Postoperativer Verlauf und endokrine Streß-Reaktion geriatrischer Patienten mit hüftnahen Frakturen

[Anesthesiological care of trauma patients in orthogeriatric co-management]

Elderly patients increasingly need to undergo surgery under anesthesia, especially following trauma. A timely interdisciplinary approach to the perioperative management of these patients is decisive for the long-term outcome. Orthogeriatric co-management, which includes geriatricians and anesthesiologists from an early stage, is of great benefit for geriatric patients. Patient age, comorbidities and self-sufficiency in activities of daily life are decisive for an anesthesiological assessment of the state of health and preoperative risk stratification. If necessary additional investigations, such as echocardiography must be carried out, in order to guarantee optimal perioperative anesthesiological management. Certain medical factors can delay the initiation of anesthesia and it is absolutely necessary that these are taken into consideration for surgical management. Not every form of anesthesia is equally suitable for every geriatric patient.

[Anesthesiological care in orthogeriatric co-management. Perioperative treatment of geriatric trauma patients]

Elderly patients increasingly need to undergo surgery under anesthesia, especially following trauma. A timely interdisciplinary approach to the perioperative management of these patients is decisive for the long-term outcome. Orthogeriatric co-management, which includes geriatricians and anesthesiologists from an early stage, is of great benefit for geriatric patients. Patient age, comorbidities and self-sufficiency in activities of daily life are decisive for an anesthesiological assessment of the state of health and preoperative risk stratification. If necessary additional investigations, such as echocardiography must be carried out, in order to guarantee optimal perioperative anesthesiological management. Certain medical factors can delay the initiation of anesthesia and it is absolutely necessary that these are taken into consideration for surgical management. Not every form of anesthesia is equally suitable for every geriatric patient.

Anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults

BACKGROUND

The majority of people with hip fracture are treated surgically, requiring anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVES

The main focus of this review is the comparison of regional versus general anaesthesia for hip (proximal femoral) fracture repair in adults. We did not consider supplementary regional blocks in this review as they have been studied in another review.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 2003 to March 2014) and EMBASE (Ovid SP, 2003 to March 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials comparing different methods of anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults. The primary focus of this review was the comparison of regional anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia. The use of nerve blocks preoperatively or in conjunction with general anaesthesia is evaluated in another review. The main outcomes were mortality, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, acute confusional state, deep vein thrombosis and return of patient to their own home.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We analysed data with fixed-effect (I(2) < 25%) or random-effects models. We assessed the quality of the evidence according to the criteria developed by the GRADE working group.

MAIN RESULTS

In total, we included 31 studies (with 3231 participants) in our review. Of those 31 studies, 28 (2976 participants) provided data for the meta-analyses. For the 28 studies, 24 were used for the comparison of neuraxial block versus general anaesthesia. Based on 11 studies that included 2152 participants, we did not find a difference between the two anaesthetic techniques for mortality at one month: risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.06; I(2) = 24% (fixed-effect model). Based on six studies that included 761 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of pneumonia: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.31; I(2) = 0%. Based on four studies that included 559 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of myocardial infarction: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.65; I(2) = 0%. Based on six studies that included 729 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of cerebrovascular accident: RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.83; I(2) = 0%. Based on six studies that included 624 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of acute confusional state: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.40; I(2) = 49%. Based on laboratory tests, the risk of deep vein thrombosis was decreased when no specific precautions or just early mobilization was used: RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.78; I(2) = 0%; (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 3, 95% CI 2 to 7, based on a basal risk of 76%) but not when low molecular weight heparin was administered: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.84; I(2) for heterogeneity between the two subgroups = 58%. For neuraxial blocks compared to general anaesthesia, we rated the quality of evidence as very low for mortality (at 0 to 30 days), pneumonia, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, acute confusional state, decreased rate of deep venous thrombosis in the absence of potent thromboprophylaxis, and return of patient to their own home. The number of studies comparing other anaesthetic techniques was limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a difference between the two techniques, except for deep venous thrombosis in the absence of potent thromboprophylaxis. The studies included a wide variety of clinical practices. The number of participants included in the review is insufficient to eliminate a difference between the two techniques in the majority of outcomes studied. Therefore, large randomized trials reflecting actual clinical practice are required before drawing final conclusions.

Neuraxial blockade for the prevention of postoperative mortality and major morbidity: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Various beneficial effects derived from neuraxial blocks have been reported. However, it is unclear whether these effects have an influence on perioperative mortality and major pulmonary/cardiovascular complications.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to summarize Cochrane systematic reviews that assess the effects of neuraxial blockade on perioperative rates of death, chest infection and myocardial infarction by integrating the evidence from all such reviews that have compared neuraxial blockade with or without general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia alone for different types of surgery in various populations. Our secondary objective was to summarize the evidence on adverse effects (an adverse event for which a causal relation between the intervention and the event is at least a reasonable possibility) of neuraxial blockade. Within the reviews, studies were selected using the same criteria.

METHODS

A search was performed in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on July 13, 2012. We have (1) included all Cochrane systematic reviews that examined participants of any age undergoing any type of surgical (open or endoscopic) procedure, (2) compared neuraxial blockade versus general anaesthesia alone for surgical anaesthesia or neuraxial blockade plus general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia alone for surgical anaesthesia and (3) included death, chest infection, myocardial infarction and/or serious adverse events as outcomes. Neuraxial blockade could consist of epidural, caudal, spinal or combined spinal-epidural techniques administered as a bolus or by continuous infusion. Studies included in these reviews were selected on the basis of the same criteria. Reviews and studies were selected independently by two review authors, who independently performed data extraction when data differed from one of the selected reviews. Data were analysed by using Review Manager Version 5.1 and Comprehensive Meta Analysis Version 2.2.044.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine Cochrane reviews were selected for this overview. Their scores on the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire varied from four to six of a maximal possible score of seven. Compared with general anaesthesia, neuraxial blockade reduced the zero to 30-day mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.94; I(2) = 0%) based on 20 studies that included 3006 participants. Neuraxial blockade also decreased the risk of pneumonia (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.79; I(2) = 0%) based on five studies that included 400 participants. No difference was detected in the risk of myocardial infarction between the two techniques (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.37; I(2) = 0%) based on six studies with 849 participants. Compared with general anaesthesia alone, the addition of a neuraxial block to general anaesthesia did not affect the zero to 30-day mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.51; I(2) = 0%) based on 18 studies with 3228 participants. No difference was detected in the risk of myocardial infarction between combined neuraxial blockade-general anaesthesia and general anaesthesia alone (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09; I(2) = 0%) based on eight studies that included 1580 participants. The addition of a neuraxial block to general anaesthesia reduced the risk of pneumonia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.98; I(2) = 9%) after adjustment for publication bias and based on nine studies that included 2433 participants. The quality of the evidence was judged as moderate for all six comparisons.No serious adverse events (seizure or cardiac arrest related to local anaesthetic toxicity, prolonged central or peripheral neurological injury lasting longer than one month or infection secondary to neuraxial blockade) were reported. The quality of the reporting score of complications related to neuraxial blocks was nine (four to 12 (median range)) of a possible maximum score of 14.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with general anaesthesia, a central neuraxial block may reduce the zero to 30-day mortality for patients undergoing surgery with intermediate to high cardiac risk (level of evidence, moderate). Further research is required.

Anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults

BACKGROUND

The majority of people with hip fracture are treated surgically, requiring anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVES

To compare different types of anaesthesia for surgical repair of hip fractures (proximal femoral fractures) in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group specialised register (November 2003), MEDLINE (1996 to February week 2 2004), EMBASE (1988 to 2004 week 10) and reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing different methods of anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults. The primary focus of this review was the comparison of regional (spinal or epidural) anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia. The use of nerve blocks preoperatively or in conjunction with general anaesthesia is evaluated in another review. The primary outcome was mortality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty two trials, involving 2567 predominantly female and elderly patients, comparing regional anaesthesia with general anaesthesia were included. All trials had methodological flaws and many do not reflect current anaesthetic practice. Pooled results from eight trials showed regional anaesthesia to be associated with a decreased mortality at one month (56/811 (6.9%) versus 86/857 (10.0%)); however, this was of borderline statistical significance (relative risk (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.95). The results from six trials for three month mortality were not statistically significant, although the confidence interval does not exclude the possibility of a clinically relevant reduction (86/726 (11.8%) versus 98/765 (12.8%), RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21). The reduced numbers of trial participants at one year, coming exclusively from two trials, preclude any useful conclusions for long-term mortality (80/354 (22.6%) versus 78/372 (21.0%), RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.41).Regional anaesthesia was associated with a reduced risk of deep venous thrombosis (39/129 (30%) versus 61/130 (47%); RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86). However, this finding is insecure due to possible selection bias in the subgroups in whom this outcome was measured. Regional anaesthesia was also associated with a reduced risk of acute postoperative confusion (11/117 (9.4%) versus 23/120 (19.2%), RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.95). There was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions from a further four included trials, involving a total of 179 participants, which compared other methods of anaesthesia (a 'light' general with spinal anaesthesia; intravenous ketamine; nerve blocks).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there was insufficient evidence available from trials comparing regional versus general anaesthesia to rule out clinically important differences. Regional anaesthesia may reduce acute postoperative confusion but no conclusions can be drawn for mortality or other outcomes.

General versus spinal/epidural anaesthesia for surgery for hip fractures in adults

BACKGROUND

The majority of hip fracture patients are treated surgically, requiring anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVES

To compare different types of anaesthesia for surgical repair of hip fractures (proximal femoral fractures) in adults. This is primarily regional (spinal or epidural) anaesthesia versus inhalation general anaesthesia, but also includes ketamine anaesthesia versus inhalation general anaesthesia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group trials register, Medline, selected orthopaedic and anaesthetic journals and conference proceedings, and reference lists of relevant articles. Date of the most recent search: August 1998.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing different methods of anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in skeletally mature persons. Trials comparing the use of local nerve blocks are not considered in this review. Neither are trials using different types of drugs or techniques with one type of anaesthesia. The primary outcome was mortality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality, using a nine item scale, and extracted data. The other two reviewers independently checked these results. Wherever appropriate and possible, results were pooled.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials, involving 2162 patients, which compared regional anaesthesia with general anaesthesia, were included. All trials had methodological flaws. Regional anaesthesia was associated with a decreased mortality at one month (49/766 (6.4%) versus 76/812 (9.4%)) of borderline statistical significance (Peto odds ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.96)). The results for three month mortality were not statistically significant, although the confidence interval does not exclude the possibility of a clinically relevant reduction (86/726 (11.8%) versus 98/765 (12.8%), Peto odds ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.24). The reduced numbers at one year, coming exclusively from two studies, preclude any useful conclusions for long term mortality (80/354 (22.6%) versus 78/372 (21.0%), Peto odds ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 1.57). Regional anaesthesia was associated with a tendency to a longer operation (weighted mean difference 4.8 minutes, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 8.6 minutes), and a reduced risk of deep venous thrombosis (39/129 (30%) versus 61/37(76%); Peto odds ratio 0. 41, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.72), although this conclusion is insecure due to possible selection bias in the subgroups in whom this outcome was measured. No other statistically significant differences in outcome were identified. There was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions from a further two included trials, involving a total of 100 patients, which compared other types of anaesthesia.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Regional anaesthesia and general anaesthesia appear to produce comparable results for most of the outcomes studied. Regional anaesthesia may reduce short-term mortality but no conclusions can be drawn for longer term mortality.