the differences in early recovery times among the different anesthetics were small and in favor of the inhaled anesthetics. The incidence of side effects, specifically postoperative nausea and vomiting, was less frequent with propofol.
IMPLICATIONS
A systematic analysis of the literature comparing postoperative recovery after propofol, isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane-based anesthesia in adults demonstrated that early recovery was faster in the desflurane and sevoflurane groups. The incidence of nausea and vomiting were less frequent with propofol.
Topics: Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Anesthesia Recovery Period; Anesthesia, Inhalation; Anesthesia, Intravenous; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Desflurane; Humans; Isoflurane; Methyl Ethers; Propofol; Sevoflurane
PubMed: 14980911
DOI: 10.1213/01.ane.0000103187.70627.57 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Dec 2020An increasing number of studies have concluded that the number of adverse events in the upper airway caused by desflurane does not differ significantly from the number... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
An increasing number of studies have concluded that the number of adverse events in the upper airway caused by desflurane does not differ significantly from the number of adverse events caused by sevoflurane. The advantages of desflurane in ambulatory surgery should be reassessed.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to compare adverse respiratory events and recovery outcomes in patients undergoing desflurane or sevoflurane-based anaesthesia in ambulatory surgery.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search for eligible RCTs in PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ScienceDirect and Embase published up to June 2019.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
RCTs investigating the occurrence of adverse respiratory events, including airway irritation, stridor, coughing, respiratory distress and laryngospasm, emergence agitation, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), time to eye opening and time to discharge from the operation room after desflurane or sevoflurane-based anaesthesia.
RESULTS
Thirteen trials were included and analysed. A total of 634 patients were included in the desflurane group, and 633 patients in the sevoflurane group. The occurrence of respiratory complications was significantly higher with desflurane-based anaesthesia than with sevoflurane-based anaesthesia (Total n = 673, 20.0 vs. 12.8%, relative risk (RR) 1.59 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.20)) with low heterogeneity (I = 20%). There was no difference in the occurrence of emergence agitation (Total n = 626, 29.1 vs. 27.2%, RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.30)) or the incidence of PONV between the desflurane and sevoflurane groups (Total n = 989, 19.0 vs. 21.0%, RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.26)). Time to eye opening was significantly faster with desflurane than that with sevoflurane (Total n = 1072, mean difference = -3.32 min (95% CI -4.02 to -2.61)) with a substantial heterogeneity (I = 72.6%). There was no significant difference in the time to discharge from the operation room between the two groups (Total n = 1056, mean difference = -0.45 min (95% CI -5.89 to 4.99)).
CONCLUSION
Despite recent reports that there is no significant difference in adverse respiratory events between desflurane and sevoflurane, a pooled analysis revealed that desflurane resulted in a higher rate than sevoflurane. Therefore, the consequences of desflurane should not be neglected and its airway irritant properties should be taken into account.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42019147939).
Topics: Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Anesthesia Recovery Period; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Desflurane; Humans; Isoflurane; Methyl Ethers; Sevoflurane
PubMed: 33109925
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001375 -
The Laryngoscope Jan 2016Drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) is used to determine surgical therapy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA); however, the effects of anesthesia on the upper airway are... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS
Drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) is used to determine surgical therapy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA); however, the effects of anesthesia on the upper airway are poorly understood. Our aim was to systematically review existing literature on the effects of anesthetic agents on the upper airway.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, CINAHL, EBM reviews and Scopus (all indexed years).
REVIEW METHODS
Inclusion criteria included English language articles containing original human data. Two investigators independently reviewed all articles for outcomes related to upper airway morphology, dynamics, neuromuscular response, and respiratory control.
RESULTS
The initial search yielded 180 abstracts; 56 articles were ultimately included (total population = 8,540). The anesthetic agents studied were: topical lidocaine, propofol, dexmedetomidine, midazolam, pentobarbital, sevoflurane, desflurane, ketamine, and opioids. Outcome measures were diverse and included imaging studies, genioglossus electromyography, endoscopic airway assessment, polysomnography, upper airway closing pressure, and clinical evidence of obstruction. All agents caused some degrees of airway collapse. Dexmedetomidine did not have dose-dependent effects when evaluated using cine magnetic resonance imaging, unlike sevoflurane, isoflurane, and propofol, and caused less dynamic collapse than propofol.
CONCLUSIONS
Studies assessing the effect of anesthesia on the upper airway in patients with and without OSA are limited, and few compare effects between agents. Medications with minimal effect on respiratory control (e.g., dexmedetomidine) may work best for DISE.
Topics: Airway Resistance; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics; Humans; Larynx; Pharynx; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive
PubMed: 26198715
DOI: 10.1002/lary.25399 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Dec 2021This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at assessing the effects of two commonly used anesthetics in general anesthesia (GA), sevoflurane and desflurane, on early... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Sevoflurane versus desflurane for early postoperative vomiting after general anesthesia in hospitalized adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
STUDY OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at assessing the effects of two commonly used anesthetics in general anesthesia (GA), sevoflurane and desflurane, on early postoperative vomiting (POV) in hospitalized adults.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
SETTING
Early postoperative vomiting after GA.
PATIENTS
A total of 266 adult patients receiving inpatient surgeries under GA maintained with sevoflurane or desflurane.
INTERVENTIONS
We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ScienceDirect, and Embase for eligible RCTs comparing postoperative outcomes following sevoflurane- or desflurane-maintained anesthesia.
MEASUREMENTS
The primary outcome was early POV. Secondary outcomes included late POV, early and late postoperative nausea (PON), time to extubation, and emergence time.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight trials were included. There was no significant difference in the risk of early POV (risk ratio [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.64, p = 0.91). No significant difference in early PON was observed (RR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.77-1.56; p = 0.62). Nevertheless, the incidence of late POV and late PON were significantly lower in the sevoflurane group than that in the desflurane group (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23-0.94, p = 0.03; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24-0.84, p = 0.01, respectively). The extubation time was longer in the sevoflurane group than in the desflurane group (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.56, 95% CI 0.14-0.97, p = 0.009). The emergence time of patients in the sevoflurane group was longer than that in those receiving desflurane (SMD 0.76, 95% CI 0.1-1.42, p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
Desflurane had the same effects on early POV and early PON as sevoflurane. However, the association between late POV and late PON with desflurane was stronger than that with sevoflurane if the effects of opioids were not considered. The desflurane group had shorter time to extubation and emergence time than the sevoflurane group. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020218988.
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia Recovery Period; Anesthesia, General; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Desflurane; Humans; Isoflurane; Methyl Ethers; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sevoflurane
PubMed: 34311245
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2021.110464