-
JAMA Neurology May 2024Multiple continuous intravenous anesthetic drugs (CIVADs) are available for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus (RSE). There is a paucity of data comparing...
IMPORTANCE
Multiple continuous intravenous anesthetic drugs (CIVADs) are available for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus (RSE). There is a paucity of data comparing the different types of CIVADs used for RSE.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and compare outcome measures associated with the initial CIVAD choice in RSE in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
Data sources included English and non-English articles using Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Web of Science (January 1994-June 2023) as well as manual search. Study selection included peer-reviewed studies of 5 or more patients and at least 1 patient older than 12 years with status epilepticus refractory to a benzodiazepine and at least 1 standard antiseizure medication, treated with continuously infused midazolam, ketamine, propofol, pentobarbital, or thiopental. Independent extraction of articles was performed using prespecified data items. The association between outcome variables and CIVAD was examined with an analysis of variance or χ2 test where appropriate. Binary logistic regressions were used to examine the association between outcome variables and CIVAD with etiology, change in mortality over time, electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring (continuous vs intermittent), and treatment goal (seizure vs burst suppression) included as covariates. Risk of bias was addressed by listing the population and type of each study.
FINDINGS
A total of 66 studies with 1637 patients were included. Significant differences among CIVAD groups in short-term failure, hypotension, and CIVAD substitution during treatment were observed. Non-epilepsy-related RSE (vs epilepsy-related RSE) was associated with a higher rate of CIVAD substitution (60 of 120 [50.0%] vs 11 of 43 [25.6%]; odds ratio [OR], 3.11; 95% CI, 1.44-7.11; P = .006) and mortality (98 of 227 [43.2%] vs 7 of 63 [11.1%]; OR, 17.0; 95% CI, 4.71-109.35; P < .001). Seizure suppression was associated with mortality (OR, 7.72; 95% CI, 1.77-39.23; P = .005), but only a small subgroup was available for analysis (seizure suppression: 17 of 22 [77.3%] from 3 publications vs burst suppression: 25 of 98 [25.5%] from 12 publications). CIVAD choice and EEG type were not predictors of mortality. Earlier publication year was associated with mortality, although the observation was no longer statistically significant after adjusting SEs for clustering.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Epilepsy-related RSE was associated with lower mortality compared with other RSE etiologies. A trend of decreasing mortality over time was observed, which may suggest an effect of advances in neurocritical care. The overall data are heterogeneous, which limits definitive conclusions on the choice of optimal initial CIVAD in RSE treatment.
Topics: Humans; Status Epilepticus; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Anticonvulsants
PubMed: 38466294
DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2024.0108 -
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders Mar 2024Postoperative delirium is a common and debilitating complication that significantly affects patients and their families. The purpose of this study is to investigate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Postoperative delirium is a common and debilitating complication that significantly affects patients and their families. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether there is an effective sedative that can prevent postoperative delirium while also examining the safety of using sedatives during the perioperative period.
METHODS
The net-meta analysis was used to compare the incidence of postoperative delirium among four sedatives: sevoflurane, propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam. Interventions were ranked according to their surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).
RESULTS
A total of 41 RCT studies involving 6679 patients were analyzed. Dexmedetomidine can effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium than propofol (OR 0.47 95% CI 0.25-0.90), midazolam (OR 0.42 95% CI 0.17-1.00), normal saline (OR 0.42 95% CI 0.33-0.54) and sevoflurane (OR 0.39 95% CI 0.18-0.82). The saline group showed a significantly lower incidence of bradycardia compared to the group receiving dexmedetomidine (OR 0.55 95% CI 0.37-0.80). In cardiac surgery, midazolam (OR 3.34 95%CI 2.04-5.48) and normal saline (OR 2.27 95%CI 1.17-4.39) had a higher rate of postoperative delirium than dexmedetomidine, while in non-cardiac surgery, normal saline (OR 1.98 95%CI 1.44-2.71) was more susceptible to postoperative delirium than dexmedetomidine.
CONCLUSION
Our analysis suggests that dexmedetomidine is an effective sedative in preventing postoperative delirium whether in cardiac surgery or non-cardiac surgery. The preventive effect of dexmedetomidine on postoperative delirium becomes more apparent with longer surgical and extubation times. However, it should be administered with caution as it was found to be associated with bradycardia.
Topics: Humans; Anesthetics; Bradycardia; Dexmedetomidine; Emergence Delirium; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Propofol; Saline Solution; Sevoflurane; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 38448835
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-024-03783-5 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jun 2024Propofol has a favourable efficacy profile in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, however adverse events remain frequent. Emerging evidence supports remimazolam use... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Propofol has a favourable efficacy profile in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, however adverse events remain frequent. Emerging evidence supports remimazolam use in gastrointestinal endoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares remimazolam and propofol, both combined with a short-acting opioid, for sedation of adults in gastrointestinal endoscopy.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials comparing efficacy-, safety-, and satisfaction-related outcomes between remimazolam and propofol, both combined with short-acting opioids, for sedation of adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We performed sensitivity analyses, subgroup assessments by type of short-acting opioid used and age range, and meta-regression analysis using mean patient age as a covariate. We used R statistical software for statistical analyses.
RESULTS
We included 15 trials (4516 subjects). Remimazolam was associated with a significantly lower sedation success rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.991; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.984-0.998; high-quality evidence) and a slightly longer induction time (mean difference [MD] 9 s; 95% CI 4-13; moderate-quality evidence), whereas there was no significant difference between the sedatives in other time-related outcomes. Remimazolam was associated with significantly lower rates of respiratory depression (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.30-0.56; high-quality evidence), hypotension (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.35-0.51; moderate-quality evidence), hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.12-0.52; high-quality evidence), and bradycardia (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.30-0.58; high-quality evidence). There was no difference in patient (MD 0.41; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence) and endoscopist satisfaction (MD -0.31; 95% CI -0.65 to 0.04; high-quality evidence) between both drugs.
CONCLUSIONS
Remimazolam has clinically similar efficacy and greater safety when compared with propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopies.
Topics: Humans; Benzodiazepines; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38443286
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2024.02.005 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Jun 2024Ciprofol, a newer entrant with similarities to propofol, has shown promise with a potentially improved safety profile, making it an attractive alternative for induction... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ciprofol, a newer entrant with similarities to propofol, has shown promise with a potentially improved safety profile, making it an attractive alternative for induction of general anesthesia. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared with propofol during general anesthesia induction.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Clinical Trial.gov, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to July 2023 to identify relevant studies. All statistical analyses were conducted using R statistical software version 4.1.2.
RESULTS
Thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) encompassing a total of 1998 participants, were included in our analysis. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for postoperative hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Ciprofol is not inferior to Propofol in terms of its effectiveness in general anesthesia. Ciprofol emerges as a valuable alternative sedative with fewer side effects, especially reduced injection pain, when compared to Propofol.
SUMMARY
Propofol, frequently utilized as an anesthetic, provides swift onset and quick recovery. However, it has drawbacks such as a narrow effective dosage range and a high occurrence of adverse effects, particularly pain upon injection. Ciprofol, a more recent drug with propofol-like properties, has demonstrated promise and may have an improved safety profile, making it a compelling alternative for inducing general anesthesia. This meta-analysis compared the safety and effectiveness of Ciprofol with Propofol for general anesthesia induction in a range of medical procedures, encompassing thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and 1998 individuals. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia. In conclusion, ciprofol is equally effective at inducing and maintaining general anesthesia as propofol. When compared to propofol, ciprofol is a better alternative sedative for operations including fiberoptic bronchoscopy, gynecological procedures, gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and elective surgeries because it has less adverse effects, most notably less painful injections.
Topics: Humans; Anesthesia, General; Bradycardia; Hypertension; Hypotension; Pain; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tachycardia; Anesthetics, Intravenous
PubMed: 38412619
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111425 -
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 -
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 -
Heliyon Jan 2024of Review: This evidence-based systematic review evaluated the safety of ketamine as regard the potential to provoke epilepsy to help better guide anesthesiologists in...
PURPOSE
of Review: This evidence-based systematic review evaluated the safety of ketamine as regard the potential to provoke epilepsy to help better guide anesthesiologists in their practice.
RECENT FINDINGS
Ketamine, originally developed as a dissociative anesthetic, has gained attention for its potential therapeutic applications in various medical conditions, including epilepsy. Ketamine is generally well-tolerated and widely used in anesthesia, however, conflicting data are confusing the anesthesiologists regarding the potential risk of seizures associated with its use. The literature that claimed the proepileeptic property are inconsistent and the mechanism of action is unclear. Moreover, the case reports had been in same certain contexts, such as procedural sedation where ketamine was used as a single agent. On the other hand, the retrospective data analysis confirmed the positive role ketamine plays as antiepileptic agent.
SUMMARY
Many studies have shown promising results for the use of ketamine as antiepileptic agent. In case of epileptic patients, there is no contraindication for using ketamine, however, combining with benzodiazepine or propofol may enhance the safety.
PubMed: 38293492
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24433 -
Journal of Psychiatric Research Mar 2024Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is one of the most effective treatments for major depressive disorder. Modern ECT is conducted with anesthesia, however, the optimal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is one of the most effective treatments for major depressive disorder. Modern ECT is conducted with anesthesia, however, the optimal anesthetic agent for ECT is yet to be understood. This study is aimed to compare the effects of different anesthetic agents on antidepressant efficacy and tolerability in depressed individuals undergoing ECT. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the CENTRAL and PsycINFO for randomized controlled trials from database inception until Nov 13, 2022 (PROSPERO: CRD42022375407). Global and local inconsistencies, heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed. Rankings were calculated with the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. A total of 33 studies involving 1898 patients were enrolled. Remission rates were higher for ketamine anesthesia as compared to adjunctive ketamine and propofol. In terms of ranking, ketamine was found to be first in terms of response/remission rates and depressive scores after the 1st, 3rd and 6th ECT and at the end of ECT session, while a higher incidence of adverse events was also observed. No significant advantage of any anesthetic was revealed for the cognitive function after ECT. In summary, based on current evidence, no specific anesthetic is recommended for ECT anesthesia. However, despite more side effects, ketamine monoanesthesia seems to reveal a potential benefit in improving antidepressant efficacy of ECT, and further studies are needed to investigate the relationship between anesthetic agents and the therapeutic effect of ECT.
Topics: Humans; Depressive Disorder, Major; Electroconvulsive Therapy; Ketamine; Network Meta-Analysis; Anesthetics; Antidepressive Agents; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38271762
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.01.031 -
European Journal of Clinical... Apr 2024Propofol has become the sedative of choice for endoscopy and colonoscopy. However, it has shown associations with various adverse effects, specifically in the geriatric... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Propofol has become the sedative of choice for endoscopy and colonoscopy. However, it has shown associations with various adverse effects, specifically in the geriatric population. In contrast, remimazolam is a novel benzodiazepine, demonstrating a superior clinical safety profile. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to clarify the efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol in elderly patients (≥ 60 years) undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic and colonoscopy procedures.
METHODS
Electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were explored from inception till January 7, 2024. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials (RoB-2) was utilized to evaluate the quality of each included study reported in this meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Seven randomized control trials were included, resulting in the pooling of 1,466 patients (remimazolam: 731 patients; propofol: 735 patients). Propofol demonstrated a significantly lower time to loss of consciousness (P < 0.00001, 4 studies, 784 patients) and a greater sedation success after first dose (P = 0.05, 5 studies, 1,271 patients). Remimazolam reported a significantly lower risk of bradycardia (P = 0.02, 5 studies, 1,323 patients), hypoxemia (P < 0.00001, 6 studies, 1,389 patients), and pain on injection site (P < 0.00001, 5 studies, 1,184 patients). No statistically significant differences in sedation time, number of supplemental doses, procedural parameters, and other adverse outcomes were reported.
CONCLUSION
As per the results of our analyses, propofol demonstrated comparatively superior efficacy, however, remimazolam demonstrated comparatively superior safety. The debatable evidence generated from this meta-analysis may not currently be powerful enough to advocate for the use of remimazolam in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal procedures; hence, further comprehensive studies are necessary in order to arrive at a robust conclusion.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Benzodiazepines; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Colonoscopy
PubMed: 38261005
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-024-03624-6 -
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