Comparison of surgical pleth index-guided analgesia versus conventional analgesia technique in general anesthesia surgeries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 5 2区医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY

Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Pub Date : 2025-02-28 DOI:10.1016/j.jclinane.2025.111800

Xi Xu , Xue-Feng Zhang , Zi-Hang Yu , Jian Liu , Liang Nie , Jian-Li Song

{"title":"Comparison of surgical pleth index-guided analgesia versus conventional analgesia technique in general anesthesia surgeries: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Xi Xu , Xue-Feng Zhang , Zi-Hang Yu , Jian Liu , Liang Nie , Jian-Li Song","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinane.2025.111800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The objective of this study is to investigate whether the use of surgical pleth index (SPI)-guided intraoperative analgesia can result in a reduction in opioid consumption, intraoperative circulatory fluctuations, and the incidence of postoperative adverse reactions when compared to conventional analgesia techniques.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from the inception of these databases to November 2024. The objective was to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the use of SPI-guided analgesia with conventional analgesia practices in adult patients who underwent general anesthesia. The primary outcome was the intraoperative consumption of opioids, while intraoperative circulatory fluctuations, postoperative opioid consumption, pain scores, and adverse events served as secondary outcomes. Standardized mean differences (SMDs), weighted mean differences (WMDs) or pooled risk ratios (RRs) along with the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were employed for analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Fourteen studies were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled results indicated no significant difference in intraoperative opioid consumption between the SPI-guided analgesia group and the control group (SMD = 0.16, 95 % CI: −0.15 to 0.47, <em>p</em> = 0.33). However, SPI-guided analgesia was found to reduce intraoperative propofol dosage (SMD = −0.31, 95 % CI: −0.54 to −0.08, <em>p</em> = 0.008), prevent intraoperative tachycardia (RR = 0.50, 95 % CI: 0.30 to 0.85, <em>p</em> = 0.011), and significantly shorten the eye-opening time (WMD = −1.89, 95 % CI: −2.47 to −1.31, <em>p</em> < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed in extubation time, postoperative nausea and vomiting, pain scores, or postoperative opioid consumption.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Compared to the conventional analgesia group, SPI-guided analgesia does not reduce intraoperative opioid consumption in adult patients undergoing general anesthesia.</div><div>Trial registration: The protocol for this meta-analysis has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024611690).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15506,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","volume":"103 ","pages":"Article 111800"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952818025000601","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study is to investigate whether the use of surgical pleth index (SPI)-guided intraoperative analgesia can result in a reduction in opioid consumption, intraoperative circulatory fluctuations, and the incidence of postoperative adverse reactions when compared to conventional analgesia techniques.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from the inception of these databases to November 2024. The objective was to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the use of SPI-guided analgesia with conventional analgesia practices in adult patients who underwent general anesthesia. The primary outcome was the intraoperative consumption of opioids, while intraoperative circulatory fluctuations, postoperative opioid consumption, pain scores, and adverse events served as secondary outcomes. Standardized mean differences (SMDs), weighted mean differences (WMDs) or pooled risk ratios (RRs) along with the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were employed for analysis.

Results

Fourteen studies were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled results indicated no significant difference in intraoperative opioid consumption between the SPI-guided analgesia group and the control group (SMD = 0.16, 95 % CI: −0.15 to 0.47, p = 0.33). However, SPI-guided analgesia was found to reduce intraoperative propofol dosage (SMD = −0.31, 95 % CI: −0.54 to −0.08, p = 0.008), prevent intraoperative tachycardia (RR = 0.50, 95 % CI: 0.30 to 0.85, p = 0.011), and significantly shorten the eye-opening time (WMD = −1.89, 95 % CI: −2.47 to −1.31, p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed in extubation time, postoperative nausea and vomiting, pain scores, or postoperative opioid consumption.

Conclusions

Compared to the conventional analgesia group, SPI-guided analgesia does not reduce intraoperative opioid consumption in adult patients undergoing general anesthesia.

Trial registration: The protocol for this meta-analysis has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024611690).

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 医学-麻醉学

CiteScore

7.40

自引率

4.50%

发文量

346

审稿时长

23 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Clinical Anesthesia (JCA) addresses all aspects of anesthesia practice, including anesthetic administration, pharmacokinetics, preoperative and postoperative considerations, coexisting disease and other complicating factors, cost issues, and similar concerns anesthesiologists contend with daily. Exceptionally high standards of presentation and accuracy are maintained. The core of the journal is original contributions on subjects relevant to clinical practice, and rigorously peer-reviewed. Highly respected international experts have joined together to form the Editorial Board, sharing their years of experience and clinical expertise. Specialized section editors cover the various subspecialties within the field. To keep your practical clinical skills current, the journal bridges the gap between the laboratory and the clinical practice of anesthesiology and critical care to clarify how new insights can improve daily practice.