-
BMC Anesthesiology Mar 2024Animal experiments have confirmed that remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) can reduce hepatic ischemia-reperfusion injuries (HIRIs), significantly improving early... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Animal experiments have confirmed that remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) can reduce hepatic ischemia-reperfusion injuries (HIRIs), significantly improving early tissue perfusion and oxygenation of the residual liver after resections, accelerating surgical prognoses, and improving survival rates. However, there is still controversy over the role of RIPC in relieving HIRI in clinical studies, which warrants clarification. This study aimed to evaluate the beneficial effects and applicability of RIPC in hepatectomy and to provide evidence-based information for clinical decision-making.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of RIPC interventions were collected, comparing RIPC to no preconditioning in patients undergoing hepatectomies. This search spanned from database inception to January 2024. Data were extracted independently by two researchers according to the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes assessed were postoperative alanine transaminase (ALT), aspartate transaminase (AST), total bilirubin (TBIL), and albumin (ALB) levels. The secondary outcomes assessed included duration of surgery and Pringle, length of postoperative hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss and transfusion, indocyanine green (ICG) clearance, hepatocyte apoptosis index, postoperative complications, and others.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs were included in this meta-analysis, with a total of 865 patients (428 in the RIPC group and 437 in the control group). ALT levels in the RIPC group were lower than those in the control group on postoperative day (POD) 1 (WMD = - 59.24, 95% CI: - 115.04 to - 3.45; P = 0.04) and POD 3 (WMD = - 27.47, 95% CI: - 52.26 to - 2.68; P = 0.03). However, heterogeneities were significant (I = 89% and I = 78%), and ALT levels on POD 3 were unstable based on a sensitivity analysis. AST levels on POD 1 in the RIPC group were lower than those in the control group (WMD = - 50.03, 95% CI: - 94.35 to - 5.71; P = 0.03), but heterogeneity was also significant (I = 81%). A subgroup analysis showed no significant differences in ALT and AST levels on POD 1 between groups, regardless of whether the Pringle maneuver or propofol was used for anesthesia (induction only or induction and maintenance, P > 0.05). The remaining outcome indicators were not statistically significant or could not be analyzed due to lack of sufficient data.
CONCLUSION
RIPC has some short-term liver protective effects on HIRIs during hepatectomies. However, there is still insufficient evidence to encourage its routine use to improve clinical outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The protocol of this study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022333383).
Topics: Animals; Humans; Hepatectomy; Ischemic Preconditioning; Liver; Reperfusion Injury; Postoperative Complications; Alanine Transaminase
PubMed: 38532332
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-024-02506-9 -
Cureus Feb 2024In this systematic review, the perioperative outcomes of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and volatile anesthesia were compared in obese adults (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²)... (Review)
Review
In this systematic review, the perioperative outcomes of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and volatile anesthesia were compared in obese adults (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) undergoing elective surgery. The review analyzed data from 12 randomized-controlled trials involving 935 patients, sourced from PubMed/MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The focus was on intraoperative vital signs, emergence time, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), duration of post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, and ICU admission rates. Findings showed that TIVA (using propofol) might reduce PONV, but there were no significant differences in other outcomes compared to volatile anesthesia (with desflurane as the most common agent). The review highlights the need for more research, especially comparing sevoflurane with TIVA, to establish clear clinical guidelines for anesthesia in obese patients.
PubMed: 38487133
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.54094 -
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders Mar 2024Postoperative delirium is a common and debilitating complication that significantly affects patients and their families. The purpose of this study is to investigate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Postoperative delirium is a common and debilitating complication that significantly affects patients and their families. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether there is an effective sedative that can prevent postoperative delirium while also examining the safety of using sedatives during the perioperative period.
METHODS
The net-meta analysis was used to compare the incidence of postoperative delirium among four sedatives: sevoflurane, propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam. Interventions were ranked according to their surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).
RESULTS
A total of 41 RCT studies involving 6679 patients were analyzed. Dexmedetomidine can effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium than propofol (OR 0.47 95% CI 0.25-0.90), midazolam (OR 0.42 95% CI 0.17-1.00), normal saline (OR 0.42 95% CI 0.33-0.54) and sevoflurane (OR 0.39 95% CI 0.18-0.82). The saline group showed a significantly lower incidence of bradycardia compared to the group receiving dexmedetomidine (OR 0.55 95% CI 0.37-0.80). In cardiac surgery, midazolam (OR 3.34 95%CI 2.04-5.48) and normal saline (OR 2.27 95%CI 1.17-4.39) had a higher rate of postoperative delirium than dexmedetomidine, while in non-cardiac surgery, normal saline (OR 1.98 95%CI 1.44-2.71) was more susceptible to postoperative delirium than dexmedetomidine.
CONCLUSION
Our analysis suggests that dexmedetomidine is an effective sedative in preventing postoperative delirium whether in cardiac surgery or non-cardiac surgery. The preventive effect of dexmedetomidine on postoperative delirium becomes more apparent with longer surgical and extubation times. However, it should be administered with caution as it was found to be associated with bradycardia.
Topics: Humans; Anesthetics; Bradycardia; Dexmedetomidine; Emergence Delirium; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Propofol; Saline Solution; Sevoflurane; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 38448835
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-024-03783-5 -
Journal of Pain Research 2024To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ketamine in preventing propofol injection pain (PIP). (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ketamine in preventing propofol injection pain (PIP).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
The electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception until 2 August 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing ketamine with placebo or other interventions to alleviate PIP in adults were included. Fixed-effects or random-effects models were used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on the heterogeneity of the studies included.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs involving 2105 patients were included. In terms of reducing the incidence of PIP, ketamine is more effective than placebo (RR = 0.43, 95% CI = [0.34, 0.55], < 0.00001), lidocaine (RR = 0.70, 95% CI = [0.55, 0.90], = 0.005), dexmedetomidine (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = [0.40, 0.66], < 0.00001), and thiopental (RR = 0.25, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.83], = 0.02). In reducing the incidence of severe PIP, ketamine is superior to placebo (RR = 0.12, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.19], < 0.00001), and lidocaine (RR = 0.34, 95% CI = [0.21, 0.56], < 0.0001), except dexmedetomidine (RR = 0.20, 95% CI = [0.04, 1.13], = 0.07), and thiopental (RR = 0.33, 95% CI = [0.04, 3.10], = 0.33). Compared with mixed injection, separate injection of ketamine and propofol showed no significant difference in the incidence of PIP (RR = 0.96, 95% CI = [0.31, 3.00], = 0.95) and severe PIP (RR = 1.19, 95% CI = [0.07, 21.29], = 0.90). Based solely on the reports from the studies included, subanesthetic doses of ketamine are generally safe in preventing PIP.
CONCLUSION
A subanesthetic dose of ketamine can effectively and safely reduce the incidence of PIP and severe PIP in adults, and is more effective than lidocaine, dexmedetomidine, and thiopental.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42023455093.
PubMed: 38318331
DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S440250 -
Heliyon Feb 2024The association between anesthesia and long-term oncological outcome after cancer surgery remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the effect of...
BACKGROUNDS
The association between anesthesia and long-term oncological outcome after cancer surgery remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the effect of propofol-based anesthesia and inhalation anesthesia on long-term survival in cancer surgery.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library until November 15, 2023. The outcomes included overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). The hazard ratio (HR) and 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated with a random-effects model.
RESULTS
We included forty-two retrospective cohort studies and two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 686,923 patients. Propofol-based anesthesia was associated with improved OS (HR = 0.82, 95 % CI:0.76-0.88, P < 0.00001) and RFS (HR = 0.80, 95 % CI:0.73-0.88, P < 0.00001) than inhalation anesthesia after cancer surgery. However, these positive results were only observed in single-center studies (OS: HR = 0.76, 95 % CI:0.68-0.84, P < 0.00001; RFS: HR = 0.76, 95 % CI:0.66-0.87, P < 0.0001), but not in multicenter studies (OS: HR = 0.98, 95 % CI:0.94-1.03, P = 0.51; RFS: HR = 0.95, 95 % CI:0.87-1.04, P = 0.26). The subgroup analysis revealed that propofol-based anesthesia provided OS and RFS advantages in hepatobiliary cancer (OS: HR = 0.58, 95 % CI:0.40-0.86, P = 0.005; RFS: HR = 0.62, 95 % CI:0.44-0.86, P = 0.005), gynecological cancer (OS: HR = 0.52, 95 % CI:0.33-0.81, P = 0.004; RFS: HR = 0.51, 95 % CI:0.36-0.72, P = 0.0001), and osteosarcoma (OS: HR = 0.30, 95 % CI:0.11-0.81, P = 0.02; RFS: HR = 0.32, 95 % CI:0.14-0.75, P = 0.008) surgeries.
CONCLUSION
Propofol-based anesthesia may be associated with improved OS and RFS than inhalation anesthesia in some cancer surgeries. Considering the inherent weaknesses of retrospective designs and the strong publication bias, our findings should be interpreted with caution. Well-designed multicenter RCTs are still urgent to further confirm these findings.
PubMed: 38318020
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24791 -
Heliyon Jan 2024of Review: This evidence-based systematic review evaluated the safety of ketamine as regard the potential to provoke epilepsy to help better guide anesthesiologists in...
PURPOSE
of Review: This evidence-based systematic review evaluated the safety of ketamine as regard the potential to provoke epilepsy to help better guide anesthesiologists in their practice.
RECENT FINDINGS
Ketamine, originally developed as a dissociative anesthetic, has gained attention for its potential therapeutic applications in various medical conditions, including epilepsy. Ketamine is generally well-tolerated and widely used in anesthesia, however, conflicting data are confusing the anesthesiologists regarding the potential risk of seizures associated with its use. The literature that claimed the proepileeptic property are inconsistent and the mechanism of action is unclear. Moreover, the case reports had been in same certain contexts, such as procedural sedation where ketamine was used as a single agent. On the other hand, the retrospective data analysis confirmed the positive role ketamine plays as antiepileptic agent.
SUMMARY
Many studies have shown promising results for the use of ketamine as antiepileptic agent. In case of epileptic patients, there is no contraindication for using ketamine, however, combining with benzodiazepine or propofol may enhance the safety.
PubMed: 38293492
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24433 -
EClinicalMedicine Feb 2024Sedation management has a major impact on outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients, but sedation strategies do not generally consider the differential effects of...
The influence of drugs used for sedation during mechanical ventilation on respiratory pattern during unassisted breathing and assisted mechanical ventilation: a physiological systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Sedation management has a major impact on outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients, but sedation strategies do not generally consider the differential effects of different sedatives on respiration and respiratory pattern. A systematic review was undertaken to quantitatively summarize the known effects of different classes of drugs used for sedation on respiratory pattern during both spontaneous breathing and assisted mechanical ventilation.
METHODS
This was a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to June 2020 to retrieve studies that measured respiratory parameters before and after the administration of opioids, benzodiazepines, intravenous and inhaled anaesthetic agents, and other hypnotic agents (PROSPERO #CRD42020190017). A random-effects meta-analytic model was employed to estimate the mean percentage change in each of the respiratory indices according to medication exposure with and without mechanical ventilation. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools.
FINDINGS
Fifty-one studies were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was generally deemed to be low for most studies. Respiratory rate decreased with the administration of opioids in both non-ventilated patients (18% decrease, 95% CI 12-24%) and ventilated patients (26% decrease, 95% CI 15-37%) and increased with inhaled anaesthetics in non-ventilated patients (83% increase, 95% CI 49-118%) and ventilated patients (50% increase, 28-72%). In non-ventilated patients, tidal volume decreased following administration of inhaled aesthetics (55% decrease, 95% CI 25-86%), propofol (36% decrease, 95% CI 20-52%), and benzodiazepines (28% decrease, 95% CI 17-40%); in patients receiving assisted mechanical ventilation, tidal volume was not significantly affected by sedation. Administration of other hypnotic agents was not associated with changes in respiratory rate or tidal volume.
INTERPRETATION
Different classes of drugs used for sedation exert differential effects on respiratory pattern, and this may influence weaning and outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients.
FUNDING
This study did not receive any funding support.
PubMed: 38235422
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102417 -
Current Pain and Headache Reports Apr 2024The combination of ketamine with propofol and dexmedetomidine has gained popularity for sedation and general anesthesia in different populations. In our meta-nalysis, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
The combination of ketamine with propofol and dexmedetomidine has gained popularity for sedation and general anesthesia in different populations. In our meta-nalysis, we helped the anesthesiologists to know the efficiency and the efficacy of both combinations in adult and pediatric patients.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to August 1, 2023. Our outcome parameters for efficacy were recovery time, pain score, and physician satisfaction while for safety were the related cardiorespiratory, neurological, and gastrointestinal adverse events.
RECENT FINDINGS
Twenty-two trials were included with a total of 1429 patients. We found a significantly longer recovery time in the ketadex group of 7.59 min (95% CI, 4.92, 10.26; I = 94%) and a significantly less pain score of - 0.72 (95% CI, - 1.10, - 0.34; I = 0%). Adults had a significantly better physician satisfaction score with the ketofol group, odds ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.12, 0.71; I = 0%). Recovery agitations were higher in the ketofol group with an odds ratio of 0.48 (95% CI, 0.24, 0.98; I = 36%). Furthermore, we found a significant difference between the combinations with a higher incidence in the ketadex group with pooled odds ratio of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.06, 2.88; I = 15%). Ketadex was associated with lower pain scores, hypoxic events and airway obstruction, and emergence agitation. At the same time, ketofol had much more clinician satisfaction which might be attributed to the shorter recovery time and lower incidence of nausea and vomiting. Therefore, we suppose that ketadex is the better combination in periprocedural sedation for both adult and pediatric patients who are not at greater risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Propofol; Dexmedetomidine; Ketamine; Anesthesia, General; Vomiting; Pain; Hypnotics and Sedatives
PubMed: 38214834
DOI: 10.1007/s11916-023-01208-0 -
PloS One 2023Anesthesia is correlated with the prognosis of cancer surgery. However, evidence from prospective studies focusing on breast cancer is currently limited. This systematic...
OBJECTIVE
Anesthesia is correlated with the prognosis of cancer surgery. However, evidence from prospective studies focusing on breast cancer is currently limited. This systematic review aimed to investigate the effect of anesthesia-related interventions on oncological outcomes following breast cancer surgery in prospective studies.
METHODS
Literature searches were performed from inception to June. 2023 in the Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, and ClinicalTrials databases. The main inclusion criteria comprised a minimum of one-year follow-up duration, with oncological outcomes as endpoints. Anesthesia-related interventions encompassed, but were not limited to, type of anesthesia, anesthetics, and analgesics. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
RESULTS
A total of 9 studies were included. Anesthesia-related interventions included paravertebral nerve block (3), pectoral nerve block (1), sevoflurane (2), ketorolac (2), and infiltration of lidocaine (1). Cancer recurrence, metastasis, disease-free survival, or (and) overall survival were assessed. Among all included studies, only infiltration of lidocaine was found to prolong disease-free survival and overall survival.
CONCLUSION
Regional anesthesia and propofol did not improve oncological outcomes following breast cancer surgery. The anti-tumorigenic effect of ketorolac warrants future studies with larger sample sizes. Perioperative infiltration of lidocaine around the tumor may be a promising anti-tumorigenic intervention that can prolong overall survival in patients with early breast cancer.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Ketorolac; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Anesthesia, Conduction; Lidocaine
PubMed: 38127958
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296158 -
Heliyon Dec 2023Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel gamma-aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA) receptor agonist that has attracted wide attention because of its lower injection pain and fewer...
BACKGROUND
Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel gamma-aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA) receptor agonist that has attracted wide attention because of its lower injection pain and fewer adverse events. We summarized all available evidence and analyzed the efficacy and safety of ciprofol during procedural sedation and anesthesia induction.
METHODS
An electronic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Science Direct, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Data, and the VIP Chinese Journal Service platform was conducted from inception of databases to March 1, 2023. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) were used separately for binary categorical and continuous variables. We performed trial sequential analysis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to judge the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
Fifteen randomized controlled trials with 2441 patients were included in this study. Ciprofol showed similar advantages to propofol in terms of induction success rate (RR = 1, 95 % CI = 0.99, 1.01, moderate certainty) and induction time (MD = 3.31, 95 % CI = -0.34, 6.95, low certainty), but did not increase the incidence of adverse events (RR = 0.88, 95 % CI = 0.78, 1.00, very low certainty), such as bradycardia (RR = 0.96, 95 % CI = 0.77, 1.21, high certainty), hypoxia (RR = 0.79, 95 % CI = 0.46, 1.37, p = 0.40, moderate certainty) and other adverse events. Although it may be associated with a longer time to be fully alert (MD = 1.22, 95 % CI = 0.32, 2.12, very low certainty), ciprofol significantly reduced injection pain (RR = 0.15, 95 % CI 0.09, 0.24, low certainty) and may have reduced the incidence of hypotension (RR = 0.77, 95 % CI = 0.63, 0.94, low certainty) and respiratory depression (RR = 0.29, 95 % CI = 0.15, 0.56, moderate certainty).
CONCLUSION
Ciprofol and propofol had similar effects on most outcomes. While the time to full alertness may be prolonged, injection pain was significantly reduced, and hypotension and respiratory depression may be reduced compared with propofol. We believe that ciprofol is an effective alternative to intravenous anesthetic agents.
PubMed: 38125496
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22634