-
International Journal of Physiology,... 2019A number of teams have investigated the association between the mode of anesthesia and the long-term outcomes after cancer surgeries, with inconsistent conclusions. We... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A number of teams have investigated the association between the mode of anesthesia and the long-term outcomes after cancer surgeries, with inconsistent conclusions. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the currently available findings of clinical studies on the long-term outcomes after cancer surgery under inhalational anesthesia with volatile anesthetics (VA) and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Central, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, Web of Science citation index, US clinical trials register, UK clinical trials register, Australia and New Zealand Clinical trials register for clinical studies comparing postoperative outcomes of VA and TIVA. The included outcomes were all-cause mortality, recurrence and recurrence free survival. Meta-analysis was done using the generic inverse variance method.
RESULTS
The overall pooled hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was in favor of TIVA [Harzard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.89], so was the recurrence free survival (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.41). The subgroup analysis of mortality in different cancer types did not show any remarkable difference between the intravenous or volatile anesthesia. There was also no significant difference in recurrence.
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis suggests that TIVA is associated with lower all-cause mortality after cancer surgeries. As cancers of different origins can respond very differently to pharmacological intervention, more clinical trials are needed in each cancer types in order to substantiate the role of anesthesia in cancer surgery prognosis.
PubMed: 31333811
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Electrical cardioversion is an effective procedure for restoring normal sinus rhythm in the hearts of patients with irregular heart rhythms. It is important that the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Electrical cardioversion is an effective procedure for restoring normal sinus rhythm in the hearts of patients with irregular heart rhythms. It is important that the patient is not fully conscious during the procedure, as it can be painful and distressing. The drug used to make patients unaware of the procedure should rapidly achieve the desired level of sedation, should wear off quickly and should not cause cardiovascular or respiratory side effects.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to compare the safety, effectiveness and adverse events associated with various anaesthetic or sedative agents used in direct current cardioversion for cardiac arrhythmia in both elective and emergency settings.We sought answers to the following specific questions.• Which drugs deliver the best outcomes for patients undergoing electrical cardioversion?• Does using a particular agent confer advantages or disadvantages?• Is additional analgesic necessary to prevent pain?
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) on 27 March 2014. Our search terms were relevant to the review question and were not limited by outcomes. We also carried out searches of clinical trials registers and forward and backward citation tracking.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized and cluster-randomized studies with adult participants undergoing electrical cardioversion procedures in the elective or emergency setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, consulting with a third review author for disagreements. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, including assessment of risk of bias for all studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 studies with 1250 participants that compared one drug with one or more other drugs. Of these comparisons, 19 studies compared propofol with another drug. Seven of these compared propofol with etomidate (four of which combined the drugs with remifentanil or fentanyl), five midazolam, six thiopentone and two sevoflurane. Three studies compared etomidate with thiopentone, and three etomidate with midazolam. Two studies compared thiopentone with midazolam, one thiopentone with diazepam and one midazolam with diazepam. Drug doses and the time over which the drugs were given varied between studies. Although all studies were described as randomized, limited information was provided about the methods used for selection and group allocation. A high level of performance bias was observed across studies, as study authors had not attempted to blind the anaesthetist to group allocation. Similarly, study authors had rarely provided sufficient information on whether outcome assessors had been blinded.Included studies presented outcome data for hypotension, apnoea, participant recall, success of cardioversion, minor adverse events of nausea and vomiting, pain at injection site and myoclonus, additional analgesia and participant satisfaction. We did not pool the data from different studies in view of the multiple drug comparisons, differences in definitions and reporting of outcomes, variability of endpoints and high or unclear risk of bias across studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Few studies reported statistically significant results for our relevant outcomes, and most study authors concluded that both, or all, agents compared in individual studies were adequate for cardioversion procedures. It is our opinion that at present, there is no evidence to suggest that current anaesthetic practice for cardioversion should change.
Topics: Anesthetics; Apnea; Diazepam; Electric Countershock; Etomidate; Fentanyl; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Hypotension; Mental Recall; Methyl Ethers; Midazolam; Piperidines; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remifentanil; Sevoflurane; Thiopental
PubMed: 25803543
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010824.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018People in the intensive care unit (ICU) experience sleep deprivation caused by environmental disruption, such as high noise levels and 24-hour lighting, as well as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
People in the intensive care unit (ICU) experience sleep deprivation caused by environmental disruption, such as high noise levels and 24-hour lighting, as well as increased patient care activities and invasive monitoring as part of their care. Sleep deprivation affects physical and psychological health, and people perceive the quality of their sleep to be poor whilst in the ICU. Propofol is an anaesthetic agent which can be used in the ICU to maintain patient sedation and some studies suggest it may be a suitable agent to replicate normal sleep.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether the quantity and quality of sleep may be improved by administration of propofol to adults in the ICU and to assess whether propofol given for sleep promotion improves both physical and psychological patient outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1946 to October 2017), Embase (1974 to October 2017), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1937 to October 2017) and PsycINFO (1806 to October 2017). We searched clinical trials registers for ongoing studies, and conducted backward and forward citation searching of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials with adults, over the age of 16 years, admitted to the ICU with any diagnoses, given propofol versus a comparator to promote overnight sleep. We included participants who were and were not mechanically ventilated. We included studies that compared the use of propofol, given at an appropriate clinical dose with the intention of promoting night-time sleep, against: no agent; propofol at a different rate or dose; or another agent, administered specifically to promote sleep. We included only studies in which propofol was given during 'normal' sleeping hours (i.e. between 10 pm and 7 am) to promote a sleep-like state with a diurnal rhythm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and synthesized findings.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies with 149 randomized participants. We identified two studies awaiting classification for which we were unable to assess eligibility and one ongoing study.Participants differed in severity of illness as assessed by APACHE II scores in three studies and further differences existed between comparisons and methods. One study compared propofol versus no agent, one study compared different doses of propofol and two studies compared propofol versus a benzodiazepine (flunitrazepam, one study; midazolam, one study). All studies reported randomization and allocation concealment inadequately. We judged all studies to have high risk of performance bias from personnel who were unblinded. We noted that some study authors had blinded study outcome assessors and participants for relevant outcomes.It was not appropriate to combine data owing to high levels of methodological heterogeneity.One study comparing propofol with no agent (13 participants) measured quantity and quality of sleep using polysomnography; study authors reported no evidence of a difference in duration of sleep or sleep efficiency, and reported disruption to usual REM (rapid eye movement sleep) with propofol.One study comparing different doses of propofol (30 participants) measured quantity and quality of sleep by personnel using the Ramsay Sedation Scale; study authors reported that more participants who were given a higher dose of propofol had a successful diurnal rhythm, and achieved a greater sedation rhythmicity.Two studies comparing propofol with a different agent (106 participants) measured quantity and quality of sleep using the Pittsburgh Sleep Diary and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; one study reported fewer awakenings of reduced duration with propofol, and similar total sleep time between groups, and one study reported no evidence of a difference in sleep quality. One study comparing propofol with another agent (66 participants) measured quantity and quality of sleep with the Bispectral Index and reported longer time in deep sleep, with fewer arousals. One study comparing propofol with another agent (40 participants) reported higher levels of anxiety and depression in both groups, and no evidence of a difference when participants were given propofol.No studies reported adverse events.We used the GRADE approach to downgrade the certainty of the evidence for each outcome to very low. We identified sparse data with few participants, and methodological differences in study designs and comparative agents introduced inconsistency, and we noted that measurement tools were imprecise or not valid for purpose.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found insufficient evidence to determine whether administration of propofol would improve the quality and quantity of sleep in adults in the ICU. We noted differences in study designs, methodology, comparative agents and illness severity amongst study participants. We did not pool data and we used the GRADE approach to downgrade the certainty of our evidence to very low.
Topics: Adult; Dyssomnias; Flunitrazepam; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Intensive Care Units; Midazolam; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep
PubMed: 29308828
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012454.pub2 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Sep 2016The main objective of this systematic literature review is to identify the safest and most effective sedative drugs so as to ensure successful sedation with as few... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The main objective of this systematic literature review is to identify the safest and most effective sedative drugs so as to ensure successful sedation with as few complications as possible.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic literature review of the PubMed MEDLINE database was carried out using the key words "conscious sedation," "drugs," and "dentistry." A total of 1,827 scientific articles were found, and these were narrowed down to 473 articles after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. These 473 studies were then individually assessed for their suitability for inclusion in this literature review.
RESULTS
A total of 21 studies were selected due to their rigorous study design and conduciveness to further, more exhaustive analysis. The selected studies included a total of 1,0003 patients classified as ASA I or II. Midazolam was the drug most frequently used for successful sedation in dental surgical procedures. Ketamine also proved very useful when administered intranasally, although some side effects were observed when delivered via other routes of administration. Both propofol and nitrous oxide (N2O) are also effective sedative drugs.
CONCLUSIONS
Midazolam is the drug most commonly used to induce moderate sedation in dental surgical procedures, and it is also very safe. Other sedative drugs like ketamine, dexmedetomidine and propofol have also been proven safe and effective; however, further comparative clinical studies are needed to better demonstrate which of these are the safest and most effective.
Topics: Anesthesia, Dental; Conscious Sedation; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Propofol
PubMed: 27475684
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.20981 -
Journal of Intensive Care Aug 2021Patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) is a common problem in patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) in the intensive care unit (ICU), and may accelerate...
BACKGROUND
Patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) is a common problem in patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) in the intensive care unit (ICU), and may accelerate lung injury and diaphragm mis-contraction. The impact of PVA on clinical outcomes has not been systematically evaluated. Effective interventions (except for closed-loop ventilation) for reducing PVA are not well established.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the impact of PVA on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing MV (Part A) and the effectiveness of interventions for patients undergoing MV except for closed-loop ventilation (Part B). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO-ICTRP until August 2020. In Part A, we defined asynchrony index (AI) ≥ 10 or ineffective triggering index (ITI) ≥ 10 as high PVA. We compared patients having high PVA with those having low PVA.
RESULTS
Eight studies in Part A and eight trials in Part B fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In Part A, five studies were related to the AI and three studies were related to the ITI. High PVA may be associated with longer duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference, 5.16 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.38 to 7.94; n = 8; certainty of evidence [CoE], low), higher ICU mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.73; 95% CI 1.76 to 4.24; n = 6; CoE, low), and higher hospital mortality (OR, 1.94; 95% CI 1.14 to 3.30; n = 5; CoE, low). In Part B, interventions involving MV mode, tidal volume, and pressure-support level were associated with reduced PVA. Sedation protocol, sedation depth, and sedation with dexmedetomidine rather than propofol were also associated with reduced PVA.
CONCLUSIONS
PVA may be associated with longer MV duration, higher ICU mortality, and higher hospital mortality. Physicians may consider monitoring PVA and adjusting ventilator settings and sedatives to reduce PVA. Further studies with adjustment for confounding factors are warranted to determine the impact of PVA on clinical outcomes. Trial registration protocols.io (URL: https://www.protocols.io/view/the-impact-of-patient-ventilator-asynchrony-in-adu-bsqtndwn , 08/27/2020).
PubMed: 34399855
DOI: 10.1186/s40560-021-00565-5 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the...
Efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of sedation with DEX during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with a view to providing evidence-based references for clinical decision-making. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DEX with different sedatives comparators (such as propofol, midazolam, and ketamine) for sedation in a variety of adult gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 1 July 2022. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI were used for continuous outcomes or dichotomous outcomes, respectively, and a random-effect model was selected regardless of the significance of the heterogeneity. Forty studies with 2,955 patients were assessed, of which 1,333 patients were in the DEX group and 1,622 patients were in the control (without DEX) group. The results suggested that the primary outcomes of sedation level of DEX are comparable to other sedatives, with similar RSS score and patient satisfaction level, and better in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of body movements or gagging (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.97; = 0.04; I = 68%), and a reduced additional requirement for other sedatives, and increased endoscopist satisfaction level (SMD: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.77; = 0.03; I = 86%). In terms of secondary outcomes of adverse events, DEX may benefit patients in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of hypoxia (RR:0.34; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.55; < 0.0001; I = 52%) and cough (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54; = 0.0004; I = 0%), no significant difference in the risk of hypotension, while an increased risk of bradycardia (RR: 3.08; 95% CI: 2.12 to 4.48; < 0.00001; I = 6%). This meta-analysis indicates that DEX is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy because of its benefits for patients in some clinical outcomes. Remarkably, DEX is comparable to midazolam and propofol in terms of sedation level. In conclusion, DEX provides an additional option in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced.
PubMed: 38034988
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1241714 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2023This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the efficacy of acupuncture therapy (including manual acupuncture and electroacupuncture)...
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the efficacy of acupuncture therapy (including manual acupuncture and electroacupuncture) performed before or during gastrointestinal endoscopy with propofol as the main sedative, compared with placebo, sham acupuncture, or no additional treatment other than the same sedation.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Databases (CBM), Wanfang database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), SinoMed, and Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP) to collect randomized controlled trials published before 5 November 2022. Bias assessment of the included RCTs was performed according to Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). Stata16.0 software was used to perform statistical analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias analysis. The primary outcome was sedative consumption, and the secondary outcomes included the incidence of adverse events and wake-up time.
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies with 1331 participants were included. The results showed that sedative consumption [mean difference (MD) = -29.32, 95% CI (-36.13, -22.50), < 0.001], wake-up time [MD = -3.87, 95% CI (-5.43, -2.31), < 0.001] and the incidence of adverse events including hypotension, nausea and vomiting, and coughing ( < 0.05) were significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group.
CONCLUSION
Acupuncture combined with sedation reduces sedative consumption and wake-up time compared with sedation alone in gastrointestinal endoscopy; this combined approach allows patients to regain consciousness more quickly after examination and lower the risk of adverse effects. However, with the limited quantity and quality of relevant clinical studies, caution must be applied until more high-quality clinical studies verify and refine the conclusions.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?, identifier: CRD42022370422.
PubMed: 37396891
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1189429 -
Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Jan 2021Postoperative delirium (POD) is a condition of cerebral dysfunction and a common complication after surgery. This study aimed to compare and determine the relative...
BACKGROUND
Postoperative delirium (POD) is a condition of cerebral dysfunction and a common complication after surgery. This study aimed to compare and determine the relative efficacy of pharmacological interventions for preventing POD using a network meta-analysis.
METHODS
We performed a systematic and comprehensive search to identify and analyze all randomized controlled trials until June 29, 2020, comparing two or more pharmacological interventions, including placebo, to prevent or reduce POD. The primary outcome was the incidence of POD. We performed a network meta-analysis and used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values and rankograms to present the hierarchy of the pharmacological interventions evaluated.
RESULTS
According to the SUCRA value, the incidence of POD decreased in the following order: the combination of propofol and acetaminophen (86.1%), combination of ketamine and dexmedetomidine (86.0%), combination of diazepam, flunitrazepam, and pethidine (84.8%), and olanzapine (75.6%) after all types of anesthesia; combination of propofol and acetaminophen (85.9%), combination of ketamine and dexmedetomidine (83.2%), gabapentin (82.2%), and combination of diazepam, flunitrazepam, and pethidine (79.7%) after general anesthesia; and ketamine (87.1%), combination of propofol and acetaminophen (86.0%), and combination of dexmedetomidine and acetaminophen (66.3%) after cardiac surgery. However, only the dexmedetomidine group showed a lower incidence of POD than the control group after all types of anesthesia and after general anesthesia.
CONCLUSIONS
Dexmedetomidine reduced POD compared with the control group. The combination of propofol and acetaminophen and the combination of ketamine and dexmedetomidine seemed to be effective in preventing POD. However, further studies are needed to determine the optimal pharmacological intervention to prevent POD.
PubMed: 33445233
DOI: 10.17085/apm.20079 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021This meta-analysis was performed to access the influence of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for adult patients with sepsis undergoing mechanical ventilation. NCBI...
This meta-analysis was performed to access the influence of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for adult patients with sepsis undergoing mechanical ventilation. NCBI PUBMED, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), and China Biological Medicine (CBM) were searched. Revman 5.3 and Stata software (version 12.0, Stata Corp LP, College Station, TX, United States) were used for meta-analysis. Fifteen studies were included, and the data from the included studies were incorporated into the meta-analysis. Also, the result shows that compared with propofol, dexmedetomidine does not reduce 28-day mortality [risk ratios (RR) =0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) =0.83-1.13, = 0.70]. However, our analysis found that dexmedetomidine could reduce intensive care unit (ICU) stays {standard mean difference (SMD): -0.15; 95% CI: [-0.30-(-0.01)], = 0.03}, duration of mechanical ventilation {SMD: -0.22; 95% CI: [-0.44-(-0.01)], = 0.043}, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) {SMD: -0.41; 95% CI: [-0.73-(-0.09)], = 0.013}, levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) at 24 h (SMD: -2.53; 95% CI: -5.30-0.24, = 0.074), and levels of CK-MB at 72 h {SMD: -0.45; 95% CI: [-0.83-(-0.08)], = 0.017}. This meta-analysis (MA) suggests that in terms of 28-day mortality, sepsis patients with the treatment of dexmedetomidine did not differ from those who received propofol. In addition, more high-quality trials are needed to confirm these findings. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, identifier CRD42021249780.
PubMed: 34721015
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.717023 -
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 2022Postoperative delirium (POD) is one of the serious postoperative complications in elderly patients, which is always related to long-term mortality. Anesthesia is often...
STUDY OBJECTIVE
Postoperative delirium (POD) is one of the serious postoperative complications in elderly patients, which is always related to long-term mortality. Anesthesia is often considered a risk factor for POD. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to assess the impact of different anesthesia methods and anesthetics on POD.
MEASUREMENTS
We searched for studies published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to 18 March 2022. RevMan 5.3 and CINeMA 2.0.0 were used to assess the risk of bias and confidence. Data analysis using STATA 17.0 and R 4.1.2. STATA 17.0 was used to calculate the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and provide network plots with CINeMA 2.0.0. NMA was performed with R 4.1.2 software gemtc packages in RStudio.
MAIN RESULTS
This NMA included 19 RCTs with 5,406 patients. In the pairwise meta-analysis results, only regional anesthesia (RA) with general anesthesia (GA) vs. GA (Log OR: -1.08; 95% CI: -1.54, -0.63) were statistically different in POD incidence. In the NMA results, there was no statistical difference between anesthesia methods, and psoas compartment block (PCB) with bupivacaine was superior to the desflurane, propofol, sevoflurane, and spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine of POD occurrence.
CONCLUSION
Our study indicated that RA and GA had no significant effect on POD, and there was no difference between anesthesia methods. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that, except for RA with GA vs. GA, the rest of the results were not statistically different. Besides, PCB with bupivacaine may benefit to reduce POD incidence.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/dis play_record.php?ID=CRD42022319499, identifier PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022319499.
PubMed: 36408115
DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.935716