Dataset Information

Plexus anesthesia versus general anesthesia for carotid endarterectomy: A systematic review with meta-analyses.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Traditional carotid endarterectomy is considered to be the standard technique for prevention of a new stroke in patients with a symptomatic carotid stenosis. Use of plexus anesthesia or general anesthesia in traditional carotid endarterectomy is, to date, not unequivocally proven to be superior to one other. A systematic review was needed for evaluation of benefits and harms to determine which technique, plexus anesthesia or general anesthesia is more effective for traditional carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis.

Methods

The review was conducted according to our protocol following the recommendations of Cochrane and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Searches were updated on the October 1, 2020. We did not find any randomized clinical trial comparing plexus anesthesia and general anesthesia in carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty matching our protocol criteria in patients with a symptomatic and significant (≥50%) carotid stenosis.

Conclusions

Based on the current, high risk of bias evidence, we concluded there is a need for new randomized clinical trials with overall low risk of bias comparing plexus anesthesia with general anesthesia in carotid endarterectomy with patch closure of the arterial wall in patients with a symptomatic and significant (≥50%) stenosis of the internal carotid artery.Protocol unique identification number (UIN): CRD42019139913, (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=139913).

SUBMITTER: Marsman MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8094902 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTraditional carotid endarterectomy is considered to be the standard technique for prevention of a new stroke in patients with a symptomatic carotid stenosis. Use of plexus anesthesia or general anesthesia in traditional carotid endarterectomy is, to date, not unequivocally proven to be superior to one other. A systematic review is needed for evaluation of benefits and harms to determine which technique, plexus anesthesia or general anesthesia is more effective for traditional carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis.Methods and outcomesThe review will be conducted according to this protocol following the recommendations of the 'Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews' and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Randomized Clinical Trials comparing plexus anesthesia versus general anesthesia in traditional carotid endarterectomy will be included. Primary outcomes will be postoperative death and/ or stroke (<30 days) and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be non-serious adverse events.We will primarily base our conclusions on meta-analyses of trials with overall low risk of bias. We will use Trial Sequential Analysis to assist the evaluation of imprecision in Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. However, if pooled point-estimates of all trials are similar to pooled point-estimates of trials with overall low risk of bias and there is lack of a statistical significant interaction between estimates from trials with overall high risk of bias and trials with overall low risk of bias we will consider the Trial Sequential Analysis adjusted confidence interval precision of the estimate achieved in all trials as the result of our meta-analyses.Ethics and disseminationThe proposed systematic review will collect and analyze secondary data from already performed studies therefore ethical approval is not required. The results of the systematic review will be disseminated by publication in a peer-review journal and submitted for presentation at relevant conferences.

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.

Project description:IntroductionTraditional carotid endarterectomy is considered to be the standard technique for prevention of a new stroke in patients with a symptomatic carotid stenosis. Use of patch angioplasty to restore the arterial wall after longitudinal endarterectomy is, to date, not unequivocally proven to be superior to eversion technique. A systematic review is needed for evaluation of benefits and harms of the eversion technique versus the traditional endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis.Methods and outcomesThe review will be conducted according to this protocol following the recommendations of the 'Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews' and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Randomised clinical trials comparing eversion technique versus endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in patients with a symptomatic stenosis of the internal carotid artery will be included. Primary outcomes are all-cause mortality rate, health-related quality of life and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes are 30-day stroke and mortality rate, symptomatic arterial restenosis or occlusion and non-serious adverse events. The databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE will be searched (November 2019). We will primarily base our conclusions on meta-analyses of trials with overall low-risk of bias. We will use trial sequential analysis to assist the evaluation of imprecision in Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. However, if pooled point estimates of all trials are similar to pooled point estimates of trials with overall low risk of bias and there is lack of a statistical significant interaction between estimates from trials with overall high risk of bias and trials with overall low risk of bias we will consider the trial sequential analysis adjusted precision of the estimate achieved in all trials as the result of our meta-analyses.Ethics and disseminationThe proposed systematic review will collect and analyse data from published studies, therefore, ethical approval is not required. The results of the review will be disseminated by publication in a peer-review journal and submitted for presentation at conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42019119361.

Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes in patients treated with carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA).BackgroundIn CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial), the largest randomized trial of carotid revascularization to date, there was no significant difference in the primary composite endpoint, but rates of stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) differed between CAS and CEA. To help guide individualized clinical decision making, we compared HRQOL among patients enrolled in the CREST study. We also performed exploratory analyses to evaluate the association between periprocedural complications and HRQOL.MethodsWe measured HRQOL at baseline, and after 2 weeks, 1 month, and 1 year among 2,502 patients randomly assigned to either CAS or CEA in the CREST study. The HRQOL was assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36) and 6 disease-specific scales designed to study HRQOL in patients undergoing carotid revascularization.ResultsAt both 2 weeks and 1 month, CAS patients had better outcomes for multiple components of the SF-36, with large differences for role physical function, pain, and the physical component summary scale (all p < 0.01). On the disease-specific scales, CAS patients reported less difficulty with driving, eating/swallowing, neck pain, and headaches but more difficulty with walking and leg pain (all p < 0.05). However, by 1 year, there were no differences in any HRQOL measure between CAS and CEA. In the exploratory analyses, periprocedural stroke was associated with poorer 1-year HRQOL across all SF-36 domains, but periprocedural MI or cranial nerve palsy were not.ConclusionsAmong patients undergoing carotid revascularization, CAS is associated with better HRQOL during the early recovery period as compared with CEA-particularly with regard to physical limitations and pain-but these differences diminish over time and are not evident after 1 year. Although CAS and CEA are associated with similar overall HRQOL at 1 year, event-specific analyses confirm that stroke has a greater and more sustained impact on HRQOL than MI. (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial [CREST]; NCT00004732)

Project description:BackgroundDeclining perioperative stroke and death rates over the past 3 decades have been paralleled by an increasing use of intraoperative completion studies (ICS) following carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Techniques applied include angiography, intraoperative duplex ultrasound (IDUS), flowmetry, and angioscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aiming on providing an overview of techniques and corresponding outcomes.MethodsA PubMed based systematic literature review comprising the years 1980 through 2020 was performed using predefined keywords to identify articles on different ICS techniques. Pooled analyses and meta-analyses estimating risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were performed to compare outcomes of different ICS modes to nonapplication of any ICS. I2 values were assessed to quantify study heterogeneities.ResultsIdentification of 34 studies including patients undergoing CEA with angiography (n=53,218), IDUS (n=20,030), flowmetry (n=16,812), and angioscopy (n=2,291). Corresponding rates of perioperative stroke were 1.5%, 1.8%, 3.6%, and 1.5%, perioperative stroke or death occurred in 1.7%, 1.9%, 2.2%, and 2.0%. Intraoperative surgical revision rates were 6.2%, 5.9%, and 7.9% after CEA with angiography, IDUS, and angioscopy, respectively. Compared to nonapplication of any ICS, the pooled analysis revealed angiography to be significantly associated with lower rates of stroke (RR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.36-0.62; P<0.0001) and stroke or death (RR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.83; P<0.0001). IDUS was significantly associated with lower rates of stroke (RR 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.73; P<0.0001) and stroke or death (RR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93; P=0.0018), whereas angioscopy showed a significant association with a lower stroke rate (RR 0.48; 95% CI, 0.033-0.68; P=0.0001), but no effect on the combined stroke or death rate. Angioscopy was associated with a higher intraoperative revision rate compared to angiography (RR 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.54; P=0.006). The meta-analyses confirmed lower perioperative stroke or death rates for angiography (RR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91) and IDUS (RR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98) compared to non-application of any ICS, whereas flowmetry showed no significant association.ConclusionsThis study represents the first systematic literature review and meta-analysis on usage of ICSs in CEA. Data strongly indicate a significant beneficial effect of angiography, IDUS, and angioscopy on perioperative CEA outcomes. Any carotid surgeon should consider implementation of ICSs in his routine armamentarium.