ObjectivesWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the potential favourable effects of local anaesthesia plus sedation (LAS) compared with general anaesthesia (GA) in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).MethodsElectronic databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and the reference lists of eligible publications were screened for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published between 1 January 2006 and 26 June 2016 that compare LAS to GA in an adult study population undergoing TAVI. We conducted study quality assessments using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and structured the review according to PRISMA. A meta-analysis calculating the pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) under the assumption of a random-effects model was performed. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using the I² statistic and Cochran’s Q-test.ResultsAfter database screening, one RCT and 19 observational studies were included in the review. We found no differences between LAS and GA in terms of 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality and other endpoints that addressed safety and complication rates. LAS was associated with a shorter ICU and hospital stay and with lower rates of catecholamine administration and red blood cell transfusion. New pacemaker implantations occurred more frequently under LAS. The overall conversion rate from LAS to GA was 6.2%.ConclusionFor TAVI, both LAS and GA are feasible and safe. LAS may have some benefits such as increased haemodynamic stability and shorter hospital and ICU stays, but it does not impact 30-day mortality. Since there is a paucity of randomised trial data and the findings are mainly based on observational study data, this review should be considered as a hypothesis-generating article for subsequent RCTs that are required to confirm the potential favourable effects we detected for LAS.Registration numberCRD42016048398 (PROSPERO).

ObjectivesWhether spinal anaesthesia (SA) reduces intraoperative and postoperative complications compared with general anaesthesia (GA) was investigated.DesignThe meta-analysis was structured based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science) were searched, and four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and two retrospective cohort studies were included. A random-effects model with pooled risk ratios and mean differences with 95% CIs were used. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic. Quality assessment of the studies was performed by assessing the risk of bias according to the Cochrane and GRADE methodology.SettingPublications from January 1990 to November 2018 were included.Participants and interventionsOur study selection captured information from studies focusing on neonates born before the 37th gestational week who were scheduled for an inguinal hernia repair operation under either SA or GA.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome measures were apnoea, postoperative ventilation and method failure rates according to predefined eligibility criteria. The duration of surgery, desaturation events <80%, hospital stay duration and postoperative bradycardia were secondary outcomes.ResultsWe found significantly fewer events for the outcomes ‘any episode of apnoea’ and ‘mechanical ventilation postoperatively’ in the SA group. Bradycardias were significantly less common in the SA group. In total, 7.5% of the SA group were converted to GA. The duration of surgery was significantly shorter in the SA group. No significant differences were found in the outcome measures ‘postoperative oxygen supplementation’, ‘prolonged apnoea’, ‘postoperative oxygen desaturation <80%’ and ‘hospital stay’.ConclusionsWe consider SA a convenient alternative for hernia repair in preterm infants, providing more safety regarding postoperative apnoea. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to include studies exclusively comparing SA versus GA. More high-quality RCTs are needed.Trial registration numberCRD42016048683