Comparison of bispectral index-guided and fixed-gas concentration techniques in desflurane and remifentanil anesthesia: A randomized controlled trial

Does surgical plethysmographic index-guided analgesia affect opioid requirement and extubation time? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

This meta-analysis of all relevant clinical trials investigated surgical plethysmographic index (SPI)-guided analgesia’s efficacy under general anesthesia for perioperative opioid requirement and emergence time after anesthesia.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2022 to identify clinical trials comparing SPI-guided and conventional clinical practice for patients who underwent general anesthesia. With the random-effects model, we compared intraoperative opioid consumption, emergence time, postoperative pain, analgesia requirement, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

Results

Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 1314) met our selection criteria. The overall pooled effect sizes of all RCTs indicated that SPI-guided analgesia could not significantly reduce opioid consumption during general anesthesia. SPI-guided analgesia accompanied with hypnosis monitoring could decrease intraoperative opioid consumption (standardized mean difference [SMD] − 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] − 0.63 to 0.00) more effectively than SPI without hypnosis monitoring (SMD 1.03, 95% CI 0.53–1.53), showing a significant difference (p < 0.001). SPI-guided analgesia could significantly shorten the emergence time, whether assessed by extubation time (SMD − 0.36, 95% CI − 0.70 to − 0.03, p < 0.05, I² = 67%) or eye-opening time (SMD − 0.40, 95% CI − 0.63 to − 0.18, p < 0.001, I² = 54%). SPI-guided analgesia did not affect the incidence of PONV, postoperative pain, and analgesia management.

Conclusion

SPI-guided analgesia under general anesthesia could enhance recovery after surgery without increasing the postoperative complication risk. However, it did not affect intraoperative opioid requirement. Notably, SPI-guided analgesia with hypnosis monitoring could effectively reduce intraoperative opioid requirement.

Comparison of direct costs associated with the use of balanced general anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) techniques

Introduction: Healthcare costs are increasing against the backdrop of scarce resources. Surgical procedures are an important part of healthcare spending, and the cost of anesthetic techniques is relevant as part of the total cost of care and it is a potential target for expenditure optimization. Although important economic differences have been reported internationally for general anesthesia options, there are no publications in Colombia that compare current costs and allow for informed and financially responsible decision-making. Objective: To quantify and compare direct costs associated with the various general anesthesia options most frequently used at the present time. Methods: Cost minimization analysis based on a theoretical model of balanced general anesthesia using isoflurane, sevoflurane, desflurane in combination with remifentanil, and TIVA (propofol and remifentanil). Initial results were obtained using a deterministic simulation method and a sensitivity analysis was performed using a Monte Carlo simulation. Results: The average total cost per case for the different anesthetic techniques was COP 126381 for sevoflurane, COP 97706 for isoflurane, COP 288605 for desflurane and COP 222 960 for TIVA. Conclusions: Balanced general anesthesia with desflurane is the most costly alternative, 1.2 times more expensive than TIVA, and 2 and 3 times more costly than balanced anesthesia with sevoflurane and isoflurane, respectively. TIVA ranks second with a cost 1.8 times higher than balanced anesthesia with sevoflurane and 2.5 times higher than balanced anesthesia with isoflurane.