Ventilation Strategies During General Anesthesia for Noncardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal ventilation strategy during general anesthesia is unclear. This systematic review investigated the relationship between ventilation targets or strategies (eg, positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP], tidal volume, and recruitment maneuvers) and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched on March 8, 2021, for randomized trials investigating the effect of different respiratory targets or strategies on adults undergoing noncardiac surgery. Two investigators reviewed trials for relevance, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed for relevant outcomes, and several subgroup analyses were conducted. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: This review included 63 trials with 65 comparisons. Risk of bias was intermediate for all trials. In the meta-analyses, lung-protective ventilation (ie, low tidal volume with PEEP) reduced the risk of combined pulmonary complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.49; 9 trials; 1106 patients), atelectasis (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25-0.60; 8 trials; 895 patients), and need for postoperative mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.13-1.00; 5 trials; 636 patients). Recruitment maneuvers reduced the risk of atelectasis (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.21-0.92; 5 trials; 328 patients). We found no clear effect of tidal volume, higher versus lower PEEP, or recruitment maneuvers on postoperative pulmonary complications when evaluated individually. For all comparisons across targets, no effect was found on mortality or hospital length of stay. No effect measure modifiers were found in subgroup analyses. The certainty of evidence was rated as very low, low, or moderate depending on the intervention and outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Although lung-protective ventilation results in a decrease in pulmonary complications, randomized clinical trials provide only limited evidence to guide specific ventilation strategies during general anesthesia for adults undergoing noncardiac surgery.

Fraction of inspired oxygen during general anesthesia for non-cardiac surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the effects of a high versus a low intraoperative fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2 ) in adults undergoing general anesthesia. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effect of a high versus a low FiO2 on postoperative outcomes. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched on March 22, 2022 for randomized clinical trials investigating the effect of different FiO2 levels in adults undergoing general anesthesia for non-cardiac surgery. Two investigators independently reviewed studies for relevance, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed for relevant outcomes, and potential effect measure modification was assessed in subgroup analyses and meta-regression. The evidence certainty was evaluated using GRADE. RESULTS: This review included 25 original trials investigating the effect of a high (mostly 80%) versus a low (mostly 30%) FiO2 . Risk of bias was intermediate for all trials. A high FiO2 did not result in a significant reduction in surgical site infections (OR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.81-1.02 [p = .10]). No effect was found for all other included outcomes, including mortality (OR = 1.27, 95% CI: 0.90-1.79 [p = .18]) and hospital length of stay (mean difference = 0.03 days, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.30 [p = .84). Results from subgroup analyses and meta-regression did not identify any clear effect modifiers across outcomes. The certainty of evidence (GRADE) was rated as low for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In adults undergoing general anesthesia for non-cardiac surgery, a high FiO2 did not improve outcomes including surgical site infections, length of stay, or mortality. However, the certainty of the evidence was assessed as low.

Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: During general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery, there remain knowledge gaps regarding the effect of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy on patient-centred outcomes. METHODS: Included clinical trials investigated goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery and reported at least one patient-centred postoperative outcome. PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant articles on March 8, 2021. Two investigators performed abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and bias assessment. The primary outcomes were mortality and hospital length of stay, whereas 15 postoperative complications were included based on availability. From a main pool of comparable trials, meta-analyses were performed on trials with homogenous outcome definitions. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). RESULTS: The main pool consisted of 76 trials with intermediate risk of bias for most outcomes. Overall, goal-directed haemodynamic therapy might reduce mortality (odds ratio=0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.09) and shorten length of stay (mean difference=-0.72 days; 95% CI, -1.10 to -0.35) but with low certainty in the evidence. For both outcomes, larger effects favouring goal-directed haemodynamic therapy were seen in abdominal surgery, very high-risk surgery, and using targets based on preload variation by the respiratory cycle. However, formal tests for subgroup differences were not statistically significant. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy decreased risk of several postoperative outcomes, but only infectious outcomes and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia might decrease mortality, hospital length of stay, and several postoperative complications. Only infectious postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty in the evidence.

Ambulatory blood pressure using 60 rather than 20-min intervals may better reflect the resting blood pressure.

PURPOSE: Twenty-four hours of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is recommended in several guidelines as the best method for diagnosing hypertension. In general, the prognostic value of ABPM is superior to single office blood pressure (BP) measurements. Unfortunately, some patients experience considerable discomfort during frequently repeated forceful cuff inflations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study we investigated the difference in mean daytime systolic BP (SBP) between low-frequency ABPM (LF-ABPM), measuring once every hour, and high-frequency ABPM (HF-ABPM), measuring three times an hour during daytime, and two times an hour during night-time. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients were included in the analysis. All included patients had an HF-ABPM performed first and within a few weeks they underwent an LF-ABPM. The average day time difference in SBP between the two frequencies was 3.8 mmHg (p-value = 0.07) for mild, 8.2 mmHg (p-value < 0.01) for moderate and 15 mmHg (p-value < 0.001) for severe hypertension. A similar pattern was seen for night-time SBP. This study suggests that mean BP is similar between the two measuring frequencies for normotensive and mild hypertensive patients, while HF-ABPM results in a higher 24-h mean BP for moderate- and severe hypertensive patients. CONCLUSION: LF-ABPM may more correctly reflect the resting blood pressure in patients with moderate and severe hypertension.