Search

Background: Infratentorial craniotomy patients have a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have been shown in multiple surgical disciplines to improve outcomes, including reduced PONV. However, very few studies have described the application of ERAS to infratentorial craniotomy. The aim of this study was to examine whether our ERAS protocol for infratentorial craniotomy could improve PONV.Methods: We implemented an evidence-based, multimodal ERAS protocol for patients undergoing infratentorial craniotomy. A total of 105 patients who underwent infratentorial craniotomy were randomized into either the ERAS group (n = 50) or the control group (n = 55). Primary outcomes were the incidence of vomiting, nausea score, and use of rescue antiemetic during the first 72 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included postoperative anxiety level, sleep quality, and complications.Results: Over the entire 72 h post-craniotomy observation period, the cumulative incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in the ERAS group than in the control group. Meanwhile, the incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in the ERAS group on postoperative days (PODs) 2 and 3. Notably, the proportion of patients with mild nausea (VAS 0-4) was higher in the ERAS group as compared to the control group on PODs 2 or 3. Additionally, the postoperative anxiety level and quality of sleep were significantly better in the ERAS group.Conclusion: Successful implementation of our ERAS protocol in infratentorial craniotomy patients could attenuate postoperative anxiety, improve sleep quality, and reduce the incidence of PONV, without increasing the rate of postoperative complications.Trial Registration: ChiCTR-INR-16009662, 27 Oct 2016, Clinical study on the development and efficacy evaluation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in Neurosurgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Neurocritical care patients are at high risk for stress-related upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the risks and benefits of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in this patient group.Methods: A systematic search of major electronic literature databases was conducted. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which researchers compared the effects of SUP (with proton pump inhibitors or histamine 2 receptor antagonists) with placebo or no prophylaxis in neurocritical care patients. The primary outcome was UGI bleeding, and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and nosocomial pneumonia. Study heterogeneity was sought and quantified. The results were reported as risk ratios/relative risks (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).Results: We included 8 RCTs comprising an aggregate of 829 neurocritical care patients. Among these trials, one study conducted in a non-intensive care unit setting that did not meet our inclusion criteria was ultimately included based on further evaluation. All studies were judged as having a high or unclear risk of bias. SUP was more effective than placebo or no prophylaxis at reducing UGI bleeding (random effects: RR 0.31; 95 % CI 0.20-0.47; P < 0.00001; I (2) = 45 %) and all-cause mortality (fixed effects: RR 0.70; 95 % CI 0.50-0.98; P = 0.04; I (2) = 0 %). There was no difference between SUP and placebo or no prophylaxis regarding nosocomial pneumonia (random effects: RR 1.14; 95 % CI 0.67-1.94; P = 0.62; I (2) = 42 %). The slight asymmetry of the funnel plots raised the concern of small trial bias, and apparent heterogeneity existed in participants, interventions, control treatments, and outcome measures.Conclusions: In neurocritical care patients, SUP seems to be more effective than placebo or no prophylaxis in preventing UGI bleeding and reducing all-cause mortality while not increasing the risk of nosocomial pneumonia. The robustness of this conclusion is limited by a lack of trials with a low risk of bias, sparse data, heterogeneity among trials, and a concern regarding small trial bias.Trial Registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) identifier: CRD42015015802 . Date of registration: 6 Jan 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]