Background: Deep sedation relieves a patient's anxiety and stress during the procedure by inducing patient unconsciousness. However, it remains unclear whether deep sedation actually improves patient satisfaction with the procedure. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the satisfaction of patients undergoing deep sedation with that of those undergoing light/moderate sedation during non-surgical procedures. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using electronic databases (search until September 2020). The primary outcome was whether patient satisfaction was higher after deep sedation or light/moderate sedation. The secondary outcome was the relative safety of deep sedation compared with light/moderate sedation in terms of oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure, and heart rate. The tertiary outcomes were the relative procedure and recovery times for deep versus light/moderate sedation. Data from each of the trials were combined, and calculations were made using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. The pooled effect estimates for patient satisfaction were evaluated using relative risk (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI). The pooled effect estimates for continuous data are expressed as weighted mean difference with the 95% CI. We assessed heterogeneity with the Cochrane Q statistic and the I 2 statistic. The risk of bias assessment and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach were used as the quality assessment method. Results: After removing unrelated studies and applying the exclusion criterion, 5 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in those who received deep sedation compared with light/moderate sedation (relative risk = 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04–1.20; P = .003; Cochrane Q = 25.0; I 2 = 76%). There was no significant difference in oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and procedure times according to whether the procedures were performed under deep or light/moderate sedation. However, the recovery time was significantly prolonged in patients under deep sedation. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests that deep sedation resulted in improved patient satisfaction compared with light/moderate sedation. Deep sedation is recommended for patients undergoing procedures because it improves patient satisfaction. However, respiration and circulation should be carefully monitored both intra-operatively and postoperatively.

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are commonly used to treat hypertension. However, similar to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, ARBs can also cause refractory hypotension during general anesthesia. Therefore, it has been recommended that ARBs be withheld for 24 hours prior to the induction of anesthesia. This is a case report of refractory hypotension requiring the administration of potent vasopressors after the induction of general anesthesia despite withholding telmisartan for 24 hours. In the same patient undergoing a subsequent general anesthetic, telmisartan was withheld for 5 days before induction, leading to mild intraoperative hypotension that responded adequately to phenylephrine. The primary cause of refractory hypotension during the first general anesthetic was suspected to be an insufficient telmisartan washout period. Telmisartan's half-life of 24 hours is notably the longest of all ARBs in current use. This case report demonstrates that refractory hypotension during general anesthesia cannot always be avoided by withholding telmisartan for 24 hours before the induction of anesthesia. Therefore, a washout period greater than 24 hours is preferable for patients taking telmisartan.

Background Hypotension during anesthesia induction is a common event, and occurs more frequently in patients with hypertension than in healthy individuals. Intraoperative hypotension in non-cardiac surgery is reportedly associated with various postoperative complications. However, the predictors of hypotension during anesthesia induction in patients with hypertension have not yet been ascertained. Therefore, we aimed to determine the predictors of hypotension during anesthesia induction in patients with hypertension on medication focusing on the half-life of the medication used. Methods In this retrospective observational study, we enrolled patients with hypertension on medication who underwent general anesthesia for oral and maxillofacial surgery between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2019. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to test for associations between clinical factors and hypotension during anesthesia induction in patients with hypertension on medication. Results A total of 395 patients were included in this study. The risk factors for hypotension during anesthesia induction in patients with hypertension on medication were pre-induction mean arterial blood pressure (adjusted unit odds ratio, 0.96 [95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 0.98]), female sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.63 [1.03 to 2.57]), regular use of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs)/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) with a long half-life (vs. no regular use of ARBs/ACE-Is aOR, 4.02 [1.77 to 9.12]; vs. regular use of ARBs/ACE-Is with a short-to-middle half-life aOR, 3.17 [1.46 to 6.85]), and regular use of beta blockers (aOR, 2.45 [1.19 to 5.04]). Regular use of calcium channel blockers (aOR, 0.44 [0.25 to 0.77]) was a suppressive factor for hypotension during anesthesia induction in patients with hypertension. Conclusions In patients with hypertension on medication, regular use of ARBs/ACE-Is with a long half-life, regular use of beta blockers, low pre-induction mean arterial blood pressure, and female sex were risk factors for hypotension during anesthesia induction. Notably, regular use of ARBs/ACE-Is with a long half-life was a high-risk factor for hypotension during anesthesia induction in patients with hypertension on medication even after a 24-h preoperative withdrawal period.

Objective: The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after general anesthesia with total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) was reported to be significantly lower than with volatile inhalational agents (13.3% vs 25%). However, no investigation of PONV risk factors associated with TIVA has ever been reported. This cross-sectional retrospective study aimed to investigate whether known risk factors influenced PONV in intubated general anesthetics utilizing TIVA for dental or oral and maxillofacial surgery. Methods: Subjects were 761 patients who underwent dental or oral and maxillofacial surgery under TIVA with propofol, fentanyl, and remifentanil. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed using PONV (within 24 hours) as the dependent variable and previously reported risk factors as independent variables. Results: Age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.020 per year decrease; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0002–1.0418; P = .047) and female sex (OR: 2.73; 95% CI: 1.60–4.84; P < .001) were positively associated with PONV. Sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) (OR: 2.28; 95% CI: 1.21–4.33; P = .011) and bimaxillary osteotomy (OR: 5.69; 95% CI: 2.09–15.99; P < .001) were more likely to be associated with PONV than operations that were neither bimaxillary osteotomy nor SSRO. Late PONV (2–24 hours) had an ∼2.7 times higher incidence than early PONV (0–2 hours). Conclusion: These findings suggest further PONV countermeasures, aside from TIVA with propofol and prophylactic antiemetics for orthognathic surgeries especially bimaxillary osteotomy, are needed.

This retrospective study analyzed the management of 25 patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), or dilated phase of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (dHCM) treated in the outpatient clinic of the Department of Dental Anesthesiology at Hokkaido University. A total of 87 dental treatment sessions were completed. Intravenous sedation was used significantly more often for patients with HCM than those who had DCM. This seemed to be because dental anesthesiologists expected sedative drugs to suppress hyperdynamic circulatory changes caused by mental stress. Intraoperative complications occurred during 19 treatments. The incidence of circulatory complications increased when participants with DCM also reported dental fear. For participants with HCM who reported dental fear, circulatory complications occurred only when sedation was not used. It is not clear whether complications were related to cardiac function or dental treatment. Therefore, it is important to continually monitor patients with these conditions and to be prepared to handle complications that may arise during dental treatment.