Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic - Rochester, Rochester, MN.
Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2023 Nov;37(11):2215-2222. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2023.07.011. Epub 2023 Jul 17.
To determine the relative efficacy of specific regimens used as primary anesthetics, as well as the potential combination of volatile and intravenous anesthetics among patients undergoing cardiac, thoracic, and vascular surgery.
This frequentist, random-effects network meta-analysis was registered prospectively (CRD42022316328) and conducted according to the PRISMA-NMA framework. Literature searches were conducted up to April 1, 2022 across relevant databases. Risk of bias (RoB) and confidence of evidence were assessed by RoB-2 and CINeMA, respectively. Pooled treatment effects were compared with propofol monotherapy.
Fifty-three randomized controlled trials (N = 8,085) were included, of which 46 trials (N = 6,604) enrolled patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
Trials enrolling adults (≥18) undergoing cardiac, thoracic, and vascular surgery, using the same induction regimens, and comparing volatile and/or total intravenous anesthesia for the maintenance of anesthesia. Given that the majority of trials focused on those undergoing cardiac surgery and the heterogeneity, analyses were restricted to this population.
Outcomes of interest included intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), myocardial infarction, in-hospital and 30-day mortality, stroke, and delirium. Across 19 trials (N = 1,821; 9 arms; I = 64.5%), sevoflurane combined with propofol decreased ICU LOS (mean difference [MD] -18.26 hours; 95% CI -34.78 to -1.73 hours), whereas midazolam with propofol (MD 17.51 hours; 95% CI 2.78-32.25 hours) was associated with a significant increase in ICU LOS, when compared with propofol monotherapy. Among 27 trials (N = 4,080; 10 arms; I = 0%), midazolam was associated with significantly greater risk of myocardial infarction versus propofol (risk ratio 1.94; 95% CI 1.01-3.71). There were no significant differences across other outcomes.
In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, sevoflurane with propofol was associated with decreased ICU LOS compared with propofol monotherapy. Midazolam with propofol increased ICU LOS compared with propofol alone. The combined use of intravenous and volatile anesthetics should be explored further. Future trials in thoracic and vascular surgery are warranted.
确定作为主要麻醉剂使用的特定方案的相对疗效,以及在心脏、胸部和血管手术患者中挥发性和静脉麻醉剂的潜在联合应用。
这是一项前瞻性注册的(CRD42022316328)频率论随机效应网络荟萃分析,按照 PRISMA-NMA 框架进行。文献检索截至 2022 年 4 月 1 日在相关数据库中进行。通过 RoB-2 和 CINeMA 分别评估风险偏倚(RoB)和证据置信度。与单独使用异丙酚相比,比较了联合治疗效果。
纳入了 53 项随机对照试验(N=8085),其中 46 项试验(N=6604)纳入了接受心脏手术的患者。
试验纳入了接受心脏、胸部和血管手术的成年人(≥18 岁),使用相同的诱导方案,并比较了挥发性和/或全静脉麻醉在维持麻醉中的应用。鉴于大多数试验都集中在接受心脏手术的患者身上,并且存在异质性,因此分析仅限于该人群。
感兴趣的结局包括重症监护病房(ICU)的住院时间(LOS)、心肌梗死、院内和 30 天死亡率、中风和谵妄。在 19 项试验(N=1821;9 个臂;I=64.5%)中,七氟醚联合异丙酚可降低 ICU LOS(平均差值[MD]-18.26 小时;95%CI-34.78 至-1.73 小时),而咪达唑仑联合异丙酚(MD 17.51 小时;95%CI 2.78-32.25 小时)与 ICU LOS 显著增加相关,与单独使用异丙酚相比。在 27 项试验(N=4080;10 个臂;I=0%)中,咪达唑仑与异丙酚相比,心肌梗死风险显著增加(风险比 1.94;95%CI 1.01-3.71)。其他结局无显著差异。
在接受心脏手术的患者中,与单独使用异丙酚相比,七氟醚联合异丙酚可降低 ICU LOS。与单独使用异丙酚相比,咪达唑仑联合异丙酚可增加 ICU LOS。应进一步探讨静脉和挥发性麻醉剂的联合使用。需要在胸部和血管手术中进行进一步的试验。