Objective In this abridged version of the recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs, we summarize its most important findings and discuss the challenges and the time needed to prepare what is now the largest Cochrane review with network meta-analysis in terms of the number of included studies and pages in its full printed form. Methods We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analyses to compare and rank single antiemetic drugs and their combinations belonging to 5HT₃-, D₂-, NK₁-receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics used to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anesthesia. Results 585 studies (97 516 participants) testing 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were included. The studies’ overall risk of bias was assessed as low in only 27% of the studies. In 282 studies, 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs lowered the risk of vomiting at least 20% compared to placebo. In the ranking of treatments, combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs. Single NK1 receptor antagonists were as effective as other drug combinations. Of the 10 effective single drugs, certainty of evidence was high for aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron, while moderate for fosaprepitant and droperidol. For serious adverse events (SAEs), any adverse event (AE), and drug-class specific side effects evidence for intervention effects was mostly not convincing. Conclusions There is high or moderate evidence for at least seven single drugs preventing postoperative vomiting. However, there is still considerable lack of evidence regarding safety aspects that does warrant investigation.

Background: Remote ischemic conditioning is gaining interest as potential method to induce resistance against ischemia reperfusion injury in a variety of clinical settings. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether remote ischemic conditioning reduces mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, length of stay in hospital and in the intensive care unit and biomarker release in patients who suffer from or are at risk for ischemia reperfusion injury. Methods and Results: Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized clinical trials comparing remote ischemic conditioning, regardless of timing, with no conditioning. Two investigators independently selected suitable trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data. 23 studies in patients undergoing cardiac surgery (15 studies), percutaneous coronary intervention (four studies) and vascular surgery (four studies), comprising in total 1878 patients, were included in this review. Compared to no conditioning, remote ischemic conditioning did not reduce mortality (odds ratio 1.22 [95% confidence interval 0.48, 3.07]) or major adverse cardiovascular events (0.65 [0.38, 1.14]). However, the incidence of myocardial infarction was reduced with remote ischemic conditioning (0.50 [0.31, 0.82]), as was peak troponin release (standardized mean difference -0.28 [-0.47, -0.09]). Conclusion: There is no evidence that remote ischemic conditioning reduces mortality associated with ischemic events; nor does it reduce major adverse cardiovascular events. However, remote ischemic conditioning did reduce the incidence of peri-procedural myocardial infarctions, as well as the release of troponin.

Background: Studies have reported on the incidence of sedation-related adverse events (AEs), but little is known about their impact on health care costs and resource use. Methods: Health care providers and payers in five countries were recruited for an online survey by independent administrators to ensure that investigators and respondents were blinded to each other. Surveys were conducted in the local language and began with a "screener" to ensure that respondents had relevant expertise and experience. Responses were analyzed using Excel and R, with the Dixon's Q statistic used to identify and remove outliers. Global and country-specific average treatment patterns were calculated via bootstrapping; costs were mean values. The sum product of costs and intervention probability gave a cost per AE. Results: Responses were received from 101 providers and 26 payers, the majority having. 5 years of experience. At a minimum, the respondents performed a total of 3,430 procedural sedations per month. All AEs detailed occurred in clinical practice in the last year and were reported to cause procedural delays and cancellations in some patients. Standard procedural sedation costs ranged from (sic)74 (Germany) to $2,300 (US). Respondents estimated that AEs would increase costs by between 16% (Italy) and 179% (US). Hypotension was reported as the most commonly observed AE with an associated global mean cost (interquartile range) of $43 ($27-$68). Other frequent AEs, including mild hypotension, bradycardia, tachycardia, mild oxygen desaturation, hypertension, and brief apnea, were estimated to increase health care spending on procedural sedation by $2.2 billion annually in the US. Conclusion: All sedation-related AEs can increase health care costs and result in substantial delays or cancellations of subsequent procedures. The prevention of even minor AEs during procedural sedation may be crucial to ensuring its value as a health care service.

Background The epidural route is still considered the gold standard for labour analgesia, although it is not without serious consequences when incorrect placement goes unrecognized, e.g. in case of intravascular, intrathecal and subdural placements. Until now there has not been a viable alternative to epidural analgesia especially in view of the neonatal outcome and the need for respiratory support when long-acting opioids are used via the parenteral route. Pethidine and meptazinol are far from ideal having been described as providing rather sedation than analgesia, affecting the cardiotocograph (CTG), causing fetal acidosis and having active metabolites with prolonged half-lives especially in the neonate. Despite these obvious shortcomings, intramuscular and intravenously administered pethidine and comparable substances are still frequently used in delivery units. Since the end of the 90ths remifentanil administered in a patient-controlled mode (PCA) had been reported as a useful alternative for labour analgesia in those women who either don’t want, can’t have or don’t need epidural analgesia. Discussion In view of the need for conversion to central neuraxial blocks and the analgesic effect remifentanil has been demonstrated to be superior to pethidine. Despite being less effective in terms of the resulting pain scores, clinical studies suggest that the satisfaction with analgesia may be comparable to that obtained with epidural analgesia. Owing to this fact, remifentanil has gained a place in modern labour analgesia in many institutions. However, the fact that remifentanil may cause harm should not be forgotten when the use of this potent mu-agonist is considered for the use in labouring women. In the setting of one-to-one midwifery care, appropriate monitoring and providing that enough experience exists with this potent opioid and the treatment of potential complications, remifentanil PCA is a useful option in addition to epidural analgesia and other central neuraxial blocks. Already described serious consequences should remind us not refer to remifentanil PCA as a “poor man’s epidural” and to safely administer remifentanil with an appropriate indication. Summary Therefore, the authors conclude that economic considerations and potential cost-savings in conjunction with remifentanil PCA may not be appropriate main endpoints when studying this valuable method for labour analgesia.

Laparoscopic techniques have established themselves as a major part of modern surgery. Their implementation in every surgical discipline has played a vital part in the reduction of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Precise robotic surgery, as an evolution of this, is shaping the present and future operating theatre that an anesthetist is facing. While incisions get smaller and the impact on the organism seems to dwindle, challenges for anesthetists do not lessen and could even become more demanding than in open procedures. This review focuses on the pathophysiological effects of contemporary laparoscopic and robotic procedures and summarizes anesthetic challenges and strategies for perioperative management.