This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated ω-3 fatty-acid enriched parenteral nutrition (PN) vs standard (non-ω-3 fattyacid enriched) PN in adult hospitalized patients (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018110179). We included 49 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with intervention and control groups given ω-3 fatty acids and standard lipid emulsions, respectively, as part of PN covering ࣙ70% energy provision. The relative risk (RR) of infection (primary outcome; 24 RCTs) was 40% lower with ω-3 fattyacid enriched PN than standard PN (RR 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.72; P < 0.00001). Patients given ω-3 fatty-acid enriched PN had reduced mean length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (10 RCTs; 1.95 days, 95% CI 0.42-3.49; P = 0.01) and reduced length of hospital stay (26 RCTs; 2.14 days, 95% CI 1.36-2.93; P < 0.00001). Risk of sepsis (9 RCTs) was reduced by 56% in those given ω-3 fatty-acid enriched PN (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.70; P = 0.0004). Mortality rate (co-primary outcome; 20 RCTs) showed a nonsignificant 16% reduction (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65-1.07; P = 0.15) for the ω-3 fatty-acid enriched group. In summary, ω-3 fatty-acid enriched PN is beneficial, reducing risk of infection and sepsis by 40% and 56%, respectively, and length of both ICU and hospital stay by about 2 days. Provision of ω-3-enriched lipid emulsions should be preferred over standard lipid emulsions in patients with an indication for PN. (JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2020;44:44-57)

BackgroundIt is unclear if anaesthesia maintenance with propofol is advantageous or beneficial over inhalational agents. This study is intended to compare the effects of propofol vs. inhalational agents in maintaining general anaesthesia on patient-relevant outcomes and patient satisfaction.MethodsStudies were identified by electronic database searches in PubMed™, EMBASE™ and the Cochrane™ library between 01/01/1985 and 01/08/2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of peer-reviewed journals were studied. Of 6688 studies identified, 229 RCTs were included with a total of 20,991 patients. Quality control, assessment of risk of bias, meta-bias, meta-regression and certainty in evidence were performed according to Cochrane. Common estimates were derived from fixed or random-effects models depending on the presence of heterogeneity. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was the primary outcome. Post-operative pain, emergence agitation, time to recovery, hospital length of stay, post-anaesthetic shivering and haemodynamic instability were considered key secondary outcomes.ResultsThe risk for PONV was lower with propofol than with inhalational agents (relative risk (RR) 0.61 [0.53, 0.69], p < 0.00001). Additionally, pain score after extubation and time in the post-operative anaesthesia care unit (PACU) were reduced with propofol (mean difference (MD) − 0.51 [− 0.81, − 0.20], p = 0.001; MD − 2.91 min [− 5.47, − 0.35], p = 0.03). In turn, time to respiratory recovery and tracheal extubation were longer with propofol than with inhalational agents (MD 0.82 min [0.20, 1.45], p = 0.01; MD 0.70 min [0.03, 1.38], p = 0.04, respectively). Notably, patient satisfaction, as reported by the number of satisfied patients and scores, was higher with propofol (RR 1.06 [1.01, 1.10], p = 0.02; MD 0.13 [0.00, 0.26], p = 0.05). Secondary analyses supported the primary results.ConclusionsBased on the present meta-analysis there are several advantages of anaesthesia maintenance with propofol over inhalational agents. While these benefits result in an increased patient satisfaction, the clinical and economic relevance of these findings still need to be addressed in adequately powered prospective clinical trials.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-018-0632-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Omega-3 (ω-3) fatty acid (FA)-containing parenteral nutrition (PN) is associated with significant improvements in patient outcomes compared with standard PN regimens without ω-3 FA lipid emulsions. Here, we evaluate the impact of ω-3 FA-containing PN versus standard PN on clinical outcomes and costs in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients using a meta-analysis and subsequent cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of a hospital operating in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and the US. Methods We present a pharmacoeconomic simulation based on a systematic literature review with meta-analysis. Clinical outcomes and costs comparing ω-3 FA-containing PN with standard PN were evaluated in adult ICU patients eligible to receive PN covering at least 70% of their total energy requirements and in the subgroup of critically ill ICU patients (mean ICU stay > 48 h). The meta-analysis with the co-primary outcomes of infection rate and mortality rate was based on randomized controlled trial data retrieved via a systematic literature review; resulting efficacy data were subsequently employed in country-specific cost-effectiveness analyses. Results In adult ICU patients, ω-3 FA-containing PN versus standard PN was associated with significant reductions in the relative risk (RR) of infection (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45, 0.86; p = 0.004), hospital length of stay (HLOS) (− 3.05 days; 95% CI − 5.03, − 1.07; p = 0.003) and ICU length of stay (LOS) (− 1.89 days; 95% CI − 3.33, − 0.45; p = 0.01). In critically ill ICU patients, ω-3 FA-containing PN was associated with similar reductions in infection rates (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.46, 0.94; p = 0.02), HLOS (− 3.98 days; 95% CI − 6.90, − 1.06; p = 0.008) and ICU LOS (− 2.14 days; 95% CI − 3.89, − 0.40; p = 0.02). Overall hospital episode costs were reduced in all six countries using ω-3 FA-containing PN compared to standard PN, ranging from €-3156 ± 1404 in Spain to €-9586 ± 4157 in the US. Conclusion These analyses demonstrate that ω-3 FA-containing PN is associated with statistically and clinically significant improvement in patient outcomes. Its use is also predicted to yield cost savings compared to standard PN, rendering ω-3 FA-containing PN an attractive cost-saving alternative across different health care systems. Study registration PROSPERO CRD42019129311.

It is not known whether using propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) to reduce incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is cost-effective. We assessed the economic impact of propofol TIVA versus inhalational anesthesia in adult patients for ambulatory and inpatient procedures relevant to the US healthcare system.Methods: Two models simulate individual patient pathways through inpatient and ambulatory surgery with propofol TIVA or inhalational anesthesia with economic inputs from studies on adult surgical US patients. Efficacy inputs were obtained from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the model estimates.Results: Lower PONV rate, shorter stay in the post-anesthesia care unit, and reduced need for rescue antiemetics offset the higher costs for anesthetics, analgesics, and muscle relaxants with propofol TIVA and reduced cost by 11.41 6 10.73 USD per patient in the inpatient model and 11.25 6 9.81 USD in the ambulatory patient model. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated strong robustness of the results.Conclusions: Maintenance of general anesthesia with propofol was cost-saving compared to inhalational anesthesia in both inpatient and ambulatory surgical settings in the United States. These economic results support current guideline recommendations, which endorse propofol TIVA to reduce PONV risk and enhance postoperative recovery.

No abstract