-
Research Square Aug 2023To meta-analyze clinical efficacy and safety of ketamine compared with other anesthetic agents in the course of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in major depressive...
OBJECTIVE
To meta-analyze clinical efficacy and safety of ketamine compared with other anesthetic agents in the course of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in major depressive episode (MDE).
METHODS
PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, GoogleScholar, and US and European trial registries were searched from inception through May 23, 2023, with no language limits. We included RCTs with (1) a diagnosis of MDE; (2) ECT intervention with ketamine and/or other anesthetic agents; and (3) measures included: depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, remission or response rates, and serious adverse events. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to compare ketamine and 7 other anesthetic agents. Hedges' standardized mean differences (SMDs) were used for continuous measures, and relative risks (RRs) were used for other binary outcomes using random-effects models.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies were included in the systematic review. A total of 2,322 patients from 17 RCTs were included in the NMA. The overall pooled SMD of ketamine, as compared with a propofol reference group, was -2.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.79 to -0.64) in depressive symptoms, indicating that ketamine had better antidepressant efficacy than propofol. In a sensitivity analysis, however, ketamine-treated patients had a worse outcome in cognitive performance than propofol-treated patients (SMD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.09). No other statistically significant differences were found.
CONCLUSIONS
Ketamine-assisted ECT is tolerable and may be efficacious in improving depressive symptoms, but a relative adverse impact on cognition may be an important clinical consideration. Anesthetic agents should be considered based on patient profiles and/or preferences to improve effectiveness and safety of ECT use.
PubMed: 37609159
DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3182771/v1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous system (CNS) with rapid onset of action and few adverse effects. The drug can be administered by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a procedure (diagnostic or therapeutic).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL to January 2016), MEDLINE in Ovid (1966 to January 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016). We imposed no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials in which midazolam, administered to participants of any age, by any route, at any dose or any time before any procedure (apart from dental procedures), was compared with placebo or other medications including sedatives and analgesics.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. We performed a separate analysis for each different drug comparison.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 30 trials (2319 participants) of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy (16 trials), bronchoscopy (3), diagnostic imaging (5), cardioversion (1), minor plastic surgery (1), lumbar puncture (1), suturing (2) and Kirschner wire removal (1). Comparisons were: intravenous diazepam (14), placebo (5) etomidate (1) fentanyl (1), flunitrazepam (1) and propofol (1); oral chloral hydrate (4), diazepam (2), diazepam and clonidine (1); ketamine (1) and placebo (3); and intranasal placebo (2). There was a high risk of bias due to inadequate reporting about randomization (75% of trials). Effect estimates were imprecise due to small sample sizes. None of the trials reported on allergic or anaphylactoid reactions. Intravenous midazolam versus diazepam (14 trials; 1069 participants)There was no difference in anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.62; 175 participants; 2 trials) or discomfort/pain (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.49; 415 participants; 5 trials; I² = 67%). Midazolam produced greater anterograde amnesia (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.66; 587 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence). Intravenous midazolam versus placebo (5 trials; 493 participants)One trial reported that fewer participants who received midazolam were anxious (3/47 versus 15/35; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in discomfort/pain identified in a further trial (3/85 in midazolam group; 4/82 in placebo group; P = 0.876; very low-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate (4 trials; 268 participants)Midazolam increased the risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; moderate-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus placebo (3 trials; 176 participants)Midazolam reduced pain (midazolam mean 2.56 (standard deviation (SD) 0.49); placebo mean 4.62 (SD 1.49); P < 0.005) and anxiety (midazolam mean 1.52 (SD 0.3); placebo mean 3.97 (SD 0.44); P < 0.0001) in one trial with 99 participants. Two other trials did not find a difference in numerical rating of anxiety (mean 1.7 (SD 2.4) for 20 participants randomized to midazolam; mean 2.6 (SD 2.9) for 22 participants randomized to placebo; P = 0.216; mean Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Inventory score 47.56 (SD 11.68) in the midazolam group; mean 52.78 (SD 9.61) in placebo group; P > 0.05). Intranasal midazolam versus placebo (2 trials; 149 participants)Midazolam induced sedation (midazolam mean 3.15 (SD 0.36); placebo mean 2.56 (SD 0.64); P < 0.001) and reduced the numerical rating of anxiety in one trial with 54 participants (midazolam mean 17.3 (SD 18.58); placebo mean 49.3 (SD 29.46); P < 0.001). There was no difference in meta-analysis of results from both trials for risk of incomplete procedures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.12; downgraded to low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no high-quality evidence to determine if midazolam, when administered as the sole sedative agent prior to a procedure, produces more or less effective sedation than placebo or other medications. There is low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam reduced anxiety when compared with placebo. There is inconsistent evidence that oral midazolam decreased anxiety during procedures compared with placebo. Intranasal midazolam did not reduce the risk of incomplete procedures, although anxiolysis and sedation were observed. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Administration, Oral; Adult; Anxiety; Child; Chloral Hydrate; Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures; Diazepam; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Injections, Intravenous; Midazolam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Therapeutics
PubMed: 27198122
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009491.pub2 -
Medicine May 2018Interest in the anesthetic use of xenon, a noble gas, has waxed and waned for decades, and the clinical effects of xenon are still debated. We performed a meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Interest in the anesthetic use of xenon, a noble gas, has waxed and waned for decades, and the clinical effects of xenon are still debated. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the clinical efficacy of xenon with that of propofol.
METHODS
Electronic searches were performed through December 2017 using various databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. We identified thirteen trials that included a total of 817 patients.
RESULTS
Patients treated with xenon had a lower bispectral index (BIS) (weighted mean difference (WMD): -6.26, 95% confidence interval (CI): -11.33 to -1.18, P = .02), a higher mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) (WMD: 7.00, 95% CI: 2.32-11.68, P = .003) and a lower heart rate (HR) (WMD: -9.45, 95% CI: -12.28 to -6.63, P < 0.00001) than propofol-treated patients. However, there were no significant differences between the 2 treatment groups in the effects of nondepolarizing muscular relaxants, the duration spent in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) (WMD: -0.94, 95% CI: -8.79-6.91, P = .81), or the incidence of perioperative complications [assessed using the outcomes of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (relative risk (RR): 2.01, 95% CI: 0.79-5.11, P = .14), hypotension (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.27 to 1.40, P = .25), hypertension (RR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.73-2.21, P = .39) and bradycardia (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.36-2.74, P = 1.00)].
CONCLUSION
In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, we found that xenon treatment resulted in a higher MAP, a lower HR, and a smaller BIS index than treatment with propofol.
Topics: Anesthesia; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Humans; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Xenon
PubMed: 29768360
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000010758 -
Journal of Korean Medical Science Apr 2019Despite well-known advantages, propofol remains off-label in many countries for general anesthesia in children under 3 years of age due to insufficient evidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite well-known advantages, propofol remains off-label in many countries for general anesthesia in children under 3 years of age due to insufficient evidence regarding its use in this population. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol compared with other general anesthetics in children under 3 years of age undergoing surgery through a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing randomized clinical trials.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to find all randomized clinical trials comparing propofol with another general anesthetic that included children under 3 years of age. The relative risk or arcsine-transformed risk difference for dichotomous outcomes and the weighted or standardized mean difference for continuous outcomes were estimated using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 249 young children from 6 publications were included. The children who received propofol had statistically significantly lower systolic and diastolic blood pressures, but hypotension was not observed in the propofol groups. The heart rate, stroke volume index, and cardiac index were not significantly different between the propofol and control groups. The propofol groups showed slightly shorter recovery times and a lower incidence of emergence agitation than the control groups, while no difference was observed for the incidence of hypotension, desaturation, and apnea.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that propofol use for general anesthesia in young healthy children undergoing surgery does not increase complications and that propofol could be at least comparable to other anesthetic agents.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Child, Preschool; Databases, Factual; Emergence Delirium; Hemodynamics; Humans; Propofol; Thiopental
PubMed: 31001938
DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e124 -
Computational and Mathematical Methods... 2021To investigate the incidence of adverse effects of propofol among pediatric population for sedation or anesthesia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To investigate the incidence of adverse effects of propofol among pediatric population for sedation or anesthesia.
METHODS
We performed Cochrane Library, PubMed, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang databases to research relevant literature. We did sensitivity analysis to assess the incidence of adverse effects of propofol among pediatric population for sedation or anesthesia.
RESULTS
In 132 studies, eight RCTs were included in this analysis. The result showed that adverse events (bradypnea, hypotension, hypertension, and apnea) were significantly improved in the pediatric emergency population in the propofol group, but it had no effect on the incidence of cough attacks, desaturation, agitation, stridor, and laryngospasm. Furthermore, the subgroup analysis showed that those who received propofol for had decreased adverse effects compared with the patients who received ketamine treatment (SMD = 0.44, 95%CI = [0.28, 0.67], = 0%, and = 0.0002), which demonstrated that propofol could decrease the incidence of adverse effects compared with ketamine and ketofol.
CONCLUSIONS
The study demonstrated that propofol may decrease the incidence of bradypnea, hypotension, hypertension, and apnea, but it had no effect on the incidence of cough attacks, desaturation, agitation, stridor, and laryngospasm. Furthermore, more large RCTs are needed to assess incidence of adverse effects of propofol among pediatric population.
Topics: Anesthesia, Intravenous; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Child; Computational Biology; Emergency Medical Services; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Incidence; Propofol
PubMed: 34976104
DOI: 10.1155/2021/3160154 -
PloS One 2021To determine the effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing thyroidectomy. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing thyroidectomy.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS
Randomized clinical trials that investigated the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions in preventing PONV in patients undergoing thyroidectomy were included. The primary endpoints were the incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), use of rescue antiemetics, and incidence of complete response in the overall postoperative phases. The secondary endpoints were the same parameters assessed in the early, middle, and late postoperative phases. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values and rankograms were used to present the hierarchy of pharmacologic interventions.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies (n = 3,467 patients) that investigated 17 different pharmacologic interventions were included. According to the SUCRA values, the incidence of PONV among the overall postoperative phases was lowest with propofol alone (16.1%), followed by palonosetron (27.5%), and with tropisetron (28.7%). The incidence of PON among the overall postoperative phases was lowest with propofol alone (11.8%), followed by tropisetron and propofol combination (14%), and ramosetron and dexamethasone combination (18.0%). The incidence of POV among the overall postoperative phases was lowest with tropisetron and propofol combination (2.2%), followed by ramosetron and dexamethasone combination (23.2%), and tropisetron alone (37.3%). The least usage of rescue antiemetics among the overall postoperative phases and the highest complete response was observed with tropisetron and propofol combination (3.9% and 96.6%, respectively).
CONCLUSION
Propofol and tropisetron alone and in combination, and the ramosetron and dexamethasone combination effectively prevented PONV, PON, POV in patients undergoing thyroidectomy, with some heterogeneity observed in this NMA of full-text reports. Their use minimized the need for rescue antiemetics and enhanced the complete response.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42018100002.
Topics: Antiemetics; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thyroidectomy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33428643
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243865 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015In cardiac ischaemia, the accumulation of adenosine may lead to or exacerbate bradyasystole and diminish the effectiveness of catecholamines administered during... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In cardiac ischaemia, the accumulation of adenosine may lead to or exacerbate bradyasystole and diminish the effectiveness of catecholamines administered during resuscitation. Aminophylline is a competitive adenosine antagonist. Case studies suggest that aminophylline may be effective for atropine-resistant bradyasystolic arrest.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of aminophylline in the treatment of patients in bradyasystolic cardiac arrest, primarily survival to hospital discharge. We also considered survival to admission, return of spontaneous circulation, neurological outcomes and adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in November 2014. We checked the reference lists of retrieved articles, reviewed conference proceedings, contacted experts and searched further using Google.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous aminophylline with administered placebo in adults with non-traumatic, normothermic bradyasystolic cardiac arrest who were treated with standard advanced cardiac life support (ACLS).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed the studies and extracted the included data. We contacted study authors when needed. Pooled risk ratio (RR) was estimated for each study outcome. Subgroup analysis was predefined according to the timing of aminophylline administration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five trials in this analysis, all of which were performed in the prehospital setting. The risk of bias was low in four of these studies (n = 1186). The trials accumulated 1254 participants. Aminophylline was found to have no effect on survival to hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 2.74) or on secondary survival outcome (survival to hospital admission: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.39; return of spontaneous circulation: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.49). Survival was rare (6/1254), making data about neurological outcomes and adverse events quite limited. The planned subgroup analysis for early administration of aminophylline included 37 participants. No one in the subgroup survived to hospital discharge.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The prehospital administration of aminophylline in bradyasystolic arrest is not associated with improved return of circulation, survival to admission or survival to hospital discharge. The benefits of aminophylline administered early in resuscitative efforts are not known.
Topics: Aged; Aminophylline; Bradycardia; Cardiotonic Agents; Female; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Male; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 26593309
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006781.pub3 -
BMC Anesthesiology Apr 2023The benefit of remote ischemia preconditioning (RIPreC) in pediatric cardiac surgery is unclear. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The benefit of remote ischemia preconditioning (RIPreC) in pediatric cardiac surgery is unclear. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the effectiveness of RIPreC in reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay after pediatric cardiac surgery.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 31, 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing RIPreC versus control in children undergoing cardiac surgery were included. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. The outcomes of interest were postoperative duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis to calculate weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the outcomes of interest. We performed sensitivity analysis to examine the influence of intraoperative propofol use.
RESULTS
Thirteen trials enrolling 1,352 children were included. Meta-analyses of all trials showed that RIPreC did not reduce postoperative duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD -5.35 h, 95% CI -12.12-1.42) but reduced postoperative ICU length of stay (WMD -11.48 h, 95% CI -20.96- -2.01). When only trials using propofol-free anesthesia were included, both mechanical ventilation duration (WMD -2.16 h, 95% CI -3.87- -0.45) and ICU length of stay (WMD -7.41 h, 95% CI -14.77- -0.05) were reduced by RIPreC. The overall quality of evidence was moderate to low.
CONCLUSIONS
The effects of RIPreC on clinical outcomes after pediatric cardiac surgery were inconsistent, but both postoperative mechanical ventilation duration and ICU length of stay were reduced in the subgroup of children not exposed to propofol. These results suggested a possible interaction effect of propofol. More studies with adequate sample size and without intraoperative propofol use are needed to define the role of RIPreC in pediatric cardiac surgery.
Topics: Child; Humans; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Propofol; Intensive Care Units; Ischemic Preconditioning; Length of Stay; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 37005591
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02064-6 -
Asian Biomedicine : Research, Reviews... Dec 2021Traumatic brain injury (TBI) causes high mortality and disability worldwide. Animal models have been developed to explore the complex processes in TBI. Propofol is used...
BACKGROUND
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) causes high mortality and disability worldwide. Animal models have been developed to explore the complex processes in TBI. Propofol is used to manage head injuries during surgical intervention and mechanical ventilation in patients with TBI. Many studies have investigated the neuroprotective effect of propofol on TBI. However, other studies have shown neurotoxic effects.
OBJECTIVES
To review systematically the literature regarding the neuroprotective and neurotoxic effects of propofol in rodent models of TBI.
METHODS
Data from rodents as models of TBI with propofol as one of the intervention agents, and/or comparing the neuroprotective effects of propofol with the other substances in rodent models of TBI, were obtained from PubMed, EBSCO Host, and ProQuest databases. The PRISMA 2020 statement recommendations were followed and research questions were developed based on PICOS guidelines. Data was extracted from the literature using a standardized Cochrane method.
RESULTS
We analyzed data from 12 articles on physiological changes of experimental animals before and after trauma, the effects of propofol administration, and the observed neurotoxic effects. The effects of propofol administration were observed in terms of changes in traumatic lesion volume, the release of antioxidants and inflammatory factors, and the neurological function of rodent models of TBI.
CONCLUSION
Propofol has neuroprotective and neurotoxic effects via several mechanisms, and various doses have been used in research to determine its effects. The timing of administration, the dose administered, and the duration of administration contribute to determine the effect of propofol in rodent models of TBI. However, the doses that produce neuroprotective and neurotoxic effects are not yet clear and further research is needed to determine them.
PubMed: 37551361
DOI: 10.2478/abm-2021-0032 -
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