Seminars in cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2023
Opioid-free anesthesia versus opioid-based anesthesia in patients undergoing cardiovascular and thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mathew Dave M, Fusco Peter J, Varghese Kathryn S, Awad Ahmed K, Vega Eamon, Mathew Serena M, Polizzi Mia, George Jerrin, Mathew Christopher S, Thomas Jeremiah J, Calixte Rose, Ahmed Adham
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite their extensive clinical use, opioids are characterized by several side effects. These complications, coupled with the ongoing opioid epidemic, have favored the rise of opioid-free-anesthesia (OFA). Herein, we perform the first pairwise meta-analysis of clinical outcomes for OFA vs opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) in patients undergoing cardiovascular and thoracic surgery.
METHODS: We comprehensively searched medical databases to identify studies comparing OFA and OBA in patients undergoing cardiovascular or thoracic surgery. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) or standard mean differences (SMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).
RESULTS: Our pooled analysis included 919 patients (8 studies), of whom 488 underwent surgery with OBA and 431 with OFA. Among cardiovascular surgery patients, compared to OBA, OFA was associated with significantly reduced post-operative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.57; P = .042), inotrope need (RR .84, P = .045), and non-invasive ventilation (RR, .54; P = .028). However, no differences were observed for 24hr pain score (SMD, -.35; P = .510) or 48hr morphine equivalent consumption (SMD, -1.09; P = .139). Among thoracic surgery patients, there was no difference between OFA and OBA for any of the explored outcomes, including post-operative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.41; P = .025).
CONCLUSION: Through the first pooled analysis of OBA vs OFA in a cardiothoracic-exclusive cohort, we found no significant difference in any of the pooled outcomes for thoracic surgery patients. Although limited to 2 cardiovascular surgery studies, OFA was associated with significantly reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting, inotrope need, and non-invasive ventilation in these patients. With growing use of OFA in invasive operations, further studies are needed to assess their efficacy and safety in cardiothoracic patients.
METHODS: We comprehensively searched medical databases to identify studies comparing OFA and OBA in patients undergoing cardiovascular or thoracic surgery. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) or standard mean differences (SMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).
RESULTS: Our pooled analysis included 919 patients (8 studies), of whom 488 underwent surgery with OBA and 431 with OFA. Among cardiovascular surgery patients, compared to OBA, OFA was associated with significantly reduced post-operative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.57; P = .042), inotrope need (RR .84, P = .045), and non-invasive ventilation (RR, .54; P = .028). However, no differences were observed for 24hr pain score (SMD, -.35; P = .510) or 48hr morphine equivalent consumption (SMD, -1.09; P = .139). Among thoracic surgery patients, there was no difference between OFA and OBA for any of the explored outcomes, including post-operative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.41; P = .025).
CONCLUSION: Through the first pooled analysis of OBA vs OFA in a cardiothoracic-exclusive cohort, we found no significant difference in any of the pooled outcomes for thoracic surgery patients. Although limited to 2 cardiovascular surgery studies, OFA was associated with significantly reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting, inotrope need, and non-invasive ventilation in these patients. With growing use of OFA in invasive operations, further studies are needed to assess their efficacy and safety in cardiothoracic patients.