Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33109925›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of anaesthesiology2020

Adverse respiratory events with sevoflurane compared with desflurane in ambulatory surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wei-Shan Chen, Min-Hsien Chiang, Kuo-Chuan Hung, Kai-Lieh Lin, Chih-Hsien Wang, Yan-Yuen Poon, Sheng-Dean Luo, Shao-Chun Wu

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of anaesthesiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Wei-Shan ChenFrom the Department of Otolaryngology (WS-C, SD-L), Department of Anaesthesiology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung (MH-C, KL-L, CH-W, YY-P, SC-W), Department of Anaesthesiology, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan (KC-H).
Min-Hsien Chiang
Kuo-Chuan Hung
Kai-Lieh Lin
Chih-Hsien Wang
Yan-Yuen Poon
Sheng-Dean Luo
Shao-Chun Wu
Chi Mei Medical Center · TWKaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital · TWChang Gung University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn increasing number of studies have concluded that the number of adverse events in the upper airway caused by desflurane does not differ significantly from the number of adverse events caused by sevoflurane. The advantages of desflurane in ambulatory surgery should be reassessed.

objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare adverse respiratory events and recovery outcomes in patients undergoing desflurane or sevoflurane-based anaesthesia in ambulatory surgery.

designA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: A systematic search for eligible RCTs in PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ScienceDirect and Embase published up to June 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs investigating the occurrence of adverse respiratory events, including airway irritation, stridor, coughing, respiratory distress and laryngospasm, emergence agitation, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), time to eye opening and time to discharge from the operation room after desflurane or sevoflurane-based anaesthesia.

resultsThirteen trials were included and analysed. A total of 634 patients were included in the desflurane group, and 633 patients in the sevoflurane group. The occurrence of respiratory complications was significantly higher with desflurane-based anaesthesia than with sevoflurane-based anaesthesia (Total n = 673, 20.0 vs. 12.8%, relative risk (RR) 1.59 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.20)) with low heterogeneity (I = 20%). There was no difference in the occurrence of emergence agitation (Total n = 626, 29.1 vs. 27.2%, RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.30)) or the incidence of PONV between the desflurane and sevoflurane groups (Total n = 989, 19.0 vs. 21.0%, RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.26)). Time to eye opening was significantly faster with desflurane than that with sevoflurane (Total n = 1072, mean difference = -3.32 min (95% CI -4.02 to -2.61)) with a substantial heterogeneity (I = 72.6%). There was no significant difference in the time to discharge from the operation room between the two groups (Total n = 1056, mean difference = -0.45 min (95% CI -5.89 to 4.99)).

conclusionDespite recent reports that there is no significant difference in adverse respiratory events between desflurane and sevoflurane, a pooled analysis revealed that desflurane resulted in a higher rate than sevoflurane. Therefore, the consequences of desflurane should not be neglected and its airway irritant properties should be taken into account.

trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42019147939).

Indexed as

Anesthetics, InhalationIsofluraneMethyl EthersAmbulatory Surgical ProceduresAnesthesia Recovery PeriodDesfluraneHumansSevofluraneAnesthetics, InhalationDesfluraneIsofluraneMethyl EthersSevoflurane

Identifiers

PMID33109925
PMCPMC7752224
OpenAlexW3095775331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.