Opioid-Free Anaesthesia Improves Anaesthesia Recovery when Compared with that of Opioid-Based Anaesthesia. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid Free Anesthesia (OFA) is a relatively new technique that has been questioned due to the lack of evidence regarding its benefit-risk balance. METHODS: Four international databases were searched for clinical trials comparing OFA with opioid based anesthesia. The primary outcome was pain control and the secondary included postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), gastrointestinal recovery, respiratory depression, urinary retention, length of hospital stay, surgical complications, number of patients with cessation of the intervention and other side effects. RESULTS: Pain was better controlled in the OFA group in all the measurements made (VAS 1h: Md = -0.81, CI95% = -0.48- -1.14, VAS 24h: Md = -1.25, CI95% =-2.41- -0.1, VAS >24h: Md = -1.36, CI95% = -1.73- -1). In the opioid group there was an increase in the risk of nausea (RR=2.69, CI95% = 2-3.61) and vomiting (RR = 3.99, CI95% = 2.06-7.74), whilst in the OFA group, there was an increased risk of bradycardia (RR= 1.62, CI95% = 1.02-2.57). The rest of the variables showed no differences between groups or could not be analyzed. CONCLUSION: There is a clear benefit of OFA in pain control and PONV, but there is also a higher risk of bradycardia. This technique should be considered in patients with a special risk of difficult postoperative pain control or PONV. However, the best drug combination to perform OFA is still unknown, as well as the type of patient that benefits more with less risk.

Mallampati Class Zero airway: a narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: Mallampati Class Zero airway describes a visible epiglottis on pharyngoscopic view. It was first noted by Tobold A in 1869 and was proposed as a new class in modified Mallampati Classification by Ezri T. et al. We aim to summarize the current knowledge about Mallampati Class Zero airway and its implication on airway management. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We reviewed the reported studies about visible epiglottis on pharyngoscopy and 34 publications were selected. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The diagnosis of Mallampati Class Zero airway is usually achieved as a casual finding during airway assessment of Mallampati Test, during a regular checkup at the dentist, or even after a medical consultation due to a suspected visualization of a foreign body at the back of the throat. Mallampati Class Zero airway has a low prevalence in the general population (prevalence of 0.7-1.7% of adults and 0.3-6% of children) and it is more frequent in children and female. The cause for this phenomenon is not well understood but in clinical practice it is associated with an easy airway. Interestingly, in the pediatric population with Mallampati class zero airway, the difficult airway has not been reported to date. CONCLUSIONS: Mallampati Class Zero is associated with an easy airway and it should be included as a different class in the modified Mallamapti classification, which would also contribute to its spread between professionals involved in the airway management and will favour increasing investigation and knowledge about it.

Renal and Neurologic Benefit of Levosimendan vs Dobutamine in Patients With Low Cardiac Output Syndrome After Cardiac Surgery: Clinical Trial FIM-BGC-2014-01.

BACKGROUND: Low-cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) after cardiac surgery secondary to systemic hypoperfusion is associated with a higher incidence of renal and neurological damage. A range of effective therapies are available for LCOS. The beneficial systemic effects of levosimendan persist even after cardiac output is restored, which suggests an independent cardioprotective effect. METHODS: A double-blind clinical trial was conducted in patients with a confirmed diagnosis of LCOS randomized into two treatment groups (levosimendan vs. dobutamine). Monitoring of hemodynamic (cardiac index, systolic volume index, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, central venous pressure, central venous saturation); biochemical (e.g. creatinine, S100B protein, NT-proBNP, troponin I); and renal parameters was performed using acute kidney injury scale (AKI scale) and renal and brain ultrasound measurements [vascular resistance index (VRI)] at diagnosis and during the first 48 h. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed between groups in terms of cardiac index, systolic volume index, NT-proBNP, and kidney injury stage at diagnosis. In the levosimendan group, there were significant variations in AKI stage after 24 and 48 h. No significant differences were observed in the other parameters studied. CONCLUSION: Levosimendan showed a beneficial effect on renal function in LCOS patients after cardiac surgery that was independent from cardiac output and vascular tone. This effect is probably achieved by pharmacological postconditioning. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EUDRA CT, identifier 2014-001461-27. https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2014-001461-27.