Closed-Loop Delivery Systems Versus Manually Controlled Administration of Total IV Anesthesia: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. (February 2017)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Closed-Loop Delivery Systems Versus Manually Controlled Administration of Total IV Anesthesia: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. (February 2017)
- Main Title:
- Closed-Loop Delivery Systems Versus Manually Controlled Administration of Total IV Anesthesia
- Authors:
- Pasin, Laura
Nardelli, Pasquale
Pintaudi, Margherita
Greco, Massimiliano
Zambon, Massimo
Cabrini, Luca
Zangrillo, Alberto - Abstract:
- Abstract : Bispectral Index Scale (BIS)-guided closed-loop delivery of anesthetics has been extensively studied. We performed a meta-analysis of all the randomized clinical trials comparing efficacy and performance between BIS-guided closed-loop delivery and manually controlled administration of total IV anesthesia. Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials were searched for pertinent studies. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment and closed-loop delivery systems versus manually controlled administration of total IV anesthesia in any surgical setting. Exclusion criteria were duplicate publications and nonadult studies. Twelve studies were included, randomly allocating 1284 patients. Use of closed-loop anesthetic delivery systems was associated with a significant reduction in the dose of propofol administered for induction of anesthesia (mean difference [MD] = 0.37 [0.17–0.57], P for effect <0.00001, P for heterogeneity = 0.001, I 2 = 74%) and a significant reduction in recovery time (MD = 1.62 [0.60–2.64], P for effect <0.0001, P for heterogeneity = 0.06, I 2 = 47%). The target depth of anesthesia was preserved more frequently with closed-loop anesthetic delivery than with manual control (MD = −15.17 [−23.11 to −7.24], P for effect <0.00001, P for heterogeneity <0.00001, I 2 = 83%). There were no differences in the time required to induce anesthesia and the total propofol dose. Closed-loop anesthetic delivery performedAbstract : Bispectral Index Scale (BIS)-guided closed-loop delivery of anesthetics has been extensively studied. We performed a meta-analysis of all the randomized clinical trials comparing efficacy and performance between BIS-guided closed-loop delivery and manually controlled administration of total IV anesthesia. Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials were searched for pertinent studies. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment and closed-loop delivery systems versus manually controlled administration of total IV anesthesia in any surgical setting. Exclusion criteria were duplicate publications and nonadult studies. Twelve studies were included, randomly allocating 1284 patients. Use of closed-loop anesthetic delivery systems was associated with a significant reduction in the dose of propofol administered for induction of anesthesia (mean difference [MD] = 0.37 [0.17–0.57], P for effect <0.00001, P for heterogeneity = 0.001, I 2 = 74%) and a significant reduction in recovery time (MD = 1.62 [0.60–2.64], P for effect <0.0001, P for heterogeneity = 0.06, I 2 = 47%). The target depth of anesthesia was preserved more frequently with closed-loop anesthetic delivery than with manual control (MD = −15.17 [−23.11 to −7.24], P for effect <0.00001, P for heterogeneity <0.00001, I 2 = 83%). There were no differences in the time required to induce anesthesia and the total propofol dose. Closed-loop anesthetic delivery performed better than manual-control delivery. Both median absolute performance error and wobble index were significantly lower in closed-loop anesthetic delivery systems group (MD = 5.82 [3.17–8.46], P for effect <0.00001, P for heterogeneity <0.00001, I 2 = 90% and MD = 0.92 [0.13–1.72], P for effect = 0.003, P for heterogeneity = 0.07, I 2 = 45%). When compared with manual control, BIS-guided anesthetic delivery of total IV anesthesia reduces propofol requirements during induction, better maintains a target depth of anesthesia, and reduces recovery time. Abstract : Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.Published ahead of print August 2, 2016. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Anesthesia & analgesia. Volume 124:Number 2(2017)
- Journal:
- Anesthesia & analgesia
- Issue:
- Volume 124:Number 2(2017)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 124, Issue 2 (2017)
- Year:
- 2017
- Volume:
- 124
- Issue:
- 2
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2017-0124-0002-0000
- Page Start:
- Page End:
- Publication Date:
- 2017-02
- Subjects:
- Anesthesiology -- Periodicals
Anesthesia
Anesthesiology
Analgesia
Analgesics
Anesthesiology -- Periodicals
617.9605 - Journal URLs:
- http://gateway.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&MODE=ovid&PAGE=toc&D=ovft&AN=00000539-000000000-00000 ↗
http://journals.lww.com/anesthesia-analgesia/Pages/default.aspx ↗
http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org ↗
http://journals.lww.com ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001394 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0003-2999
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 0900.500000
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library STI - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 7576.xml