Objectives We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the potential favourable effects of local anaesthesia plus sedation (LAS) compared with general anaesthesia (GA) in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods Electronic databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and the reference lists of eligible publications were screened for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published between 1 January 2006 and 26 June 2016 that compare LAS to GA in an adult study population undergoing TAVI. We conducted study quality assessments using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and structured the review according to PRISMA. A meta-analysis calculating the pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) under the assumption of a random-effects model was performed. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using the I² statistic and Cochran’s Q-test. Results After database screening, one RCT and 19 observational studies were included in the review. We found no differences between LAS and GA in terms of 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality and other endpoints that addressed safety and complication rates. LAS was associated with a shorter ICU and hospital stay and with lower rates of catecholamine administration and red blood cell transfusion. New pacemaker implantations occurred more frequently under LAS. The overall conversion rate from LAS to GA was 6.2%. Conclusion For TAVI, both LAS and GA are feasible and safe. LAS may have some benefits such as increased haemodynamic stability and shorter hospital and ICU stays, but it does not impact 30-day mortality. Since there is a paucity of randomised trial data and the findings are mainly based on observational study data, this review should be considered as a hypothesis-generating article for subsequent RCTs that are required to confirm the potential favourable effects we detected for LAS. Registration number CRD42016048398 (PROSPERO).

Purpose: This executive summary of a national living guideline aims to provide rapid evidence based recommendations on the role of drug interventions in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: The guideline makes use of a systematic assessment and decision process using an evidence to decision framework (GRADE) as recommended standard WHO (2021). Recommendations are consented by an interdisciplinary panel. Evidence analysis and interpretation is supported by the CEOsys project providing extensive literature searches and living (meta-) analyses. For this executive summary, selected key recommendations on drug therapy are presented including the quality of the evidence and rationale for the level of recommendation. Results: The guideline contains 11 key recommendations for COVID-19 drug therapy, eight of which are based on systematic review and/or meta-analysis, while three recommendations represent consensus expert opinion. Based on current evidence, the panel makes strong recommendations for corticosteroids (WHO scale 5–9) and prophylactic anticoagulation (all hospitalized patients with COVID-19) as standard of care. Intensified anticoagulation may be considered for patients with additional risk factors for venous thromboembolisms (VTE) and a low bleeding risk. The IL-6 antagonist tocilizumab may be added in case of high supplemental oxygen requirement and progressive disease (WHO scale 5–6). Treatment with nMABs may be considered for selected inpatients with an early SARS-CoV-2 infection that are not hospitalized for COVID-19. Convalescent plasma, azithromycin, ivermectin or vitamin D₃ should not be used in COVID-19 routine care. Conclusion: For COVID-19 drug therapy, there are several options that are sufficiently supported by evidence. The living guidance will be updated as new evidence emerges.

Objectives: Whether spinal anaesthesia (SA) reduces intraoperative and postoperative complications compared with general anaesthesia (GA) was investigated. Design: The meta-analysis was structured based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science) were searched, and four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and two retrospective cohort studies were included. A random-effects model with pooled risk ratios and mean differences with 95% CIs were used. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using the I ² statistic. Quality assessment of the studies was performed by assessing the risk of bias according to the Cochrane and GRADE methodology. Setting: Publications from January 1990 to November 2018 were included. Participants and interventions: Our study selection captured information from studies focusing on neonates born before the 37th gestational week who were scheduled for an inguinal hernia repair operation under either SA or GA. Primary and secondary outcome measures: The primary outcome measures were apnoea, postoperative ventilation and method failure rates according to predefined eligibility criteria. The duration of surgery, desaturation events <80%, hospital stay duration and postoperative bradycardia were secondary outcomes. Results: We found significantly fewer events for the outcomes ‘any episode of apnoea’ and ‘mechanical ventilation postoperatively’ in the SA group. Bradycardias were significantly less common in the SA group. In total, 7.5% of the SA group were converted to GA. The duration of surgery was significantly shorter in the SA group. No significant differences were found in the outcome measures ‘postoperative oxygen supplementation’, ‘prolonged apnoea’, ‘postoperative oxygen desaturation <80%’ and ‘hospital stay’. Conclusions: We consider SA a convenient alternative for hernia repair in preterm infants, providing more safety regarding postoperative apnoea. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to include studies exclusively comparing SA versus GA. More high-quality RCTs are needed. Trial registration number: CRD42016048683

The aim of our study was the identification of genetic variants associated with postoperative complications after cardiac surgery. We conducted a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, randomized trial (RIPHeart). We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) in 1170 patients of both genders (871 males, 299 females) from the RIPHeart-Study cohort. Patients undergoing non-emergent cardiac surgery were included. Primary endpoint comprises a binary composite complication rate covering atrial fibrillation, delirium, non-fatal myocardial infarction, acute renal failure and/or any new stroke until hospital discharge with a maximum of fourteen days after surgery. A total of 547,644 genotyped markers were available for analysis. Following quality control and adjustment for clinical covariate, one SNP reached genome-wide significance (PHLPP2, rs78064607, p = 3.77 × 10− 8) and 139 (adjusted for all other outcomes) SNPs showed promising association with p < 1 × 10− 5 from the GWAS. We identified several potential loci, in particular PHLPP2, BBS9, RyR2, DUSP4 and HSPA8, associated with new-onset of atrial fibrillation, delirium, myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury and stroke after cardiac surgery. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01067703, prospectively registered on 11 Feb 2010.

The postoperative cognitive function is impaired in elderly patients after general anaesthesia. The fast recovery after xenon anaesthesia was hypothesized to be advantageous in this scenario. We compared early postoperative cognitive function after xenon and sevoflurane anaesthesia in this study. The study was approved by the local ethics committee and written informed consent was obtained from each patient. Patients aged 65-75 years (ASA I-III) scheduled for elective surgery (duration 60-180 min) were enrolled. Investigators performing cognitive testing and patients were blinded towards allocation to either xenon or sevoflurane anaesthesia. Baseline assessment of cognitive function was carried out 12-24 h before the operation. The results were compared to follow-up tests 6-12 and 66-72 h after surgery. Primary outcome parameter was the subtest "Alertness" of the computerized Test of Attentional Performance (TAP). Secondary outcome parameters included further subtests of the TAP, several Paper-Pencil-Tests, emergence times from anaesthesia, modified Aldrete scores and patients' well-being. 40 patients were randomized and equally allocated to both groups. No significant differences were found in the TAP or the Paper-Pencil-Tests at 6-12 and 66-72 h after the operation. All emergence times were faster after xenon anaesthesia. The modified Aldrete scores were significantly higher during the first hour in the xenon group. No difference in well-being could be detected between both groups. The results show no difference in the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) after xenon or sevoflurane anaesthesia. Emergence from general anaesthesia was faster in the xenon group.

High costs still limits the widespread use of xenon in the clinical practice. Therefore, we evaluated xenon consumption of different delivery modes during general surgery.