Background Several studies have compared the efficacy and safety of propofol and barbiturates in the treatment of refractory status epilepticus (RSE). This study aims to quantitatively assess the advantages and disadvantages of propofol and barbiturates in controlling RSE. Methods We searched for studies with relevant data from the PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Cochrane Library, Springer Link, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases. By calculating odds ratios and standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals, we assessed the disease control rate (DCR), case fatality rate (CFR), average control time (ACT), average tracheal intubation placement time (ATIPT), and incidence of hypotension between propofol and barbiturates in treating RSE. Results Seven studies with 261 patients were included in this analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that the DCR of propofol was higher than that of barbiturates ( p < 0.001) and that the CFR ( p = 0.382) between the two treatment did not significantly differ in controlling RSE. Propofol shortened the ACT (p < 0.001) of RSE and reduced the ATIPT (p < 0.001) of patients with RSE more extensively than did barbiturates and did not increase the incidence of hypotension ( p = 0.737). Conclusions In comparison with barbiturates, propofol can control RSE and shorten ATIPT in a more efficient and timely manner. Moreover, the drug does not increase the incidence of hypotension and CFR.

BackgroundAnti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) encephalitis is an immune-mediated syndrome caused by the production of anti-NMDAR receptor antibodies. The syndrome characterised by psychosis, seizures, sleep disorders, hallucinations and short-term memory loss. Ovarian teratoma is the confirmed tumour associated with anti-NMDAR antibodies. The patients with anti-NMDAR encephalitis complicated by ovarian teratoma require surgical treatment under general anesthesia. NMDARs are important targets of many anesthetic drugs. The perioperative management and complications of anti-NMDAR encephalitis, including hypoventilation, paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity (PSH) and epilepsy, are challenging for ansthesiologists.Case presentationThis report described two female patients who presented for resection of the ovarian teratoma, they had confirmed anti-NMDAR encephalitis accompanied by ovarian teratoma. Two patients received gamma globulin treatments and the resection of the ovarian teratoma under total intravenous anesthesia. They were recovered and discharged on the 20th and 46th postoperative day respectively.ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence about the perioperative management, monitoring and anesthesia management of anti-NMDAR encephalitis. This report was based on the consideration that controversial anesthetics that likely act on NMDARs should be avoided. Additionally, BIS monitoring should to be prudently applied in anti-NMDAR encephalitis because of abnormal electric encephalography (EEG). Anesthesiologists must be careful with regard to central ventilation dysfunctions and PSH due to anti-NMDAR encephalitis.

IntroductionAbnormal coagulation function aggravates the prognosis of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). It was reported that the antifibrinolytic drug tranexamic acid (TXA) could reduce intracranial haemorrhage and mortality in non-operative patients with TBI. However, there is a lack of evaluation of TXA in patients with TBI undergoing craniotomy.Methods and analysisThis is a single-centre randomised controlled, double-blind, parallel study aiming to investigate the effectiveness and safety of TXA in patients with TBI during the perioperative period. Blood loss and transfusion, neurological function, adverse events, mortality and serum immune-inflammatory cytokines will be collected and analysed.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the Medical Ethics Committee of Beijing Tian Tan Hospital, Capital Medical University (reference number KY 2020-136-03). The results of this study will be disseminated through presentations at scientific conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberChiCTR2100041911.

No abstract

No abstract

Patients undergoing intraspinal tumor resection usually experience severe acute pain, delaying postoperative rehabilitation, and increasing incidence of chronic pain. Recently, an increasing number of studies have found that low-dose intravenous lidocaine infusion during and/or after surgery can reduce opioid usage and the incidence of related side effects, inhibit hyperalgesia and promote recovery. Thus far, no studies have evaluated the analgesic effect and safety of perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion for intraspinal tumor resection, especially the long-term analgesic effects of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with lidocaine during the first postoperative 48 hours. This study tests the hypothesis that intra-and postoperative systemic lidocaine infusion for patients undergoing intraspinal tumor resection can relieve postoperative acute or chronic pain and reduce the opioid dosage and incidence of related side effects without other problems. Study Design and Methods: This is a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, and double-blinded study. In total, 180 participants scheduled for intraspinal tumor resection will be randomly divided into lidocaine and placebo groups. The lidocaine group will be administered lidocaine intravenously during anesthesia and postoperative pain management during the first 48 postoperative hours; the placebo group will be administered normal saline at the same volume, infusion rate, and timing. The primary outcome will be the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score. Secondary outcomes will be postoperative cumulative sufentanil consumption, indicators of postoperative recovery, and the incidence of perioperative adverse events. Discussion: This study investigates the effect of continuous intravenous lidocaine infusion on postoperative sufentanil consumption and VAS scores. The findings will provide a new strategy of anesthesia and analgesia management for intraspinal tumor resection.

No abstract

No abstract