Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27334375›Full record

SynthesisActa veterinaria Scandinavica2016

Effect of propofol and remifentanil on cerebral perfusion and oxygenation in pigs: a systematic review.

Mai Louise Grandsgaard Mikkelsen, Rikard Ambrus, James Edward Miles, Helle Harding Poulsen, Finn Borgbjerg Moltke, Thomas Eriksen

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta veterinaria Scandinavica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Microvascular insulin resistance in skeletal muscle and brain occurs early in the development of juvenile obesity in pigs.American journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mai Louise Grandsgaard MikkelsenDepartment of Veterinary Clinical and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 16 Dyrlægevej, 1870, Frederiksberg C, Denmark. mailo@sund.ku.dk.
Rikard AmbrusDepartment of Surgical Gastroenterology C, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, 9 Blegdamsvej, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
James Edward MilesDepartment of Veterinary Clinical and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 16 Dyrlægevej, 1870, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
Helle Harding PoulsenDepartment of Veterinary Clinical and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 16 Dyrlægevej, 1870, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
Finn Borgbjerg MoltkeDepartment of Neuroanaesthesia, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, 9 Blegdamsvej, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Thomas EriksenDepartment of Veterinary Clinical and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 16 Dyrlægevej, 1870, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DKRigshospitalet · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this review is to evaluate the existing literature with regard to the influence of propofol and remifentanil total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) on cerebral perfusion and oxygenation in healthy pigs. Anaesthesia has influence on cerebral haemodynamics and it is important not only in human but also in veterinary anaesthesia to preserve optimal regulation of cerebral haemodynamics. Propofol and remifentanil are widely used in neuroanaesthesia and are increasingly used in experimental animal studies. In translational models, the pig has advantages compared to small laboratory animals because of brain anatomy, metabolism, neurophysiological maturation, and cerebral haemodynamics. However, reported effects of propofol and remifentanil on cerebral perfusion and oxygenation in pigs have not been reviewed. An electronic search identified 99 articles in English. Title and abstract screening selected 29 articles for full-text evaluation of which 19 were excluded with reasons. Of the 10 peer-reviewed articles included for review, only three had propofol or remifentanil anaesthesia as the primary study objective and only two directly investigated the effect of anaesthesia on cerebral perfusion and oxygenation (CPO). The evidence evaluated in this systematic review is limited, not focused on propofol and remifentanil and possibly influenced by factors of potential importance for CPO assessment. In one study of healthy pigs, CPO measures were within normal ranges following propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia, and addition of a single remifentanil bolus did not affect regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO2). Even though the pool of evidence suggests that propofol and remifentanil alone or in combination have limited effects on CPO in healthy pigs, confirmative evidence is lacking.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrainHypnotics and SedativesOxygenPeriodicals as TopicPiperidinesPropofolRemifentanilSwineHypnotics and SedativesOxygenPiperidinesPropofolRemifentanilAnimal modelBrainNeuroanaesthesiaOxygenationPerfusionPigPropofolRemifentanil

Identifiers

PMID27334375
PMCPMC4917978
OpenAlexW2471872000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.