Dataset Information

Regional anesthesia and cancer recurrence in patients with late-stage cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Whether regional anesthesia may help to prevent disease recurrence in cancer patients is still controversial. The stage of cancer at the time of diagnosis is a key factor that defines prognosis and is one of the most important sources of heterogeneity for the treatment effect. We sought to update existing systematic reviews and clarify the effect of regional anesthesia on cancer recurrence in late-stage cancer patients.

Methods

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to September 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that assessed the effect of regional anesthesia on cancer recurrence and overall survival (OS) compared with general anesthesia. Late-stage cancer patients were primarily assessed according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer Cancer Staging Manual (eighth edition), and the combined hazard ratio (HR) from random-effects models was used to evaluate the effect of regional anesthesia.

Results

A total of three RCTs and 34 cohort studies (including 64,691 patients) were identified through the literature search for inclusion in the analysis. The risk of bias was low in the RCTs and was moderate in the observational studies. The pooled HR for recurrence-free survival (RFS) or OS did not favor regional anesthesia when data from RCTs in patients with late-stage cancer were combined (RFS, HR = 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-2.18, P = 0.729, I2 = 76%; OS, HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.63-1.18, P = 0.345, I2 = 48%). Findings from observational studies showed that regional anesthesia may help to prevent disease recurrence (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.78-0.96, P = 0.008, I2 = 71%) and improve OS (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79-0.98, P = 0.022, I2 = 79%).

Conclusions

RCTs reveal that OS and RFS were similar between regional and general anesthesia in late-stage cancers. The selection of anesthetic methods should still be based on clinical evaluation, and changes to current practice need more support from large, well-powered, and well-designed studies.

SUBMITTER: Zhang YL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8654444 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDexamethasone is a common adjuvant for local anesthetics in regional anesthesia, but the optimal route of administration is controversial. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effect of perineural versus intravenous dexamethasone on local anesthetic regional nerve-blockade outcomes.Materials and methodsMedline (through PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Biosis Previews databases were systematically searched (published from inception of each database to January 1, 2017) to identify randomized controlled trials. The data of the selected trials were statistically analyzed to find any significant differences between the two modalities. The primary outcome was the duration of analgesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of motor block, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and postoperative analgesic dose at 24 hours. We conducted a planned subgroup analysis to compare the effects between adding epinephrine or not.ResultsTen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria of our analysis, with a total of 749 patients. Without the addition of epinephrine, the effects of perineural and intravenous dexamethasone were equivalent concerning the duration of analgesia (mean difference 0.03 hours, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.24). However, with the addition of epinephrine, the analgesic duration of perineural dexamethasone versus intravenous dexamethasone was prolonged (mean difference 3.96 hours, 95% CI 2.66-5.27). Likewise, the impact of epinephrine was the same on the duration of motor block. The two routes of administration did not show any significant differences in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, nor on postoperative analgesic consumption at 24 hours.ConclusionOur results show that perineural dexamethasone can prolong the effects of analgesic duration when compared to the intravenous route, only when epinephrine is coadministered. Without epinephrine, the two modalities show equivalent effect as adjuvants on regional anesthesia.

Project description:BackgroundPatients undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for peripheral artery disease (PAD) have a high risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality and often have long hospital stays. Use of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia may represent one approach to improving outcomes and reducing resource use among these patients.ObjectiveThe aim is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether receipt of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia in adults undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for PAD results in improved health outcomes and costs and a shorter length of hospitalization.MethodsWe will search electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the seven databases in Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Google Scholar), review papers identified during the search, and included article bibliographies. We will include randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing the use of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia in adults undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for PAD. Two investigators will independently evaluate the risk of bias. The primary outcome will be short-term (in-hospital or 30-day) mortality. Secondary outcomes will include longer-term mortality; major adverse cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal, and limb events; delirium; deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism; neuraxial or regional anesthesia-related complications; graft-related outcomes; length of operation and hospital stay; costs; and patient-reported or functional outcomes. We will calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. Heterogeneity will be explored using stratified meta-analyses and meta-regression. We will assess for publication bias using the Begg and Egger tests and use the trim-and-fill method to estimate the potential influence of this bias on summary estimates. Finally, we will use Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to make an overall rating of the quality of evidence in our effect estimates.ResultsThe protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). We executed the peer-reviewed search strategy on March 2, 2021. We completed the review of titles and abstracts on July 30, 2021, and plan to complete the review of full-text papers by September 30, 2021. We will complete full-text study data extraction and the risk-of-bias assessment by November 15, 2021, and conduct qualitative and then quantitative data synthesis and GRADE assessment of results by January 1, 2022, before drafting the manuscript. We anticipate that we will be able to submit the manuscript for peer review by the end of February 2022.ConclusionsThis study will synthesize existing evidence regarding whether receipt of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia in adults undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for PAD results in improved health outcomes, graft patency, and costs and a shorter length of hospital stay. Study results will be used to inform practice and future research, including creation of a pilot and then multicenter randomized controlled trial.Trial registrationProspero CRD42021237060; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=237060.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/32170.