Anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults Guay, Joanne; Parker, Martyn J; Gajendragadkar, Pushpaj R ...
Cochrane database of systematic reviews,
02/2016, Letnik:
2017, Številka:
3
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Background
The majority of people with hip fracture are treated surgically, requiring anaesthesia.
Objectives
The main focus of this review is the comparison of regional versus general anaesthesia ...for hip (proximal femoral) fracture repair in adults. We did not consider supplementary regional blocks in this review as they have been studied in another review.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 2003 to March 2014) and EMBASE (Ovid SP, 2003 to March 2014). We reran the search in February 2017. Potential new studies of interest were added to a list of "Studies awaiting Classification" and will be incorporated into the formal review findings during the review update.
Selection criteria
We included randomized trials comparing different methods of anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults. The primary focus of this review was the comparison of regional anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia. The use of nerve blocks preoperatively or in conjunction with general anaesthesia is evaluated in another review. The main outcomes were mortality, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, acute confusional state, deep vein thrombosis and return of patient to their own home.
Data collection and analysis
Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We analysed data with fixed‐effect (I2 < 25%) or random‐effects models. We assessed the quality of the evidence according to the criteria developed by the GRADE working group.
Main results
In total, we included 31 studies (with 3231 participants) in our review. Of those 31 studies, 28 (2976 participants) provided data for the meta‐analyses. For the 28 studies, 24 were used for the comparison of neuraxial block versus general anaesthesia. Based on 11 studies that included 2152 participants, we did not find a difference between the two anaesthetic techniques for mortality at one month: risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.06; I2 = 24% (fixed‐effect model). Based on six studies that included 761 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of pneumonia: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.31; I2 = 0%. Based on four studies that included 559 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of myocardial infarction: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.65; I2 = 0%. Based on six studies that included 729 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of cerebrovascular accident: RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.83; I2 = 0%. Based on six studies that included 624 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of acute confusional state: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.40; I2 = 49%. Based on laboratory tests, the risk of deep vein thrombosis was decreased when no specific precautions or just early mobilization was used: RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.78; I2 = 0%; (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 3, 95% CI 2 to 7, based on a basal risk of 76%) but not when low molecular weight heparin was administered: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.84; I2 for heterogeneity between the two subgroups = 58%. For neuraxial blocks compared to general anaesthesia, we rated the quality of evidence as very low for mortality (at 0 to 30 days), pneumonia, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, acute confusional state, decreased rate of deep venous thrombosis in the absence of potent thromboprophylaxis, and return of patient to their own home. The number of studies comparing other anaesthetic techniques was limited.
Authors' conclusions
We did not find a difference between the two techniques, except for deep venous thrombosis in the absence of potent thromboprophylaxis. The studies included a wide variety of clinical practices. The number of participants included in the review is insufficient to eliminate a difference between the two techniques in the majority of outcomes studied. Therefore, large randomized trials reflecting actual clinical practice are required before drawing final conclusions.
Background
Surgery remains a mainstay of treatment for malignant tumours; however, surgical manipulation leads to a significant systemic release of tumour cells. Whether these cells lead to ...metastases is largely dependent on the balance between aggressiveness of the tumour cells and resilience of the body. Surgical stress per se, anaesthetic agents and administration of opioid analgesics perioperatively can compromise immune function and might shift the balance towards progression of minimal residual disease. Regional anaesthesia techniques provide perioperative pain relief; they therefore reduce the quantity of systemic opioids and of anaesthetic agents used. Additionally, regional anaesthesia techniques are known to prevent or attenuate the surgical stress response. In recent years, the potential benefit of regional anaesthesia techniques for tumour recurrence has received major attention and has been discussed many times in the literature. In preparing this review, we aimed to summarize the current evidence systematically and comprehensively.
Objectives
To establish whether anaesthetic technique (general anaesthesia versus regional anaesthesia or a combination of the two techniques) influences the long‐term prognosis for individuals with malignant tumours.
Search methods
We searched The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 12), PubMed (1950 to 15 December 2013), EMBASE (1974 to 15 December 2013), BIOSIS (1926 to 15 December 2013) and Web of Science (1965 to 15 December 2013). We handsearched relevant websites and conference proceedings and reference lists of cited articles. We applied no language restrictions.
Selection criteria
We included all randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials that investigated the effects of general versus regional anaesthesia on the risk of malignant tumour recurrence in patients undergoing resection of primary malignant tumours. Comparisons of interventions consisted of (1) general anaesthesia alone versus general anaesthesia combined with one or more regional anaesthetic techniques; (2) general anaesthesia combined with one or more regional anaesthetic techniques versus one or more regional anaesthetic techniques; and (3) general anaesthesia alone versus one or more regional anaesthetic techniques. Primary outcomes included (1) overall survival, (2) progression‐free survival and (3) time to tumour progression.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently scanned the titles and s of identified reports and extracted study data.
All primary outcome variables are time‐to‐event data. If the individual trial report provided summary statistics with odds ratios, relative risks or Kaplan‐Meier curves, extracted data enabled us to calculate the hazard ratio using the hazard ratio calculating spreadsheet. To assess risk of bias, we used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
Main results
We included four studies with a total of 746 participants. All studies included adult patients undergoing surgery for primary tumour resection. Two studies enrolled male and female participants undergoing major abdominal surgery for cancer. One study enrolled male participants undergoing surgery for prostate cancer, and one study male participants undergoing surgery for colon cancer. Follow‐up time ranged from nine to 17 years. All four studies compared general anaesthesia alone versus general anaesthesia combined with epidural anaesthesia and analgesia. All four studies are secondary data analyses of previously conducted prospective randomized controlled trials.
Of the four included studies, only three contributed to the outcome of overall survival, and two each to the outcomes of progression‐free survival and time to tumour progression. In our meta‐analysis, we could not find an advantage for either study group for the outcomes of overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.24) and progression‐free survival (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38). For progression‐free survival, the level of inconsistency was high. Pooled data for time to tumour progression showed a slightly favourable outcome for the control group (general anaesthesia alone) compared with the intervention group (epidural and general anaesthesia) (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.25).
Quality of evidence was graded low for overall survival and very low for progression‐free survival and time to tumour progression. The outcome of overall survival was downgraded for serious imprecision and serious indirectness. The outcomes of progression‐free survival and time to tumour progression were also downgraded for serious inconsistency and serious risk of bias, respectively.
Reporting of adverse events was sparse, and data could not be analysed.
Authors' conclusions
Currently, evidence for the benefit of regional anaesthesia techniques on tumour recurrence is inadequate. An encouraging number of prospective randomized controlled trials are ongoing, and it is hoped that their results, when reported, will add evidence for this topic in the near future.
Background
Various beneficial effects derived from neuraxial blocks have been reported. However, it is unclear whether these effects have an influence on perioperative mortality and major ...pulmonary/cardiovascular complications.
Objectives
Our primary objective was to summarize Cochrane systematic reviews that assess the effects of neuraxial blockade on perioperative rates of death, chest infection and myocardial infarction by integrating the evidence from all such reviews that have compared neuraxial blockade with or without general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia alone for different types of surgery in various populations. Our secondary objective was to summarize the evidence on adverse effects (an adverse event for which a causal relation between the intervention and the event is at least a reasonable possibility) of neuraxial blockade. Within the reviews, studies were selected using the same criteria.
Methods
A search was performed in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on July 13, 2012. We have (1) included all Cochrane systematic reviews that examined participants of any age undergoing any type of surgical (open or endoscopic) procedure, (2) compared neuraxial blockade versus general anaesthesia alone for surgical anaesthesia or neuraxial blockade plus general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia alone for surgical anaesthesia and (3) included death, chest infection, myocardial infarction and/or serious adverse events as outcomes. Neuraxial blockade could consist of epidural, caudal, spinal or combined spinal‐epidural techniques administered as a bolus or by continuous infusion. Studies included in these reviews were selected on the basis of the same criteria. Reviews and studies were selected independently by two review authors, who independently performed data extraction when data differed from one of the selected reviews. Data were analysed by using Review Manager Version 5.1 and Comprehensive Meta Analysis Version 2.2.044.
Main results
Nine Cochrane reviews were selected for this overview. Their scores on the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire varied from four to six of a maximal possible score of seven. Compared with general anaesthesia, neuraxial blockade reduced the zero to 30‐day mortality (risk ratio RR 0.71, 95% confidence interval CI 0.53 to 0.94; I2 = 0%) based on 20 studies that included 3006 participants. Neuraxial blockade also decreased the risk of pneumonia (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.79; I2 = 0%) based on five studies that included 400 participants. No difference was detected in the risk of myocardial infarction between the two techniques (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.37; I2 = 0%) based on six studies with 849 participants. Compared with general anaesthesia alone, the addition of a neuraxial block to general anaesthesia did not affect the zero to 30‐day mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.51; I2 = 0%) based on 18 studies with 3228 participants. No difference was detected in the risk of myocardial infarction between combined neuraxial blockade‐general anaesthesia and general anaesthesia alone (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09; I2 = 0%) based on eight studies that included 1580 participants. The addition of a neuraxial block to general anaesthesia reduced the risk of pneumonia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.98; I2 = 9%) after adjustment for publication bias and based on nine studies that included 2433 participants. The quality of the evidence was judged as moderate for all six comparisons.
No serious adverse events (seizure or cardiac arrest related to local anaesthetic toxicity, prolonged central or peripheral neurological injury lasting longer than one month or infection secondary to neuraxial blockade) were reported. The quality of the reporting score of complications related to neuraxial blocks was nine (four to 12 (median range)) of a possible maximum score of 14.
Authors' conclusions
Compared with general anaesthesia, a central neuraxial block may reduce the zero to 30‐day mortality for patients undergoing surgery with intermediate to high cardiac risk (level of evidence, moderate). Further research is required.
PDF
