Korean Journal of Anesthesiology最新文献

Surgical pleth index (SPI) monitoring is a representative, objective nociception-monitoring device that measures nociception using photoplethysmographic signals. It is easy to apply to patients and the numerical calculation formula is intuitively easy to understand; therefore, its clinical interpretation is simple. Several studies have demonstrated its efficacy and utility. Compared with hemodynamic parameters, the SPI can detect the degree of nociception during surgery under general anesthesia with greater accuracy, and therefore can provide better guidance for the administration of various opioids, including remifentanil, fentanyl, and sufentanil. Indeed, SPI-guided analgesia is associated with lower intraoperative opioid consumption, faster patient recovery, and comparable or lower levels of postoperative pain and rates of adverse events compared with conventional analgesia. In addition, SPI monitoring allows for the degree of postoperative pain and analgesic requirements to be predicted through the SPI values immediately before patient arousal. However, because patient age, effective circulating volume, position, concomitant medication and anesthetic regimen and level of consciousness may be confounding factors in SPI monitoring, clinicians must be careful when interpreting SPI values. In addition, as SPI values can differ depending on anesthetic and analgesic regimens and the underlying disease, an awareness of the effects of these variables with an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of SPI monitoring compared to other nociception monitoring devices is essential. Therefore, this review aimed to help clinicians perform optimal SPI-guided analgesia and to assist with the establishment of future research designs through clarifying current usefulness and limitations of SPI monitoring in perioperative pain management.

Background: Prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) is a major complication of colorectal surgery. Increased opioid consumption has been proposed to increase the risk of PPOI. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that an increased total postoperative opioid dose (TPOD) is associated with the increased incidence of PPOI.

Methods: For this matched case-control study, patients who underwent elective laparoscopic colorectal procedures at the Peking University People's Hospital between January 2018 and June 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with PPOI were assigned to the ileus group, while patients without PPOI (control group) were matched at a 1:1 ratio to the ileus group according to age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score, and type of surgical procedure. The primary outcome was the TPOD between the ileus and control groups. The secondary outcome was risk factors of PPOI.

Results: A total of 267 participants were included in the final analysis. No differences in baseline or operative factors were found between the two groups. The TPOD, intravenous sufentanil dose on postoperative day 1 (POD1), and the use of patient-controlled analgesia with basal infusion were associated with PPOI (P < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that an increased TPOD was an independent risk factor for developing PPOI after laparoscopic colorectal procedures (Odd ratio: 1.67, 95% CI [1.03, 2.71], P = 0.04).

Conclusions: The TPOD is an independent risk factor for PPOI after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. We need to explore new strategies of postoperative analgesia to reduce the dosage of TPOD.

Background: General anesthetic techniques can affect postoperative recovery. We compared the effect of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and desflurane anesthesia on postoperative recovery.

Methods: In this randomized trial, 150 patients undergoing robot-assisted or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer were randomly allocated to either the TIVA or desflurane anesthesia (DES) group. Postoperative recovery was evaluated using the Korean version of the Quality of Recovery-15 questionnaire (QoR-15K) at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h postoperatively. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) was performed to analyze longitudinal QoR-15K data. Fentanyl consumption, pain severity, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and quality of life three weeks after discharge were also compared.

Results: Data were analyzed for 70 patients in each group. The TIVA group showed significantly higher QoR-15K scores at 24 and 48 h postoperatively (24 h: DES, 96 [77, 109] vs. TIVA, 104 [82, 117], median difference 8 [95% CI: 1, 15], P = 0.029; 48 h: 110 [95, 128] vs. 125 [109, 130], median difference 8 [95% CI: 1, 15], P = 0.022), however not at 72 h (P = 0.400). The GEE revealed significant effects of group (adjusted mean difference 6.2, 95% CI: 0.39, 12.1, P = 0.037) and time (P < 0.001) on postoperative QoR-15K scores without group-time interaction (P = 0.051). However, there were no significant differences in other outcomes, except for fentanyl consumption, within the first 24 h postoperatively.

Conclusions: Propofol-based TIVA showed only a transient improvement in postoperative recovery than desflurane anesthesia, without significant differences in other outcomes.

Background: Alveoli tend to collapse in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Endotracheal aspiration may increase alveolar collapse due to the loss of end-expiratory lung volume (EELV). We aimed to compare the loss of EELV after open and closed suction in patients with ARDS.

Methods: This randomized crossover study included 20 patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for ARDS. Open and closed suction were applied in a random order. Lung impedance was measured using electric impedance tomography. The change in end-expiratory lung impedance end of suction and at 1, 10, 20, and 30 min after suction, was used to represent the change in EELV. Arterial blood gas analyses and ventilatory parameters such as the plateau pressure (Pplat), driving pressure (Pdrive), and compliance of the respiratory system (CRS) were also recorded.

Results: Less volume loss was noted after closed suction than after open suction (mean ΔEELI: -2661 ± 1937 vs. -4415 ± 2363; mean difference: -1753; 95% CI [-2662, -844]; P = 0.001). EELI returned to baseline 10 min after closed suction but did not return to baseline even 30 min after open suction. After closed suction, the Pplat and Pdrive decreased while the CRS increased. Conversely, the Pplat and Pdrive increased while the CRS decreased after open suction.

Conclusions: Endotracheal aspiration may result in alveolar collapse due to loss of EELV. Given that closed suction is associated with less volume loss at end-expiration without worsening ventilatory parameters, it should be chosen over open suction in patients with ARDS.

Background: To enhance perioperative outcomes, a perioperative registry that integrates high-quality real-world data throughout the perioperative period is essential. Singapore General Hospital established the Perioperative and Anesthesia Subject Area Registry (PASAR) to unify data from the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative stages. This study presents the methodology employed to create this database.

Methods: Since 2016, data from surgical patients have been collected from the hospital electronic medical record systems, de-identified, and stored securely in compliance with privacy and data protection laws. As a representative sample, data from initiation in 2016 to December 2022 were collected.

Results: As of December 2022, PASAR data comprise 26 tables, encompassing 153,312 patient admissions and 168,977 operation sessions. For this period, the median age of the patients was 60.0 years, sex distribution was balanced, and the majority were Chinese. Hypertension and cardiovascular comorbidities were also prevalent. Information including operation type and time, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were collected. Emergency surgeries resulted in longer ICU stays, but shorter operation times than elective surgeries.

Conclusions: The PASAR provides a comprehensive and automated approach to gathering high-quality perioperative patient data.

Safe and effective sedation depends on various factors, such as the choice of sedatives, sedation techniques used, experience of the sedation provider, degree of sedation-related education and training, equipment and healthcare worker availability, the patient's underlying diseases, and the procedure being performed. The purpose of these evidence-based multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines is to ensure the safety and efficacy of sedation, thereby contributing to patient safety and ultimately improving public health. These clinical practice guidelines comprise 15 key questions covering various topics related to the following: the sedation providers; medications and equipment available; appropriate patient selection; anesthesiologist referrals for high-risk patients; pre-sedation fasting; comparison of representative drugs used in adult and pediatric patients; respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and sedation depth monitoring during sedation; management of respiratory complications during pediatric sedation; and discharge criteria. The recommendations in these clinical practice guidelines were systematically developed to assist providers and patients in sedation-related decision making for diagnostic and therapeutic examinations or procedures. Depending on the characteristics of primary, secondary, and tertiary care institutions as well as the clinical needs and limitations, sedation providers at each medical institution may choose to apply the recommendations as they are, modify them appropriately, or reject them completely.

Background: Data on the efficacy and incidence of adverse effects associated with dexmedetomidine (DEX) as a local anesthetic adjuvant for patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) are inconclusive. This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and risks of DEX for PCEA using opioids as a reference.

Methods: Two researchers independently searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and China Biology Medicine for randomized controlled trials comparing DEX and opioids as local anesthetic adjuvants in PCEA.

Results: In total, 636 patients from seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. Postoperative patients who received DEX had lower visual analog scale (VAS) scores than those who received opioids at 4-8 h (mean difference [MD]: 0.61, 95% CI [0.45, 0.76], P < 0.001, I2 = 0%), 12 h (MD: 0.85, 95% CI [0.61, 1.09], P < 0.001, I2 = 0%), 24 h (MD: 0.59, 95% CI [0.06, 1.12], P = 0.030, I2 = 82%), and 48 h (MD: 0.54, 95% CI [0.05, 1.02], P = 0.030, I2 = 91%). Additionally, patients who received DEX had a lower incidence of itching (odds ratio [OR]: 2.86, 95% CI [1.18, 6.95], P = 0.020, I2 = 0%) and nausea and vomiting (OR: 6.83, 95% CI [3.63, 12.84], P < 0.001, I2 = 24%). In labor analgesia, no significant differences in neonatal (pH and PaO2 of cord blood, fetal heart rate) or maternal outcomes (duration of labor stage, mode of delivery) were found between the DEX and opioid groups.

Conclusions: Compared with opioids, using DEX as a local anesthetic adjuvant in PCEA improved postoperative analgesia and reduced the incidence of itching and nausea and vomiting without increasing the incidence of adverse events.