-
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 -
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 Pharmacogenomics Journal Dec 2021Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform...
Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform anesthesia and pain prescribing to identify clinically actionable drug/gene pairs. Clinical decision-support (CDS) summaries were developed and were evaluated using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. We found that 93/180 (51%) of commonly-used perioperative medications had some published pharmacogenomic information, with 18 having actionable evidence: celecoxib/diclofenac/flurbiprofen/ibuprofen/piroxicam/CYP2C9, codeine/oxycodone/tramadol CYP2D6, desflurane/enflurane/halothane/isoflurane/sevoflurane/succinylcholine/RYR1/CACNA1S, diazepam/CYP2C19, phenytoin/CYP2C9, succinylcholine/mivacurium/BCHE, and morphine/OPRM1. Novel CDS summaries were developed for these 18 medications. AGREE II mean ± standard deviation scores were high for Scope and Purpose (95.0 ± 2.8), Rigor of Development (93.2 ± 2.8), Clarity of Presentation (87.3 ± 3.0), and Applicability (86.5 ± 3.7) (maximum score = 100). Overall mean guideline quality score was 6.7 ± 0.2 (maximum score = 7). All summaries were recommended for clinical implementation. A critical mass of pharmacogenomic evidence exists for select medications commonly used in the perioperative setting, warranting prospective examination for clinical utility.
Topics: Analgesics; Anesthetics; Clinical Decision-Making; Decision Support Techniques; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Perioperative Care; Pharmacogenetics; Pharmacogenomic Testing; Pharmacogenomic Variants; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34376788
DOI: 10.1038/s41397-021-00248-2 -
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 -
American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy Sep 2021Previous studies and meta analyses have led to incongruent and incomplete results respectively when total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and inhalational anesthesia (IA)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Previous studies and meta analyses have led to incongruent and incomplete results respectively when total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and inhalational anesthesia (IA) are compared in endoscopic sinus surgeries in regards to intraoperative bleeding and visibility.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a more comprehensive meta-analysis on randomized controlled trial (RCTs) comparing TIVA with IA in endoscopic sinus surgery to evaluate their effects on intraoperative bleeding and visibility.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing TIVA and IA in endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis was completed in May 2020. Utilizing databases, articles were systematically screened for analysis and 19 studies met our inclusion criteria. The primary outcome included intraoperative visibility scores combining Boezaart, Wormald and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included rate of blood loss (mL/kg/min), estimated total blood loss (mL), Boezaart, Wormald scores, VAS, heart rate, and mean arterial pressure (MAP).
RESULTS
19 RCTs with 1,010 patients were analyzed. TIVA had a significantly lower intraoperative bleeding score indicating better endoscopic visibility (Boezaart, VAS, and Wormald) than IA (-0.514, p = 0.020). IA had a significantly higher average rate of blood loss than TIVA by 0.563 mL/kg/min (p = 0.016). Estimated total blood loss was significantly lower in TIVA than IA (-0.853 mL, p = 0.002). There were no significant differences between TIVA and IA in the mean heart rate (-0.225, p = 0.63) and MAP values (-0.126, p = 0.634). The subgroup analyses revealed no significant difference between TIVA and IA when remifentanil was not utilized and whenever desflurane was the IA agent.
CONCLUSION
TIVA seemed to have superior intraoperative visibility scores and blood loss during endoscopic sinus surgery when compared to IA. However, the results are not consistent when stratifying the results based on the use of remifentanil and different inhaled anesthetics. Therefore, the conclusion cannot be made that one approach is superior to the other.
Topics: Anesthesia, Inhalation; Anesthesia, Intravenous; Blood Loss, Surgical; Endoscopy; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sinusitis
PubMed: 33478255
DOI: 10.1177/1945892421989155 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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