Quality of Recovery of Patients Who Underwent Curative Pancreatectomy: Comparison of Total Intravenous Anesthesia Versus Inhalation Anesthesia Using the QOR-40 Questionnaire

The impact of perioperative ketamine or esketamine on the subjective quality of recovery after surgery: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of ketamine/esketamine on postoperative subjective quality of recovery (QoR).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the impacts of perioperative ketamine/esketamine use and postoperative QoR. The primary outcome was subjective QoR (QoR-9, QoR-15, QoR-40) on postoperative day (POD) 1-3, whereas the secondary outcomes included pain severity, anxiety scores, depression scores, risk of adverse events (i.e. nausea, vomiting, dizziness, drowsiness), and length of stay.

RESULTS

The analysis included 18 RCTs (1554 participants; ketamine: seven trials, esketamine: 11 trials), of which 15 were conducted in China. Ketamine/esketamine improved the QoR scores on PODs 1 and 2 compared with the control (standardised mean difference [SMD]: 0.63, P<0.0001 for POD 1; SMD: 0.56, P=0.04 for POD 2), without beneficial effect on POD 3. Subgroup analyses revealed significant differences in QoR scores on POD 1 by regimen (SMD: esketamine 1.14, ketamine 0.01) and country (SMD: China 0.82, other countries -0.21). The emotional domain of QoR was improved from PODs 1 to 3, whereas the other domains were only improved on POD 1. Lower postoperative anxiety (SMD: -0.48, P=0.003) and depression (SMD: -0.72, P=0.001) scores were also observed with ketamine/esketamine use. Furthermore, pain severity was reduced on PODs 1 and 2, with no difference in the risk of adverse events or length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrated that ketamine/esketamine use in the perioperative period is associated with improved early subjective QoR, pain severity, and psychological symptoms without an increase in the likelihood of adverse events.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

PROSPERO (CRD42023477580).

Randomized controlled trial of the effect of general anesthetics on postoperative recovery after minimally invasive nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

General anesthetic techniques can affect postoperative recovery. We compared the effect of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and desflurane anesthesia on postoperative recovery.

METHODS

In this randomized trial, 150 patients undergoing robot-assisted or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer were randomly allocated to either the TIVA or desflurane anesthesia (DES) group. Postoperative recovery was evaluated using the Korean version of the Quality of Recovery-15 questionnaire (QoR-15K) at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h postoperatively. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) was performed to analyze longitudinal QoR-15K data. Fentanyl consumption, pain severity, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and quality of life three weeks after discharge were also compared.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed for 70 patients in each group. The TIVA group showed significantly higher QoR-15K scores at 24 and 48 h postoperatively (24 h: DES, 96 [77, 109] vs. TIVA, 104 [82, 117], median difference 8 [95% CI: 1, 15], P = 0.029; 48 h: 110 [95, 128] vs. 125 [109, 130], median difference 8 [95% CI: 1, 15], P = 0.022), however not at 72 h (P = 0.400). The GEE revealed significant effects of group (adjusted mean difference 6.2, 95% CI: 0.39, 12.1, P = 0.037) and time (P < 0.001) on postoperative QoR-15K scores without group-time interaction (P = 0.051). However, there were no significant differences in other outcomes, except for fentanyl consumption, within the first 24 h postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol-based TIVA showed only a transient improvement in postoperative recovery than desflurane anesthesia, without significant differences in other outcomes.

Total intravenous anesthesia versus inhalation anesthesia: how do outcomes compare?

RECENT FINDINGS

Surgical procedures that involve general anesthesia are performed with either volatile anesthetics or propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia. Both techniques are safe and provide appropriate conditions for surgery. Despite being a well established anesthetic, the use of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) remains low. Possible explanations include the perceived increase risk of awareness, lack of target controlled infusion devices, increased turnover time for device set up and individual preference.

SUMMARY

There are some scenarios where patients could potentially benefit from propofol-based TIVA rather than a volatile anesthetic (e.g. postoperative nausea and vomiting) and some other clinical scenarios where the use of propofol-based anesthesia remains controversial since the strength of the evidence remains low.

PURPOSE

In this review we will summarize the clinical evidence comparing the effect of propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthetic on postoperative outcomes such as postoperative nausea and vomiting, postoperative pain, quality of recovery, postoperative cognitive dysfunction and cancer outcomes.

The analgesic effect of total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol versus inhalational anaesthesia for acute postoperative pain after hepatectomy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain control can be challenging in patients undergoing hepatectomy. A previous retrospective study on hepatobiliary/ pancreatic surgeries showed better postoperative pain control in patients who received propofol TIVA. The aim of this study was to determine the analgesic effect of propofol TIVA for hepatectomy. This clinical study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03597997).

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled trial was performed to compare the analgesic effect of propofol TIVA versus inhalational anaesthesia. Patients aged between 18 and 80 years old with an American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status of I-III scheduled for elective hepatectomy were recruited. Ninety patients were randomly allocated to receive either propofol TIVA (TIVA group) or inhalational anaesthesia with sevoflurane (SEVO group). Perioperative anaesthetic/analgesic management was the same for both groups. Numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores, postoperative morphine consumption, quality of recovery, patient satisfaction and adverse effects were evaluated during the acute postoperative period and at 3 and 6 months after surgery.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found for acute postoperative pain scores (both at rest and during coughing) and postoperative morphine consumption between TIVA and SEVO groups. Patients given TIVA had lower pain scores with coughing at 3 months after surgery (p = 0.014, and FDR < 0.1). TIVA group was associated with better quality of recovery on postoperative day (POD) 3 (p = 0.038, and FDR < 0.1), less nausea (p = 0.011, and FDR < 0.1 on POD 2; p = 0.013, and FDR < 0.1 on POD 3) and constipation (p = 0.013, and FDR < 0.1 on POD 3).

CONCLUSION

Propofol TIVA did not improve acute postoperative pain control compared to inhalational anaesthesia in patients who underwent hepatectomy. Our results do not support the use of propofol TIVA for reducing acute postoperative pain after hepatectomy.

Association of peripheral nerve blocks with patient-reported quality of recovery in female patients receiving breast cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the impact of peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) on patient-reported quality of recovery (QoR) following breast cancer surgery.

SOURCE

Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google scholar databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the QoR with or without PNBs in patients receiving breast cancer surgery from inception to September 2021. Using a random effects model, the primary outcome was total scores of postoperative QoR scales (i.e., QoR-15 and QoR-40).

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Eight RCTs (QoR-15, n = 4; QoR-40, n = 4) involving 653 patients published from 2018 to 2021 were included. For the QoR-40 scale, pooled results revealed a significantly higher total score (mean difference [MD], 12.8 [8.2%]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.6 to 14.9; I² = 59%; five RCTs; n = 251) and scores on all subscales, except psychological support, in the PNB group than in controls at 24 hr after surgery. For the QoR-15 scale, pooled results also showed favorable QoR (MD, 7.7 [5.2%]; 95% CI, 4.9 to 10.5; I² = 75%; four RCTs; n = 402) in the PNB group at 24 hr after surgery. Sensitivity analysis showed no effect on the QoR-40 score and the difference in total QoR-15 score was no longer significant when a single trial was omitted. The use of PNBs was associated with a significantly lower opioid consumption and risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting without significant differences in the pain score between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results verified the efficacy of PNBs for enhancing postoperative QoR using two validated patient-reported tools in female patients receiving breast cancer surgery under general anesthesia.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021272575); first submitted 9 August 2021.

Comparison of remimazolam-based and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia on postoperative quality of recovery: A randomized non-inferiority trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The quality of recovery (QoR) of remimazolam-based and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia was compared as measured by QoR-15 scores.

DESIGN

A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

An operating room, a post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), and a hospital ward.

PATIENTS

Female patients (n = 140; 20-65 years) scheduled for open thyroidectomy were enrolled and randomly assigned to the remimazolam or propofol group.

INTERVENTIONS

The remimazolam group received continuous remimazolam infusions and effect-site target-controlled remifentanil infusions. The propofol group received effect-site target-controlled infusions of propofol and remifentanil.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was QoR-15 on postoperative day 1 (POD1). The mean difference between the groups was compared against a non-inferiority margin of -8. Secondary outcomes were QoR-15 on POD2, hemodynamic data, time to lose and recover consciousness, sedation score upon PACU admission, pain, and postoperative nausea and vomiting profiles at the PACU and ward. Group-time interaction effects in hemodynamic data and QoR-15 were analyzed using a linear mixed model.

MAIN RESULTS

The total QoR-15 score on POD1 in the remimazolam group was non-inferior to that in the propofol group (mean [SD] 111.2 [18.8] vs. 109.1 [18.9]; mean difference [95% CI] 2.1 [-4.2, 8.5]; p = 0.002 for non-inferiority). The QoR-15 score on POD2 was comparable between the groups, and no group-time interaction was observed. At the end of anesthesia, after extubation, and upon arrival at the PACU, mean arterial pressure was significantly higher in the remimazolam group. Remimazolam group was more sedated at the time of admission to PACU. Pain intensity and the requirement for analgesics were lower in the remimazolam group than in the propofol group.

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam-based total intravenous anesthesia provided a similar QoR to propofol. Remimazolam and propofol can be used interchangeably for general anesthesia in female patients undergoing thyroid surgery.

Quality of recovery in patients administered remimazolam versus those administered an inhalant agent for the maintenance of general anesthesia: a randomized control trial

Background

Remimazolam is a novel intravenous benzodiazepine that is appropriate for the maintenance of anesthesia. Quality of recovery is an important component of health care quality, but there is no published randomized control trial focused on the quality of recovery in patients undergoing total intravenous anesthesia with remimazolam.

Methods

This parallel-group, single-blind randomized control trial at a tertiary care medical center in South Korea was conducted to determine the difference in the quality of recovery between the patients administered remimazolam and those administered an inhalant anesthetic agent. A total of 168 patients aged 19–65 years who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy or robotic gynecologic surgery were considered for enrollment. Randomization was performed using sealed envelopes containing computer-generated random allocation sequences.

Remimazolam was administered for the maintenance of anesthesia in the remimazolam group (Group R), and desflurane was administered in the desflurane group (Group D). The induction protocol and the target value of the bispectral index were identical in both groups. Patients were blinded to the drug that was administered until they finished the postoperative questionnaire.

The main outcome measure was the decrement of the QoR-40 score on postoperative day 1 compared to the QoR-40 score on the day before surgery.

Results

A total of 165 patients were analyzed. The preoperative and postoperative global QoR-40 scores were 183 and 152 (IQR 173–192 and 136–169), respectively. The perioperative decrement of the global QoR-40 score was 29.96 ± 22.49. The decrement of the QoR-40 score was smaller in Group R than in Group D (26.99 versus 32.90, respectively; mean difference 5.91, 95% confidence interval -0.96–12.79). After adjustment for sex, the type of surgery and surgical time, the administration of remimazolam resulted in a 7.03-point (95% CI 0.35–13.72) less decrement of the QoR-40 score than desflurane. There were no severe adverse events in either group.

Conclusion

Total intravenous anesthesia maintained with remimazolam provides a better quality of recovery than anesthesia maintained with an inhalant agent in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Additionally, postoperative nausea and vomiting were largely reduced with remimazolam.

Trial registration

KCT0006288, Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), Republic of Korea

Registration date: 23/06/2021