Lorenzo Pradelli

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if anaesthesia maintenance with propofol is advantageous or beneficial over inhalational agents. This study is intended to compare the effects of propofol vs. inhalational agents in maintaining general anaesthesia on patient-relevant outcomes and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Studies were identified by electronic database searches in PubMed™, EMBASE™ and the Cochrane™ library between 01/01/1985 and 01/08/2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of peer-reviewed journals were studied. Of 6688 studies identified, 229 RCTs were included with a total of 20,991 patients. Quality control, assessment of risk of bias, meta-bias, meta-regression and certainty in evidence were performed according to Cochrane. Common estimates were derived from fixed or random-effects models depending on the presence of heterogeneity. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was the primary outcome. Post-operative pain, emergence agitation, time to recovery, hospital length of stay, post-anaesthetic shivering and haemodynamic instability were considered key secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The risk for PONV was lower with propofol than with inhalational agents (relative risk (RR) 0.61 [0.53, 0.69], p < 0.00001). Additionally, pain score after extubation and time in the post-operative anaesthesia care unit (PACU) were reduced with propofol (mean difference (MD) - 0.51 [- 0.81, - 0.20], p = 0.001; MD - 2.91 min [- 5.47, - 0.35], p = 0.03). In turn, time to respiratory recovery and tracheal extubation were longer with propofol than with inhalational agents (MD 0.82 min [0.20, 1.45], p = 0.01; MD 0.70 min [0.03, 1.38], p = 0.04, respectively). Notably, patient satisfaction, as reported by the number of satisfied patients and scores, was higher with propofol (RR 1.06 [1.01, 1.10], p = 0.02; MD 0.13 [0.00, 0.26], p = 0.05). Secondary analyses supported the primary results. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the present meta-analysis there are several advantages of anaesthesia maintenance with propofol over inhalational agents. While these benefits result in an increased patient satisfaction, the clinical and economic relevance of these findings still need to be addressed in adequately powered prospective clinical trials.

Abstract Introduction Previous studies and a meta-analysis in surgical patients indicate that supplementing parenteral nutrition regimens with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), in particular eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), is associated with improved laboratory and clinical outcomes in the setting of hyper-inflammatory conditions. Refined or synthetic fish oils are commonly used as a source of EPA and DHA. The objective of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate n-3 PUFA-enriched parenteral nutrition regimens in elective surgical and intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Methods Medline was searched for randomized controlled trials comparing n-3 PUFA-enriched lipid emulsions with standard non-enriched lipid emulsions (i.e. soybean oil, MCT/LCT or olive/soybean oil emulsions) in surgical and ICU patients receiving parenteral nutrition. Extracted data were pooled by means of both random and fixed effects models, and subgroup analyses were carried forward to compare findings in ICU versus non-ICU patients. Results A total of 23 studies (n = 1502 patients: n = 762 admitted to the ICU) were included. No statistically significant difference in mortality rate was found between patients receiving n-3 PUFA-enriched lipid emulsions and those receiving standard lipid emulsions (RR= 0.89; 0.59, 1.33), possibly reflecting a relatively low underlying mortality risk. However, n-3 PUFA-enriched emulsions are associated with a statistically and clinically significant reduction in the infection rate (RR =0.61; 0.45, 0.84) and the lengths of stay, both in the ICU (-1.92; -3.27, -0.58) and in hospital overall (-3.29; -5.13, -1.45). Other beneficial effects included reduced markers of inflammation, improved lung gas exchange, liver function, antioxidant status and fatty acid composition of plasma phospholipids, and a trend towards less impairment of kidney function. Conclusions These results confirm and extend previous findings, indicating that n-3 PUFAs-enriched parenteral nutrition regimens are safe and effective in reducing the infection rate and hospital/ICU stay in surgical and ICU patients.

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated ω-3 fatty-acid enriched parenteral nutrition (PN) vs standard (non-ω-3 fatty-acid enriched) PN in adult hospitalized patients (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018110179). We included 49 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with intervention and control groups given ω-3 fatty acids and standard lipid emulsions, respectively, as part of PN covering ≥70% energy provision. The relative risk (RR) of infection (primary outcome; 24 RCTs) was 40% lower with ω-3 fatty-acid enriched PN than standard PN (RR 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.72; P < 0.00001). Patients given ω-3 fatty-acid enriched PN had reduced mean length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (10 RCTs; 1.95 days, 95% CI 0.42-3.49; P = 0.01) and reduced length of hospital stay (26 RCTs; 2.14 days, 95% CI 1.36-2.93; P < 0.00001). Risk of sepsis (9 RCTs) was reduced by 56% in those given ω-3 fatty-acid enriched PN (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.70; P = 0.0004). Mortality rate (co-primary outcome; 20 RCTs) showed a nonsignificant 16% reduction (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65-1.07; P = 0.15) for the ω-3 fatty-acid enriched group. In summary, ω-3 fatty-acid enriched PN is beneficial, reducing risk of infection and sepsis by 40% and 56%, respectively, and length of both ICU and hospital stay by about 2 days. Provision of ω-3-enriched lipid emulsions should be preferred over standard lipid emulsions in patients with an indication for PN.

BACKGROUND: Omega-3 (ω-3) fatty acid (FA)-containing parenteral nutrition (PN) is associated with significant improvements in patient outcomes compared with standard PN regimens without ω-3 FA lipid emulsions. Here, we evaluate the impact of ω-3 FA-containing PN versus standard PN on clinical outcomes and costs in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients using a meta-analysis and subsequent cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of a hospital operating in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and the US. METHODS: We present a pharmacoeconomic simulation based on a systematic literature review with meta-analysis. Clinical outcomes and costs comparing ω-3 FA-containing PN with standard PN were evaluated in adult ICU patients eligible to receive PN covering at least 70% of their total energy requirements and in the subgroup of critically ill ICU patients (mean ICU stay > 48 h). The meta-analysis with the co-primary outcomes of infection rate and mortality rate was based on randomized controlled trial data retrieved via a systematic literature review; resulting efficacy data were subsequently employed in country-specific cost-effectiveness analyses. RESULTS: In adult ICU patients, ω-3 FA-containing PN versus standard PN was associated with significant reductions in the relative risk (RR) of infection (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45, 0.86; p = 0.004), hospital length of stay (HLOS) (- 3.05 days; 95% CI - 5.03, - 1.07; p = 0.003) and ICU length of stay (LOS) (- 1.89 days; 95% CI - 3.33, - 0.45; p = 0.01). In critically ill ICU patients, ω-3 FA-containing PN was associated with similar reductions in infection rates (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.46, 0.94; p = 0.02), HLOS (- 3.98 days; 95% CI - 6.90, - 1.06; p = 0.008) and ICU LOS (- 2.14 days; 95% CI - 3.89, - 0.40; p = 0.02). Overall hospital episode costs were reduced in all six countries using ω-3 FA-containing PN compared to standard PN, ranging from €-3156 ± 1404 in Spain to €-9586 ± 4157 in the US. CONCLUSION: These analyses demonstrate that ω-3 FA-containing PN is associated with statistically and clinically significant improvement in patient outcomes. Its use is also predicted to yield cost savings compared to standard PN, rendering ω-3 FA-containing PN an attractive cost-saving alternative across different health care systems. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019129311.