Dataset Information

Exposure to general anesthesia and risk of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is common among older adults and leads to significant disability. Volatile anesthetic gases administered during general anesthesia (GA) have been hypothesized to be a risk factor for the development of AD. The objective of this study is to systematically review the association between exposure to GA and risk of AD. METHODS: We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and Google scholar for observational studies examining the association between exposure to GA and risk of AD. We examined study quality using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa risk of bias assessment for observational studies. We used standard meta-analytic techniques to estimate pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were undertaken to evaluate the robustness of the findings. RESULTS: A total of 15 case-control studies were included in the review. No cohort studies were identified that met inclusion criteria. There was variation in the methodological quality of included studies. There was no significant association between any exposure to GA and risk of AD (pooled OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.93 - 1.19, Z = 0.80, p = 0.43). There was also no significant association between GA and risk of AD in several subgroup and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: A history of exposure to GA is not associated with an increased risk of AD although there are few high-quality studies in this area. Prospective cohort studies with long-term follow-up or randomized controlled trials are required to further understand the association between GA and AD.

SUBMITTER: Seitz DP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3258207 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exposure to general anesthesia and risk of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Seitz Dallas P DP Shah Prakesh S PS Herrmann Nathan N Beyene Joseph J Siddiqui Naveed N

BMC geriatrics 20111214

<h4>Background</h4>Alzheimer's disease (AD) is common among older adults and leads to significant disability. Volatile anesthetic gases administered during general anesthesia (GA) have been hypothesized to be a risk factor for the development of AD. The objective of this study is to systematically review the association between exposure to GA and risk of AD.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and Google scholar for observational studies examining the assoc ...[more]

PMID: 22168260

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlzheimer disease (AD) entails a long-term progressive decline in the cognitive ability to think and remember, and it has become a major concern for patients receiving surgery and anesthesia. However, studies investigating the relationship between general anesthesia and AD have yielded inconsistent results. Therefore, we plan to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the relationship between general anesthesia and AD, and to verify whether general anesthesia is an independent risk factor for AD.MethodsA systematic and comprehensive search will be performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google scholar from their inception to August 2017. Peer-reviewed cohort and case-control studies including nested case-control studies reporting the relationship between general anesthesia and AD will be eligible for inclusion. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Heterogeneity of estimates across studies as well as publication bias will be assessed. This systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed according to the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. All statistical analyses will be conducted using the Stata SE version 15.0.ResultsThe results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.ConclusionOur study will provide the evidence for the relationship between general anesthesia and dementia. The review will benefit patients and anesthesiologists, surgeons, and policymakers.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval and informed consent are not required, as the study will be a literature review and will not involve direct contact with patients or alterations to patient care.Trial registrationThe protocol for this review has been registered in the PROSPERO network (registration number: CRD42017073790).

Project description:BackgroundWhile general anesthesia (GA) is the most commonly used anesthetic method during lumbar microendoscopic discectomy (MED), local ± epidural anesthesia (LA) has been gaining popularity as an alternate method. Theoretical advantages of LA include reduced morbidity of anesthesia and improved surgeon-patient communication facilitating less nerve root manipulation and yielding improved surgical outcomes. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the impact of anesthesia type on patient reported outcomes (PROs) and complications with MED.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature examining MED performed under GA or LA was performed. The PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS databases were searched from inception to August 16, 2021, utilizing strict inclusion and exclusion criteria with all studies reporting greater than 6 months of follow-up and PRO data. PROs including Visual Analog Scale (VAS)-leg/back, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) and/or 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) physical component scores were collected. Complication, recurrent disc herniation, durotomy and reoperation rates as well as surgical factors were collected. All outcomes were compared between pooled studies examining GA or LA. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsA total of 23 studies consisting of 2,868 patients (1,335 GA, 1,533 LA) were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between GA and LA groups in regard to overall complication rate, durotomy rate, recurrent disc herniation rate, reoperation rate, blood loss, or surgical time (p > 0.05). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in ODI and JOA (p<0.0004), however leg and back VAS was only improved in GA (p<0.0025) and not in LA (p>0.058), and SF-36 only in LA (p=0.003).ConclusionsPatients undergoing MED under both anesthetic techniques demonstrated significant improvements in ODI and JOA, with no significant differences in complication or reoperation rates. However, patients undergoing GA demonstrated significant improvement in VAS leg and back pain at last follow-up while LA did not. LA may be offered to carefully selected patients and prior studies have demonstrated reduced costs and risks with LA. Conclusions are limited by a high level of study bias and heterogeneity. Further investigation is needed to assess the true effects of GA and LA on outcomes after MED.

Project description:This meta-analysis aimed to analyze and compare the efficacy and safety of remifentanil and dexmedetomidine applied respectively for controlled hypotension under general anesthesia. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, SinoMed, Wanfang, and VIP databases, as well as dissertations and conference papers, to obtain randomized controlled trials comparing remifentanil and dexmedetomidine applied respectively for controlled hypotension before August 23, 2021. The primary outcomes included hemodynamic profiles, surgical field score, and blood loss. Extubation time, sedation and pain score at the PACU, and perioperative adverse events were the secondary outcomes. Nine randomized controlled trials with 543 patients (272 in the dexmedetomidine group and 271 in the remifentanil group) were eventually included. This meta-analysis indicated no significant difference between dexmedetomidine and remifentanil in terms of surgical field score, blood loss, minimum values of mean arterial pressure (MD 0.24 with 95% CI [-1.65, 2.13], P = 0.80, I2 = 66%) and heart rate (MD 0.42 [-1.33, 2.17], P = 0.64, I2 = 40%), sedation scores at the PACU (MD -0.09 [-0.69, 0.50], P = 0.76, I2 = 92%), and incidence of bradycardia (OR 2.24 [0.70, 7.15], P = 0.17, I2 = 0%). Compared with remifentanil, dexmedetomidine as the controlled hypotensive agent showed a lower visual analogue score at the PACU (MD -1.01 [-1.25, -0.77], P<0.00001, I2 = 0%) and incidence of shivering (OR 0.22 [0.08, 0.60], P = 0.003, I2 = 0%), nausea, and vomiting (OR 0.34 [0.13, 0.89], P = 0.03, I2 = 0%). However, extubation time was shorter in the remifentanil group (MD 3.34 [0.75, 5.93], P = 0.01, I2 = 90%). In conclusion, dexmedetomidine and remifentanil are both effective in providing satisfactory controlled hypotension and surgical conditions. Dexmedetomidine is better in easing postoperative pain at the PACU and reducing the occurrence of shivering, nausea, and vomiting. Meanwhile, remifentanil is a fast-track anesthesia with a shorter extubation time. Given the limitations of this meta-analysis, further studies are needed for a more definitive comparison of the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil.

Dataset Information

Exposure to general anesthesia and risk of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Exposure to general anesthesia and risk of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets