Explore the vast range of titles available.

Preclinical data suggest that general anaesthetics affect brain development. There is mixed evidence from cohort studies that young children exposed to anaesthesia can have an increased risk of poor neurodevelopmental outcome. We aimed to establish whether general anaesthesia in infancy has any effect on neurodevelopmental outcome. Here we report the secondary outcome of neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age in the General Anaesthesia compared to Spinal anaesthesia (GAS) trial. In this international assessor-masked randomised controlled equivalence trial, we recruited infants younger than 60 weeks postmenstrual age, born at greater than 26 weeks' gestation, and who had inguinal herniorrhaphy, from 28 hospitals in Australia, Italy, the USA, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Infants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either awake-regional anaesthesia or sevoflurane-based general anaesthesia. Web-based randomisation was done in blocks of two or four and stratified by site and gestational age at birth. Infants were excluded if they had existing risk factors for neurological injury. The primary outcome of the trial will be the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence Third Edition (WPPSI-III) Full Scale Intelligence Quotient score at age 5 years. The secondary outcome, reported here, is the composite cognitive score of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development III, assessed at 2 years. The analysis was as per protocol adjusted for gestational age at birth. A difference in means of five points (1/3 SD) was predefined as the clinical equivalence margin. This trial is registered with ANZCTR, number ACTRN12606000441516 and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00756600. Between Feb 9, 2007, and Jan 31, 2013, 363 infants were randomly assigned to receive awake-regional anaesthesia and 359 to general anaesthesia. Outcome data were available for 238 children in the awake-regional group and 294 in the general anaesthesia group. In the as-per-protocol analysis, the cognitive composite score (mean [SD]) was 98·6 (14·2) in the awake-regional group and 98·2 (14·7) in the general anaesthesia group. There was equivalence in mean between groups (awake-regional minus general anaesthesia 0·169, 95% CI −2·30 to 2·64). The median duration of anaesthesia in the general anaesthesia group was 54 min. For this secondary outcome, we found no evidence that just less than 1 h of sevoflurane anaesthesia in infancy increases the risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age compared with awake-regional anaesthesia. Australia National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Health Technologies Assessment-National Institute for Health Research UK, National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration, Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, Pfizer Canada, Italian Ministry of Heath, Fonds NutsOhra, and UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN).

An association between increasing anaesthetic depth and decreased postoperative survival has been shown in observational studies; however, evidence from randomised controlled trials is lacking. Our aim was to compare all-cause 1-year mortality in older patients having major surgery and randomly assigned to light or deep general anaesthesia. In an international trial, we recruited patients from 73 centres in seven countries who were aged 60 years and older, with significant comorbidity, having surgery with expected duration of more than 2 h, and an anticipated hospital stay of at least 2 days. We randomly assigned patients who had increased risk of complications after major surgery to receive light general anaesthesia (bispectral index [BIS] target 50) or deep general anaesthesia (BIS target 35). Anaesthetists also nominated an appropriate range for mean arterial pressure for each patient during surgery. Patients were randomly assigned in permuted blocks by region immediately before surgery, with the patient and assessors masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was 1-year all-cause mortality. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12612000632897, and is closed to accrual. Patients were enrolled between Dec 19, 2012, and Dec 12, 2017. Of the 18 026 patients screened as eligible, 6644 were enrolled, randomly assigned to treatment or control, and formed the intention-to-treat population (3316 in the BIS 50 group and 3328 in the BIS 35 group). The median BIS was 47·2 (IQR 43·7 to 50·5) in the BIS 50 group and 38·8 (36·3 to 42·4) in the BIS 35 group. Mean arterial pressure was 3·5 mm Hg (4%) higher (median 84·5 [IQR 78·0 to 91·3] and 81·0 [75·4 to 87·6], respectively) and volatile anaesthetic use was 0·26 minimum alveolar concentration (30%) lower (0·62 [0·52 to 0·73] and 0·88 [0·74 to 1·04], respectively) in the BIS 50 than the BIS 35 group. 1-year mortality was 6·5% (212 patients) in the BIS 50 group and 7·2% (238 patients) in the BIS 35 group (hazard ratio 0·88, 95% CI 0·73 to 1·07, absolute risk reduction 0·8%, 95% CI −0·5 to 2·0). Grade 3 adverse events occurred in 954 (29%) patients in the BIS 50 group and 909 (27%) patients in the BIS 35 group; and grade 4 adverse events in 265 (8%) and 259 (8%) patients, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events were infections, vascular disorders, cardiac disorders, and neoplasms. Among patients at increased risk of complications after major surgery, light general anaesthesia was not associated with lower 1-year mortality than deep general anaesthesia. Our trial defines a broad range of anaesthetic depth over which anaesthesia may be safely delivered when titrating volatile anaesthetic concentrations using a processed electroencephalographic monitor. Health Research Council of New Zealand; National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia; Research Grant Council of Hong Kong; National Institute for Health and Research, UK; and National Institutes of Health, USA.

The role of positive end-expiratory pressure in mechanical ventilation during general anaesthesia for surgery remains uncertain. Levels of pressure higher than 0 cm H2O might protect against postoperative pulmonary complications but could also cause intraoperative circulatory depression and lung injury from overdistension. We tested the hypothesis that a high level of positive end-expiratory pressure with recruitment manoeuvres protects against postoperative pulmonary complications in patients at risk of complications who are receiving mechanical ventilation with low tidal volumes during general anaesthesia for open abdominal surgery. In this randomised controlled trial at 30 centres in Europe and North and South America, we recruited 900 patients at risk for postoperative pulmonary complications who were planned for open abdominal surgery under general anaesthesia and ventilation at tidal volumes of 8 mL/kg. We randomly allocated patients to either a high level of positive end-expiratory pressure (12 cm H2O) with recruitment manoeuvres (higher PEEP group) or a low level of pressure (≤2 cm H2O) without recruitment manoeuvres (lower PEEP group). We used a centralised computer-generated randomisation system. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to the intervention. Primary endpoint was a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications by postoperative day 5. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The study is registered at Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN70332574. From February, 2011, to January, 2013, 447 patients were randomly allocated to the higher PEEP group and 453 to the lower PEEP group. Six patients were excluded from the analysis, four because they withdrew consent and two for violation of inclusion criteria. Median levels of positive end-expiratory pressure were 12 cm H2O (IQR 12–12) in the higher PEEP group and 2 cm H2O (0–2) in the lower PEEP group. Postoperative pulmonary complications were reported in 174 (40%) of 445 patients in the higher PEEP group versus 172 (39%) of 449 patients in the lower PEEP group (relative risk 1·01; 95% CI 0·86–1·20; p=0·86). Compared with patients in the lower PEEP group, those in the higher PEEP group developed intraoperative hypotension and needed more vasoactive drugs. A strategy with a high level of positive end-expiratory pressure and recruitment manoeuvres during open abdominal surgery does not protect against postoperative pulmonary complications. An intraoperative protective ventilation strategy should include a low tidal volume and low positive end-expiratory pressure, without recruitment manoeuvres. Academic Medical Center (Amsterdam, Netherlands), European Society of Anaesthesiology.

Background Improving outcomes after surgery is a major public health research priority for patients, clinicians and the NHS. The greatest burden of perioperative complications, mortality and healthcare costs lies amongst the population of patients aged over 50 years who undergo major non-cardiac surgery. The Volatile vs Total Intravenous Anaesthesia for major non-cardiac surgery (VITAL) trial specifically examines the effect of anaesthetic technique on key patient outcomes: quality of recovery after surgery (quality of recovery after anaesthesia, patient satisfaction and major post-operative complications), survival and patient safety. Methods A multi-centre pragmatic efficient randomised trial with health economic evaluation comparing total intravenous anaesthesia with volatile-based anaesthesia in adults (aged 50 and over) undergoing elective major non-cardiac surgery under general anaesthesia. Discussion Given the very large number of patients exposed to general anaesthesia every year, even small differences in outcome between the two techniques could result in substantial excess harm. Results from the VITAL trial will ensure patients can benefit from the very safest anaesthesia care, promoting an early return home, reducing healthcare costs and maximising the health benefits of surgical treatments. Trial registration ISRCTN62903453. September 09, 2021.

BackgroundThe pectoral nerves (Pecs) block types I and II are novel techniques to block the pectoral, intercostobrachial, third to sixth intercostals, and the long thoracic nerves. They may provide good analgesia during and after breast surgery. Our study aimed to compare prospectively the quality of analgesia after modified radical mastectomy surgery using general anesthesia and Pecs blocks versus general anesthesia alone.MethodsOne hundred twenty adult female patients scheduled for elective unilateral modified radical mastectomy under general anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive either general anesthesia plus Pecs block (Pecs group, n = 60) or general anesthesia alone (control group, n = 60).ResultsStatistically significant lower visual analog scale pain scores were observed in the Pecs group than in the control group patients. Moreover, postoperative morphine consumption in the Pecs group was lower in the first 12 hours after surgery than in the control group. In addition, statistically significant lower intraoperative fentanyl consumption was observed in the Pecs group than in the control group. In the postanesthesia care unit, nausea and vomiting as well as sedation scores were lower in the Pecs group compared with the control group. Overall, postanesthesia care unit and hospital stays were shorter in the Pecs group than in the control group.ConclusionsThe combined Pecs I and II block is a simple, easy-to-learn technique that produces good analgesia for radical breast surgery.

AbstractObjectiveTo examine the associations between neuraxial anaesthesia or general anaesthesia and clinical outcomes, length of hospital stay, and readmission in adults undergoing lower limb revascularisation surgery.DesignComparative effectiveness study using linked, validated, population based databases.SettingOntario, Canada, 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2015.Participants20 988 patients Ontario residents aged 18 years or older who underwent their first lower limb revascularisation surgery in hospitals performing 50 or more of these surgeries annually.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was 30 day all cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital cardiopulmonary and renal complications, length of hospital stay, and 30 day readmissions. Multivariable, mixed effects regression models, adjusting for patient, procedural, and hospital characteristics, were used to estimate associations between anaesthetic technique and outcomes. Robustness of analyses were evaluated by conducting instrumental variable, propensity score matched, and survival sensitivity analyses.ResultsOf 20 988 patients who underwent lower limb revascularisation surgery, 6453 (30.7%) received neuraxial anaesthesia and 14 535 (69.3%) received general anaesthesia. The percentage of neuraxial anaesthesia use ranged from 0.6% to 90.6% across included hospitals. Furthermore, use of neuraxial anaesthesia declined by 17% over the study period. Death within 30 days occurred in 204 (3.2%) patients who received neuraxial anaesthesia and 646 (4.4%) patients who received general anaesthesia. After multivariable, multilevel adjustment, use of neuraxial anaesthesia compared with use of general anaesthesia was associated with decreased 30 day mortality (absolute risk reduction 0.72%, 95% confidence interval 0.65% to 0.79%; odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.83; number needed to treat to prevent one death=139). A similar direction and magnitude of association was found in instrumental variable, propensity score matched, and survival analyses. Use of neuraxial anaesthesia compared with use of general anaesthesia was also associated with decreased in-hospital cardiopulmonary and renal complications (odds ratio 0.73, 0.63 to 0.85) and a reduced length of hospital stay (−0.5 days, −0.3 to−0.6 days).ConclusionsUse of neuraxial anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery was associated with decreased 30 day mortality and hospital length of stay. These findings might have been related to reduced cardiopulmonary and renal complications after neuraxial anaesthesia and support the increased use of neuraxial anaesthesia in patients undergoing these surgeries until the results of a large, confirmatory randomised trial become available.

Nitrous oxide is commonly used in general anaesthesia but concerns exist that it might increase perioperative cardiovascular risk. We aimed to gather evidence to establish whether nitrous oxide affects perioperative cardiovascular risk. We did an international, randomised, assessor-blinded trial in patients aged at least 45 years with known or suspected coronary artery disease having major non-cardiac surgery. Patients were randomly assigned via automated telephone service, stratified by site, to receive a general anaesthetic with or without nitrous oxide. Attending anaesthetists were aware of patients' group assignments, but patients and assessors were not. The primary outcome measure was a composite of death and cardiovascular complications (non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, pulmonary embolism, or cardiac arrest) within 30 days of surgery. Our modified intention-to-treat population included all patients randomly assigned to groups and undergoing induction of general anaesthesia for surgery. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00430989. Of 10 102 eligible patients, we enrolled 7112 patients between May 30, 2008, and Sept 28, 2013. 3543 were assigned to receive nitrous oxide and 3569 were assigned not to receive nitrous oxide. 3483 patients receiving nitrous oxide and 3509 not receiving nitrous oxide were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary outcome occurred in 283 (8%) patients receiving nitrous oxide and in 296 (8%) patients not receiving nitrous oxide (relative risk 0·96, 95% CI 0·83–1·12; p=0·64). Surgical site infection occurred in 321 (9%) patients assigned to nitrous oxide, and in 311 (9%) patients in the no-nitrous oxide group (p=0·61), and severe nausea and vomiting occurred in 506 patients (15%) assigned to nitrous oxide and 378 patients (11%) not assigned to nitrous oxide (p<0·0001). Our findings support the safety profile of nitrous oxide use in major non-cardiac surgery. Nitrous oxide did not increase the risk of death and cardiovascular complications or surgical-site infection, the emetogenic effect of nitrous oxide can be controlled with antiemetic prophylaxis, and a desired effect of reduced volatile agent use was shown. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists; Heart and Stroke Foundation of Quebec, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, Canada; General Research Fund of the Research Grant Council, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.

No consensus has yet been reached regarding the best anesthetic technique for inguinal hernia repair. This study aimed to compare postoperative clinical outcomes and inflammatory markers among patients who were anesthetized using local, spinal, or general anesthesia for inguinal hernia repair. This randomized controlled trial included patients scheduled to undergo elective unilateral inguinal hernioplasty at Siriraj Hospital during November 2014 to September 2015 study period. Patients were randomly assigned to the local (LA), spinal (SA), or general (GA) anesthesia groups. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest and on mobilization at 8 and 24 hours after surgery. Fifty-four patients were included, with 18 patients randomly assigned to each group. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were similar among groups. There were no significant differences among groups for postoperative pain at rest or on mobilization at 8 and 24 hours after surgery. No significant differences were observed for interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, and interleukin-10 at any time points in any groups. Patients with local anesthesia was associated with less time spent in anesthesia (p = 0.010) and surgery (p = 0.009), lower intraoperative cost (p = 0.003) and total cost in hospital (p = 0.036); however, patient satisfaction in the local anesthesia group (94/100) was statistically significantly lower than the spinal and general anesthesia groups (100/100) (p = 0.010). No statistically significant difference was observed among groups for postoperative pain scores, duration of hospital stays, complications, or change in inflammatory markers. However, time spent in anesthesia and surgery, the intraoperative cost and total cost for hernia repair, and patient satisfaction were significantly lower in the local anesthesia group than in the other two groups.

The selection of safe and effective anesthetic agents for patients undergoing bariatric surgery is vital. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol in inducing general anesthesia in patients with obesity undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. A total of 212 patients scheduled for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy were randomly allocated into two groups in a 1:1 ratio: the ciprofol (0.5 mg/kg, n = 106) and propofol (2.5 mg/kg, n = 106) groups. The primary endpoint was to assess the success rate of anesthesia induction. Secondary endpoints included evaluating the time of induction, loss of eyelash reflex, changes in bispectral index, and adverse event incidence. The success rates of anesthesia induction were 100% in both groups. Ciprofol demonstrated non-inferiority to propofol in induction success. The times to successful induction onset and eyelash reflex disappearance were significantly longer in the ciprofol group compared to those in the propofol group (39.38 ± 8.57 s vs. 36.74 ± 6.82 s, P = 0.014 and 40.36 ± 8.59 s vs. 37.77 ± 6.84 s, P = 0.016, respectively). The adverse events incidence was significantly lower in the ciprofol group compared to that in the propofol group (25.47% vs. 89.62%, P = 0.000). The number of patients requiring top-up doses was not statistically significant (3.77% vs. 7.55%, P = 0.235). Ciprofol demonstrated advantages in hemodynamic stability and maintaining a better sedation level post-induction. Ciprofol was associated with a significantly lower incidence of hypotension compared to propofol (14.15% vs. 37.74%, P < 0.001), and more patients maintained appropriate sedation depth (86.80% vs. 72.64%, P = 0.010, 40 ≤ bispectral index ≤ 60 within 10 min of intravenous administration). Ciprofol offers a better sedative effect, fewer adverse events, and greater hemodynamic stability during general anesthesia induction in patients with obesity undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05522998.

Purpose Although a single-injection interscalene block provides effective early postoperative analgesia following shoulder surgery, patients may experience “rebound pain” when the block resolves. Our objective was to determine if oral hydromorphone (2 mg) given six hours after a single-injection interscalene block for arthroscopic shoulder surgery leads to a clinically significant reduction in the severity of rebound pain. Methods After approval from research ethics boards, we conducted a two-centre, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled superiority trial. Patients received preoperative interscalene block, general anesthesia, and either hydromorphone or placebo six hours after the block. The primary outcome was the worst pain score in the first 24 hr postoperatively, measured on an 11-point (0–10) numerical rating scale. Results A total of 73 participants were randomly assigned to either the hydromorphone or placebo group. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean (standard deviation) worst pain score within 24 hr between the hydromorphone and placebo groups (6.5 [2.4] vs 5.9 [2.3]; mean difference, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, −0.5 to 1.8). Similarly, we did not find any significant difference in the pain trajectory, opioid use, or incidence of nausea and vomiting between the groups. The mean time to worst pain was 14.6 hr, and the mean time to first rescue analgesia was 11.3 hr after interscalene block. Conclusion Hydromorphone 2 mg given six hours after interscalene block did not reduce the severity of rebound pain postoperatively compared with placebo in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Study registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02939209); registered 19 October 2016.