-
Annals of Intensive Care Aug 2022Dexmedetomidine is widely used in patients with sepsis. However, its effect on septic patients remains controversial. The objective of this study was to summarize all... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine is widely used in patients with sepsis. However, its effect on septic patients remains controversial. The objective of this study was to summarize all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining dexmedetomidine use in sepsis patients.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis included RCTs comparing dexmedetomidine with other sedatives in adult sepsis patients. We generated pooled relative risks (RRs) and standardized mean differences and performed trial sequential analysis and a cumulative meta-analysis. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were the length of the intensive care unit stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, number of ventilation-free days, incidence of total adverse event, incidence of delirium, and levels of interleukin 6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and alanine aminotransferase.
RESULTS
We included 19 RCTs that enrolled 1929 patients. Compared with other sedatives, dexmedetomidine decreased the all-cause mortality (RR 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.69, 0.99]) and inflammatory response (interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha levels at 24 h: standardized mean difference (SMD) - 2.15; 95% CI [- 3.25, - 1.05] and SMD - 1.07, 95% CI [- 1.92, - 0.22], respectively). Trial sequential analysis showed that it is not up to required information size. The overall risk adverse events was similar between dexmedetomidine and the other sedatives (RR 1.27, 95% CI [0.69, 2.36]), but dexmedetomidine increased the risk of arrhythmias (RR 1.43, 95% CI [0.59, 3.51]). Length of intensive care unit stay (SMD - 0.22; 95% CI [- 0.85, - 0.41]), duration of mechanical ventilation (SMD 0.12; 95% CI [- 1.10, 1.35]), incidence of delirium (RR 0.98; 95% CI [0.72, 1.33]), and levels of alanine aminotransferase and creatinine at 24 h were not significantly reduced.
CONCLUSIONS
Dexmedetomidine in sepsis patients could significantly reduce mortality compared with benzodiazepines but not with propofol. In addition, dexmedetomidine can significantly decrease inflammatory response in patients with sepsis compared with other sedatives. Dexmedetomidine might lead to an increased incidence of arrhythmias, but its safety profile did not show significant differences in the incidence of total adverse events. Future RCTs are needed to determine the sepsis patient population that would benefit most from dexmedetomidine and its optimal dosing regimen.
PubMed: 36029410
DOI: 10.1186/s13613-022-01052-2 -
Anaesthesia Oct 2021Evidence suggests that healthcare professionals are at an increased risk of dying by suicide, with anaesthetists at particularly high risk. However, much of the data on...
Evidence suggests that healthcare professionals are at an increased risk of dying by suicide, with anaesthetists at particularly high risk. However, much of the data on which this is based are historical. With a focus on the epidemiology and methods used, we conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding suicide and suicidal behaviour among anaesthetists to provide a more contemporary summary. The systematic review process was adapted from a previous similar study in veterinary surgeons and was consistent with recommended guidance. We identified 54 articles published in or after 1990 that had anaesthetist-specific data and met the inclusion criteria. Seven of these reported epidemiological data, of which four were published after 2000. Although none of the more recent studies reported standardised mortality rates specific to suicide in anaesthetists, the proportion of anaesthetists dying by suicide was increased with respect to comparator groups, which is consistent with previous findings. Eleven studies that included information on suicidal behaviour reported suicidal ideation in 3.2-25% of individuals (six studies) and suicide attempts in 0.5-2% (four studies). Studies reporting methods of suicide highlighted the use of anaesthetic drugs, particularly propofol, supporting the suggestion that the increased risk of suicide in anaesthetists may be related to the availability of the means. We discuss our findings in relation to other recently published data and guidance concerning mental health problems in anaesthetists.
Topics: Anesthetists; Humans; Suicide
PubMed: 34061350
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15514 -
BMC Anesthesiology Nov 2018It is unclear if anaesthesia maintenance with propofol is advantageous or beneficial over inhalational agents. This study is intended to compare the effects of propofol... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is unclear if anaesthesia maintenance with propofol is advantageous or beneficial over inhalational agents. This study is intended to compare the effects of propofol vs. inhalational agents in maintaining general anaesthesia on patient-relevant outcomes and patient satisfaction.
METHODS
Studies were identified by electronic database searches in PubMed™, EMBASE™ and the Cochrane™ library between 01/01/1985 and 01/08/2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of peer-reviewed journals were studied. Of 6688 studies identified, 229 RCTs were included with a total of 20,991 patients. Quality control, assessment of risk of bias, meta-bias, meta-regression and certainty in evidence were performed according to Cochrane. Common estimates were derived from fixed or random-effects models depending on the presence of heterogeneity. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was the primary outcome. Post-operative pain, emergence agitation, time to recovery, hospital length of stay, post-anaesthetic shivering and haemodynamic instability were considered key secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
The risk for PONV was lower with propofol than with inhalational agents (relative risk (RR) 0.61 [0.53, 0.69], p < 0.00001). Additionally, pain score after extubation and time in the post-operative anaesthesia care unit (PACU) were reduced with propofol (mean difference (MD) - 0.51 [- 0.81, - 0.20], p = 0.001; MD - 2.91 min [- 5.47, - 0.35], p = 0.03). In turn, time to respiratory recovery and tracheal extubation were longer with propofol than with inhalational agents (MD 0.82 min [0.20, 1.45], p = 0.01; MD 0.70 min [0.03, 1.38], p = 0.04, respectively). Notably, patient satisfaction, as reported by the number of satisfied patients and scores, was higher with propofol (RR 1.06 [1.01, 1.10], p = 0.02; MD 0.13 [0.00, 0.26], p = 0.05). Secondary analyses supported the primary results.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the present meta-analysis there are several advantages of anaesthesia maintenance with propofol over inhalational agents. While these benefits result in an increased patient satisfaction, the clinical and economic relevance of these findings still need to be addressed in adequately powered prospective clinical trials.
Topics: Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Anesthesia, General; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Hospitalization; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30409186
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-018-0632-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015There is increasing evidence that propofol is efficacious and safe for procedural sedation (PS) in the emergency department (ED) setting. However, propofol has a narrow... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is increasing evidence that propofol is efficacious and safe for procedural sedation (PS) in the emergency department (ED) setting. However, propofol has a narrow therapeutic window and lacks of a reversal agent. The aim of this review was to cohere the evidence base regarding the efficacy and safety profile of propofol when used in the ED setting for PS.
OBJECTIVES
To identify and evaluate all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing propofol with alternative drugs (benzodiazepines, barbiturates, etomidate and ketamine) used in the ED setting for PS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1950 to September week 2 2013) and EMBASE (1980 to week 2 2013). We searched the Current Controlled Trials metaRegister of Clinical Trials (compiled by Current Science) (September 2013). We checked the reference lists of trials and contacted trial authors. We imposed no language restriction. We re-ran the search in February 2015. We will deal with the one study awaiting classification when we update the review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs comparing propofol to alternative drugs (benzodiazepines, barbiturates, etomidate and ketamine) used in the ED setting for PS in participants of all ages.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently performed data extraction. Two authors performed trial quality assessment. We used mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to measure effect sizes. Two authors independently assessed and rated the methodological quality of each trial using The Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten studies (813 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Two studies only included participants 18 years and younger; six studies only included participants 18 years and older; one study included participants between 16 and 65 years of age and one study included only adults but did not specify the age range. Eight of the included studies had a high risk of bias. The included studies were clinically heterogeneous. We undertook no meta-analysis.The primary outcome measures of this review were: adverse effects (as defined by the study authors) and participant satisfaction (as defined by the study authors). In one study comparing propofol/fentanyl with ketamine/midazolam, delayed adverse reactions (nightmares and behavioural change) were noted in 10% of the ketamine/midazolam group and none in the propofol/fentanyl group. Seven individual studies reported no evidence of a difference in adverse effects between intravenous propofol, with and without adjunctive analgesic agents, and alternative interventions. Three individual studies reported no evidence of a difference in pain at the injection site between intravenous propofol and alternative interventions. Four individual studies reported no evidence of a difference in participant satisfaction between intravenous propofol, with and without adjunctive analgesic agents, and alternative interventions (ketamine, etomidate, midazolam). All the studies employed propofol without the use of an adjunctive analgesic and all, except one, were small (fewer than 100 participants) studies. The quality of evidence for the adverse effects and participant satisfaction outcomes was very low.Nine included studies (eight comparisons) reported all the secondary outcome measures of the review except mortality. It was not possible to pool the results of the included studies for any of the secondary outcome measures because the comparator interventions were different and the measures were reported in different ways. Seven individual studies reported no evidence of difference in incidence of hypoxia between intravenous propofol, with and without adjunctive analgesic agents, and alternative interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No firm conclusions can be drawn concerning the comparative effects of administering intravenous propofol, with or without an adjunctive analgesic agent, with alternative interventions in participants undergoing PS in the ED setting on adverse effects (including pain at the injection site) and participant satisfaction. The review was limited because no two included studies employed the same comparator interventions, and because the number of participants in eight of the included studies were small (fewer than 100 participants).
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anesthesia; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Emergency Service, Hospital; Etomidate; Fentanyl; Humans; Ketamine; Midazolam; Middle Aged; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26222247
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007399.pub2 -
Scientific Reports Aug 2019Propofol is one of the most widely used drugs for paediatric procedural sedation owing to its known advantages, but some concerns remain regarding respiratory and/or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Propofol is one of the most widely used drugs for paediatric procedural sedation owing to its known advantages, but some concerns remain regarding respiratory and/or cardiac complications in patients receiving propofol. Although a considerable number of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) have been conducted to compare it with other sedative agents or opioids for children undergoing various procedures, propofol is still being used off-label for this indication in many countries. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of those RCTs to provide an overall summation of evidence that can potentially be considered for further regulatory decisions, including reimbursement policies. We searched for RCTs in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception to January 31, 2018. Our meta-analysis of 30 RCTs confirmed that propofol sedation had advantages in recovery time when compared with other drugs, without excessive concerns for cardiovascular or respiratory adverse events. Its safety profile regarding coughing, nausea or vomiting, and emergence delirium was also similar to that of other drugs. The overall evidence suggests that propofol sedation for paediatric procedures should be considered more positively in the context of regulatory decisions.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Male; Pediatrics; Propofol
PubMed: 31439875
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-48724-x -
Medicine Dec 2017Volatile sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) may reduce the number of adverse events and improve patient outcomes compared with intravenous (IV) sedation. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Volatile sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) may reduce the number of adverse events and improve patient outcomes compared with intravenous (IV) sedation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effects of volatile and IV sedation in adult ICU patients.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register, and Web of Science databases for all randomized trials comparing volatile sedation using an anesthetic-conserving device (ACD) with IV sedation in terms of awakening and extubation times, lengths of ICU and hospital stay, and pharmacologic end-organ effects.
RESULTS
Thirteen trials with a total of 1027 patients were included. Volatile sedation (sevoflurane or isoflurane) administered through an ACD shortened the awakening time [mean difference (MD), -80.0 minutes; 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), -134.5 to -25.6; P = .004] and extubation time (MD, -196.0 minutes; 95% CIs, -305.2 to -86.8; P < .001) compared with IV sedation (midazolam or propofol). No differences in the lengths of ICU and hospital stay were noted between the 2 groups. In the analysis of cardiac effects of sedation from 5 studies, patients who received volatile sedation showed lower serum troponin levels 6 hours after ICU admission than patients who received IV sedation (P < .05). The effect size of troponin was largest between 12 and 24 hours after ICU admission (MD, -0.27 μg/L; 95% CIs, -0.44 to -0.09; P = .003).
CONCLUSION
Compared with IV sedation, volatile sedation administered through an ACD in the ICU shortened the awakening and extubation times. Considering the difference in serum troponin levels between both arms, volatile anesthetics might have a myocardial protective effect after cardiac surgery even at a subanesthetic dose. Because the included studies used small sample sizes with high heterogeneity, further large, high-quality prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm our findings.
Topics: Airway Extubation; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Isoflurane; Length of Stay; Methyl Ethers; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sevoflurane
PubMed: 29245269
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008976 -
Anaesthesia Jan 2023We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effect of high-flow nasal oxygen and conventional oxygen therapy during procedural sedation amongst adults and children.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effect of high-flow nasal oxygen and conventional oxygen therapy during procedural sedation amongst adults and children. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL for randomised controlled trials that reported the effects of high-flow nasal oxygen during procedural sedation. The primary outcome measure was hypoxaemia and the secondary outcomes were minimum oxygen saturation; hypercarbia; requirement for airway manoeuvres; and procedure interruptions. The quality of evidence was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of bias tool and grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE). Nineteen randomised controlled trials (4121 patients) including three in children were included. Administration of high-flow nasal oxygen reduced hypoxaemia, risk ratio (95%CI) 0.37 (0.24-0.56), p < 0.001; minor airway manoeuvre requirements, risk ratio (95%CI) 0.26 (0.11-0.59), p < 0.001; procedural interruptions, risk ratio (95%CI) 0.17 (0.05-0.53), p = 0.002; and increased minimum oxygen saturation, mean difference (95%CI) 4.1 (2.70-5.50), p < 0.001; as compared with the control group. High-flow nasal oxygen had no impact on hypercarbia, risk ratio (95%CI) 1.24 (0.97-1.58), p = 0.09, I = 0%. High-flow nasal oxygen reduced the incidence of hypoxaemia regardless of the procedure involved, degree of fractional inspired oxygen, risk-profile of patients and mode of propofol administration. The evidence was ascertained as moderate for all outcomes except for procedure interruptions. In summary, high-flow nasal oxygen compared with conventional oxygenation techniques reduced the risk of hypoxaemia, increased minimum oxygen saturation and reduced the requirement for airway manoeuvres. High-flow nasal oxygen should be considered in patients at risk of hypoxaemia during procedural sedation.
Topics: Child; Humans; Oxygen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36044543
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15845 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Mar 2017Although pulmonary aspiration complicating operative general anaesthesia has been extensively studied, little is known regarding aspiration during procedural sedation. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although pulmonary aspiration complicating operative general anaesthesia has been extensively studied, little is known regarding aspiration during procedural sedation.
METHODS
We performed a comprehensive, systematic review to identify and catalogue published instances of aspiration involving procedural sedation in patients of all ages. We sought to report descriptively the circumstances, nature, and outcomes of these events.
RESULTS
Of 1249 records identified by our search, we found 35 articles describing one or more occurrences of pulmonary aspiration during procedural sedation. Of the 292 occurrences during gastrointestinal endoscopy, there were eight deaths. Of the 34 unique occurrences for procedures other than endoscopy, there was a single death in a moribund patient, full recovery in 31, and unknown recovery status in two. We found no occurrences of aspiration in non-fasted patients receiving procedures other than endoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS
This first systematic review of pulmonary aspiration during procedural sedation identified few occurrences outside of gastrointestinal endoscopy, with full recovery typical. Although diligent caution remains warranted, our data indicate that aspiration during procedural sedation appears rare, idiosyncratic, and typically benign.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Humans; Intraoperative Complications; Respiratory Aspiration
PubMed: 28186265
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aex004 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2009Delirium is common in the last weeks of life, occurring in 26% to 44% of people with advanced cancer in hospital, and in up to 88% of people with terminal illness in the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Delirium is common in the last weeks of life, occurring in 26% to 44% of people with advanced cancer in hospital, and in up to 88% of people with terminal illness in the last days of life.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of interventions at the end of life in people with delirium caused by underlying terminal illness? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to February 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found three systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: artificial hydration; barbiturates; benzodiazepines; haloperidol; opioid switching; phenothiazines; and propofol.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Antipsychotic Agents; Barbiturates; Delirium; Haloperidol; Humans; Incidence; Neoplasms; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 21696645
DOI: No ID Found -
PloS One 2021Patients undergo dilatation and evacuation for abortion or miscarriage. However, bleeding is sometimes problematic. Despite reports on the association between volatile... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Patients undergo dilatation and evacuation for abortion or miscarriage. However, bleeding is sometimes problematic. Despite reports on the association between volatile anesthetics and increased bleeding during the procedure, firm evidence is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects of volatile anesthetics and propofol on the amount of bleeding in patients undergoing dilatation and evacuation.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of four databases, namely PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), from their respective inception to April 2021. Moreover, we searched two trial registration sites. The inclusion criterion was randomized controlled trials of patients who underwent dilatation and evacuation under general anesthesia using volatile anesthetics or propofol. The primary outcome was the amount of perioperative bleeding. The mean difference of the bleeding was combined using a random-effects model. The I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. We assessed risk of bias with Cochrane domains. We controlled type I and II errors due to sparse data and repetitive testing with Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.
RESULTS
Five studies were included in the systematic review. The amount of bleeding was compared in four studies and was higher in the volatile anesthetic group, with a mean difference of 164.7 ml (95% confidence interval, 43.6 to 285.7; p = 0.04). Heterogeneity was considerable, with an I2 value of 97%. Two studies evaluated the incidence of significant bleeding, which was significantly higher in the volatile anesthetic group (RR, 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-5.63; p = 0.04).
CONCLUSION
Choosing propofol over volatile anesthetics during dilatation and evacuation might reduce bleeding and the incidence of excessive bleeding. However, the quality of the evidence was very low. This necessitates further trials with a low risk of bias.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42019120873).
Topics: Abortion, Induced; Abortion, Spontaneous; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Dilatation and Curettage; Female; Hemorrhage; Humans; Incidence; Pregnancy; Propofol
PubMed: 34937059
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261494