-
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2022Objective During the induction of gaseous anaesthesia, waste anaesthetic gases (WAGs) can be released into workplace air. Occupational exposure to high levels of... (Review)
Review
Objective During the induction of gaseous anaesthesia, waste anaesthetic gases (WAGs) can be released into workplace air. Occupational exposure to high levels of halogenated WAGs may lead to adverse health effects; hence, it is important to measure WAGs concentration levels to perform risk assessment and for health protection purposes. Methods A systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted on two different scientific databases (Scopus and PubMed). A total of 101 studies, focused on sevoflurane, desflurane and isoflurane exposures in hospitals, were included in this review. Key information was extracted to provide (1) a description of the study designs (e.g., monitoring methods, investigated occupational settings, anaesthetic gases in use); (2) an evaluation of time trends in the measured concentrations of considered WAGs; (3) a critical evaluation of the sampling strategies, monitoring methods and instruments used. Results Environmental monitoring was prevalent (68%) and mainly used for occupational exposure assessment during adult anaesthesia (84% of cases). Real-time techniques such as photoacoustic spectroscopy and infrared spectrophotometry were used in 58% of the studies, while off-line approaches such as active or passive sampling followed by GC-MS analysis were used less frequently (39%). Conclusions The combination of different instrumental techniques allowing the collection of data with different time resolutions was quite scarce (3%) despite the fact that this would give the opportunity to obtain reliable data for testing the compliance with 8 h occupational exposure limit values and at the same time to evaluate short-term exposures.
Topics: Anesthetics, Inhalation; Air Pollutants, Occupational; Operating Rooms; Occupational Exposure; Hospitals
PubMed: 36612837
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20010514 -
The Canadian Journal of Neurological... Mar 2015Our goal was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the use of modern inhalational anesthetic agents for refractory status epilepticus and their impact on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Our goal was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the use of modern inhalational anesthetic agents for refractory status epilepticus and their impact on seizure control.
METHODS
All articles from MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, Global Health, HealthStar, Scopus, Cochrane Library, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (inception to March 2014), reference lists of relevant articles, and gray literature were searched. The strength of evidence was adjudicated using both the Oxford and Grading of Recommendation Assessment Development and Education methodology by two independent reviewers.
RESULTS
Overall, 19 studies were identified, with 16 manuscripts and 3 meeting abstracts. A total of 46 patients were treated. Adult (n=28) and pediatric patients (n=18) displayed 92.9% and 94.4% seizure control with treatment, respectively. Isoflurane was used in the majority of cases. Hypotension was the only complication described.
CONCLUSIONS
Oxford level 4, Grading of Recommendation Assessment Development and Education D evidence exists to support the use of isoflurane in refractory status epilepticus to obtain burst suppression. Insufficient data exist to comment on the efficacy of desflurane and xenon at this time.
Topics: Adult; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Child; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Evidence-Based Medicine; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Status Epilepticus; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25572922
DOI: 10.1017/cjn.2014.121 -
Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical... 2017Esmolol has been shown to improve postoperative pain and reduce opioid requirements. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of perioperative... (Review)
Review
Esmolol has been shown to improve postoperative pain and reduce opioid requirements. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of perioperative esmolol as an adjunct on early postoperative pain intensity, recovery profile, and anesthetic requirement. Databases were searched for randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the effects of esmolol during general anesthesia. Primary outcomes were related to early postoperative pain whereas secondary outcomes were related to emergence time, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and intraoperative anesthetic requirement. Nineteen trials were identified involving 936 patients (esmolol = 470, placebo = 466). In esmolol group, numeric pain scores at rest in the immediate postoperative period were reduced by 1.16 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.97-0.35, = 96.7%) out of 10. Opioid consumption was also decreased in the postanesthesia care unit compared with placebo, mean difference of 5.1 mg (95% CI: 7.0-3.2, = 96.9%) morphine IV equivalents; a 69% reduction in opioid rescue dosing was noted (odds ratio [OR]: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.16-0.80, = 0.0%). A 61% reduction in postoperative nausea and vomiting was also evident (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.20-0.75, = 60.7%). A reduction in propofol induction dose was noted in the esmolol group (mean difference: -0.53 mg/kg, 95% CI: -0.63--0.44, = 0.0%). A decrease in end-tidal desflurane equivalent (mean difference: 1.70%, 95% CI: -2.39--1.02, = 92.0%) and intraoperative opioid usage (fentanyl equivalent, mean difference: 440 μg, 95% CI: -637--244, = 99.6%) was observed in esmolol group. Esmolol had no effect on the emergence time. Perioperative esmolol as an adjunct may reduce postoperative pain intensity, opioid consumption, and postoperative nausea vomiting. Given the heterogeneity, larger clinical trials are warranted to confirm these findings.
PubMed: 28413270
DOI: 10.4103/0970-9185.202182 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Feb 2015Desflurane's short emergence time supports fast track anaesthesia. Data on the rate of upper airway complications and emergence time when desflurane is used with... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Desflurane's short emergence time supports fast track anaesthesia. Data on the rate of upper airway complications and emergence time when desflurane is used with laryngeal mask airway (LMA) are controversial and limited.
OBJECTIVES
To compare recovery time variables and the rates of upper airway adverse events in patients with an LMA undergoing general surgery with desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search for eligible RCTs in Embase (Elsevier) and in PubMed (National Library of Medicine) databases up to September 2013.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
RCTs investigating the rates of cough overall, cough at emergence, laryngospasm, time to eye opening, time to removal of the LMA, time to respond to command and time to state date of birth in patients with an LMA, during emergence from desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs were included and analysed. We found a strong interstudy variability. There was no difference in the rates of upper airway events between desflurane and sevoflurane or between desflurane and a control group consisting of all the other anaesthetics combined. Comparing desflurane (n = 284) with all other anaesthetic groups (n = 313), the risk ratio [95% confidence interval (95% CI)] was 1.12 (0.63 to 2.02, P = 0.70). Cough at emergence was only measured in patients receiving desflurane (n = 148) and sevoflurane (n = 146): the risk ratio (95% CI) was 1.49 (0.55 to 4.02, P = 0.43). Laryngospasm was rare and there was no significant difference in its incidence when desflurane (n = 262) was compared with all other anaesthetics combined (n = 289; risk ratio 1.03; 95% CI 0.33 to 3.20, P = 0.96). The times of all emergence variables were significantly faster in the desflurane group than in all other groups.
CONCLUSION
When using an LMA, upper airway adverse reactions in association with desflurane anaesthesia were no different from those noted with sevoflurane, isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia. Emergence from general anaesthesia with desflurane is significantly faster than all the other anaesthetics. Due to interstudy variations and the small size of the trials, further large-scale, multicentre studies are required to confirm or refute the results of this meta-analysis.
Topics: Anesthesia Recovery Period; Anesthesia, General; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Cough; Desflurane; Humans; Isoflurane; Laryngeal Masks; Laryngismus; Methyl Ethers; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sevoflurane
PubMed: 25545286
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000183 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Aug 2017To compare the use of inhalation versus intravenous anaesthesia for adults undergoing on-pump or off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Inhalation versus intravenous anaesthesia for adults undergoing on-pump or off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
STUDY OBJECTIVE
To compare the use of inhalation versus intravenous anaesthesia for adults undergoing on-pump or off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.
DESIGN
A systematic review.
SETTING
A hospital-affiliated university.
MEASUREMENTS
The following databases were searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS (from inception to October 2016). We used the GRADE approach to rate overall certainty of the evidence.
RESULTS
In total we included 58 studies with a total of 6105 participants. The methodological quality was difficult to assess as it was poorly reported in 35 included studies (three or more domains were rated as unclear risk of bias). Two trials of sevoflurane showed a statistically significant reduction in death within 180 to 365days of surgery (on-pump) (RR 4.10, 95% CI 1.42 to 11.79; p=0.009; I=not applicable; high quality of evidence). There was also a statistically significant difference favouring sevoflurane compared to propofol on both inotropic (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.90; p<0.00001; I=0%) and vasoconstrictor support needed (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.22; p=0.03; I=0%) after coronary artery bypass grafting on-pump. Two trials of sevoflurane (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.03; p=0.02; I=0%) and two further trials of desflurane (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.20; p<0.00001; I=82%) showed a statistically significant difference on cardiac index during and after coronary artery bypass grafting on-pump, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
There is high quality evidence that sevoflurane reduces death within 180 to 365days of surgery and, inotropic and vasoconstrictor support compared to propofol for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. There is also some evidence showing that the cardiac index is minimally influenced by administration of sevoflurane and desflurane compared to propofol.
Topics: Anesthesia, Inhalation; Anesthesia, Intravenous; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Coronary Artery Bypass; Coronary Artery Bypass, Off-Pump; Humans; Methyl Ethers; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sevoflurane
PubMed: 28625437
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.05.010 -
PloS One 2020Common complications of pediatric strabismus surgery, including emergence agitation (EA), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and postoperative pain, may be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Common complications of pediatric strabismus surgery, including emergence agitation (EA), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and postoperative pain, may be prevented using dexmedetomidine, which is an anxiolytic and analgesic. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effects of dexmedetomidine in patients who had undergone pediatric strabismus surgery.
METHOD
Five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials published from database inception to April 2020 that compared dexmedetomidine use with placebo or active comparator use and evaluated EA, PONV, or postoperative pain incidence (main outcomes) in patients who had undergone pediatric strabismus surgery. Oculocardiac reflex (OCR) incidence and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay duration were considered as safety outcomes. All meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
In the nine studies meeting our inclusion criteria, compared with placebo use, dexmedetomidine use reduced EA incidence [risk ratio (RR): 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-0.62, I2 = 66%], severe EA incidence (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.17-0.43, I2 = 0%), PONV incidence (RR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.21-0.54, I2 = 0%), analgesia requirement (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.25-0.57, I2 = 0%), and pain scores (standardized mean difference: -1.02, 95% CI: -1.44 to -0.61, I2 = 75%). Dexmedetomidine also led to lower EA incidence in the sevoflurane group than in the desflurane group (RR: 0.26 for sevoflurane vs. 0.45 for desflurane). Continuous dexmedetomidine infusion (RR: 0.19) led to better EA incidence reduction than did bolus dexmedetomidine infusion at the end of surgery (RR: 0.26) or during the peri-induction period (RR: 0.36). Compared with placebo use, dexmedetomidine use reduced OCR incidence (RR: 0.63; I2 = 40%). No significant between-group differences were noted for PACU stay duration.
CONCLUSION
In patients who have undergone pediatric strabismus surgery, dexmedetomidine use may alleviate EA, PONV, and postoperative pain and reduce OCR incidence. Moreover, dexmedetomidine use does not affect the PACU stay duration.
Topics: Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anesthesia Recovery Period; Child; Child, Preschool; Dexmedetomidine; Female; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant; Male; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reflex, Oculocardiac; Strabismus
PubMed: 33045022
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240553 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Oct 2016Many studies have compared propofol-based anesthesia with inhalational anesthesia. Results from several studies have shown improved postoperative analgesia after... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many studies have compared propofol-based anesthesia with inhalational anesthesia. Results from several studies have shown improved postoperative analgesia after propofol anesthesia, but other studies showed contradictory results. There are no large prospective studies that compare postoperative pain after propofol versus inhalational anesthesia. This meta-analysis was designed to focus on this question.
METHODS
A systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials that compared propofol-based anesthesia with volatile agents-based anesthesia in adults undergoing surgery was conducted. Published data were pooled for the meta-analysis with Review Manager (ie, RevMan). The main outcomes included postoperative pain intensity, opioid consumption, need for rescue analgesics, and time to first analgesia.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine clinical trials with a combined subject population of 4520 patients came within the purview of this meta-analysis. The investigated volatile agents included isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane. Compared with inhalational anesthetics, the propofol use was associated with a reduced postoperative pain intensity at rest at 30 minutes, 1 hour, and 12 hours (mean difference in pain scores, 30 minutes, -0.48 [visual analog scale, 0-10]; 99% confidence interval [CI], -1.07 to 0.12, P = 0.04) and reduced morphine-equivalent consumption 0 to 24 hours postoperatively (mean difference in morphine-equivalent consumption, -2.68 mg; 99% CI, -6.17 to 0.82; P = 0.05). Fewer patients required postoperative rescue analgesics during 0 to 24 hours after surgery under propofol anesthesia (risk ratio, 0.87; 99% CI, 0.74-1.03; P = 0.04). In addition, patients anesthetized with propofol required administration of postoperative analgesia later than those anesthetized with volatiles (mean difference in time to first analgesic administration, 6.12 minutes; 99% CI, 0.02-12.21; P = 0.01). Considering that Z statistic in RevMan 5.3 does not perform optimally in highly heterogeneous samples among groups or many combinations of groups with small sample sizes, a P value of <.01 was considered statistically significant. On the basis of this threshold, none of the aforementioned results are statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS
The current results are affected by substantial heterogeneity, which makes it difficult to predict significant differences in postoperative pain control between propofol anesthesia and inhalational anesthesia. Further large, randomized controlled trials are needed to corroborate these results and to detect differences (if any) between propofol and inhalational anesthesia on postoperative pain.
Topics: Anesthetics, Inhalation; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Humans; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27636574
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001504 -
BMC Anesthesiology Nov 2018It is unclear if anaesthesia maintenance with propofol is advantageous or beneficial over inhalational agents. This study is intended to compare the effects of propofol... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is unclear if anaesthesia maintenance with propofol is advantageous or beneficial over inhalational agents. This study is intended to compare the effects of propofol vs. inhalational agents in maintaining general anaesthesia on patient-relevant outcomes and patient satisfaction.
METHODS
Studies were identified by electronic database searches in PubMed™, EMBASE™ and the Cochrane™ library between 01/01/1985 and 01/08/2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of peer-reviewed journals were studied. Of 6688 studies identified, 229 RCTs were included with a total of 20,991 patients. Quality control, assessment of risk of bias, meta-bias, meta-regression and certainty in evidence were performed according to Cochrane. Common estimates were derived from fixed or random-effects models depending on the presence of heterogeneity. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was the primary outcome. Post-operative pain, emergence agitation, time to recovery, hospital length of stay, post-anaesthetic shivering and haemodynamic instability were considered key secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
The risk for PONV was lower with propofol than with inhalational agents (relative risk (RR) 0.61 [0.53, 0.69], p < 0.00001). Additionally, pain score after extubation and time in the post-operative anaesthesia care unit (PACU) were reduced with propofol (mean difference (MD) - 0.51 [- 0.81, - 0.20], p = 0.001; MD - 2.91 min [- 5.47, - 0.35], p = 0.03). In turn, time to respiratory recovery and tracheal extubation were longer with propofol than with inhalational agents (MD 0.82 min [0.20, 1.45], p = 0.01; MD 0.70 min [0.03, 1.38], p = 0.04, respectively). Notably, patient satisfaction, as reported by the number of satisfied patients and scores, was higher with propofol (RR 1.06 [1.01, 1.10], p = 0.02; MD 0.13 [0.00, 0.26], p = 0.05). Secondary analyses supported the primary results.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the present meta-analysis there are several advantages of anaesthesia maintenance with propofol over inhalational agents. While these benefits result in an increased patient satisfaction, the clinical and economic relevance of these findings still need to be addressed in adequately powered prospective clinical trials.
Topics: Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Anesthesia, General; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Hospitalization; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30409186
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-018-0632-3 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Apr 2022Background: Volatile anesthetics were used as sedative agents in COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) invasively ventilated patients for their potentially beneficial... (Review)
Review
Background: Volatile anesthetics were used as sedative agents in COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) invasively ventilated patients for their potentially beneficial pharmacological effects and due to the temporary shortages of intravenous agents during the pandemic crisis. Methods: Online databases (PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial) and the “clinicaltrials.gov” website were searched for studies reporting the use of isoflurane, sevoflurane or desflurane. Results: We identified three manuscripts describing the beneficial effects of isoflurane on 41 COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in Germany (n = 2) and in the USA (n = 1), in terms of reduction in the use of opioids and other sedatives. We also found a case report of two patients with transient nephrogenic diabetes insipidus, which started after 6 and 8 days of sevoflurane sedation. We identified two randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 92 patients overall), two observational studies (238 patients) on the use of volatile anesthetics in COVID-19 patients that were completed but not yet published, and one RCT interrupted for a low recruitment ratio (19 patients) and thus not published. We also identified five ongoing RCTs on the use of inhaled sedation in ARDS, which are also likely to be recruiting COVID-19 patients and which have currently enrolled a total of >1643 patients. Conclusion: Isoflurane was the most frequently used volatile agent in COVID-19 patients and allowed a reduction in the use of other sedative and analgesic drugs. Randomized evidence is building up and will be useful to confirm or challenge these findings.
PubMed: 35566625
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092500 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2013This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2008.The technique called one-lung ventilation can confine bleeding or infection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2008.The technique called one-lung ventilation can confine bleeding or infection to one lung, prevent rupture of a lung cyst or, more commonly, facilitate surgical exposure of the unventilated lung. During one-lung ventilation, anaesthesia is maintained either by delivering an inhalation anaesthetic to the ventilated lung or by infusing an intravenous anaesthetic. It is possible that the method chosen to maintain anaesthesia may affect patient outcomes. Inhalation anaesthetics may impair hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction (HPV) and increase intrapulmonary shunt and hypoxaemia.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intravenous versus inhalation anaesthesia for one-lung ventilation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); The Cochrane Library (2012, Issue 11); MEDLINE (1966 to November 2012); EMBASE (1980 to November 2012); Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS, 1982 to November 2012) and ISI web of Science (1945 to November 2012), reference lists of identified trials and bibliographies of published reviews. We also contacted researchers in the field. No language restrictions were applied. The date of the most recent search was 19 November 2012. The original search was performed in June 2006.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials of intravenous (e.g. propofol) versus inhalation (e.g. isoflurane, sevoflurane, desflurane) anaesthesia for one-lung ventilation in both surgical and intensive care participants. We excluded studies of participants who had only one lung (i.e. pneumonectomy or congenital absence of one lung).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
We included in this updated review 20 studies that enrolled 850 participants, all of which assessed surgical participants-no studies investigated one-lung ventilation performed outside the operating theatre. No evidence indicated that the drug used to maintain anaesthesia during one-lung ventilation affected participant outcomes. The methodological quality of the included studies was difficult to assess as it was reported poorly, so the predominant classification of bias was 'unclear'.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Very little evidence from randomized controlled trials suggests differences in participant outcomes with anaesthesia maintained by intravenous versus inhalational anaesthesia during one-lung ventilation. If researchers believe that the type of drug used to maintain anaesthesia during one-lung ventilation is important, they should design randomized controlled trials with appropriate participant outcomes, rather than report temporary fluctuations in physiological variables.
Topics: Anesthesia, Inhalation; Anesthesia, Intravenous; Humans; One-Lung Ventilation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23846831
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006313.pub3