BACKGROUND: There is a concern that midazolam, when used as a component of sedation for colonoscopy, may impair cognition and prolong recovery. We aimed to identify whether midazolam produced short- and longer-term effects on multiple dimensions of recovery including cognition. METHODS: A 2-center double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomized, phase IV study with a 1:1 allocation ratio was conducted in adults ≥18 years of age undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy, with sufficient English language proficiency to complete the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale (PostopQRS). Participants were administered either midazolam (0.04 mg·kg−1) or an equivalent volume of 0.9% saline before sedation with propofol with or without an opiate. The primary outcome was incidence of recovery in the cognitive domain of the PostopQRS on day 3 after colonoscopy, which was analyzed using a χ2 test. Secondary outcomes included recovery in other domains of the PostopQRS over time, time to eye-opening, and hospital stay, and patient and endoscopist satisfaction. All hypotheses were defined before recruitment. RESULTS: During September 2015 to June 2018, 406 patients were allocated to either midazolam (n = 201) or placebo (n = 205), with one withdrawn before allocation. There was no significant difference in recovery in the cognitive domain of the PostopQRS on day 3 after colonoscopy (midazolam 86.8% vs placebo 88.7%, odds ratio, 0.838; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42–1.683; P= .625). Furthermore, there was no difference in recovery over time in the cognitive domain of the PostopQRS (P = .534). Overall recovery of the PostopQRS increased over time but was not different between groups. Furthermore, there were no differences between groups for nociceptive, emotive, activities-of-daily-living domains of the PostopQRS. Patient and endoscopist satisfaction were high and not different. There were no differences in time to eye-opening (midazolam 9.4 ± 12.8 minutes vs placebo 7.3 ± 0.7 minutes; P = .055), or time to hospital discharge (midazolam 103.4 ± 1.4 minutes vs placebo 98.4 ± 37.0 minutes; P = .516). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of midazolam 0.04 mg·kg−1 as adjunct to propofol and opiate sedation for elective colonoscopy did not show evidence of any significant differences in recovery in the cognitive domain of the PostopQRS, overall quality of recovery as measured by the PostopQRS, or emergence and hospital discharge times. The use of midazolam should be determined by the anesthesiologist.

Summary Deep neuromuscular block aims to improve operative conditions during laparoscopic surgery with a lower intra‐abdominal pressure. Studies are conflicting on whether meaningful improvements in quality of recovery occur beyond emergence, and whether lower intra‐abdominal pressure is achieved. In this pragmatic randomised trial with 1:1 allocation, adults undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery were allocated to moderate neuromuscular block reversed with neostigmine, or deep neuromuscular block reversed with sugammadex. Allocation was revealed to the anaesthetist only. Primary outcome was cognitive recovery of the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale, 7 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included recovery in other domains of the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale at 15 min and 40 min; days 1, 3, 7, 14; and 1 and 3 months after surgery. Chi‐square test was used for the primary outcome, and generalised linear mixed model for recovery over time between groups. Of 350 participants randomised, 140 (deep) and 144 (moderate) were analysed for the primary outcome. There was no difference in the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale cognitive domain at day 7 (deep 92.9% vs. moderate 91.8%, OR 1.164; 95%CI 0.486–2.788, p = 0.826), or at any other time‐point. No significant difference was observed for physiological, emotive, activities of daily living, nociception, or overall recovery. Length of stay in the recovery area (mean (SD) deep 108 (58) vs. moderate 109 (57) min, p = 0.78) and hospital (1.8 (1.9) vs. 2.6 (3.5) days, p = 0.019) was not different. Intra‐abdominal pressure and surgical operating conditions were not different between groups. Deep neuromuscular block did not improve quality of recovery compared with moderate neuromuscular block in operative laparoscopic surgery over a 1‐h duration.

Background Studies have described different recovery profiles of sevoflurane and desflurane typically early after surgery. Methods We conducted a randomized superiority trial to determine whether Overall Recovery 3 days after knee arthroscopy would be superior with desflurane. Adult participants undergoing knee arthroscopic surgery with general anesthesia were randomized to either desflurane or sevoflurane general anesthesia. Intraoperative and postoperative drugs and analgesics were administered at the discretion of the anesthesiologist. Postoperative quality of recovery was assessed using the “Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale”. The primary outcome was Overall Recovery 3 days after surgery and secondary outcomes were individual recovery domains at 15 minutes, 40 minutes, 1 day, 3 days, 1 month, and 3 months. Patients and researchers were blinded. Results 300 patients were randomized to sevoflurane or desflurane (age 51.7±14.1 vs. 47.3±13.5 years; duration of anesthesia 24.9±11.1 vs. 23.3±8.3 minutes). The proportion achieving baseline or better scores in all domains increased over the follow-up period in both groups but was not different at day 3 (sevoflurane 43% vs. desflurane 37%, p = 0.314). Similarly, rates of recovery increased over time in the five subdomains, with no differences between groups for physiological, p = 0.222; nociceptive, p = 0.391; emotive, p = 0.30; Activities-of-daily-living, p = 0.593; and cognitive recovery, p = 0.877. Conclusion No significant difference in the quality of recovery scale could be shown using sevoflurane or desflurane general anesthesia after knee arthroscopy in adult participants.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Catecholamine inotropes are frequently used after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) but may have undesirable effects. The aim was to identify whether the routine use of inhaled pulmonary vasodilators might reduce the requirement for inotrope drugs after cardiac surgery. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of sequential patients undergoing cardiac surgery at the Royal Melbourne Hospital performed by a single surgeon and anesthesia care team, within 14 months before and after routine implementation of inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, August 2017. Milrinone 4 mg and iloprost 20 µg were inhaled using a vibrating mesh nebulizer (Aerogen) before initiation of CPB and at chest closure. Other aspects of clinical management were unaltered over the time period. Two investigators blinded to each other extracted data from electronic and written medical records. The primary outcome was any use of inotropes in the perioperative period; a Fisher exact test was used to analyze any differences between the 2 groups. Demographic data, hemodynamic data, and use of inotropes and vasopressors were collected from induction of anesthesia to 36 hours postoperative in the intensive care unit (ICU). Hospital and ICU length of stay, cost, and complications were collected. RESULTS: Any use of inotropes was significantly lower with inhaled pulmonary dilators (62.5% vs 86.8%, odds ratio [95% confidence interval {CI}], 0.253 (0.083–0.764); P = .011), including intraoperative inotrope use (37.5% vs 86.8%, odds ratio [95% CI], 0.091 (0.03–0.275); P < .001). ICU length of stay was significantly lower with inhaled pulmonary dilators (45 hours, interquartile range [IQR], 27–65 vs 50 hours, IQR, 45–74; P = .026). There were no significant differences among major postoperative complications or costs between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of inhaled milrinone 4 mg and iloprost 20 µg before and after CPB is associated with reduced postoperative inotrope use.