Journal of clinical anesthesia
Review Comparative Study
Perioperative factors are probably essential for different oncological outcomes. This systematic review investigates the literature concerning overall mortality and postoperative complications after cancer surgery with inhalational (INHA) and intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). A search was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines, including studies with patients undergoing surgery for cancer and where TIVA was compared with INHA. ⋯ In one study, the rate of pulmonary complications was significantly higher after INHA compared with TIVA, while other postoperative complications were comparable. There are currently four propensity-adjusted retrospective studies indicating that TIVA might be the preferred anesthetic choice in cancer surgery. However, evidence is currently of low quality and randomized clinical trials are required for further investigation.
Review Meta Analysis Comparative Study
The role of the programmed intermittent bolus (PIB) technique for infusion of local anesthetics in continuous peripheral nerve blockade (CPNB) remains to be elucidated. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PIB versus continuous infusion for CPNB have demonstrated conflicting results and no systematic review or meta-analysis currently exists. We aimed to delineate via systematic review with meta-analysis if there is any analgesic benefit to performing PIB versus continuous infusion for CPNB. ⋯ The existing evidence demonstrates that PIB does not meaningfully reduce VAS pain scores in CPNB. This systematic review provides important information about the limitations of existing studies. Future studies should reflect contemporary practice and focus on more painful operations.
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
To compare the efficacy of anaesthetic depth control using Closed Loop Anaesthesia Delivery System (CLADS) and Target Controlled Infusion (TCI) in patients with moderate to severe left ventricular dysfunction (LVSD). ⋯ Closed loop delivery of propofol using CLADS performed significantly better than TCI in this subset of patients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NO.: www.ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT02645994.