-
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 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2014Sevoflurane is an inhaled volatile anaesthetic that is widely used in paediatric anaesthetic practice. Since its introduction, postoperative behavioural disturbance... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sevoflurane is an inhaled volatile anaesthetic that is widely used in paediatric anaesthetic practice. Since its introduction, postoperative behavioural disturbance known as emergence agitation (EA) or emergence delirium (ED) has been recognized as a problem that may occur during recovery from sevoflurane anaesthesia. For the purpose of this systematic review, EA has been used to describe this clinical entity. A child with EA may be restless, may cause self-injury or may disrupt the dressing, surgical site or indwelling devices, leading to the potential for parents to be dissatisfied with their child's anaesthetic. To prevent such outcomes, the child may require pharmacological or physical restraint. Sevoflurane may be a major contributing factor in the development of EA. Therefore, an evidence-based understanding of the risk/benefit profile regarding sevoflurane compared with other general anaesthetic agents and adjuncts would facilitate its rational and optimal use.
OBJECTIVES
To compare sevoflurane with other general anaesthetic (GA) agents, with or without pharmacological or non-pharmacological adjuncts, with regard to risk of EA in children during emergence from anaesthesia. The primary outcome was risk of EA; secondary outcome was agitation score.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases from the date of inception to 19 January 2013: CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCOhost), Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (EBMR) and the Web of Science, as well as the reference lists of other relevant articles and online trial registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized (or quasi-randomized) controlled trials investigating children < 18 years of age presenting for general anaesthesia with or without surgical intervention. We included any study in which a sevoflurane anaesthetic was compared with any other GA, and any study in which researchers investigated adjuncts (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) to sevoflurane anaesthesia compared with no adjunct or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently searched the databases, decided on inclusion eligibility of publications, ascertained study quality and extracted data. They then resolved differences between their results by discussion. Data were entered into RevMan 5.2 for analyses and presentation. Comparisons of the risk of EA were presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sevoflurane is treated as the control anaesthesia in this review. Sensitivity analyses were performed as appropriate, to exclude studies with a high risk of bias and to investigate heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 158 studies involving 14,045 children. Interventions to prevent EA fell into two broad groups. First, alternative GA compared with sevoflurane anaesthesia (69 studies), and second, use of an adjunct with sevoflurane anaesthesia versus sevoflurane without an adjunct (100 studies). The overall risk of bias in included studies was low. The overall Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) assessment of the quality of the evidence was moderate to high. A wide range of EA scales were used, as were different levels of cutoff, to determine the presence or absence of EA. Some studies involved children receiving potentially inadequate or no analgesia intraoperatively during painful procedures.Halothane (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.63, 3534 participants, high quality of evidence) and propofol anaesthesia were associated with a lower risk of EA than sevoflurane anaesthesia. Propofol was effective when used throughout anaesthesia (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.51, 1098 participants, high quality of evidence) and when used only during the maintenance phase of anaesthesia after sevoflurane induction (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.76, 738 participants, high quality of evidence). No clear evidence was found of an effect on risk of EA of desflurane (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.31, 408 participants, moderate quality of evidence) or isoflurane (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.23, 379 participants, moderate quality of evidence) versus sevoflurane.Compared with no adjunct, effective adjuncts for reducing the risk of EA during sevoflurane anaesthesia included dexmedetomidine (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.47, 851 participants, high quality of evidence), clonidine (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.66, 739 participants, high quality of evidence), opioids, in particular fentanyl (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.50, 1247 participants, high quality of evidence) and a bolus of propofol (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89, 394 participants, moderate quality of evidence), ketamine (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69, 231 participants, moderate quality of evidence) or midazolam (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.81, 116 participants, moderate quality of evidence) at the end of anaesthesia. Midazolam oral premedication (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.12, 370 participants, moderate quality of evidence) and parental presence at emergence (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.60, 180 participants, moderate quality of evidence) did not reduce the risk of EA.One or more factors designated as high risk of bias were noted in less than 10% of the included studies. Sensitivity analyses of these studies showed no clinically relevant changes in the risk of EA. Heterogeneity was significant with respect to these comparisons: halothane; clonidine; fentanyl; midazolam premedication; propofol 1 mg/kg bolus at end; and ketamine 0.25 mg/kg bolus at end of anaesthesia. With investigation of heterogeneity, the only clinically relevant changes to findings were seen in the context of potential pain, namely, the setting of adenoidectomy/adenotonsillectomy (propofol bolus; midazolam premedication) and the absence of a regional block (clonidine).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Propofol, halothane, alpha-2 agonists (dexmedetomidine, clonidine), opioids (e.g. fentanyl) and ketamine reduce the risk of EA compared with sevoflurane anaesthesia, whereas no clear evidence shows an effect for desflurane, isoflurane, midazolam premedication and parental presence at emergence. Therefore anaesthetists can consider several effective strategies to reduce the risk of EA in their clinical practice. Future studies should ensure adequate analgesia in the control group, for which pain may be a contributing or confounding factor in the diagnosis of EA. Regardless of the EA scale used, it would be helpful for study authors to report the risk of EA, so that this might be included in future meta-analyses. Researchers should also consider combining effective interventions as a multi-modal approach to further reduce the risk of EA.
Topics: Adjuvants, Anesthesia; Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Anesthesia Recovery Period; Anesthesia, General; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Child; Clonidine; Desflurane; Dexmedetomidine; Halothane; Humans; Isoflurane; Methyl Ethers; Midazolam; Propofol; Sevoflurane
PubMed: 25212274
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007084.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2014The use of clinical signs may not be reliable in measuring the hypnotic component of anaesthesia. The use of bispectral index (BIS) to guide the dose of anaesthetic may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of clinical signs may not be reliable in measuring the hypnotic component of anaesthesia. The use of bispectral index (BIS) to guide the dose of anaesthetic may have certain advantages over clinical signs. This is the second update of a review originally published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this review focused on whether the incorporation of BIS into the standard practice for management of anaesthesia can reduce the risk of intraoperative awareness, consumption of anaesthetic agents, recovery time and total cost of anaesthesia in surgical patients undergoing general anaesthesia.
SEARCH METHODS
In this updated version, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1990 to 31 January 2013), EMBASE (1990 to 31 January 2013) and reference lists of articles. Previously, we searched to May 2009.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials comparing BIS with standard practice criteria for titration of anaesthetic agents.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality, extracted data and analysed the data. We contacted study authors for further details.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 36 trials. In studies using clinical signs as standard practice, the results demonstrated a significant effect of the BIS-guided anaesthesia in reducing the risk of intraoperative awareness among surgical patients at high risk for awareness (7761 participants; odds ratio (OR) 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.48). This effect was not demonstrated in studies using end tidal anaesthetic gas (ETAG) monitoring as standard practice (26,530 participants; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.26). BIS-guided anaesthesia reduced the requirement for propofol by 1.32 mg/kg/hr (672 participants; 95% CI -1.91 to -0.73) and for volatile anaesthetics (desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane) by 0.65 minimal alveolar concentration equivalents (MAC) (95% CI -1.01 to -0.28) in 985 participants. Irrespective of the anaesthetics used, BIS reduced the following recovery times: time for eye opening (2557 participants; by 1.93 min, 95% CI -2.70 to -1.16), response to verbal command (777 participants; by 2.73 min, 95% CI -3.92 to -1.54), time to extubation (1501 participants; by 2.62 min, 95% CI -3.46 to -1.78), and time to orientation (373 participants; by 3.06 min, 95% CI -3.63 to -2.50). BIS shortened the duration of postanaesthesia care unit stay by 6.75 min (1953 participants; 95% CI -11.20 to -2.31) but did not significantly reduce the time to home readiness (329 participants; -7.01 min, 95% CI -30.11 to 16.09).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
BIS-guided anaesthesia can reduce the risk of intraoperative awareness in surgical patients at high risk for awareness in comparison to using clinical signs as a guide for anaesthetic depth. BIS-guided anaesthesia and ETAG-guided anaesthesia may be equivalent in protection against intraoperative awareness but the evidence for this is inconclusive. In addition, anaesthesia guided by BIS kept within the recommended range improves anaesthetic delivery and postoperative recovery from relatively deep anaesthesia.
Topics: Anesthesia; Anesthesia Recovery Period; Anesthesiology; Anesthetics; Electroencephalography; Humans; Intraoperative Awareness; Monitoring, Intraoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24937564
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003843.pub3 -
Anaesthesia Oct 2014With the popularity of ambulatory surgery ever increasing, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether the type of anaesthesia used had any... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
With the popularity of ambulatory surgery ever increasing, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether the type of anaesthesia used had any bearing on patient outcomes. Total intravenous propofol anaesthesia was compared with two of the newer inhalational agents, sevoflurane and desflurane. In total, 18 trials were identified; only trials where nitrous oxide was administered to, or omitted from, both groups were included. A total of 1621 patients were randomly assigned to either propofol (685 patients) or inhalational anaesthesia (936 patients). If surgical causes of unplanned admissions were excluded, there was no difference in unplanned admission to hospital between propofol and inhalational anaesthesia (1.0% vs 2.9%, respectively; p = 0.13). The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was lower with propofol than with inhalational agents (13.8% vs 29.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). However, no difference was noted in post-discharge nausea and vomiting (23.9% vs 20.8%, respectively; p = 0.26). Length of hospital stay was shorter with propofol, but the difference was only 14 min on average. The use of propofol was also more expensive, with a mean (95% CI) difference of £6.72 (£5.13-£8.31 (€8.16 (€6.23-€10.09); $11.29 ($8.62-$13.96))) per patient-anaesthetic episode (p < 0.001). Therefore, based on the published evidence to date, maintenance of anaesthesia using propofol appeared to have no bearing on the incidence of unplanned admission to hospital and was more expensive, but was associated with a decreased incidence of early postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with sevoflurane or desflurane in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery.
Topics: Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Anesthesia, Intravenous; Costs and Cost Analysis; Desflurane; Humans; Isoflurane; Methyl Ethers; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Propofol; Sevoflurane
PubMed: 24847783
DOI: 10.1111/anae.12713 -
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular... Feb 2014Recently, evidence of reduction in mortality due to the use of volatile agents during cardiac surgery led to an increase in their use during cardiopulmonary bypass... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Recently, evidence of reduction in mortality due to the use of volatile agents during cardiac surgery led to an increase in their use during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Because this technique could be beneficial to patients, but might present several hazards to new users, the authors decided to perform a systematic review of the main problems and complications.
DESIGN
Systematic literature review.
SETTING
Hospital.
PARTICIPANTS
Adults undergoing cardiac surgery with use of volatile anesthetic agents during CPB.
INTERVENTION
Several databases were searched for pertinent studies to identify all reports on the adverse events of using volatile agents during CPB and all randomized controlled trials using volatile agents during CPB.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
Six nonrandomized trials reporting adverse events or complications with the use of volatile agents during CPB for cardiac surgery were identified: 2 reporting low transfer of isoflurane to the blood with diffusion membrane oxygenators; 2 reporting iatrogenic causes of damage after spilling liquid isoflurane onto the surface of the membrane oxygenators while filling the vaporizer; and 2 suggesting that the use of volatile agents during CPB increased the pollution of the room and the risk of occupational exposure of the operating room staff. On the other hand, no adverse event was reported in 19 studies that randomized 1,195 patients to receive isoflurane, desflurane, or sevoflurane during CPB.
CONCLUSION
It is mandatory for industry to provide safe and easy-to-use devices to administer volatile agents during CPB with the standard membrane oxygenators.
Topics: Anesthetics, Inhalation; Cardiopulmonary Bypass; Humans; Oxygenators, Membrane; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24295716
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2013.05.030 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Sep 2013To compare the incidence of upper airway morbidity with sevoflurane versus desflurane in patients undergoing general anesthesia with a Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA). (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
The effect of sevoflurane versus desflurane on the incidence of upper respiratory morbidity in patients undergoing general anesthesia with a Laryngeal Mask Airway: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
STUDY OBJECTIVE
To compare the incidence of upper airway morbidity with sevoflurane versus desflurane in patients undergoing general anesthesia with a Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA).
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
SETTING
Operating room of an academic medical center.
MEASUREMENTS
A systematic review of RCTs of patients receiving general anesthesia with a LMA was performed. Sevoflurane and desflurane were used for maintenance of anesthesia in the RCTs. A wide search was performed to identify RCTs comparing desflurane with sevoflurane on the incidence of upper respiratory adverse events in patients undergoing surgery with a LMA. The primary outcomes were incidence of cough and laryngospasm. A random-effects model was used to perform quantitative analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Data originating from 7 studies comprising 657 subjects were analyzed. The confidence interval (CI) was large relative to a clinically significant difference in the incidence of overall cough and laryngospasm in patients receiving desflurane versus sevoflurane (odds ratio [OR; 95% CI] of 1.44 [0.49 - 4.1] and 3.06 [0.43 - 21.62]), respectively. The incidence of cough at emergence was greater in subjects receiving desflurane compared with sevoflurane (OR [95% CI] of 2.43 [1.2 - 4.7], number needed to harm [NNH] = 9.0); however, the analysis was limited by the presence of an asymmetric funnel plot suggesting the possibility of publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of evidence that desflurane causes a greater incidence of upper airway adverse events than sevoflurane in patients undergoing general anesthesia with a LMA.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Cough; Desflurane; Humans; Incidence; Isoflurane; Laryngeal Masks; Laryngismus; Methyl Ethers; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration Disorders; Sevoflurane
PubMed: 23965188
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2013.03.012 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2012Pre-cancerous lesions of cervix (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)) are usually treated with excisional or ablative procedures. In the UK, the NHS cervical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pre-cancerous lesions of cervix (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)) are usually treated with excisional or ablative procedures. In the UK, the NHS cervical screening guidelines suggest that over 80% of treatments should be performed in an outpatient setting (colposcopy clinics). Furthermore, these guidelines suggest that analgesia should always be given prior to laser or excisional treatments. Currently various pain relief strategies are employed that may reduce pain during these procedures.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review was to assess whether the administration of pain relief reduced pain during colposcopy treatment and in the postoperative period.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL - May 2011) (2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to May week 2, 2011), EMBASE (1980 to week 20, 2011) for studies of any design relating to analgesia for colposcopic management. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared all types of pain relief before, during or after outpatient treatment to the cervix, in adult women with CIN undergoing loop excision, laser ablation, laser excision or cryosurgery in an outpatient colposcopy clinic setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We entered data into RevMan and double checked it for accuracy. Where possible, the results were expressed as mean pain score and standard error of the mean with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the data were synthesised in a meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 RCTs (1567 women) of varying methodological quality in the review. These trials compared a variety of interventions aimed at reducing pain in women who underwent treatment for CIN, including cervical injection with lignocaine alone, lignocaine with adrenaline, prilocaine with felypressin, oral analgesics (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)), inhalation analgesia (gas mixture of isoflurane and desflurane), lignocaine spray, cocaine spray, local application of benzocaine gel, lignocaine-prilocaine cream (EMLA cream) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS).Most comparisons were restricted to single trial analyses and were under-powered to detect differences in pain scores between treatments that may or may not have been present. There was no significant difference in pain relief between women who received local anaesthetic infiltration (lignocaine 2%; administered as a paracervical or direct cervical injection) and a saline placebo (2 trials; 130 women; MD -13.74; 95% CI -34.32 to 6.83). However, when local anaesthetic was combined with a vasoconstrictor agent (one trial used lignocaine combined with adrenaline while the second trial used prilocaine combined with felypressin), significantly less pain (on visual analogue scores) occurred compared with no treatment (2 trials; 95 women; MD -23.73; 95% CI -37.53 to -9.93). Comparing two preparations of local anaesthetic plus vasoconstrictor, prilocaine combined with felypressin did not differ from lignocaine combined with adrenaline for its effect on pain control (1 trial; 200 women; MD -0.05; 95% CI -0.26 to 0.16). Although the mean observed blood loss score was less with lignocaine plus adrenaline (1.33 ± 1.05) as compared with prilocaine plus felypressin (1.74 ± 0.98), the difference was not clinically significant as the overall scores in both groups were low (1 trial; 200 women; MD 0.41; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69). Inhalation of gas mixture (isoflurane and desflurane) in addition to standard cervical injection with prilocaine plus felypressin resulted in significantly less pain during the LLETZ (loop excision of the transformation zone) procedure (1 trial; 389 women; MD -7.20; 95% CI -12.45 to -1.95). Lignocaine plus ornipressin resulted in significantly less measured blood loss (1 trial; 100 women; MD -8.75; 95% CI -10.43 to -7.07) and a shorter duration of treatment (1 trial; 100 women; MD -7.72; 95% CI -8.49 to -6.95) than cervical infiltration with lignocaine alone.One meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference in pain using visual analogue scores between women who received oral analgesic and those who received placebo (2 trials; 129 women; MD -3.51; 95% CI -10.03 to 3.01; Analysis 6.1).Cocaine spray was associated with significantly less pain (1 trial; 50 women; MD -28; 95% CI -37.86 to -18.14) and blood loss (1 trial; 50 women; MD 0.04; 95% CI 0 to 0.70) than placebo.No serious adverse events were reported in any of the trials and majority of trials were at moderate or high risk of bias (n = 12).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on two small trials, there was no significant difference in pain relief in women receiving oral analgesics compared with placebo or no treatment (129 women; MD -3.51; 95% CI -10.03 to 3.01). We consider this evidence to be of a low to moderate quality. In routine clinical practice, intracervical injection of local anaesthetic with a vasoconstrictor (lignocaine plus adrenaline or prilocaine plus felypressin) appears to be the optimum analgesia for treatment. However, further high-quality, adequately powered trials should be undertaken in order to provide the data necessary to estimate the efficacy of oral analgesics, the optimal route of administration and dose of local anaesthetics.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Analgesics; Colposcopy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Intraoperative Complications; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
PubMed: 23076919
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006120.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2007The use of clinical signs may not be reliable to measure the hypnotic component of anaesthesia. The use of bispectral index to guide the dose of anaesthetics may have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of clinical signs may not be reliable to measure the hypnotic component of anaesthesia. The use of bispectral index to guide the dose of anaesthetics may have certain advantages over clinical signs.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess whether bispectral index (BIS) reduced anaesthetic use, recovery times, recall awareness and cost.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1990 to May 2007), EMBASE (1990 to May 2007) and reference lists of articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials comparing BIS with clinical signs (CS) in titrating anaesthetic agents.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality, extracted data and analysed the data. We contacted study authors for further details.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 studies with 4056 participants. Seven recent trials are still awaiting assessment. BIS-guided anaesthesia reduced the requirement for propofol by 1.30 mg/kg/hr (578 participants; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.97 to -0.62) and for volatile anaesthetics (desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane) by 0.17 minimal alveolar concentration equivalents (MAC) (689 participants; 95% CI -0.27 to -0.07). Irrespective of the anaesthetic, BIS reduced the recovery times: time for eye opening by 2.43 min (996 participants; 95% CI -3.60 to -1.27), response to verbal command by 2.28 min (717 participants; 95% CI -3.47 to -1.09), time to extubation by 3.05 min (1057 participants; 95% CI -3.98 to -2.11) and orientation by 2.46 min (316 participants; 95% CI -3.21 to -1.71). BIS shortened the duration of postanaesthesia care unit stay by 6.83 min (584 participants; 95% CI -12.08 to -1.58) but did not reduce time to home readiness (329 participants; 95% CI -30.11 to 16.09). The BIS-guided anaesthesia significantly reduced the incidence of intraoperative recall awareness in surgical patients with high risk of awareness (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.79).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Anaesthesia guided by BIS within the recommended range (40 to 60) could improve anaesthetic delivery and postoperative recovery from relatively deep anaesthesia. In addition, BIS-guided anaesthesia has a significant impact on reduction of the incidence of intraoperative recall in surgical patients with high risk of awareness.
Topics: Anesthesia Recovery Period; Anesthesiology; Anesthetics; Electroencephalography; Humans; Monitoring, Intraoperative
PubMed: 17943802
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003843.pub2