Clonidine or remifentanil for adequate surgical conditions in patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery: a randomized study

Does preoperative administration of hypotensive agents affect the quality of the surgical field during endoscopic sinus surgery? A triple-blind randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is a surgical procedure widely used in the treatment of various sinonasal conditions. Excessive bleeding during ESS leads to potentially major complications. The primary aim of this trial was to explore any different effects of bisoprolol and nifedipine on the intraoperative surgical field. In addition, the correlations regarding surgical field state, total blood loss (TBL), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) were also examined.

METHODS

A prospective, triple-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted, including 72 patients between 18 and 65 years of age who underwent ESS. As an indicator of the worst state of the intraoperative surgical field, the Boezaart scale score was used, as evaluated by two surgeons. Appropriate statistical analysis was conducted to explore score comparisons across groups and correlations between vital signs, bleeding, and the operative field state.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was found among different intervention groups regarding the worst state of the surgical field (p = 0.367 > 0.05). The Boezaart scale score was positively correlated with TBL (rxy = 0.619, p = 0.000 < 0.001) and MAP (rxy = 0.259, p = 0.028 < 0.05). Furthermore, MAP was positively correlated with HR (rs = 0.254, p = 0.32 < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that preoperative administration of bisoprolol and nifedipine does not affect the worst state of the operative field. However, vital signs seem to either directly or indirectly affect bleeding and operative field state, and agents affecting them are worth exploring further.

The Efficacy of Hypotensive Agents on Intraoperative Bleeding and Recovery Following General Anesthesia for Nasal Surgery: A Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review of the literature was conducted to evaluate hypotensive agents in terms of their adverse effects and associations with perioperative morbidity in patients undergoing nasal surgery.

METHODS

Two authors independently searched databases (Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane databases) up to February 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing the perioperative administration of a hypotensive agent with a placebo or other agent. The outcomes of interest for this analysis were intraoperative morbidity, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, hypotension, postoperative nausea/vomiting, and postoperative pain. Both a standard pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

Our analysis was based on 37 trials. Treatment networks consisting of six interventions (placebo, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, beta-blockers, opioids, and nitroglycerine) were defined for the network meta-analysis. Dexmedetomidine resulted in the greatest differences in intraoperative bleeding (-0.971; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.161 to -0.781), intraoperative fentanyl administration (-3.683; 95% CI, -4.848 to -2.518), and postoperative pain (-2.065; 95% CI, -3.170 to -0.960) compared with placebo. The greatest difference in operative time compared with placebo was achieved with clonidine (-0.699; 95% CI, -0.977 to -0.421). All other agents also had beneficial effects on the measured outcomes. Dexmedetomidine was less likely than other agents to cause adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the superiority of the systemic use of dexmedetomidine as a perioperative hypotensive agent compared with the other five tested agents. However, the other agents were also superior to placebo in improving operative time, intraoperative bleeding, and postoperative pain.

Surgical Field Visualization during Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: Comparison of Propofol- vs Desflurane-Based Anesthesia

OBJECTIVE

To assess if the type of general anesthetic affects bleeding and field visualization during endoscopic sinus surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

Academic teaching hospital and Veterans Affairs hospital in the United States.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Seventy patients were randomized to 1 of 3 anesthetic regimens: (1) the volatile anesthetic desflurane (n = 22), (2) intravenous anesthesia with propofol (n = 25), or (3) a combination of propofol and desflurane (n = 23). Intravenous remifentanil was titrated to decrease the mean arterial pressure to 60 to 70 mm Hg but not ≥30% from baseline. Surgical bleeding scores were recorded along with bleeding rates and hemodynamic parameters, including cardiac output and systemic vascular resistance through pulse contour analysis from a radial arterial line. Statistics: multiple comparison tests and regression analyses; α = .05.

RESULTS

There were no differences in bleeding rate (median, 0.58, 0.85, 0.57 mL min^-1), bleeding score (2.1, 2.0, 2.0), surgery duration (79, 81, 86 minutes), extubation time (9, 7, 8 minutes), recovery room time (65, 61, 61 minutes), or any hemodynamic parameters among groups 1 through 3, respectively. Group 1 required lower remifentanil infusions than group 2 (0.11 vs 0.26 µg kg^-1 min^-1; P = .01). The bleeding score correlated positively with height (P = .014) and the Lund-MacKay score (P = .013). Bilateral vs unilateral surgery led to longer surgery duration (P = .001) and recovery room time (P = .004).

CONCLUSION

When remifentanil is used for controlled hypotension, propofol has no advantage over desflurane to improve surgical field visualization during functional endoscopic sinus surgery.

Use of α2-Adrenergic Agonists to Improve Surgical Field Visibility in Endoscopy Sinus Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

We assessed the evidence for the use of α₂-adrenergic agonists (A2AAs) in bleeding control and field quality in endoscopic sinus surgery.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing A2AAs in endoscopic sinus surgery. Abstracts were reviewed by 2 investigators for eligibility, and selected articles were fully reviewed. Data on study design, population, A2AA drug and control groups, bleeding and surgical field quality outcomes, and adverse effects were extracted and synthesized.

FINDINGS

A total of 13 RCTs that included 896 individuals (7 double-blind trials, 5 single-blind trials, and 1 open-label trial) were selected that assessed the efficacy of clonidine (6 RCTs, 407 patients), dexmedetomidine (6 RCT, 423 patients), or both (1 RCT, 66 patients). Clonidine was compared with placebo (3 RCTs), midazolam (1 RCT), and remifentanil (2 RCTs). Dexmedetomidine was compared with esmolol (2 RCTs), remifentanil (2 RCTs), nitroglycerin and esmolol (1 RCT), and magnesium sulfate (1 RCT). Clonidine and dexmedetomidine were compared in 1 RCT. Clonidine reduced the proportion of individuals with an impaired surgical field by 23% vs placebo (number needed to treat = 4). Clonidine was better than midazolam and remifentanil in 2 trials, and dexmedetomidine was better than magnesium sulfate and esmolol in 2 trials but was not superior to esmolol, remifentanil, or nitroglycerin in 4 trials. Dexmedetomidine produced significantly better differences in bleeding outcomes versus clonidine. Adverse events were infrequent and mainly caused by hypotension or bradycardia.

IMPLICATIONS

RCTs consistently report that A2AAs reduce bleeding and improve surgical field quality during endoscopic sinus surgery. Adverse event reporting was often omitted in RCTs. Well-designed RCTs with appropriate sample sizes are desirable to identify the best A2AAs and confirm their potential effects on clinical outcomes.