-
Neurogastroenterology and Motility Jun 2024Measurement of gastro-intestinal motility is increasingly performed under general anesthesia during endoscopic or surgical procedures. The aim of the present study was... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Measurement of gastro-intestinal motility is increasingly performed under general anesthesia during endoscopic or surgical procedures. The aim of the present study was to review the impact of different anesthetic agents on digestive motility measurements in humans.
METHODS
This systematic review was performed using the Medline-Pubmed and Web of Science databases. All articles published until October 2023 were screened by identification of key words. Studies were reviewed if patients had an assessment of digestive motility using conventional perfused manometry, high-resolution manometry, electronic barostat or functional lumen impedance planimetry with the use of inhaled or intravenous anesthetic anesthetic agents (propofol, ketamine, halogens, nitrous oxide, opioids, and neuromuscular blockades).
RESULTS
Four hundred and eighty-eight unique citations were identified, of which 42 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the present review. The impact of anesthetics was mostly studied in patients who underwent esophageal manometry. There was a heterogeneity in both the dose and timing of administration of anesthetics among the studies. Remifentanil analgesia was the most studied anesthetic drug in the literature, showing a decrease in both distal latency and lower esophageal sphincter pressure after its administration, but the impact on Chicago classification was not studied. Inhaled anesthetics administration elicited a decrease in lower esophageal sphincter pressure, but contradictory findings were shown on esophageal motility following propofol or neuromuscular blocking agents administration.
CONCLUSION
Studies of the impact of anesthetics on digestive motility remain scarce in the literature, although some agents have been reported to profoundly affect gastro-intestinal motility.
PubMed: 38934423
DOI: 10.1111/nmo.14855 -
Neurological Research and Practice Jun 2024This review specifically investigates ketamine's role in SRSE management. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This review specifically investigates ketamine's role in SRSE management.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to May 1st, 2023, for English-language literature. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies on SRSE in humans of all ages and genders treated with ketamine.
RESULTS
In this systematic review encompassing 19 studies with 336 participants, age ranged from 9 months to 86 years. Infections, anoxia, and metabolic issues emerged as the common causes of SRSE, while some cases had unknown origins, termed as NORSE (New Onset RSE) or FIRESs (Febrile Infection-Related Epilepsy Syndrome). Most studies categorized SRSE cases into convulsive (N = 105) and non-convulsive (N = 197). Ketamine was used after failed antiepileptics and anesthetics in 17 studies, while in others, it was a first or second line of treatment. Dosages varied from 0.5 mg/kg (bolus) and 0.2-15 mg/kg/hour (maintenance) in adults and 1-3 mg/kg (bolus) and 0.5-3 mg/kg/hour (maintenance) in pediatrics, lasting one to 30 days. Ketamine was concurrently used with other drugs in 40-100% of cases, most frequently propofol and midazolam. Seizure resolution rate varied from 53.3 to 91% and 40-100% in larger (N = 42-68) and smaller case series (N = 5-20) respectively. Seizure resolution occurred in every case of case report except in one in which the patient died. Burst suppression in EEG was reported in 12 patients from two case series and two case reports. Recurrence was reported in 11 patients from five studies. The reported all-cause mortality varied from 38.8 to 59.5% and 0-36.4% in larger and smaller case series., unrelated directly to ketamine dosage or duration.
SIGNIFICANCE
Ketamine demonstrates safety and effectiveness in SRSE, offering advantages over GABAergic drugs by acting on NMDA receptors, providing neuroprotection, and reducing vasopressor requirement.
PubMed: 38926769
DOI: 10.1186/s42466-024-00322-7 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jun 2024
PubMed: 38908950
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2024.04.059 -
Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing :... Jun 2024Stress response is a common complication during extubation, mainly manifested by dramatic hemodynamic fluctuations. Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS)...
Effect of Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation on Extubation-Related Stress Response in Noncardiac Surgery Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
PURPOSE
Stress response is a common complication during extubation, mainly manifested by dramatic hemodynamic fluctuations. Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) is widely applied in the perioperative period. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate whether the TEAS could relieve the stress response during extubation in noncardiac surgery patients.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
METHODS
We searched six databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, CNKI, and Wan Fang) for relevant literature. A risk of bias assessment was executed based on the Cochrane Criteria. We applied RevMan5.4.1 software to analyze data. When the χ test did not show heterogeneity, we adopted the fixed-effect model. Otherwise, the random-effect model was used.
FINDINGS
ln total, 12 randomized controlled trials with 1,347 participants were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed the heart rate and mean arterial pressure of the intervention group were significantly lower than the control group at immediately, 5 minutes, and 10 minutes after extubation. The occurrence rate of emergency agitation (RR 0.39, 95% CI [0.26,0.60]) and postoperative delirium (RR 0.40, 95% CI [0.22, 0.72] were also lower in the TEAS group. The consumption of propofol (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.47, 95% CI [-0.77, -0.18]) and remifentanil (SMD 1.49, 95% CI [-2.01, -0.96]) of the intervention group were also significantly reduced compared with the control group.
CONCLUSIONS
TEAS was beneficial for improving stress response during extubation, emergence agitation, postoperative delirium, and reduced the consumption of intraoperative propofol and remifentanil, but it was necessary to note the limitations of the current evidence.
PubMed: 38904602
DOI: 10.1016/j.jopan.2024.01.015 -
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine Jun 2024Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) often experience poor sleep quality. Pharmacologic sleep aids are frequently used as primary or adjunctive therapy to improve... (Review)
Review
Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) often experience poor sleep quality. Pharmacologic sleep aids are frequently used as primary or adjunctive therapy to improve sleep, although their benefits in the ICU remain uncertain. This review aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the objective and subjective effects of medications used for sleep in the ICU, as well as their adverse effects. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched from their inception until June 2023 for comparative studies assessing the effects of pharmacologic sleep aids on objective and subjective metrics of sleep. Thirty-four studies with 3498 participants were included. Medications evaluated were melatonin, ramelteon, suvorexant, propofol, and dexmedetomidine. The majority of studies were randomized controlled trials. Melatonin and dexmedetomidine were the best studied agents. Objective sleep metrics included polysomnography (PSG), electroencephalography (EEG), bispectral index, and actigraphy. Subjective outcome measures included patient questionnaires and nursing observations. Evidence for melatonin as a sleep aid in the ICU was mixed but largely not supportive for improving sleep. Evidence for ramelteon, suvorexant, and propofol was too limited to offer definitive recommendations. Both objective and subjective data supported dexmedetomidine as an effective sleep aid in the ICU, with PSG/EEG in 303 ICU patients demonstrating increased sleep duration and efficiency, decreased arousal index, decreased percentage of stage N1 sleep, and increased absolute and percentage of stage N2 sleep. Mild bradycardia and hypotension were reported as side effects of dexmedetomidine, whereas the other medications were reported to be safe. Several ongoing studies have not yet been published, mostly on melatonin and dexmedetomidine. While definitive conclusions cannot be made for most medications, dexmedetomidine improved sleep quantity and quality in the ICU. These benefits need to be balanced with possible hemodynamic side effects.
PubMed: 38881385
DOI: 10.1177/08850666241255345 -
Journal of Perioperative Practice Jun 2024Nasal and sinus surgery, especially using endoscopy, relies upon adequate haemostasis to be safe and effective. Often other haemostatic methods, such as cautery are not...
INTRODUCTION
Nasal and sinus surgery, especially using endoscopy, relies upon adequate haemostasis to be safe and effective. Often other haemostatic methods, such as cautery are not viable, and other methods must be employed. This study examines the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine in controlled hypotension and for surgical field visibility in endoscopic sinus surgery and other nasal surgeries.
REVIEW METHODS
A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL and Central for randomised controlled trials using dexmedetomidine for controlled hypotension in adult patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery or other nasal surgery. Meta-analysis of mean differences and single means were performed.
RESULTS
Of 935 identified studies, 31 met the inclusion criteria. A statistically significant difference in Fromme-Boezaart surgical field visibility scores was found comparing dexmedetomidine to placebo (p < 0.00001) and propofol (p < 0.0001), but not other agents. A significant difference in intraoperative blood loss volume was found compared with placebo (51.5mL, p < 0.00001) and propofol (13.6mL, p < 0.0001), but not other agents.
CONCLUSION
Dexmedetomidine demonstrated significantly improved surgical field visibility and blood loss volume compared with placebo and propofol, but not other agents. Dexmedetomidine is viable and useful for controlled hypotension in nasal surgery. Choice of controlled hypotension agent should follow patient and procedure-specific considerations.
PubMed: 38831613
DOI: 10.1177/17504589241252107 -
Minerva Anestesiologica May 2024Procedural sedation is crucial in gastrointestinal endoscopy, where propofol is commonly used but may lead to cardiovascular and respiratory side effects. Remimazolam, a...
INTRODUCTION
Procedural sedation is crucial in gastrointestinal endoscopy, where propofol is commonly used but may lead to cardiovascular and respiratory side effects. Remimazolam, a new drug, offers advantages such as rapid onset and recovery. The sedation protocols for this population vary, requiring tailored titration of sedatives. The comparative safety of these drugs in elderly patients undergoing procedural sedation remains unclear, as previous studies primarily focus on the general population. We aimed to compare the safety profiles of remimazolam and propofol in this context. in elderly patients undergoing procedural sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing propofol with remimazolam in elderly patients undergoing procedural sedation. Our outcomes were the incidence of adverse effects. A trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted on all outcomes to assess the adequacy of the sample size in supporting our findings.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
We selected 7 RCTs including 1499 patients, of whom 764 (50.96%) were randomized to receive remimazolam. Remimazolam exhibited a significantly lower risk of adverse events, including hypoxemia, respiratory depression, hypotension, bradycardia, and injection pain, compared to propofol. Incidences of PONV, dizziness and headache, did not significantly differ between the groups. The findings of the TSA indicated that our sample size was sufficiently large to render further studies inconsequential for most outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that in elderly patients having gastrointestinal endoscopy, remimazolam could be safer than propofol. This population may benefit from remimazolam's lower risk of adverse events, notably hypoxemia and respiratory depression.
PubMed: 38775443
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.24.18027-3 -
EClinicalMedicine Jun 2024General anaesthesia is provided to more than 300 million surgical patients worldwide, every year. It is administered either through total intravenous anaesthesia, using...
BACKGROUND
General anaesthesia is provided to more than 300 million surgical patients worldwide, every year. It is administered either through total intravenous anaesthesia, using only intravenous agents, or through inhalational anaesthesia, using volatile anaesthetic agents. The debate on how this affects postoperative patient outcome is ongoing, despite an abundance of published trials. The relevance of this topic has grown by the increasing concern about the contribution of anaesthetic gases to the environmental impact of surgery. We aimed to summarise all available evidence on relevant patient outcomes with total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials for works published from January 1, 1985 to August 1, 2023 for randomised controlled trials comparing total intravenous anaesthesia using propofol versus inhalational anaesthesia using the volatile anaesthetics sevoflurane, desflurane or isoflurane. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full text articles, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Outcomes were derived from a recent series of publications on consensus definitions for Standardised Endpoints for Perioperative trials (StEP). Primary outcomes covered mortality and organ-related morbidity. Secondary outcomes were related to anaesthetic and surgical morbidity. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023430492).
FINDINGS
We included 317 randomised controlled trials, comprising 51,107 patients. No difference between total intravenous and inhalational anaesthesia was seen in the primary outcomes of in-hospital mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.67-1.66, 27 trials, 3846 patients), 30-day mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70-1.36, 23 trials, 9667 patients) and one-year mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.88-1.48, 13 trials, 9317 patients). Organ-related morbidity was similar between groups except for the subgroup of elderly patients, in which total intravenous anaesthesia was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40-0.97, 11 trials, 3834 patients) and a better score on postoperative cognitive dysfunction tests (standardised mean difference 1.68, 95% CI 0.47-2.88, 9 trials, 4917 patients). In the secondary outcomes, total intravenous anaesthesia resulted in a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.56-0.67, 145 trials, 23,172 patients), less emergence delirium (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29-0.56, 32 trials, 4203 patients) and a higher quality of recovery score (QoR-40 mean difference 6.45, 95% CI 3.64-9.25, 17 trials, 1835 patients).
INTERPRETATION
The results indicate that postoperative mortality and organ-related morbidity was similar for intravenous and inhalational anaesthesia. Total intravenous anaesthesia offered advantages in postoperative recovery.
FUNDING
Dutch Society for Anaesthesiology (NVA).
PubMed: 38774674
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102636 -
European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy :... May 2024Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening, diffuse inflammatory pulmonary condition characterised by the Berlin criteria. Incidence of ARDS is...
INTRODUCTION
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening, diffuse inflammatory pulmonary condition characterised by the Berlin criteria. Incidence of ARDS is estimated at 2.5-19% globally with high mortality and morbidity. Interest has been increasing in the use of inhaled sedatives because of a more rapid awakening and fewer adverse effects compared with intravenous propofol. The primary aim of this systematic review protocol is to investigate the length of critical care stay between ARDS patients who have been mechanically ventilated with inhaled anaesthetic sedatives (ie, sevoflurane and isoflurane) compared with those patients who are prescribed conventional sedatives (ie, propofol).
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid (Embase, MEDLINE), PubMed, EBSCO (CINAHL Plus), Google Scholar will be searched and stratified by the reviewers. The literature search will be limited to English articles. Published full text peer-reviewed articles will be included.The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) Registration number is: CRD42023390988.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review. The results will be presented at local/regional meetings and dissemination will occur through peer-reviewed publication.
PubMed: 38768999
DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2024-004117 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024The role of esketamine in pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy is still unclear. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of esketamine for pediatric...
OBJECTIVE
The role of esketamine in pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy is still unclear. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of esketamine for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy.
METHODS
Clinical trials of esketamine for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy were searched in eight common databases, up to October 2023. These clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). The risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as the effect sizes for dichotomous variables and continuity variables, respectively. When the heterogeneity test showed I < 50%, the fixed effects model was used for the meta-analysis and TSA; Otherwise, the random effects model was used for them.
RESULTS
In terms of efficacy endpoints, the meta-analysis showed that compared with placebo or blank, esketamine significantly decreased recovery time by 2.34 min (WMD -2.34; 95% Confidence interval [CI] -3.65, -1.02; = 0.0005) and propofol consumption by 0.70 mg/kg (WMD -0.70; 95% CI -0.98, -0.43; < 0.00001), and increased mean heart rate by 4.77 beats/min (WMD 4.77; 95% CI 2.67, 6.87; < 0.00001) and mean arterial pressure by 3.10 mmHg (WMD 3.10; 95% CI 1.52, 4.67; = 0.0001), while induction time and mean blood oxygen remained comparable. TSA indicated conclusive evidence for these benefits. In terms of safety endpoints, the meta-analysis revealed that esketamine significantly reduced involuntary movements by 59% (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.22, 0.76; = 0.005) and choking by 51% (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.26, 0.92; = 0.03), while significantly increasing dizziness by 98% (RR 1.98; 95% CI 1.11, 3.56; = 0.02) and there were no significant differences in total adverse events, respiratory depression, and vomiting. TSA demonstrated conclusive evidence for involuntary movements and dizziness. Low-dose analysis showed that esketamine at ≤0.3 mg/kg significantly reduced recovery time, propofol consumption and involuntary movements, and significantly increasing mean heart rate, with no increase in dizziness. The Begg's test ( = 0.327) and the Egger's test ( = 0.413) indicated no significant publication bias, yet the funnel plot suggested potential publication bias.
CONCLUSION
Esketamine is an effective adjuvant anesthesia for children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, the general dose of esketamine may increase the risk of dizziness, which can be avoided by administering a low dose (≤0.3 mg/kg).
PubMed: 38725661
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1379101