Objective To systematically determine the most efficacious approach for preventing pain on injection of propofol. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, www.clinicaltrials.gov, and hand searching from the reference lists of identified papers. Study selection Randomised controlled trials comparing drug and non-drug interventions with placebo or another intervention to alleviate pain on injection of propofol in adults. Results Data were analysed from 177 randomised controlled trials totalling 25 260 adults. The overall risk of pain from propofol injection alone was about 60%. Using an antecubital vein instead of a hand vein was the most effective single intervention (relative risk 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.30). Pretreatment using lidocaine (lignocaine) in conjunction with venous occlusion was similarly effective (0.29, 0.22 to 0.38). Other effective interventions were a lidocaine-propofol admixture (0.40, 0.33 to 0.48); pretreatment with lidocaine (0.47, 0.40 to 0.56), opioids (0.49, 0.41 to 0.59), ketamine (0.52, 0.46 to 0.57), or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (0.67, 0.49 to 0.91); and propofol emulsions containing medium and long chain triglycerides (0.75, 0.67 to 0.84). Statistical testing of indirect comparisons showed that use of the antecubital vein and pretreatment using lidocaine along with venous occlusion to be more efficacious than the other interventions. Conclusions The two most efficacious interventions to reduce pain on injection of propofol were use of the antecubital vein, or pretreatment using lidocaine in conjunction with venous occlusion when the hand vein was chosen. Under the assumption of independent efficacy a third practical alternative could be pretreatment of the hand vein with lidocaine or ketamine and use of a propofol emulsion containing medium and long chain triglycerides. Although not the most effective intervention on its own, a small dose of opioids before induction halved the risk of pain from the injection and thus can generally be recommended unless contraindicated.

I.

PDNV affects a substantial number of patients after ambulatory surgery. We developed and validated a simplified risk score to identify patients who would benefit from long-acting prophylactic antiemetics at discharge from the ambulatory care center.

No clear consensus exists on how to best prevent severe headache from occurring after accidental dural puncture. We conducted a quantitative systematic review to identify all available evidence for the prevention of postdural puncture headache (PDPH) and included 17 studies with 1264 patients investigating prophylactic epidural blood patch (PEBP), epidural morphine, intrathecal catheters, and epidural or intrathecal saline. The relative risk (RR) for headache after PEBP was 0.48 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.23-0.99] in five non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) and 0.32 (0.10-1.03) in four randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The RR for epidural morphine (based on a single RCT) was 0.25 (0.08-0.78). All other interventions were based on non-RCTs and failed statistical significance, including long-term intrathecal catheters with an RR of 0.21 (0.02-2.65). There are a number of promising options to prevent PDPH, yet heterogeneity between the studies and publication bias towards small non-RCTs with positive results limits the available evidence. Thus, a large multicentre RCT is needed to determine the best preventative practices.

SummaryWe performed a quantitative systematic review of randomised, controlled trials that compared remifentanil to short-acting opioids (fentanyl, alfentanil, or sufentanil) for general anaesthesia. Eighty-five trials were identified and these included a total of 13 057 patients. Intra-operatively, remifentanil was associated with clinical signs of deeper analgesia and anaesthesia, such as fewer responses to noxious stimuli (relative risk 0.65, 95% CI 0.48-0.87), more frequent episodes of bradycardia (1.46, 1.04-2.05), more hypotension (1.68, 1.36-2.07) and less hypertension (0.60, 0.46-0.78). Postoperatively, remifentanil was associated with faster recovery (difference in extubation time of )2.03, 9.5% CI, )2.92 to

Both pressure-controlled ventilation and pressure support ventilation induce a redistribution of ventilation toward the ventral region, as detected by electrical impedance tomography. Spontaneous breathing prevents this redistribution.

Remifentanil may be an alternative to conventional opioids for minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery because of its extremely short duration of action. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of remifentanil on myocardial blood flow, metabolism and systemic haemodynamic variables in patients with coronary artery disease. After approval by the local ethics committee, 12 male patients were investigated before elective coronary artery bypass grafting. Systemic haemodynamic variables, myocardial blood flow and metabolism were measured when patients were awake and when they were anaesthetized with high-dose remifentanil (2.0 micrograms kg-1 min-1), or with remifentanil 0.5 microgram kg-1 min-1 combined with propofol (target-controlled infusion aiming at a plasma concentration of 2.0 micrograms ml-1). Myocardial blood flow was measured using a modified Kety-Schmidt technique. High-dose remifentanil anaesthesia significantly reduced cardiac index (CI) (-25%) as a consequence of a decrease in stroke volume index (SVI) (-14%) and heart rate (-13%). Mean arterial pressure (MAP) was 30% lower than that in the awake patient. Myocardial blood flow and myocardial oxygen uptake (MVO2) decreased by 30% and 42%, respectively. In contrast to high-dose remifentanil anaesthesia, systemic vascular resistance index (-14%) during remifentanil/propofol anaesthesia was significantly lower than that in the awake patient. Other haemodynamic variables, and myocardial blood flow and MVO2, did not significantly differ from the high-dose remifentanil period. In conclusion, high-dose remifentanil reduces SVI, heart rate, MAP, myocardial blood flow and MVO2 and its effects do not differ from those of remifentanil/propofol anaesthesia.

Prospective trials have shown that rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis is superior over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients undergoing hip and knee replacement surgery. However, patients treated under trial conditions are different from unselected routine patients, which may affect efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban or LMWH thromboprophylaxis in unselected patients undergoing hip and knee replacement surgery in daily care. In a monocentric, retrospective cohort study in 5,061 consecutive patients undergoing hip and knee replacement surgery a comparison of LMWH (hospital standard in 2006-2007) and rivaroxaban (since 2009) was made with regard to rates of symptomatic VTE, bleeding and surgical complications and length of hospital stay. Rates of symptomatic VTE were 4.1 % (LMWH) and 2.1 % (rivaroxaban; p=0.005) with rates for distal DVT 2.5 vs. 1.1 % (p<0.001). Rates of major VTE were numerically higher with LMWH (1.7 vs. 1.1%, not statistically significant). Rates of major bleeding (overt bleeding leading to surgical revision or death, occurring in a critical site, or transfusion of at least two units of packed red blood cells) were statistically lower with rivaroxaban (2.9 vs. 7.0%; p<0.001). Rivaroxaban patients had fewer surgical complications (1.1 vs. 3.7%; p<0.001) and a shorter length of hospitalisation (8.3 days; 95% CI 8.1- 8.5 vs. 11.1 days; 10.7- 11.5; p< 0.001). We conclude that rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis is more effective than LMWH in unselected patients undergoing hip and knee replacement surgery in daily care and that switching from LMWH to rivaroxaban could be beneficial. Prospective comparisons are warranted to confirm our findings.