British journal of anaesthesia最新文献

Background: To avoid underdosing or overdosing of analgesic medications, a variety of nociception monitors that use distinct techniques have been developed to quantify nociception during general anaesthesia. Although prior meta-analyses have examined the behaviour of nociception monitors vs standard care protocols, they did not include the potentially valuable data for monitor-to-monitor comparisons. In order to capture these data fully and compare the behaviour of these monitors, we conducted a systematic search and network meta-analysis.

Methods: We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis on data obtained from a systematic search within PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EmCare databases. The search was aimed to detect relevant RCTs on the use of nociception monitoring versus standard care or versus other nociception devices(s) during general anaesthesia in adult patients. The primary endpoint was intraoperative opioid consumption, for which we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) of morphine equivalents (MEs). Secondary endpoints included postoperative opioid consumption and nausea or vomiting, extubation time, postoperative pain score, and time to discharge readiness. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2.0).

Results: Thirty-eight RCTs, including 3412 patients and studying five different types of nociception monitors, were included in the analyses: Nociception Level Monitor (NOL), Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI), Surgical Plethysmographic Index (SPI), Pupillometry (pupillary pain index [PPI] or pupil dilation reflex [PDR]), and the beat-by-beat cardiovascular depth of anaesthesia index (CARDEAN). Pupillometry showed a significant reduction in intraoperative opioid consumption compared with standard care (SMD -2.44 ME; 95% credible interval [CrI] -4.35 to -0.52), and compared with SPI (SMD -2.99 ME; 95% CrI -5.15 to -0.81). With respect to monitors other than pupillometry, no significant differences in opioid consumption were detected in comparison with standard care or other monitors. Pupillometry was associated with a longer time to discharge readiness from the PACU, whereas NOL was associated with shorter extubation times. No relevant differences in other secondary outcomes were found.

Conclusions: Apart from pupillometry, no monitors demonstrated a significant effect on intraoperative opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes indicate limited clinical benefit for patients when using these monitors.

Deciding the optimal time for surgery in patients with pre-existing comorbid disease is complex. A careful balance of risks is required to weigh up the therapeutic benefits of surgery against an increased risk of perioperative adverse outcomes, whereas the subsequent risk of adverse events and mortality is more dependent on pre-existing conditions. A study in a recent issue of BJA shows that people with a previous cardiovascular or cerebrovascular event within 10 yr of elective surgery were at a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events within 1 yr from surgery and that an at-risk period existed if surgery occurred within 37 months of the preoperative event. Before this observation can be used to inform clinical decision-making, caution is needed to interpret these findings because of biases introduced by the analytical approach and potential confounding.

There is a complex association between postoperative pain and postoperative delirium, which highlights the need for a more balanced approach to pain management that considers various risk factors. We emphasise the importance of comprehensive documentation and standardised monitoring to improve detection and management of postoperative delirium, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes. We advocate for a precision anaesthesia approach, which tailors care to individual patient profiles, as a potential solution to address these challenges.

Patient blood management (PBM) encompasses implementing multimodal evidence-based strategies to screen, diagnose, and properly treat anaemia and coagulopathies using goal-directed therapy while minimising bleeding. The aim of PBM is to improve clinical care and patient outcomes while managing patients with potential or ongoing critical anaemia, clinically significant bleeding, and coagulopathies. The focus of PBM is patient-centred rather than transfusion-centred. Multimodal PBM strategies are now recommended by international organisations, including the World Health Organization, as a new standard of care and a proven means to safely and effectively manage anaemia and blood loss while minimising unnecessary blood transfusion. Compared with adult PBM, paediatric PBM is currently not routinely accepted as a standard of care. This is partly because of the paucity of robust data on paediatric patient PBM. Managing paediatric bleeding and blood product transfusion presents unique challenges. Neonates, infants, children, and adolescents each have specific considerations based on age, weight, physiology, and pharmacology. This narrative review covers the latest updates for PBM in paediatric surgical populations including the benefits and principles of paediatric PBM, current expert consensus guidelines, and important universal multimodal therapeutic strategies emphasising clinical management of the anaemic, bleeding, or coagulopathic paediatric patient in the perioperative period. Practical paediatric rules for PBM in the perioperative period are highlighted, with review of specific PBM strategies including treatment of preoperative anaemia, restrictive transfusion thresholds, antifibrinolytic agents, cell salvage, standardised transfusion algorithms, and goal-directed therapy based on point-of-care and viscoelastic testing.

With an ageing world population and increasing prevalence, heart failure is increasingly frequent as a comorbidity in operative patients, and its accurate preoperative diagnosis is essential to improve postoperative prognosis in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Use of electronic health records to assist in the accuracy of diagnosis and definition of an adjudicated heart failure reference standard could help guide intraoperative practice and improve outcomes in patients with heart failure.