Intravenous versus inhalational techniques for rapid emergence from anaesthesia in patients undergoing brain tumour surgery

Volatile vs Total intravenous Anaesthesia for major non-cardiac surgery: a pragmatic randomised triaL (VITAL)

BACKGROUND

Improving outcomes after surgery is a major public health research priority for patients, clinicians and the NHS. The greatest burden of perioperative complications, mortality and healthcare costs lies amongst the population of patients aged over 50 years who undergo major non-cardiac surgery. The Volatile vs Total Intravenous Anaesthesia for major non-cardiac surgery (VITAL) trial specifically examines the effect of anaesthetic technique on key patient outcomes: quality of recovery after surgery (quality of recovery after anaesthesia, patient satisfaction and major post-operative complications), survival and patient safety.

METHODS

A multi-centre pragmatic efficient randomised trial with health economic evaluation comparing total intravenous anaesthesia with volatile-based anaesthesia in adults (aged 50 and over) undergoing elective major non-cardiac surgery under general anaesthesia.

DISCUSSION

Given the very large number of patients exposed to general anaesthesia every year, even small differences in outcome between the two techniques could result in substantial excess harm. Results from the VITAL trial will ensure patients can benefit from the very safest anaesthesia care, promoting an early return home, reducing healthcare costs and maximising the health benefits of surgical treatments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN62903453. September 09, 2021.

Efficacy of peritonsillar infiltration with dexmedetomidine versus tramadol in comparison to placebo for pain control and sedation after tonsillectomy in pediatric patients: A randomized clinical trial

Objective

This article aimed to assess the efficacy of peritonsillar infiltration with dexmedetomidine-ropivacaine versus tramadol-ropivacaine for pain control and sedation after tonsillectomy in pediatric patients.

Materials and Methods

This double-blind clinical trial recruited 99 eligible children (4-8 years old) undergoing tonsillectomy and assigned to three block-randomized groups, receiving dexmedetomidine-ropivacaine (group A), tramadol-ropivacaine (group B), or placebo-ropivacaine (group C). The vital signs included blood pressure, heart rate, and SaO2 before anesthesia induction, during surgery at regular intervals until 24 h after surgery. The duration of surgery and recovery, complications, and analgesic consumption were recorded and pain scores were measured by Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) and Oucher scales as well as sedation scores by the Wilson sedation scale. Data were analyzed within SPSS 20 at a significance level of 0.05.

Results

The lowest pain scores were measured by the CHEOPS scale in the dexmedetomidine-ropivacaine group (P < 0.05). Statistically significant difference was observed in the CHEOPS pain score between the first two groups at 30 min, 1 h, 2 h, and 4 h after surgery (P < 0.01). The differences were revealed in the Oucher pain assessments among all groups from the time of recovery to four postoperative hours (P < 0.05), with the lowest in the dexmedetomidine-ropivacaine group whose sedation score was greater during recovery and 5 min after surgery (P < 0.05). Subjects in tramadol group had six cases of dizziness and nausea, while no side effects were observed in two other groups (P < 0.05). Only seven participants receiving dexmedetomidine required acetaminophen, but 29 in the tramadol group and all in the placebo group demanded to receive acetaminophen (P = 0.001).

Conclusion

The authors concluded that dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to ropivacaine has better performance in local infiltration for intra- and post-tonsillectomy analgesia and postoperative sedation, without any special side effects (like the placebo group), and that it hence is recommended to be used for local infiltration during tonsillectomy.

Effect of driving pressure on early postoperative lung gas distribution in supratentorial craniotomy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Neurosurgical patients represent a high-risk population for postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). A lower intraoperative driving pressure (DP) is related to a reduction in postoperative pulmonary complications. We hypothesized that driving pressure-guided ventilation during supratentorial craniotomy might lead to a more homogeneous gas distribution in the lung postoperatively.

METHODS

This was a randomized trial conducted between June 2020 and July 2021 at Beijing Tiantan Hospital. Fifty-three patients undergoing supratentorial craniotomy were randomly divided into the titration group or control group at a ratio of 1 to 1. The control group received 5 cmH₂O PEEP, and the titration group received individualized PEEP targeting the lowest DP. The primary outcome was the global inhomogeneity index (GI) immediately after extubation obtained by electrical impedance tomography (EIT). The secondary outcomes were lung ultrasonography scores (LUSs), respiratory system compliance, the ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂/FiO₂) and PPCs within 3 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients were included in the analysis. The median (IQR [range]) DP in the titration group versus the control group was 10 (9-12 [7-13]) cmH₂O vs. 11 (10-12 [7-13]) cmH₂O, respectively (P = 0.040). The GI tract did not differ between groups immediately after extubation (P = 0.080). The LUS_S was significantly lower in the titration group than in the control group immediately after tracheal extubation (1 [0-3] vs. 3 [1-6], P = 0.045). The compliance in the titration group was higher than that in the control group at 1 h after intubation (48 [42-54] vs. 41 [37-46] ml·cmH₂O^-1, P = 0.011) and at the end of surgery (46 [42-51] vs. 41 [37-44] ml·cmH₂O^-1, P = 0.029). The PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio was not significantly different between groups in terms of the ventilation protocol (P = 0.117). At the 3-day follow-up, no postoperative pulmonary complications occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Driving pressure-guided ventilation during supratentorial craniotomy did not contribute to postoperative homogeneous aeration, but it may lead to improved respiratory compliance and lower lung ultrasonography scores.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04421976.

The anesthetist's choice of inhalational vs. intravenous anesthetics has no impact on survival of glioblastoma patients

Recent data suggest that the type of anesthesia used during the resection of solid tumors impacts the long-term survival of patients favoring total-intravenous-anesthesia (TIVA) over inhalative-anesthesia (INHA). Here we sought to query this impact on survival in patients undergoing resection of glioblastoma (GBM). All patients receiving elective resection of a newly diagnosed, isocitrate-dehydrogenase-1-(IDH1)-wildtype GBM under general anesthesia between January 2010 and June 2017 in the Department of Neurosurgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, were included. Patients were grouped according to the applied anesthetic technique. To adjust for potential prognostic confounders, patients were matched in a 1:2 ratio (TIVA vs. INHA), taking into account the known prognostic factors: age, extent of resection, O-6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase-(MGMT)-promoter-methylation-status, pre-operative Karnofsky-performance-index and adjuvant radio- and chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free-survival (PFS) and the secondary endpoint was overall-survival (OS). In the study period, 576 patients underwent resection of a newly diagnosed, IDH-wildtype GBM. Patients with incomplete follow-up-data, on palliative treatment, having emergency or awake surgery; 54 patients remained in the TIVA-group and 417 in the INHA-group. After matching, 52 patients remained in the TIVA-group and 92 in the INHA-group. Median PFS was 6 months in both groups. The median OS was 13.5 months in the TIVA-group and 13.0 months in the INHA-group. No significant survival differences associated with the type of anesthesia were found either before or after adjustment for known prognostic factors. This retrospective study supports the notion that the current anesthetic approaches employed during the resection of IDH-wildtype GBM do not impact patient survival.

[Brain tissue relaxation in craniotomy: a modern view of the perennial problem]

Intraoperative relaxation of brain tissue is one of the important factors affecting the quality and successful outcome of neurosurgical interventions. Despite many clinical studies on the problem of brain bulging, many issues remain not fully resolved. First of all, these are safety aspects of the preventive and therapeutic use of various strategies to fight this phenomenon, development of indications for introduction of hyperosmotic solutions, and use of hyperventilation or lifting of the head end of the operating table.

The effects of protective lung ventilation on regional cerebral oxygen saturation in intracranial tumor operation during dura opening: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Objective

The objective of this trial is to investigate the effects of protective lung ventilation on regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO₂) during dura opening, that is from Ta (after dura opening) to Tb (before dura closing), in patients undergoing intracranial tumor surgery.

Methods

This is a randomized controlled trial which will be carried out at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University. Fifty-four patients undergoing intracranial tumor surgery will be randomly allocated to the control group (C group) or the protective lung ventilation group (P group). In the C group, the tidal volume (VT) will be set at 8 ml/kg of predicted body weight, but positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers will not be used. In the P group, VT will be set at 6 ml/kg of predicted body weight combined with individualized PEEP during dura opening, while in other periods of general anesthesia, VT will be set at 8 ml/kg of predicted body weight. The level of rSO₂, partial pressures of oxygen and carbon dioxide, oxygenation index, lactic acid level in arterial blood, and mean arterial pressure will be compared before anesthesia (T0), before dura opening (T1), after dura closing (T2), and 24 h after surgery (T3). Lung ultrasound scores will be measured at T0 and T3. The degree of brain relaxation at T1 and T2 will be evaluated by the surgeon using the brain relaxation scale. The amount of vasoactive drugs used and blood loss will be recorded during surgery. The duration of operation and reoperation rate will be recorded. The primary outcome of this study is the changes in rSO₂ within 24 h postoperatively.

Discussion

This study aims to determine whether protective lung ventilation during dura opening can improve rSO₂ and the state of pulmonary ventilation in patients undergoing intracranial tumor surgery, and to investigate whether this strategy affects the degree of brain tissue swelling and the reoperation rate after operation. If our results are positive, this study will show that protective lung ventilation during dura opening can be used effectively and safely in neurosurgical patients undergoing craniotomy for tumor resection.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1900025632. Registered on 3 September 2019. chictr.org.cn.

International survey of neurosurgical anesthesia (iSonata) : An international survey of current practices in neurosurgical anesthesia

BACKGROUND

No standardized recommendations have been currently defined for anesthesia management of patients undergoing elective intracranial surgery. It can therefore be assumed that international clinical institutions have diverging approaches or standard operating procedures (SOP) which determine the type of general anesthesia, hemodynamic management, neuromuscular blockade, implementation of hypothermia and postoperative patient care.

OBJECTIVE

This international survey aimed to assess perioperative patient management during elective intracranial procedures. This survey was performed from February to October 2018 and 311 neurosurgical, maximum care centers across 19 European countries were contacted. The aim was to evaluate the anesthesia management to provide relevant data of neuroanesthesia practices across European centers. The survey differentiated between vascular and non-vascular as well as supratentorial and infratentorial procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 109 (35.0%) completed questionnaires from 15 European countries were analyzed. The results illustrated that total intravenous anesthesia was most commonly implemented during elective intracranial procedures (83.8%). All centers performed endotracheal intubation prior to major intracranial surgery (100%). Central venous lines were placed in 63.3% of cases. Moderate intraoperative hypothermia was carried out in 12.8% of the procedures, especially during vascular supratentorial and infratentorial surgery. A neuromuscular blockade during surgery was implemented in 74.1% of patients. Assessment of the neuromuscular junction was performed in 59.2% of cases, 76.7% of patients were immediately extubated in the operating room. 84.7% of these patients were directly transferred to a monitoring ward or an intensive care unit (ICU) and 55.1% of ventilated patients were transferred directly to an ICU.

CONCLUSION

The data demonstrate that many aspects of anesthesia management during elective intracranial surgery vary between European institutions. The data also suggest that a broad consensus exists regarding the implementation of total intravenous anesthesia, airway management (endotracheal intubation), the implementation of urinary catheters, large bore peripheral venous lines and the broad availability of cross-matched red blood cell concentrates. Nevertheless, anesthesia management (e.g. central venous catheterization, moderate hypothermia, neuromuscular monitoring) is still handled differently across many European institutions. A lack of standardized guidelines defining anesthetic management in patients undergoing intracranial procedures could explain this variability. Further studies could help establish optimal anesthesia management for these patients. This in turn could help in the development of national and international guidelines and SOPs which could define optimal management strategies for intracranial procedures.

Pharmacological interventions for the prevention of acute postoperative pain in adults following brain surgery

BACKGROUND

Pain following brain surgery can compromise recovery. Several pharmacological interventions have been used to prevent pain after craniotomy; however, there is currently a lack of evidence regarding which interventions are most effective.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives are to assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for prevention of acute postoperative pain in adults undergoing brain surgery; compare them in terms of additional analgesic requirements, incidence of chronic headache, sedative effects, length of hospital stay and adverse events; and determine whether these characteristics are different for certain subgroups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science and two trial registries together with reference checking and citation searching on 28th of November 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included blinded and non-blinded, randomized controlled trials evaluating pharmacological interventions for the prevention of acute postoperative pain in adults undergoing neurosurgery, which had at least one validated pain score outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We calculated mean differences for the primary outcome of pain intensity; any pain scores reported on a 0 to 100 scale were converted to a 0 to 10 scale.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 completed studies (3548 participants) and identified one ongoing study. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) reduce pain up to 24 hours (0 to 6 hours, MD -1.16, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.76; 12 hours, MD -0.62, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.14; 24 hours, MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.13; 6 studies, 742 participants; all high-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (additional analgesic requirements: MD 1.29 mg, 95% CI -5.0 to 2.46, 4 studies, 265 participants; nausea and vomiting RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.94, 2 studies, 345 participants; both low-quality evidence). Dexmedetomidine reduces pain up to 12 hours (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.89, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.51, moderate-quality evidence; 12 hours, MD -0.81, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.42, low-quality evidence). It did not show efficacy at 24 hours (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.16; 2 studies, 128 participants; low-quality evidence). Dexmedetomidine may decrease additional analgesic requirements (MD -21.36 mg, 95% CI -34.63 to -8.1 mg, 2 studies, 128 participants, low-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (nausea and vomiting RR -0.43, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.08, 3 studies, 261 participants; hypotension RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.28, 3 studies, 184 participants; both low-quality evidence). Scalp blocks may reduce pain up to 48 hours (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.98, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.3, 10 studies, 414 participants; 12 hours, MD -0.95, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.37, 8 studies, 294 participants; 24 hours, MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.05, 9 studies, 433 participants, all low-quality evidence; 48 hours, MD -1.34, 95% CI -2.57 to -0.11, 4 studies, 135 participants, very low-quality evidence. When studies with high risk of bias were excluded, significance remained at 12 hours only. Scalp blocks may decrease additional analgesia requirements (SMD -1.11, 95% CI -1.97 to -0.25, 7 studies, 314 participants). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (nausea and vomiting RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.32, 4 studies, 165 participants, very low-quality evidence). Scalp Infiltration may reduce pain postoperatively but efficacy was inconsistent, with a significant effect at 12 and 48 hours only (12 hours, MD -0.71, 95% CI -1.34 to -0.08, 7 studies, 309 participants, low-quality evidence; 48 hours, MD - 1.09, 95% CI -2.13 to - 0.06, 3 studies, 128 participants, moderate-quality evidence). No benefit was observed at other times (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.64, 95% CI -1.28 to -0.00, 9 studies, 475 participants, moderate-quality evidence; 24 hours, MD -0.39, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.27,6 studies, 260 participants, low-quality evidence. Scalp infiltration may reduce additional analgesia requirements MD -9.56 mg, 95% CI -15.64 to -3.49, 6 studies, 345 participants, very low-quality evidence). When studies with high risk of bias were excluded, scalp infiltration lost the pain benefit at 12 hours and effects on additional analgesia requirements, but retained the pain-reducing benefit at 48 hours (MD -0.56, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.32, 2 studies, 100 participants, very low-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (nausea and vomiting, RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.41, 4 studies, 318 participants, low-quality evidence). Pregabalin or gabapentin may reduce pain up to 6 hours (2 studies, 202 participants), MD -1.15,95% CI -1.66 to -0.6, 2 studies, 202 participants, low-quality evidence). One study examined analgesic efficacy at 12 hours showing significant benefit. No analgesia efficacy was shown at later times (24 hours, MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.19; 48 hours, MD - 0.06, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.77, 2 studies, 202 participants, low-quality evidence). Additional analgesia requirements were not significantly less (MD -0.37 (95% CI -1.10 to 0.35, 3 studies, 234 participants, low-quality evidence). Risk of nausea and vomiting was significantly reduced (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89, 3 studies, 273 participants, low-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (additional analgesia requirements: MD -0.37, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.35, 3 studies, 234 participants, low-quality evidence). Acetaminophen did not show analgesic benefit (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.35, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.30; 12 hours, MD -0.51, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.03, 3 studies, 332 participants, moderate-quality evidence; 24 hours, MD -0.34, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.52, 4 studies, 439 participants, high-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes remained imprecise (additional analgesia requirements, MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.99, 4 studies, 459 participants, high-quality evidence; length of hospitalizations, MD -3.71, 95% CI -14.12 to 6.7, 2 studies, 335 participants, moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that NSAIDs reduce pain up to 24 hours postoperatively. The evidence for reductions in pain with dexmedetomidine, pregabalin or gabapentin, scalp blocks, and scalp infiltration is less certain and of very low to moderate quality. There is low-quality evidence that scalp blocks and dexmedetomidine may reduce additional analgesics requirements. There is low-quality evidence that gabapentin or pregabalin may decrease nausea and vomiting, with the caveat that the total number of events for this comparison was low.

Comparison of total intravenous anesthesia vs. inhalational anesthesia on brain relaxation, intracranial pressure, and hemodynamics in patients with acute subdural hematoma undergoing emergency craniotomy: a randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

The major goals of anesthesia in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) are-maintenance of hemodynamic stability, optimal cerebral perfusion pressure, lowering of ICP, and providing a relaxed brain. Although both inhalational and intravenous anesthetics are commonly employed, there is no clear consensus on which technique is better for the anesthetic management of severe TBI.

METHODS

Ninety patients, 18-60 years of age, of either gender, with GCS < 8, posted for emergency evacuation of acute subdural hematoma were enrolled in this prospective trial, and they were randomized into two groups of 45 each. Patients in group P received propofol infusion at 100-150 mg/kg/min for maintenance of anesthesia and those in group I received ≤ 1 MAC of isoflurane. Hemodynamic parameters were monitored in all patients. ICP was measured at the dural opening and brain relaxation was assessed by the operating surgeon on a four-point scale (1-perfectly relaxed, 2-satisfactorily relaxed, 3-firm brain, and 4-bulging brain) at the dural opening. It was reassessed at dural closure.

RESULTS

Brain relaxation, both at dural opening and closure, was significantly better in patients who received propofol compared to those who received isoflurane. ICP was significantly lower (25.47 ± 3.72 mmHg vs. 23.41 ± 3.97 mmHg) in the TIVA group. Hemodynamic parameters were well maintained in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe TBI, total intravenous (Propofol)-based anesthesia provided better brain relaxation, maintained a lower ICP along with better hemodynamics when compared to inhalational anesthesia.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials registry (NCT03146104).

Impact of general anaesthesia on endoplasmic reticulum stress: propofol vs. isoflurane

Background: This study investigated the effects of propofol and isoflurane on endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress in an animal model under general anaesthesia. Methods: Rats were randomly divided into Propofol and Isoflurane groups. Anaesthesia was maintained with propofol for Propofol group or isoflurane for Isoflurane group during 3 h. ER stress from lymphocytes in blood and tissues was evaluated between two groups after euthanasia. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) from lymphocytes in blood and tissues, and cytokines in blood were also checked. An immunohistochemical assay for ER stress marker from tissues was performed. Results: After anaesthesia, the levels of CCAAT-enhancer-binding protein homologous proteins (CHOP) in blood and liver were significantly higher in Isoflurane group, compared to Propofol group [blood, 31,499 ± 4,934 (30,733, 26,441-38,807) mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) in Isoflurane group vs. 20,595 ± 1,838 (20,780, 18,866-22,232) MFI in Propofol group, p = 0.002; liver, 28,342 ± 5,535 (29,421, 23,388-32,756) MFI in Isoflurane group vs. 20,004 ± 2,155 (19,244, 18,197-22,191) MFI in Propofol group, p = 0.020]. ROS in blood was significantly higher in Isoflurane group, compared to Propofol group. However, cytokines in blood and immunohistochemical assays in tissues were similar between groups. Conclusion: Significant higher of ER stress from blood and liver were observed in rats under anaesthesia with isoflurane, compared to those that received propofol. ROS from blood also showed significant higher under anaesthesia with isoflurane. However, these findings were not associated with any changes in cytokines in blood or immunohistochemical assay in tissues.

Intravenous versus inhalational maintenance of anaesthesia for postoperative cognitive outcomes in elderly people undergoing non-cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

The use of anaesthetics in the elderly surgical population (more than 60 years of age) is increasing. Postoperative delirium, an acute condition characterized by reduced awareness of the environment and a disturbance in attention, typically occurs between 24 and 72 hours after surgery and can affect up to 60% of elderly surgical patients. Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a new-onset of cognitive impairment which may persist for weeks or months after surgery.Traditionally, surgical anaesthesia has been maintained with inhalational agents. End-tidal concentrations require adjustment to balance the risks of accidental awareness and excessive dosing in elderly people. As an alternative, propofol-based total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) offers a more rapid recovery and reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting. Using TIVA with a target controlled infusion (TCI) allows plasma and effect-site concentrations to be calculated using an algorithm based on age, gender, weight and height of the patient.TIVA is a viable alternative to inhalational maintenance agents for surgical anaesthesia in elderly people. However, in terms of postoperative cognitive outcomes, the optimal technique is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare maintenance of general anaesthesia for elderly people undergoing non-cardiac surgery using propofol-based TIVA or inhalational anaesthesia on postoperative cognitive function, mortality, risk of hypotension, length of stay in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU), and hospital stay.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2017), Embase (1974 to November 2017), PsycINFO (1887 to November 2017). We searched clinical trials registers for ongoing studies, and conducted backward and forward citation searching of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with participants over 60 years of age scheduled for non-cardiac surgery under general anaesthesia. We planned to also include quasi-randomized trials. We compared maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol-based TIVA versus inhalational maintenance of anaesthesia.

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 28 RCTs with 4507 randomized participants undergoing different types of surgery (predominantly cardiovascular, laparoscopic, abdominal, orthopaedic and ophthalmic procedures). We found no quasi-randomized trials. Four studies are awaiting classification because we had insufficient information to assess eligibility.All studies compared maintenance with propofol-based TIVA versus inhalational maintenance of anaesthesia. Six studies were multi-arm and included additional TIVA groups, additional inhalational maintenance or both. Inhalational maintenance agents included sevoflurane (19 studies), isoflurane (eight studies), and desflurane (three studies), and was not specified in one study (reported as an abstract). Some studies also reported use of epidural analgesia/anaesthesia, fentanyl and remifentanil.We found insufficient reporting of randomization methods in many studies and all studies were at high risk of performance bias because it was not feasible to blind anaesthetists to study groups. Thirteen studies described blinding of outcome assessors. Three studies had a high of risk of attrition bias, and we noted differences in the use of analgesics between groups in six studies, and differences in baseline characteristics in five studies. Few studies reported clinical trials registration, which prevented assessment of risk of selective reporting bias.We found no evidence of a difference in incidences of postoperative delirium according to type of anaesthetic maintenance agents (odds ratio (OR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 2.26; 321 participants; five studies; very low-certainty evidence); we noted during sensitivity analysis that using different time points in one study may influence direction of this result. Thirteen studies (3215 participants) reported POCD, and of these, six studies reported data that could not be pooled; we noted no difference in scores of POCD in four of these and in one study, data were at a time point incomparable to other studies. We excluded one large study from meta-analysis because study investigators had used non-standard anaesthetic management and this study was not methodologically comparable to other studies. We combined data for seven studies and found low-certainty evidence that TIVA may reduce POCD (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.87; 869 participants).We found no evidence of a difference in mortality at 30 days (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.45; 271 participants; three studies; very low-certainty evidence). Twelve studies reported intraoperative hypotension. We did not perform meta-analysis for 11 studies for this outcome. We noted visual inconsistencies in these data, which may be explained by possible variation in clinical management and medication used to manage hypotension in each study (downgraded to low-certainty evidence); one study reported data in a format that could not be combined and we noted little or no difference between groups in intraoperative hypotension for this study. Eight studies reported length of stay in the PACU, and we did not perform meta-analysis for seven studies. We noted visual inconsistencies in these data, which may be explained by possible differences in definition of time points for this outcome (downgraded to very low-certainty evidence); data were unclearly reported in one study. We found no evidence of a difference in length of hospital stay according to type of anaesthetic maintenance agent (mean difference (MD) 0 days, 95% CI -1.32 to 1.32; 175 participants; four studies; very low-certainty evidence).We used the GRADE approach to downgrade the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Reasons for downgrading included: study limitations, because some included studies insufficiently reported randomization methods, had high attrition bias, or high risk of selective reporting bias; imprecision, because we found few studies; inconsistency, because we noted heterogeneity across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether maintenance with propofol-based TIVA or with inhalational agents affect incidences of postoperative delirium, mortality, or length of hospital stay because certainty of the evidence was very low. We found low-certainty evidence that maintenance with propofol-based TIVA may reduce POCD. We were unable to perform meta-analysis for intraoperative hypotension or length of stay in the PACU because of heterogeneity between studies. We identified 11 ongoing studies from clinical trials register searches; inclusion of these studies in future review updates may provide more certainty for the review outcomes.

Conscious Sedation versus General Anesthesia for Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke Undergoing Endovascular Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The aim of this study is to compare the effect of conscious sedation (CS) with general anesthesia (GA) on clinical outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) undergoing endovascular therapy (EVT). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Registers of Controlled Trials (from inception to July 2017) were searched for reports on CS and GA of AIS undergoing EVT. Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of the identified studies and extracted data. Data were analyzed using the fixed-effects model, and the sources of heterogeneity were explored by sensitive analysis. Trial sequential analysis was conducted to monitor boundaries for the limitation of global type I error, and GRADE system was demonstrated to evaluate the quality of evidence. A total of thirteen studies were finally identified. Pooled analysis of the incidence of mRS score ≦ 2 after hospital discharge and one or three months in the CS group was higher than that in the GA group. The all-causing mortality of AIS patients in the CS group was lower than that in the GA group. There were no differences in the proportion of IA rtPA and thrombolysis between the two groups. Compared with AIS patients receiving GA, the all-causing mortality in the AIS patients receiving CS was decreased, while incidence of mRS score ≦ 2 at hospital discharge and one or three months was increased.

Designing a pain management protocol for craniotomy: A narrative review and consideration of promising practices

BACKGROUND

Craniotomy is a relatively common surgical procedure with a high incidence of postoperative pain. Development of standardized pain management and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are necessary and crucial to optimize outcomes and patient satisfaction and reduce health care costs.

METHODS

This work is based upon a literature search of published manuscripts (between 1996 and 2017) from Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register, and Google Scholar. It seeks to both synthesize and review our current scientific understanding of postcraniotomy pain and its part in neurosurgical ERAS protocols.

RESULTS

Strategies to ameliorate craniotomy pain demand interventions during all phases of patient care: preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative interventions. Pain management should begin in the perioperative period with risk assessment, patient education, and premedication. In the intraoperative period, modifications in anesthesia technique, choice of opioids, acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), regional techniques, dexmedetomidine, ketamine, lidocaine, corticosteroids, and interdisciplinary communication are all strategies to consider and possibly deploy. Opioids remain the mainstay for pain relief, but patient-controlled analgesia, NSAIDs, standardization of pain management, bio/behavioral interventions, modification of head dressings as well as patient-centric management are useful opportunities that potentially improve patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research on mechanisms, predictors, treatments, and pain management pathways will help define the combinations of interventions that optimize pain outcomes.

Intravenous versus inhalational techniques for rapid emergence from anaesthesia in patients undergoing brain tumour surgery: A Cochrane systematic review

Background: Early and rapid emergence from anaesthesia is desirable for most neurosurgical patients. With the availability of newer intravenous and inhalational anaesthetic agents, all of which have inherent advantages and disadvantages, we remain uncertain as to which technique may result in more rapid early recovery from anaesthesia. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of intravenous versus inhalational techniques for rapid emergence from anaesthesia in patients undergoing brain tumour surgery. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 6) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1966 to June 2014) and EMBASE via Ovid SP (1980 to June 2014). We also searched specific websites, such as www.indmed.nic.in, www.cochrane-sadcct. org and www.clinicaltrials.gov (October 2014). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the use of intravenous anaesthetic agents such as propofol and thiopentone with inhalational anaesthetic agents such as isoflurane and sevoflurane for maintenance of general anaesthesia during brain tumour surgery. Primary outcomes were emergence from anaesthesia (assessed by time to follow verbal commands, in minutes) and adverse events during emergence, such as haemodynamic changes, agitation, desaturation, muscle weakness, nausea and vomiting, shivering and pain. Secondary outcomes were time to eye opening, recovery from anaesthesia using the Aldrete or modified Aldrete score (i.e., time to attain score ≥9, in minutes), opioid consumption, brain relaxation (as assessed by the surgeon on a 4- or 5-point scale) and complications of anaesthetic techniques, such as intraoperative haemodynamic instability in terms of hypotension or hypertension (mmHg), increased or decreased heart rate (beats/min) and brain swelling. We used standardised methods in conducting the systematic review, as described by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used a fixed-effect model when we found no evidence of significant heterogeneity between studies, and a random-effects model when heterogeneity was likely. Results: We included 15 RCTs with 1833 participants. We determined that none of the RCTs were of high methodological quality. For our primary outcomes, pooled results from two trials suggest that time to emergence from anaesthesia, that is, time needed to follow verbal commands, was longer with isoflurane than with propofol (mean difference [MD] –3.29 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] –5.41––1.18, low-quality evidence), and time to emergence from anaesthesia was not different with sevoflurane compared with propofol (MD 0.28 min slower with sevoflurane, 95% CI – 0.56–1.12, four studies, low-quality evidence). Pooled analyses for adverse events suggest lower risk of nausea and vomiting with propofol than with sevoflurane (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% CI 0.51–0.91, low-quality evidence) or isoflurane (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26–0.78) and greater risk of haemodynamic changes with propofol than with sevoflurane (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.07–3.17), but no differences in the risk of shivering or pain. Pooled analyses for brain relaxation suggest lower risk of tense brain with propofol than with isoflurane (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67–1.17, low-quality evidence), but no difference when propofol is compared with sevoflurane. Conclusions: The finding of our review is that the intravenous technique is comparable with the inhalational technique of using sevoflurane to provide early emergence from anaesthesia. Adverse events with both techniques are also comparable. However, we derived evidence of low quality from a limited number of studies. The use of isoflurane delays emergence from anaesthesia. These results should be interpreted with caution. RCTs based on uniform and standard methods are needed.