Effectiveness and safety of opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid-based anesthesia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

IF 3.1
Vincenzo Francesco Tripodi, Salvatore Sardo, Mariachiara Ippolito, Andrea Cortegiani
{"title":"Effectiveness and safety of opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid-based anesthesia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Vincenzo Francesco Tripodi, Salvatore Sardo, Mariachiara Ippolito, Andrea Cortegiani","doi":"10.1186/s44158-025-00272-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is an innovative approach to anesthesia management aimed at enhancing both the safety and the quality of perioperative outcomes. The efficacy and safety of these approaches are uncertain. The aim of our work was to compare the effectiveness and safety of different OFA regimens to opioid-based anesthesia (OBA).</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review and frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome measure was the intensity of postoperative pain at 24 h, expressed in terms of numerical rating scale (NRS), visual analogue scale (VAS), or verbal rating scale (VRS) scores. The SUCRA was used to determine the likelihood that an intervention was ranked as the best. The certainty of the evidence was assessed according to the GRADE methodology for Network Meta-analysis (NMA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 42 RCTs were included, for a total of 4666 patients. We have addressed the variety of available interventions. The random-effects network meta-analysis comparing OBA and different OFA regimens showed no difference in the pain intensity at 24 h. We performed the GRADE assessment for each comparison between each OFA regimen and OBA as a comparator. The certainty of evidence for the primary outcome ranges from moderate to very low among the different comparisons.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We have identified a significant heterogeneity in OFA regimens evaluated and a moderate to high risk of bias in over 70% of studies reporting the primary outcome. No OFA regimens showed a statistically significant effect over OBA in reducing postoperative pain within the first 24 h following surgery. Current evidence does not support the superiority of the analgesic efficacy of OFA in the immediate postoperative period compared to the use of opioids.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This study is registered in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42024529236 (May 3, 2024).</p>","PeriodicalId":73597,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","volume":"5 1","pages":"53"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12351777/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44158-025-00272-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is an innovative approach to anesthesia management aimed at enhancing both the safety and the quality of perioperative outcomes. The efficacy and safety of these approaches are uncertain. The aim of our work was to compare the effectiveness and safety of different OFA regimens to opioid-based anesthesia (OBA).

Study design and methods: We conducted a systematic review and frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome measure was the intensity of postoperative pain at 24 h, expressed in terms of numerical rating scale (NRS), visual analogue scale (VAS), or verbal rating scale (VRS) scores. The SUCRA was used to determine the likelihood that an intervention was ranked as the best. The certainty of the evidence was assessed according to the GRADE methodology for Network Meta-analysis (NMA).

Results: A total of 42 RCTs were included, for a total of 4666 patients. We have addressed the variety of available interventions. The random-effects network meta-analysis comparing OBA and different OFA regimens showed no difference in the pain intensity at 24 h. We performed the GRADE assessment for each comparison between each OFA regimen and OBA as a comparator. The certainty of evidence for the primary outcome ranges from moderate to very low among the different comparisons.

Conclusions: We have identified a significant heterogeneity in OFA regimens evaluated and a moderate to high risk of bias in over 70% of studies reporting the primary outcome. No OFA regimens showed a statistically significant effect over OBA in reducing postoperative pain within the first 24 h following surgery. Current evidence does not support the superiority of the analgesic efficacy of OFA in the immediate postoperative period compared to the use of opioids.

Trial registration: This study is registered in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42024529236 (May 3, 2024).

与阿片类药物麻醉相比,无阿片类药物麻醉的有效性和安全性:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。
背景:无阿片类药物麻醉(OFA)是一种创新的麻醉管理方法,旨在提高围手术期结果的安全性和质量。这些方法的有效性和安全性尚不确定。我们工作的目的是比较不同OFA方案与阿片类药物麻醉(OBA)的有效性和安全性。研究设计和方法:我们对随机对照试验(rct)进行了系统评价和频率随机效应网络荟萃分析。主要结局指标是术后24小时的疼痛强度,以数值评定量表(NRS)、视觉模拟量表(VAS)或言语评定量表(VRS)评分表示。SUCRA用于确定干预措施被评为最佳的可能性。根据网络元分析(NMA)的GRADE方法评估证据的确定性。结果:共纳入42项rct,共纳入4666例患者。我们讨论了各种可用的干预措施。比较OBA和不同OFA方案的随机效应网络荟萃分析显示,24小时疼痛强度没有差异。作为比较物,我们对每个OFA方案和OBA方案进行了GRADE评估。在不同的比较中,主要结局的证据确定性从中等到非常低。结论:我们已经确定了OFA方案评估的显著异质性,并且在报告主要结果的70%以上的研究中存在中度至高度偏倚风险。在术后24小时内,OFA方案在减轻术后疼痛方面没有统计学意义上的显著效果。目前的证据并不支持OFA在术后即刻镇痛效果优于阿片类药物的说法。试验注册:本研究已在PROSPERO注册,注册号为CRD42024529236(2024年5月3日)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信