Anaesthetic and sedative agents used for electrical cardioversion.

BACKGROUND: Electrical cardioversion is an effective procedure for restoring normal sinus rhythm in the hearts of patients with irregular heart rhythms. It is important that the patient is not fully conscious during the procedure, as it can be painful and distressing. The drug used to make patients unaware of the procedure should rapidly achieve the desired level of sedation, should wear off quickly and should not cause cardiovascular or respiratory side effects. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the safety, effectiveness and adverse events associated with various anaesthetic or sedative agents used in direct current cardioversion for cardiac arrhythmia in both elective and emergency settings.We sought answers to the following specific questions.• Which drugs deliver the best outcomes for patients undergoing electrical cardioversion?• Does using a particular agent confer advantages or disadvantages?• Is additional analgesic necessary to prevent pain? SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) on 27 March 2014. Our search terms were relevant to the review question and were not limited by outcomes. We also carried out searches of clinical trials registers and forward and backward citation tracking. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized and cluster-randomized studies with adult participants undergoing electrical cardioversion procedures in the elective or emergency setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, consulting with a third review author for disagreements. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, including assessment of risk of bias for all studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 studies with 1250 participants that compared one drug with one or more other drugs. Of these comparisons, 19 studies compared propofol with another drug. Seven of these compared propofol with etomidate (four of which combined the drugs with remifentanil or fentanyl), five midazolam, six thiopentone and two sevoflurane. Three studies compared etomidate with thiopentone, and three etomidate with midazolam. Two studies compared thiopentone with midazolam, one thiopentone with diazepam and one midazolam with diazepam. Drug doses and the time over which the drugs were given varied between studies. Although all studies were described as randomized, limited information was provided about the methods used for selection and group allocation. A high level of performance bias was observed across studies, as study authors had not attempted to blind the anaesthetist to group allocation. Similarly, study authors had rarely provided sufficient information on whether outcome assessors had been blinded.Included studies presented outcome data for hypotension, apnoea, participant recall, success of cardioversion, minor adverse events of nausea and vomiting, pain at injection site and myoclonus, additional analgesia and participant satisfaction. We did not pool the data from different studies in view of the multiple drug comparisons, differences in definitions and reporting of outcomes, variability of endpoints and high or unclear risk of bias across studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Few studies reported statistically significant results for our relevant outcomes, and most study authors concluded that both, or all, agents compared in individual studies were adequate for cardioversion procedures. It is our opinion that at present, there is no evidence to suggest that current anaesthetic practice for cardioversion should change.

Supraglottic airway devices versus tracheal intubation for airway management during general anaesthesia in obese patients.

BACKGROUND: The number of obese patients requiring general anaesthesia is likely to increase in coming years, and obese patients pose considerable challenges to the anaesthetic team. Tracheal intubation may be more difficult and risk of aspiration of gastric contents into the lungs is increased in obese patients. Supraglottic airway devices (SADs) offer an alternative airway to traditional tracheal intubation with potential benefits, including ease of fit and less airway disturbance. Although SADs are now widely used, clinical concerns remain that their use for airway management in obese patients may increase the risk of serious complications. OBJECTIVES: We wished to examine whether supraglottic airway devices can be used as a safe and effective alternative to tracheal intubation in securing the airway during general anaesthesia in obese patients (with a body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m(2)). SEARCH METHODS: We searched for eligible trials in the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 8, 2012), MEDLINE via Ovid (from 1985 to 9 September 2012) and EMBASE via Ovid (from 1985 to 9 September 2012). The Cochrane highly sensitive filter for randomized controlled trials was applied in MEDLINE and EMBASE. We also searched trial registers such as www.clinicaltrials.gov and the Current Controlled Clinical Trials Website (http://www.controlled-trials.com/) for ongoing trials. The start date of these searches was limited to 1985, shortly before the first SAD was introduced, in 1988. We undertook forward and backward citation tracing for key review articles and eligible articles identified through the electronic resources. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomized controlled trials of participants aged 16 years and older with a BMI > 30 kg/m(2) undergoing general anaesthesia. We compared the use of any model of SAD with the use of tracheal tubes (TTs) of any design. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, including information on adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. If sufficient data were available, results were presented as pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on random-effects models (inverse variance method). We employed the Chi(2) test and calculated the I(2) statistic to investigate study heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We identified two eligible studies, both comparing the use of one model of SAD, the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) with a TT, with a total study population of 232. One study population underwent laparoscopic surgery. The included studies were generally of high quality, but there was an unavoidable high risk of bias in the main airway variables, such as change of device or laryngospasm, as the intubator could not be blinded. Many outcomes included data from one study only.A total of 5/118 (4.2%) participants randomly assigned to PLMA across both studies were changed to TT insertion because of failed or unsatisfactory placement of the device. Postoperative episodes of hypoxaemia (oxygen saturation < 92% whilst breathing air) were less common in the PLMA groups (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.72). We found a significant postoperative difference in mean oxygen saturation, with saturation 2.54% higher in the PLMA group (95% CI 1.09% to 4.00%). This analysis showed high levels of heterogeneity between results (I(2) = 71%). The leak fraction was significantly higher in the PLMA group, with the largest difference seen during abdominal insufflation－a 6.4% increase in the PLMA group (95% CI 3.07% to 9.73%).No cases of pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents, mortality or serious respiratory complications were reported in either study. We are therefore unable to present effect estimates for these outcomes.In all, 2/118 participants with a PLMA suffered laryngospam or bronchospasm compared with 4/114 participants with a TT. The pooled estimate shows a non-significant reduction in laryngospasm in the PLMA group (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.59).Postoperative coughing was less common in the PLMA group (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.31), and there was no significant difference in the risk of sore throat or dysphonia (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.13). On average, PLMA placement took 5.9 seconds longer than TT placement (95% CI 3 seconds to 8.8 seconds). There was no significant difference in the proportion of successful first placements of a device, with 33/35 (94.2%) first-time successes in the PLMA group and 32/35 (91.4%) in the TT group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have inadequate information to draw conclusions about safety, and we can only comment on one design of SAD (the PLMA) in obese patients. We conclude that during routine and laparoscopic surgery, PLMAs may take a few seconds longer to insert, but this is unlikely to be a matter of clinical importance. A failure rate of 3% to 5% can be anticipated in obese patients. However, once fitted, PLMAs provide at least as good oxygenation, with the caveat that the leak fraction may increase, although in the included studies, this did not affect ventilation. We found significant improvement in oxygenation during and after surgery, indicating better pulmonary performance of the PLMA, and reduced postoperative coughing, suggesting better recovery for patients.