We conducted both conventional pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses to compare the clinical properties of supraglottic airway devices in children. We searched six databases for randomised clinical trials. Our primary end-points were oropharyngeal leak pressure, risk of insertion failure at first attempt, and blood staining risk. The risk of device failure, defined as the abandonment of the supraglottic airway device and replacement with a tracheal tube or another device, was also analysed. Sixty-five randomised clinical trials with 5823 participants were identified, involving 16 types of supraglottic airway device. Network meta-analysis showed that the i-gel™, Cobra perilaryngeal airway™ and Proseal laryngeal mask airway (LMA -Proseal) showed statistically significant differences in oropharyngeal leak pressure compared with the LMA -Classic, with mean differences (95% credible interval, CrI) of 3.6 (1.9-5.8), 4.6 (1.7-7.6) and 3.4 (2.0-4.8) cmH O, respectively. The i-gel was the only device that significantly reduced the risk of blood staining of the device compared with the LMA-Classic, with an odds ratio (95%CrI) of 0.46 (0.22-0.90). The risk (95%CI) of device failure with the LMA-Classic, LMA -Unique and LMA-Proseal was 0.36% (0.14-0.92%), 0.49% (0.13-1.8%) and 0.50% (0.23-1.1%), respectively, whereas the risk (95%CI) of the i-gel and PRO-Breathe was higher, at 3.4% (2.5-4.7%) and 6.0% (2.8-12.5%), respectively. The risk, expressed as odds ratio (95%CrI), of insertion failure at first attempt, was higher in patients weighing < 10 kg at 5.1 (1.6-20.1). We conclude that the LMA-Proseal may be the best supraglottic airway device for children as it has a high oropharyngeal leak pressure and a low risk of insertion. Although the i-gel has a high oropharyngeal leak pressure and low risk of blood staining of the device, the risk of device failure should be evaluated before its routine use can be recommended.

BackgroundPostoperative nausea and vomiting is a distressing complication of surgery, and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are often prescribed to prevent it. Ondansetron is the agent typically administered to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although ramosetron has a longer duration of action than ondansetron, it remains unclear whether ramosetron is the more effective medication. We performed an updated meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting.MethodsWe searched six databases for all trials that randomly assigned patients to ramosetron or ondansetron groups. The primary outcome was postoperative nausea or vomiting in the early, late, and next-day periods. The secondary outcomes were side effects of the medications. We used the random-effects model to combine the results. Trial sequential analyses were performed to correct for repetitive testing in the updated meta-analysis.ResultsTwenty-seven randomized controlled trials with 3,811 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The combined results of ramosetron vs. ondansetron efficacy in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting were as follows: Risk ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.82 [0.69–0.98] for early postoperative nausea, 0.76 [0.65–0.89] for late postoperative nausea, 0.69 [0.57–0.84] for next-day postoperative nausea, 0.78 [0.63–0.98] for early postoperative vomiting, 0.57 [0.45–0.72] for late postoperative vomiting, and 0.61 [0.43–0.86] for next-day postoperative vomiting. Dizziness was significantly lower in ramosetron groups than in ondansetron groups (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.81 [0.66–0.98]). Trial sequential analysis revealed that the results for late postoperative nausea, late postoperative vomiting, and next-day postoperative nausea were conclusive.ConclusionsRamosetron is more effective in preventing late postoperative nausea, late postoperative vomiting, and next-day postoperative nausea than ondansetron. The incidence of dizziness may be lower in patients receiving ramosetron than in patients receiving ondansetron.Trial registrationUniversity hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000022980

No abstract

Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) protects organs from ischemia-reperfusion injury. Recent trials showed that RIPC improved gas exchange in patients undergoing lung or cardiac surgery. We performed a systematic search to identify randomized controlled trials involving RIPC in surgery under general anesthesia. The primary outcome was the PaO2/FIO2 (P/F) ratio at 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes were A-a DO2, the respiratory index, duration of postoperative mechanical ventilation (MV), incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and serum cytokine levels. The analyses included 64 trials comprising 7232 patients. Patients with RIPC showed higher P/F ratio than controls (mean difference [MD] 36.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 12.8 to 60.4, I2=69%). The cause of heterogeneity was not identified by the subgroup analysis. Similarly, A-a DO2 (MD 15.2, 95% CI -29.7 to -0.6, I2=87%) and respiratory index (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.01, I2=94%) were lower in the RIPC group. Additionally, the RIPC group was weaned from MV earlier (MD -1.0 hours, 95% CI -1.5 to -0.4, I2=78%). Furthermore, the incidence of ARDS was lower in the RIPC group (relative risk 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89, I2=0%). Our meta-analysis suggested that RIPC improved oxygenation after surgery under general anesthesia.