METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched systematically from inception until January 2020. Our primary outcomes included laryngeal exposure as measured by Cormack-Lehane Grade 1 or 2 (CLG 1/2), CLG 3 or 4 (CLG 3/4), and first attempt success at intubation. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, use of airway adjuncts, ancillary maneuvers and complications during ETI.
RESULTS: Seven studies met our inclusion criteria, of which 4 were RCTs and 3 were cohort studies. The meta-analysis was conducted by pooling the effect estimates for all 4 included RCTs (n=632). There were no differences found between ramping and sniffing positions for odds of CLG 1/2, CLG 3/4, first attempt success at intubation, intubation time, use of ancillary airway maneuvers and use of airway adjuncts, with evidence of high heterogeneity across studies. However, the ramping position in surgical patients is associated with increased likelihood of CLG 1/2 (OR=2.05, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.32, p=0.004) and lower likelihood of CLG 3/4 (OR=0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.79, p=0.004), moderate quality of evidence.
CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the ramping position may benefit surgical patients undergoing ETI by improving laryngeal exposure. Large-scale well-designed multicentre RCTs should be carried out to further elucidate the benefits of the ramping position in the surgical and intensive care unit patients.
METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, multicenter, single-blind, controlled trial at 36 centers in 13 countries. Patients scheduled to undergo elective CABG were randomly assigned to an intraoperative anesthetic regimen that included a volatile anesthetic (desflurane, isoflurane, or sevoflurane) or to total intravenous anesthesia. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 1 year.
RESULTS: A total of 5400 patients were randomly assigned: 2709 to the volatile anesthetics group and 2691 to the total intravenous anesthesia group. On-pump CABG was performed in 64% of patients, with a mean duration of cardiopulmonary bypass of 79 minutes. The two groups were similar with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline, the duration of cardiopulmonary bypass, and the number of grafts. At the time of the second interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board advised that the trial should be stopped for futility. No significant difference between the groups with respect to deaths from any cause was seen at 1 year (2.8% in the volatile anesthetics group and 3.0% in the total intravenous anesthesia group; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.29; P = 0.71), with data available for 5353 patients (99.1%), or at 30 days (1.4% and 1.3%, respectively; relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.76), with data available for 5398 patients (99.9%). There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes or in the incidence of prespecified adverse events, including myocardial infarction.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing elective CABG, anesthesia with a volatile agent did not result in significantly fewer deaths at 1 year than total intravenous anesthesia. (Funded by the Italian Ministry of Health; MYRIAD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02105610.).
CASE: We report a case of postoperative unilateral hypoglossal nerve palsy after uncomplicated use of the LMA Protector. To the best of our knowledge, this could be the second reported case.
CONCLUSIONS: This case demonstrates that anesthetists need to routinely measure cuff pressure and that the Cuff PilotTM technology is not a panacea for potential cranial nerve injury after airway manipulation.
METHODS: We conducted a model-based cost-consequence analysis to compare the impact of routine troponin T monitoring versus standard care (troponin T measurement triggered by ischemic symptoms) on the incidence of MINS detection. Model inputs were based on Canadian patients enrolled in the Vascular Events in Noncardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION) study, which enrolled patients aged 45 years or older undergoing inpatient noncardiac surgery. We conducted probability analyses with 10 000 iterations and extensive sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: The data were based on 6021 patients (48% men, mean age 65 [standard deviation 12] yr). The 30-day mortality rate for MINS was 9.6%. We determined the incremental cost to avoid missing a MINS event as $1632 (2015 Canadian dollars). The cost-effectiveness of troponin monitoring was higher in patient subgroups at higher risk for MINS, e.g., those aged 65 years or more, or with a history of atherosclerosis or diabetes ($1309).
CONCLUSION: The costs associated with a troponin T monitoring program to detect MINS were moderate. Based on the estimated incremental cost per health gain, implementation of postoperative troponin T monitoring seems appealing, particularly in patients at high risk for MINS.
METHODS: We conducted a trial involving patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive tranexamic acid (1-g intravenous bolus) or placebo at the start and end of surgery (reported here) and, with the use of a partial factorial design, a hypotension-avoidance or hypertension-avoidance strategy (not reported here). The primary efficacy outcome was life-threatening bleeding, major bleeding, or bleeding into a critical organ (composite bleeding outcome) at 30 days. The primary safety outcome was myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, or symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (composite cardiovascular outcome) at 30 days. To establish the noninferiority of tranexamic acid to placebo for the composite cardiovascular outcome, the upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the hazard ratio had to be below 1.125, and the one-sided P value had to be less than 0.025.
RESULTS: A total of 9535 patients underwent randomization. A composite bleeding outcome event occurred in 433 of 4757 patients (9.1%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 561 of 4778 patients (11.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67 to 0.87; absolute difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.8 to -1.4; two-sided P<0.001 for superiority). A composite cardiovascular outcome event occurred in 649 of 4581 patients (14.2%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 639 of 4601 patients (13.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.14; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 1.14; absolute difference, 0.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.1 to 1.7; one-sided P = 0.04 for noninferiority).
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, the incidence of the composite bleeding outcome was significantly lower with tranexamic acid than with placebo. Although the between-group difference in the composite cardiovascular outcome was small, the noninferiority of tranexamic acid was not established. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03505723.).
METHODS: This was a prospective, randomised controlled trial. We recruited diabetic patients aged > 18 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists class II-III, who were scheduled for unilateral diabetic foot surgery below the knee. All patients were assessed for autonomic dysfunction using the Survey of Autonomic Symptoms score. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either PNB or SAB for the surgery. Hemodynamic data, including usage of vasopressors, were recorded at 5-min intervals for up to 1 h after the induction of anesthesia. Pain scores were recorded postoperatively, and follow-up was done via telephone 6 months later.
RESULTS: Compared to the PNB group, the SAB group had a larger number of patients with significant hypotension (14 vs. 1; p = 0.001) and more patients who required vasopressor boluses (6 vs. 0 patients). Compared to SAB group, the patients in the PNB group had a longer postoperative pain-free duration (9 vs. 4.54 h; p = 0.002) and lower pain scores 1 day after surgery (3.63 vs. 4.69; p = 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Peripheral nerve block should be considered, whenever possible, as the first option of anesthesia for lower limb surgery in diabetic patients as it provides hemodynamic stability and superior postoperative pain control compared to SAB.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registry: ClinicalTrials.gov. ID NCT02727348.
AIMS: To investigate the effect of ketamine on emergence agitation in children.
METHODS: Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were systematically searched from their start date until February 2019. Randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous ketamine and placebo in children were sought. The primary outcome was the incidence of emergence agitation. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain score, duration of discharge time, and the adverse effects associated with the use of ketamine, namely postoperative nausea and vomiting, desaturation, and laryngospasm.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies (1125 patients) were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. The incidence of emergence agitation was 14.7% in the ketamine group and 33.3% in the placebo group. Children receiving ketamine had a lower incidence of emergence agitation, with an odds ratio being 0.23 (95% confidence interval: 0.11 to 0.46), certainty of evidence: low. In comparison with the placebo, ketamine group achieved a lower postoperative pain score (odds ratio: -2.42, 95% confidence interval: -4.23 to -0.62, certainty of evidence: very low) and lower pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium scale at 5 minutes after operation (odds ratio: -3.99, 95% confidence interval: -5.03 to -2.95; certainty of evidence: moderate). However, no evidence was observed in terms of incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, desaturation, and laryngospasm.
CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials, high degree of heterogeneity and low certainty of evidence limit the recommendations of ketamine for the prevention of emergence agitation in children undergoing surgery or imaging procedures. However, the use of ketamine is well-tolerated without any notable adverse effects across all the included trials.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42019131865.