-
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 -
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 -
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 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jul 2024Propofol and sevoflurane are two of the most commonly used anaesthetics for paediatric surgery. Data from some clinical trials suggest that postoperative pain incidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Propofol and sevoflurane are two of the most commonly used anaesthetics for paediatric surgery. Data from some clinical trials suggest that postoperative pain incidence is lower when propofol is used for maintenance of anaesthesia compared with sevoflurane, although this is not clear.
METHODS
This meta-analysis compared postoperative pain following maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol or sevoflurane in paediatric surgeries. PubMed Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared postoperative pain between sevoflurane and propofol anaesthesia in children. After quality assessment, a meta-analysis was carried out using bias-adjusted inverse heterogeneity methods, heterogeneity using I and publication bias using Doi plots.
RESULTS
In total, 13 RCTs with 1174 children were included. The overall synthesis suggested nearly two-fold higher odds of overall postoperative pain in the sevoflurane group compared with the propofol group (odds ratio [OR] 1.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-3.15, I=58.2%). Further, children in the sevoflurane group had higher odds of having higher pain scores (OR 3.18, 95% CI 1.83-5.53, I=20.9%), and a 60% increase in the odds of requiring postoperative rescue analgesia compared with propofol (OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.89-2.88, I=58.2%).
CONCLUSIONS
Children maintained on inhalational sevoflurane had higher odds of postoperative pain compared with those maintained on propofol. The results also suggest that sevoflurane is associated with higher odds of needing postoperative rescue analgesia compared with propofol.
REGISTRATION
The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with registration ID CRD42023445913.
Topics: Humans; Sevoflurane; Propofol; Pain, Postoperative; Child; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Child, Preschool; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38670899
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2024.03.022 -
Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and... Apr 2024
PubMed: 38659071
DOI: 10.1186/s44158-024-00162-6 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024The benefits of low-dose esketamine for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy remain unclear. As such, the present study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of...
The benefits of low-dose esketamine for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy remain unclear. As such, the present study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose esketamine for this procedure. Seven common databases were searched for clinical studies investigating low-dose esketamine for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. Subsequently, a meta-analysis was performed to synthesize and analyze the data extracted from studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed that, compared with propofol, low-dose esketamine in combination with propofol significantly reduced recovery time by 0.56 min (mean difference [MD] -0.56%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to -0.05, = 0.03), induction time by 9.84 s (MD -9.84, 95% CI -12.93 to -6.75, < 0.00001), propofol dosage by 51.05 mg (MD -51.05, 95% CI -81.53 to -20.57, = 0.01), and increased mean arterial pressure by 6.23 mmHg (MD 6.23, 95% CI 1.37 to 11.08, = 0.01). Meanwhile, low-dose esketamine reduced injection pain by 63% (relative risk [RR] 0.37, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.49, < 0.00001), involuntary movements by 40% (RR 0.60, 95% Cl 0.42 to 0.85, < 0.005), choking by 42% (RR 0.58, 95% Cl 0.38 to 0.88, = 0.01), bradycardia by 68% (RR 0.32, 95% Cl 0.18 to 0.58, = 0.0002), hypotension by 71% (RR 0.29, 95% Cl 0.21 to 0.40, < 0.00001), respiratory depression by 63% (RR 0.37, 95% 0.26 to 0.51, < 0.00001), additional cases of propofol by 53% (RR 0.47, 95% Cl 0.29 to 0.77, = 0.002), and increased hypertension by 1000% (RR 11.00, 95% Cl 1.45 to 83.28, = 0.02). There were no significant differences in mean heart rate, mean oximetry saturation, delirium, dizziness, vomiting, tachycardia, and hypoxemia. Subgroup analyses revealed that, compared with other dose groups, 0.25 mg/kg esketamine afforded additional benefits in recovery and induction time, mean arterial pressure, involuntary movements, hypoxemia, and respiratory depression. Low-dose esketamine was found to be safe and effective for providing anesthesia during gastrointestinal endoscopy, with 0.25 mg/kg identified as the optimal dose within the dosage ranges examined. However, caution should be exercised when administering this drug to patients with inadequate preoperative blood pressure control.
PubMed: 38645560
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1364546 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... May 2024Propofol, a commonly used intravenous anesthetic, has demonstrated potential in protecting against myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury (MIRI) based on preclinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Propofol, a commonly used intravenous anesthetic, has demonstrated potential in protecting against myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury (MIRI) based on preclinical animal studies. However, the clinical benefits of propofol in this context are subject to debate. We conducted a systematic search across eight databases to identify all relevant animal studies investigating the preventive effects of propofol on MIRI until October 30, 2023. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using SYRCLE's bias risk tool. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 15.1. The primary outcome measures analyzed in this study were myocardial infarct size (IS) and myocardial injury biomarkers. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of 48 relevant animal studies investigating propofol's preventive effects on MIRI. Propofol administration demonstrated a reduction in myocardial IS and decreased levels of myocardial injury biomarkers (CK-MB, LDH, cTnI). Moreover, propofol improved myocardial function parameters (+dp/dtmax, -dP/dtmax, LVEF, LVFS), exhibited favorable effects on inflammatory markers (IL-6, TNF-α) and oxidative stress markers (SOD, MDA), and reduced myocardial cell apoptotic index (AI). These findings suggest propofol exerts cardioprotective effects by reducing myocardial injury, decreasing infarct size, and improving heart function. However, the absence of animal models that accurately represent comorbidities such as aging and hypertension, as well as inconsistent administration methods that align with clinical practice, may hinder its clinical translation. Further robust investigations are required to validate these findings, elucidate the underlying mechanisms of propofol, and facilitate its potential translation into clinical practice.
Topics: Propofol; Animals; Myocardial Infarction; Myocardial Reperfusion Injury; Oxidative Stress; Biomarkers; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Humans; Apoptosis
PubMed: 38640712
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2024.116629 -
Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular... Apr 2024Intravenous non-volatile anaesthetics like propofol are commonly used in cardiac surgeries across several countries. Volatile anaesthetics like isoflurane may help in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison Between the Protective Effect of Isoflurane and Propofol on Myocardium During Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
OBJECTIVE
Intravenous non-volatile anaesthetics like propofol are commonly used in cardiac surgeries across several countries. Volatile anaesthetics like isoflurane may help in protecting the myocardium and minimize ischaemia-reperfusion injury. Hence, we did this review to compare the cardioprotective effect of isoflurane and propofol among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
METHODS
We conducted a search in the databases Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (or MEDLINE), Embase, PubMed Central®, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library from inception until April 2021. We carried out a meta-analysis with random-effects model and reported pooled risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) depending on the type of outcome.
RESULTS
We analysed 13 studies including 808 participants. Almost all were low-quality studies. For cardiac index, the pooled SMD was 0.14 (95% CI: -0.22 to 0.50); for cardiac troponin I, pooled SMD was 0.10 (95% CI: -0.28 to 0.48). For mortality, the RR was 3.00 (95% CI: 0.32 to 28.43); for MI, pooled RR was 1.58 (95% CI: 0.59 to 4.20); and for inotropic drug use, pooled RR was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.90 to 1.21). For length of intensive care unit stay, the pooled SMD was 0.13 (95% CI: -0.29 to 0.55), while pooled SMD for mechanical ventilation time was -0.02 (95% CI: -0.54 to 0.51).
CONCLUSION
Isoflurane did not have significant cardioprotective effect compared to propofol following CABG. Hence, the anaesthetists need to check some viable alternatives to manage these patients and reduce the rate of postoperative complications.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Isoflurane; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Coronary Artery Bypass; Myocardium; Anesthetics
PubMed: 38629941
DOI: 10.21470/1678-9741-2021-0424 -
Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and... Apr 2024Propofol has been the gold standard for anesthesia induction and maintenance due to its rapid onset and favorable pharmacokinetic properties. However, the search for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Propofol has been the gold standard for anesthesia induction and maintenance due to its rapid onset and favorable pharmacokinetic properties. However, the search for alternative agents with improved safety and efficacy has led to the emergence of ciprofol (HSK3486), a structural analog of propofol. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to comprehensively assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared to propofol for anesthesia induction and maintenance in adult patients undergoing surgical procedures.
METHODS
This study included only double-arm RCTs in which participants were aged eighteen or older undergoing surgery. For the statistical analysis of the extracted data, we employed RevMan 5.4.1.
RESULTS
Ciprofol demonstrated a promising trend of higher anesthesiologists' satisfaction during the induction phase (MD 0.14, 95%, CI - 0.28 to 0.56, p = 0.51), whereas Propofol was favored during maintenance. Propofol also exhibited advantages with a shorter time to successful anesthesia induction (MD 0.08 min, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, p = 0.04), and quicker attainment of full alertness (MD 0.11 min, 95% CI - 1.29 to 1.52, p = 0.87), suggesting its efficiency in clinical practice. Importantly, there were no significant disparities in the success rate of anesthesia.
CONCLUSION
Both ciprofol and propofol demonstrate comparable efficacy and safety for anesthesia induction and maintenance in adult patients undergoing surgery. While propofol provides a faster onset of induction, ciprofol exhibits advantages in terms of pain management. Clinicians should consider these findings when selecting anesthetic agents, and tailoring choices to individual patient needs and clinical scenarios.
PubMed: 38605424
DOI: 10.1186/s44158-024-00160-8 -
Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and... Apr 2024Propofol is the most commonly used hypnotic agent used during sedation and general anesthesia (GA) practice, offering faster recovery compared to benzodiazepines.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Propofol is the most commonly used hypnotic agent used during sedation and general anesthesia (GA) practice, offering faster recovery compared to benzodiazepines. However, cardiovascular impact of propofol and pain at injection are commonly encountered side effects. Ciprofol is a novel disubstituted phenol derivative, and there is growing evidence regarding its clinical use.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search (updated on 23 July 2023) to evaluate safety and efficacy of ciprofol in comparison to propofol in patients undergoing procedures under sedation or GA. We focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only, extrapolating data on onset and offset, and on the side effects and the pain at injection.
RESULTS
The search revealed 14 RCTs, all conducted in China. Eight RCTs studied patients undergoing sedation, and six focused on GA. Bolus of ciprofol for sedation or induction of GA varied from 0.2 to 0.5 mg/kg. In four studies using ciprofol for maintenance of GA, it was 0.8-2.4 mg/kg/h. Ciprofol pharmacokinetics seemed characterized by slower onset and offset as compared to propofol. Pain during injection was less frequent in the ciprofol group in all the 13 studies reporting it. Eight studies reported "adverse events" as a pooled outcome, and in five cases, the incidence was higher in the propofol group, not different in the remaining ones. Occurrence of hypotension was the most commonly investigated side effects, and it seemed less frequent with ciprofol.
CONCLUSION
Ciprofol for sedation or GA may be safer than propofol, though its pharmacokinetics may be less advantageous.
PubMed: 38589912
DOI: 10.1186/s44158-024-00159-1