Influence of Deep Neuromuscular Blockade on Perioperative Stress Response in Patients Undergoing Robot-Assisted Gastrectomy: A Prospective Double-Blinded Randomized-Controlled Trial

Deep neuromuscular blockade in adults undergoing an abdominal laparoscopic procedure

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is the preferred option for many procedures. To properly perform laparoscopic surgery, it is essential that sudden movements and abdominal contractions in patients are prevented, as it limits the surgeon's view. There has been a growing interest in the potential beneficial effect of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) in laparoscopic surgery. Deep NMB improves the surgical field by preventing abdominal contractions, and it is thought to decrease postoperative pain. However, it is uncertain if deep NMB improves intraoperative safety and thereby improves clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of deep neuromuscular blockade versus no, shallow, or moderate neuromuscular blockade during laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 July 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults undergoing laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures comparing deep NMB to moderate, shallow, or no NMB. We excluded trials that did not report any of the primary or secondary outcomes of our review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. health-related quality of life, and 3. proportion of participants with serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. proportion of participants with non-serious adverse events, 5. readmissions within three months, 6. short-term pain scores, 7. measurements of postoperative recovery, and 8. operating time. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 randomised clinical trials with 3898 participants. Most trials included participants undergoing intraperitoneal oncological resection surgery. We present the Peto fixed-effect model for most dichotomous outcomes as only sparse events were reported. Comparison 1: deep versus moderate NMB Thirty-eight trials compared deep versus moderate NMB. Deep NMB may have no effect on mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 115.43; 12 trials, 1390 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life up to four days postoperative (mean difference (MD) 4.53 favouring deep NMB on the Quality of Recovery-40 score, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.09; 5 trials, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; mean difference lower than the mean clinically important difference of 10 points). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB on intraoperatively serious adverse events (deep NMB 38/1150 versus moderate NMB 38/1076; Peto OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.52; 21 trials, 2231 participants; very low-certainty evidence), short-term serious adverse events (up to 60 days) (deep NMB 37/912 versus moderate NMB 42/852; Peto OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.42; 16 trials, 1764 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and short-term non-serious adverse events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.35; 11 trials, 1232 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely does not alter the duration of surgery (MD -0.51 minutes, 95% CI -3.35 to 2.32; 34 trials, 3143 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if deep NMB alters the length of hospital stay (MD -0.22 days, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.06; 19 trials, 2084 participants; low-certainty evidence) or pain scores one hour after surgery (MD -0.31 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.03; 22 trials, 1823 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point) and 24 hours after surgery (MD -0.60 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.15; 16 trials, 1404 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point). Comparison 2: deep versus shallow NMB Three trials compared deep versus shallow NMB. The trials did not report on mortality and health-related quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB compared to shallow NMB on the proportion of serious adverse events (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 5.57; 2 trials, 158 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison 3: deep versus no NMB One trial compared deep versus no NMB. There was no mortality in this trial, and health-related quality of life was not reported. The proportion of serious adverse events was 0/25 in the deep NMB group and 1/25 in the no NMB group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effects of deep NMB compared to moderate NMB on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life and duration of surgery compared to moderate NMB, and it may have no effect on the length of hospital stay. Due to the very low-certainty evidence, we do not know what the effect is of deep NMB on non-serious adverse events, pain scores, or readmission rates. Randomised clinical trials with adequate reporting of all adverse events would reduce the current uncertainties. Due to the low number of identified trials and the very low certainty of evidence, we do not know what the effect of deep NMB on serious adverse events is compared to shallow NMB and no NMB. We found no trials evaluating mortality and health-related quality of life.

Intravascular volume status and stress markers in patients observing long and short duration of fasting: A prospective single blinded observational study

BACKGROUND

Preoperative fasting may lead to intravascular volume depletion and this volume depletion may be a cause of perioperative stress. This study intends to compare the levels of stress markers in patients undergoing long and short duration fasting before an elective laparoscopic surgery.

METHOD

This was a single blind, observational study. Based on the duration of fasting, 70 ASA I and II category patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC) were divided into two groups of 35 patients each. If the surgeon had prescribed a fasting since midnight then patient was considered for inclusion in Long fasting (LF) group; if surgeon had allowed clear fluids till 2 h before surgery then the patient was considered for inclusion in the short fasting(SF) group. The extent of intravascular volume depletion was measured using inferior vena cava collapsibility index (IVCCI). Levels of relevant stress markers i.e. cortisol, Tetraiodothyronine (FT4), C-peptide, C-reactive protein(CRP) and blood glucose (BGL) were measured at 8 PM in the night before surgery, at 7 AM on the day of surgery, 2 h after the surgery and 24 h after the surgery.

RESULT

IVCCI was significantly more in the LF group; 27.66 ± 3.34% vs17.83 ± 2.22%, 95% CI 8.47-11.18, P-value <0.001). IVCCI had a significant correlation with the duration of fasting, Pearson's correlation r = 0.69,P-value <0.001. Repeated measures ANCOVA revealed that CRP, Free T4 and C-peptide levels got significantly elevated over the study duration, P-values <0.001,<0.001 and 0.03 respectively but with IVCCI, Age and Gender as the covariates, the increase in the levels of CRP, Free T4 and C-peptide were similar in both the groups.

CONCLUSION

Stress markers levels show significant elevation in the perioperative period, maximum over the study duration, but this change is similar in both the groups.

CLINICAL TRIAL NO

CTRI/2021/02/031456.

Does deep neuromuscular blockade provide improved perioperative outcomes in adult patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Deep neuromuscular blockade provides better surgical workspace conditions in laparoscopic surgery, but it is still not clear whether it improves perioperative outcomes, not to mention its role in other types of surgeries. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to investigate whether deep neuromuscular blockade versus other more superficial levels of neuromuscular blockade provides improved perioperative outcomes in adult patients in all types of surgeries. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to June 25, 2022. Forty studies (3271 participants) were included. Deep neuromuscular blockade was associated with an increased rate of acceptable surgical condition (relative risk [RR]: 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.11, 1.27]), increased surgical condition score (MD: 0.52, 95% CI: [0.37, 0.67]), decreased rate of intraoperative movement (RR: 0.19, 95% CI: [0.10, 0.33]), fewer additional measures to improve the surgical condition (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: [0.43, 0.94]), and decreased pain score at 24 h (MD: -0.42, 95% CI: [-0.74, -0.10]). There was no significant difference in the intraoperative blood loss (MD: -22.80, 95% CI: [-48.83, 3.24]), duration of surgery (MD: -0.05, 95% CI: [-2.05, 1.95]), pain score at 48 h (MD: -0.49, 95% CI: [-1.03, 0.05]), or length of stay (MD: -0.05, 95% CI: [-0.19, 0.08]). These indicate that deep neuromuscular blockade improves surgical conditions and prevents intraoperative movement, and there is no sufficient evidence that deep neuromuscular blockade is associated with intraoperative blood loss, duration of surgery, complications, postoperative pain, and length of stay. More high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed, and more attention should be given to complications and the physiological mechanism behind deep neuromuscular blockade and postoperative outcomes.

Effects of Remimazolam vs. Sevoflurane Anesthesia on Intraoperative Hemodynamics in Patients with Gastric Cancer Undergoing Robotic Gastrectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Remimazolam has been suggested to improve the maintenance of hemodynamic stability when compared with other agents used for general anesthesia. This study aimed to compare the effects of remimazolam and sevoflurane anesthesia on hemodynamic stability in patients undergoing robotic gastrectomy. We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of 199 patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy with sevoflurane (n = 135) or remimazolam (n = 64) anesthesia from January to November 2021. Propensity scores were used for 1:1 matching between the groups. The primary outcome was the difference in use of intraoperative vasopressors between groups. Secondary outcomes included differences in incidence and dose of vasopressors, as well as intraoperative hemodynamic variables, between groups. Remimazolam anesthesia was associated with a significantly less frequent use of ephedrine (odds ratio (OR): 0.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.05−0.38, p < 0.001), phenylephrine (OR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.04−0.40, p < 0.001), and any vasopressor (OR: 0.06; 95% CI: 0.02−0.25, p < 0.001) compared with sevoflurane anesthesia. Remimazolam anesthesia enables better maintenance of hemodynamic stability than sevoflurane anesthesia. Thus, remimazolam anesthesia may be beneficial for patients who are expected to experience hypotension due to the combined effects of CO2 pneumoperitoneum and the head-up position utilized during robotic gastrectomy.