Intraoperative respiratory and hemodynamic strategies for reducing nausea, vomiting, and pain after surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite improved medical treatment strategies, postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting remain major challenges. This systematic review investigated the relationship between perioperative respiratory and hemodynamic interventions and postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched on March 8, 2021 for randomized clinical trials investigating the effect of perioperative respiratory or hemodynamic interventions in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Investigators reviewed trials for relevance, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed when feasible. GRADE was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: This review included 65 original trials; of these 48% had pain, nausea, and/or vomiting as the primary focus. No reduction of postoperative pain was found in meta-analyses when comparing recruitment maneuvers with no recruitment, high (80%) to low (30%) fraction of oxygen, low (5-7 ml/kg) to high (9-12 ml/kg) tidal volume, or goal-directed hemodynamic therapy to standard care. In the meta-analysis comparing recruitment maneuvers with no recruitment maneuvers, patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery had less shoulder pain 24 h postoperatively (mean difference in the numeric rating scale from 0 to 10: -1.1, 95% CI: -1.7, -0.5). In meta-analyses, comparing high to low fraction of inspired oxygen and goal-directed hemodynamic therapy to standard care in patients undergoing abdominal surgery, the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting was reduced (odds ratio: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.87 and 0.48, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.85). The certainty in the evidence was mostly very low to low. The results should be considered exploratory given the lack of prespecified hypotheses and corresponding risk of Type 1 errors. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence regarding the impact of intraoperative respiratory and hemodynamic interventions on postoperative pain or nausea and vomiting. More definitive trials are needed to guide clinical care within this area.

Fraction of inspired oxygen during general anesthesia for non-cardiac surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the effects of a high versus a low intraoperative fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2 ) in adults undergoing general anesthesia. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effect of a high versus a low FiO2 on postoperative outcomes. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched on March 22, 2022 for randomized clinical trials investigating the effect of different FiO2 levels in adults undergoing general anesthesia for non-cardiac surgery. Two investigators independently reviewed studies for relevance, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed for relevant outcomes, and potential effect measure modification was assessed in subgroup analyses and meta-regression. The evidence certainty was evaluated using GRADE. RESULTS: This review included 25 original trials investigating the effect of a high (mostly 80%) versus a low (mostly 30%) FiO2 . Risk of bias was intermediate for all trials. A high FiO2 did not result in a significant reduction in surgical site infections (OR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.81-1.02 [p = .10]). No effect was found for all other included outcomes, including mortality (OR = 1.27, 95% CI: 0.90-1.79 [p = .18]) and hospital length of stay (mean difference = 0.03 days, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.30 [p = .84). Results from subgroup analyses and meta-regression did not identify any clear effect modifiers across outcomes. The certainty of evidence (GRADE) was rated as low for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In adults undergoing general anesthesia for non-cardiac surgery, a high FiO2 did not improve outcomes including surgical site infections, length of stay, or mortality. However, the certainty of the evidence was assessed as low.

Ventilation Strategies During General Anesthesia for Noncardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal ventilation strategy during general anesthesia is unclear. This systematic review investigated the relationship between ventilation targets or strategies (eg, positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP], tidal volume, and recruitment maneuvers) and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched on March 8, 2021, for randomized trials investigating the effect of different respiratory targets or strategies on adults undergoing noncardiac surgery. Two investigators reviewed trials for relevance, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed for relevant outcomes, and several subgroup analyses were conducted. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: This review included 63 trials with 65 comparisons. Risk of bias was intermediate for all trials. In the meta-analyses, lung-protective ventilation (ie, low tidal volume with PEEP) reduced the risk of combined pulmonary complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.49; 9 trials; 1106 patients), atelectasis (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25-0.60; 8 trials; 895 patients), and need for postoperative mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.13-1.00; 5 trials; 636 patients). Recruitment maneuvers reduced the risk of atelectasis (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.21-0.92; 5 trials; 328 patients). We found no clear effect of tidal volume, higher versus lower PEEP, or recruitment maneuvers on postoperative pulmonary complications when evaluated individually. For all comparisons across targets, no effect was found on mortality or hospital length of stay. No effect measure modifiers were found in subgroup analyses. The certainty of evidence was rated as very low, low, or moderate depending on the intervention and outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Although lung-protective ventilation results in a decrease in pulmonary complications, randomized clinical trials provide only limited evidence to guide specific ventilation strategies during general anesthesia for adults undergoing noncardiac surgery.

Senicapoc treatment in COVID-19 patients with severe respiratory insufficiency-A randomized, open-label, phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the current study was to determine if treatment with senicapoc, improves the PaO2 /FiO2 ratio in patients with COVID-19 and severe respiratory insufficiency. METHODS: Investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label, phase II trial in four intensive care units (ICU) in Denmark. We included patients aged ≥18 years and admitted to an ICU with severe respiratory insufficiency due to COVID-19. The intervention consisted of 50 mg enteral senicapoc administered as soon as possible after randomization and again after 24 h. Patients in the control group received standard care only. The primary outcome was the PaO2 /FiO2 ratio at 72 h. RESULTS: Twenty patients were randomized to senicapoc and 26 patients to standard care. Important differences existed in patient characteristics at baseline, including more patients being on non-invasive/invasive ventilation in the control group (54% vs. 35%). The median senicapoc concentration at 72 h was 62.1 ng/ml (IQR 46.7-71.2). The primary outcome, PaO2 /FiO2 ratio at 72 h, was significantly lower in the senicapoc group (mean 19.5 kPa, SD 6.6) than in the control group (mean 24.4 kPa, SD 9.2) (mean difference -5.1 kPa [95% CI -10.2, -0.04] p = .05). The 28-day mortality in the senicapoc group was 2/20 (10%) compared with 6/26 (23%) in the control group (OR 0.36 95% CI 0.06-2.07, p = .26). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with senicapoc resulted in a significantly lower PaO2 /FiO2 ratio at 72 h with no differences for other outcomes.

Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: During general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery, there remain knowledge gaps regarding the effect of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy on patient-centred outcomes. METHODS: Included clinical trials investigated goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery and reported at least one patient-centred postoperative outcome. PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant articles on March 8, 2021. Two investigators performed abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and bias assessment. The primary outcomes were mortality and hospital length of stay, whereas 15 postoperative complications were included based on availability. From a main pool of comparable trials, meta-analyses were performed on trials with homogenous outcome definitions. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). RESULTS: The main pool consisted of 76 trials with intermediate risk of bias for most outcomes. Overall, goal-directed haemodynamic therapy might reduce mortality (odds ratio=0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.09) and shorten length of stay (mean difference=-0.72 days; 95% CI, -1.10 to -0.35) but with low certainty in the evidence. For both outcomes, larger effects favouring goal-directed haemodynamic therapy were seen in abdominal surgery, very high-risk surgery, and using targets based on preload variation by the respiratory cycle. However, formal tests for subgroup differences were not statistically significant. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy decreased risk of several postoperative outcomes, but only infectious outcomes and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia might decrease mortality, hospital length of stay, and several postoperative complications. Only infectious postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty in the evidence.

Drugs during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current narrative review outlines the evidence for the most common drugs given during adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation. RECENT FINDINGS: Two large clinical trials recently made the roles of adrenaline and antiarrhythmic drugs clearer. Adrenaline leads to a substantially higher rate of return of spontaneous circulation and a moderate increase in survival. Amiodarone and lidocaine increase short-term outcomes, and point estimates suggest a small but uncertain effect on long-term survival. There is still a lack of high-quality evidence for other drugs during cardiac arrest such as bicarbonate, calcium, and magnesium, but small-scale randomized clinical trials show no effect. A promising entity may be the combination of vasopressin and glucocorticoids, but external validation of preliminary trials is needed. Data from observational studies and subgroup analyses of trials generally favor intravenous over intraosseous access, while the latter remains a reasonable alternative. SUMMARY: Guidelines for the above-mentioned drugs have been updated yet remain largely unchanged over the last decades. There are still multiple unanswered questions related to drugs during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. On the contrary, only few trials are ongoing.

Animal models of cardiac arrest: A systematic review of bias and reporting.

AIM OF THE REVIEW: Animal models are essential in advancing resuscitation research but are susceptible to various biases compromising internal validity, which may explain unsuccessful transition to human clinical trials. This study aimed to assess risk of bias in animal studies of cardiac arrest. DATA SOURCES: This study was based on a previous systematic review of all animal cardiac arrest studies published between March 8, 2011 and March 8, 2016 in PubMed and EMBASE. For this study, we focused on interventional studies and selected a random sample of 50 pig and 50 rat studies. We used a modified version of the SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. Bias assessment was performed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: 92% of pig studies and 88% of rat studies used randomization to assign interventions, but the methodology was unknown or insufficiently reported in 60% and 68% of the studies, respectively. Correct timing of randomization was lacking or unclear in over half of the studies. 40% of pig studies and 28% of rat studies reported insufficient baseline characteristics. When possible, blinding was not performed/reported in 68% of rat studies and 31% of pig studies. Blinding of outcome assessors was missing or inadequately reported in 65% of pig studies and 60% of rat studies. 80% of all studies lacked a sample size calculation, while 60% of pig and 80% of rat studies omitted a specified primary outcome. CONCLUSION: This study indicates insufficient reporting and methodological shortcomings in animal models of cardiac arrest.