Patient-Controlled Versus Clinician-Controlled Sedation With Propofol: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis With Trial Sequential Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Sedation with propofol is frequently used to facilitate diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Propofol can be administrated by the patient (patient-controlled sedation [PCS]) or by a clinician (clinician-controlled sedation [CCS]). We aimed to compare these 2 techniques. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and trial registries were searched up to October 2017 for randomized controlled trials comparing PCS with CCS with propofol. The primary end points were the risks of presenting at least 1 episode of oxygen desaturation, arterial hypotension, and bradycardia, and the risk of requiring a rescue intervention (pharmacologic therapies or physical maneuvers) for sedation-related adverse events. Secondary end points were the dose of propofol administrated, operator and patient satisfaction, and the risk of oversedation. A random-effects model and an α level of .02 to adjust for multiple analyses were used throughout. Trial sequential analyses were performed for primary outcomes. Quality of evidence was assessed according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. RESULTS: Thirteen trials (1103 patients; median age, 47 years; American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III) describing various diagnostic and therapeutic procedures with propofol sedation were included. PCS had no impact on the risk of oxygen desaturation (11 trials, 31/448 patients [6.9%] with PCS versus 46/481 [9.6%] with CCS; risk ratio, 0.74 [98% confidence interval, 0.35-1.56]) but decreased the risk of requiring a rescue intervention for adverse events (11 trials, 29/449 patients [6.5%] with PCS versus 74/482 [15.4%] with CCS; risk ratio, 0.45 [98% confidence interval, 0.25-0.81]). For both outcomes, Trial sequential analyses suggested that further trials were unlikely to change the results, although the quality of evidence was graded very low for all primary outcomes. For the risk of arterial hypotension and bradycardia, the required sample size for a definitive conclusion had not been reached. Analysis of secondary outcomes suggested that PCS decreased the risk of oversedation and had no impact on propofol dose administrated, or on operator or patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: PCS with propofol, compared with CCS with propofol, had no impact on the risk of oxygen desaturation, but significantly decreased the risk of rescue interventions for sedation-related adverse events. Further high-quality trials are required to assess the risks and benefits of PCS.

Myocardial Protection by Glucose-Insulin-Potassium in Moderate- to High-Risk Patients Undergoing Elective On-Pump Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Low cardiac output syndrome is a main cause of death after cardiac surgery. We sought to assess the impact of glucose-insulin-potassium (GIK) to enhance myocardial protection in moderate- to high-risk patients undergoing on-pump heart surgery. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was performed in adult patients (Bernstein-Parsonnet score >7) scheduled for elective aortic valve replacement and/or coronary artery bypass surgery. Patients were randomized to GIK (20 IU of insulin, 10 mEq of potassium chloride in 50 mL of glucose 40%) or saline infusion given over 60 minutes on anesthetic induction. The primary end point was postcardiotomy ventricular dysfunction (PCVD), defined as new/worsening left ventricular dysfunction requiring inotropic support (≥120 minutes). Secondary end points were the intraoperative changes in left ventricular function as assessed by transoesophageal echocardiography, postoperative troponin levels, cardiovascular and respiratory complications, and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: From 224 randomized patients, 222 were analyzed (112 and 110 in the placebo and GIK groups, respectively). GIK pretreatment was associated with a reduced occurrence of PCVD (risk ratio [RR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.66). In GIK-treated patients, the left systolic ventricular function was better preserved after weaning from bypass, plasma troponin levels were lower on the first postoperative day (2.9 ng·mL(-) [interquartile range {IQR}, 1.5-6.6] vs 4.3 ng·mL(-) [IQR, 2.4-8.2]), and cardiovascular (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.89) and respiratory complications (RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.38-0.74) were reduced, along with a shorter length of stay in intensive care unit (3 days [IQR, 2-4] vs 3.5 days [IQR, 2-7]) and in hospital (14 days [IQR, 11-18.5] vs 16 days [IQR, 12.5-23.5]), compared with placebo-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: GIK pretreatment was shown to attenuate PCVD and to improve clinical outcome in moderate- to high-risk patients undergoing on-pump cardiac surgery.

Benefit and harm of adding ketamine to an opioid in a patient-controlled analgesia device for the control of postoperative pain: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analyses.

Ketamine is often added to opioids in patient-controlled analgesia devices. We tested whether in surgical patients, ketamine added to an opioid patient-controlled analgesia decreased pain intensity by ≥25%, cumulative opioid consumption by ≥30%, the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting by ≥30%, the risk of respiratory adverse effects by ≥50%, and increased the risk of hallucination not more than 2-fold. In addition, we searched for evidence of dose-responsiveness. Nineteen randomized trials (1349 adults, 104 children) testing different ketamine regimens added to various opioids were identified through searches in databases and bibliographies (to 04.2016). In 9 trials (595 patients), pain intensity at rest at 24 hours was decreased by 32% with ketamine (weighted mean difference -1.1 cm on the 0-10 cm visual analog scale [98% CI, -1.8 to -0.39], P < 0.001). In 7 trials (495 patients), cumulative 24 hours morphine consumption was decreased by 28% with ketamine (weighted mean difference -12.9 mg [-22.4 to -3.35], P = 0.002). In 7 trials (435 patients), the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was decreased by 44% with ketamine (risk ratio 0.56 [0.40 to 0.78], P < 0.001). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of respiratory adverse events (9 trials, 871 patients; risk ratio 0.31 [0.06 to 1.51], P = 0.08) or hallucination (7 trials, 690 patients; odds ratio 1.16 [0.47 to 2.79], P = 0.70). Trial sequential analyses confirmed the significant benefit of ketamine on pain intensity, cumulative morphine consumption, and postoperative nausea and vomiting and its inability to double the risk of hallucination. The available data did not allow us to make a conclusion on respiratory adverse events or to establish dose-responsiveness.