Patients in the perioperative period usually present with different types and degrees of sleep disorders, which can severely affect their post-operative outcomes. Multiple risk factors may lead to the occurrence of perioperative sleep disorders, including personal factors, psychological factors, surgery factors, and environmental factors. In this review, we summarize the potential risk factors for perioperative sleep disorders during hospitalization. And it also provides an overview of perioperative outcomes and potential therapeutic prevention of perioperative sleep disorders. However, the further search is necessary to investigate the effectiveness and safety of preventions in the clinical practice and push forward the therapies.

Background: There is growing interest in glutamatergic agents as a treatment for depression, especially intranasal ketamine, which has become a hot topic in recent years. We aim to assess the efficacy and safety of intranasal ketamine in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), especially treatment-resistant depression (TRD).Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library until April 1, 2020 to identify double-blind, randomized controlled trials with allocation concealment evaluating intranasal ketamine in major depressive episodes. Clinical remission, response, and depressive symptoms were extracted by two independent raters. The outcome measures were Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score improved from baseline, clinical response and remission, dissociative symptoms, and common adverse events. The analyses employed a random-effects model.Results: Data were synthesized from five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) employing an intranasal esketamine and one RCT employing intranasal ketamine, representing 840 subjects in parallel arms, and 18 subjects in cross-over designs (n = 858 with MDD, n = 792 with TRD). The weighted mean difference of MADRS score was observed to decrease by 6.16 (95% CI 4.44–7.88) in 2–4 h, 9.96 (95% CI 8.97–10.95) in 24 h, and 4.09 (95% CI 2.18–6.00) in 28 day. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 3.55 (95% CI 1.5–8.38, z = 2.89, and p < 0.001) for clinical remission and 3.22 (95% CI 1.85–5.61, z = 4.14, and p < 0.001) for clinical response at 24 h, while the pooled RR was 1.7 (95% CI 1.28–2.24, z = 3.72, and p < 0.001) for clinical remission and 1.48 (95% CI 1.17–1.86, z = 3.28, and p < 0.001) for clinical response at 28 day. Intranasal ketamine was associated with the occurrence of transient dissociative symptoms and common adverse events, but no persistent psychoses or affective switches.Conclusion: Our meta-analysis suggests that repeated intranasal ketamine conducted a fast-onset antidepression effect in unipolar depression, while the mild and transient adverse effects were acceptable.Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42020196856.

Background: Propofol, ketamine, and sufentanil are the most commonly used anesthetics during bronchoscopy, alone or in combination, for sedation. Esketamine is an s-enantiomer of ketamine racemate and has both sedative and analgesic effects. Esketamine does not inhibit respiration and maintains hemodynamic stability. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of esketamine/propofol with sufentanil/propofol for patients during bronchoscopy. Methods: Patients undergoing bronchoscopy will be randomly assigned to receive either sufentanil/propofol (sufentanil group; n = 33; sufentanil: 0.2 μg/kg) or esketamine/propofol (esketamine group; n = 33; esketamine: 0.2 mg/kg) for sedation and analgesia. Intraoperative clinical information, general anesthetic drug dosage, the incidence of intraoperative hypoxemia, total time of hypoxemia, awakening time, delirium, nausea and vomiting, adverse reactions, and patient satisfaction will be collected. Discussion: Hypoxia has detrimental effects on patients with respiratory disease. Ameliorating hypoxemia in patients undergoing bronchoscopy is critical. Our results will provide effective sedation with esketamine in patients undergoing bronchoscopy. Trial registration: Chinese clinical trial registry: ChiCTR2200058990.

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to determine whether video laryngoscope (VL) compared with direct laryngoscope (DL) could reduce the occurrence of adverse events associated with tracheal intubation in the emergency and ICU patients.Methods: The current issue of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science (from database inception to October 30, 2018) were searched. The RCTs, quasi-RCTs, observational studies comparing VL and DL for tracheal intubation in emergency or ICU patients and reporting the rates of adverse events were included. The primary outcome was the rate of esophageal intubation (EI). Review Manager 5.3 software was used to perform the pooled analysis and assess the risk of bias for each eligible RCT. The ACROBAT-NRSi Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was applied to assess the risk of bias for each eligible observational study.Results: Twenty-three studies (13,117 patients) were included in the review for data extraction. Pooled analysis showed a lower rate of EI by using VL (relative risk [RR], 0.24;P < 0.01; high-quality evidence for RCTs and very low-quality evidence for observational studies). Subgroup analyses based on the type of studies, whether a cardiopulmonary resuscitation study, or operators’ expertise showed a similar lower rate of EI by using VL compared with DL in all subgroups (P < 0.01) except for experienced operators (RR, 0.44;P = 0.09). There were no significant differences between devices for other adverse events (P > 0.05), except for a lower incidence of hypoxemia when intubation was performed with VL by inexperienced operators (P = 0.03).Conclusions: Based on the results of this analysis, we conclude that compared with DL, VL can reduce the risk of EI during tracheal intubation in the emergency and ICU patients, but does not provide significant benefits on other adverse events associated with tracheal intubation.