Indian Journal of Anaesthesia最新文献

Background and aims: The time paediatric patients should resume oral intake after surgery is still ill-defined. No specific evidence suggests that the usual practice of postoperative fasting of 4-6 h to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is beneficial. The primary objective of this study was to assess the occurrence of PONV with early oral feeding compared to conventional feeding in children undergoing daycare surgery under general anaesthesia.

Methods: A randomised controlled trial was conducted in 300 children undergoing daycare surgery under general anaesthesia. Children were randomised into the early feeding group (Group EF, n = 150) or the conventional feeding group (Group CF, n = 150). Group EF received carbohydrate-containing oral fluids when the child demanded feed in the postoperative period. Group CF received oral fluids 4 h post-anaesthesia. All patients were monitored for occurrence of PONV, postoperative pain, duration of hospital stay and parental satisfaction. The incidence of PONV was compared using the Chi-squared test, while other continuous variables were compared using the Student's t-test.

Results: Both groups were comparable regarding PONV (12% in Group EF vs. 18.7% in Group CF, P = 0.109). The Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scores were significantly lower in Group EF at 0 min (P = 0.011), 30 min (P = 0.001) and 1 h (P < 0.001). Patients in Group EF had a significantly shorter duration of hospital stay, that is, 6.31 [standard deviation (SD): 3.52] [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.45-12.24] h in EF versus 10.13 (SD: 2.99) (95% CI: 5.12-16.33) h in CF (P < 0.001). Parents of the children in Group EF had significantly better parental satisfaction scores (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Early postoperative feeding in children undergoing lower abdominal, non-gastrointestinal surgery under general anaesthesia does not increase the incidence of PONV.

Background and aims: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after surgery. Preventing PONV in high-risk patients often requires a multimodal approach combining antiemetic drugs with diverse mechanisms. While aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, is recognised as highly effective for PONV prevention, uncertainties remain regarding its effectiveness.

Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The analysis assessed the effectiveness of aprepitant (A), aprepitant plus ondansetron (AO) and aprepitant plus dexamethasone and ondansetron (ADO) in preventing PONV compared to ondansetron alone (O) or in combination with dexamethasone (DO).

Results: In the analysis of 12 studies involving 2729 patients, aprepitant demonstrated significant efficacy in preventing PONV compared to ondansetron alone (A versus [vs.] O: PONV incidence 12.5% vs. 28.5%, relative risk [RR] = 0.45, P < 0.001; complete response rate 55.97% vs. 50.35%, RR = 1.13, P = 0.010). The combination of aprepitant with ondansetron (AO) also showed a significantly lower incidence of PONV compared to ondansetron alone (11.3% vs. 26.8%, RR = 0.43, P < 0.001) and a higher complete response rate (38.1% vs. 26.84%, RR = 1.41, P = 0.020). In addition, ADO significantly reduced PONV incidence compared to DO (ADO vs. DO: 13.63% vs. 35.38%, RR = 0.38, P = 0.006).

Conclusion: Aprepitant, whether used alone or in combination with ondansetron or both ondansetron and dexamethasone, consistently outperforms ondansetron in achieving a complete response as it lowers vomiting rates and reduces the need for rescue therapy during the crucial 24-48-h postoperative period.

Background and aims: Propofol has been used in medical practice as an anaesthetic drug for producing and sustaining general anaesthesia due to its advantages. However, it also has drawbacks, including injection-related discomfort. Recently, ciprofol has emerged as a promising anaesthetic drug that may overcome many drawbacks associated with propofol. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assess the efficacy and safety of ciprofol compared to propofol in different anaesthesia procedures.

Methods: The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42023458170). Central, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and WOS were searched for English literature until 26 February 2024. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool. Results were reported as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: Nineteen randomised controlled trials were included in our analysis, with 2841 participants. There was no difference between ciprofol and propofol in the success rate of endoscopy (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.02; P = 0.44), while ciprofol showed a significant increase in the success rate of general anaesthesia/sedation (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.02; P = 0.04). Ciprofol showed significantly lower pain on injection (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.22; P < 0.001), lower adverse events (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.92; P = 0.002) and higher patient satisfaction (standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.36, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.48; P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Ciprofol exhibited a comparable efficacy to propofol in inducing general anaesthesia and sedation with fewer adverse events, less pain on injection and higher patient satisfaction. These collective findings may suggest that ciprofol can be used as an alternative drug to ensure effective general anaesthesia/sedation induction in the future.