Scholarlink

Background <p>In low-flow anesthesia, automated monitoring of end-tidal oxygen (etO<sub>2</sub>) and end-tidal anesthetic agents (etAA) has been favored to reduce clinicians’ cognitive workload during anesthesia maintenance. This systematic review, therefore, aimed to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of automated end-tidal controlled anesthesia (etCA) versus manually controlled anesthesia (MCA).</p> Methods <p>An electronic search was conducted across four databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and Scopus. The retrieved references were then analyzed against the studies’ screening and eligibility criteria before the full articles were included in the study. The Review Manager (RevMan 5.4.1) was then used to conduct the statistical analysis of the reported outcomes.</p> Results <p>The electronic search retrieved 965 articles, among which 10 were included in this review. The studies included a pooled sample size of 1269 who underwent surgical procedures under low-flow anesthesia. The analyzed evidence suggests with low certainty that the type of anesthesia control may not have any significant effect on both the anesthesia duration (SMD − 0.00&#xa0;min; 95% CI [-0.34, 0.34] <i>p</i> = 0.99) and the procedural duration MCA (SMD 0.04&#xa0;min; 95% CI; 95% CI [-0.26, 0.33] <i>p</i> = 0.80). Moreover, we found with low certainty in the evidence that the amount of sevoflurane consumed may not be significantly different between etCA and MCA (SMD − 0.32 mLs; 95% CI [-0.94, 0.29] <i>p</i> = 0.31). Our narrative synthesis indicated that etCA can potentially improve anesthesia delivery by reducing the required anesthetist interventions and ensuring stable and accurately administered anesthetics.</p> Conclusion <p>This review found very low-quality evidence suggesting that the type of anesthesia control may not significantly affect anesthesia delivery parameters, such as the amount of anesthesia consumed and procedural and anesthesia duration. The analyses, however, had significant heterogeneity, making the estimates highly unreliable. On the other hand, some studies indicate potential advantages of using etCA, such as reducing the number of interventions required during anesthesia; however, the evidence remains limited, preventing a full exploration of these advantages.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Automated end-tidal control versus manual regulation in low-flow volatile anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月13日

查看全文
  • Ahmed Shaban,
  • Hany A. Zaki,
  • Eman E. Shaban,
  • Amira Shaban,
  • Ali Elkandow,
  • Mohamed Gafar Abdelrahim,
  • Ahmed S. El-Abd,
  • Mohammed F Abosamak

摘要

Background

In low-flow anesthesia, automated monitoring of end-tidal oxygen (etO2) and end-tidal anesthetic agents (etAA) has been favored to reduce clinicians’ cognitive workload during anesthesia maintenance. This systematic review, therefore, aimed to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of automated end-tidal controlled anesthesia (etCA) versus manually controlled anesthesia (MCA).

Methods

An electronic search was conducted across four databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and Scopus. The retrieved references were then analyzed against the studies’ screening and eligibility criteria before the full articles were included in the study. The Review Manager (RevMan 5.4.1) was then used to conduct the statistical analysis of the reported outcomes.

Results

The electronic search retrieved 965 articles, among which 10 were included in this review. The studies included a pooled sample size of 1269 who underwent surgical procedures under low-flow anesthesia. The analyzed evidence suggests with low certainty that the type of anesthesia control may not have any significant effect on both the anesthesia duration (SMD − 0.00 min; 95% CI [-0.34, 0.34] p = 0.99) and the procedural duration MCA (SMD 0.04 min; 95% CI; 95% CI [-0.26, 0.33] p = 0.80). Moreover, we found with low certainty in the evidence that the amount of sevoflurane consumed may not be significantly different between etCA and MCA (SMD − 0.32 mLs; 95% CI [-0.94, 0.29] p = 0.31). Our narrative synthesis indicated that etCA can potentially improve anesthesia delivery by reducing the required anesthetist interventions and ensuring stable and accurately administered anesthetics.

Conclusion

This review found very low-quality evidence suggesting that the type of anesthesia control may not significantly affect anesthesia delivery parameters, such as the amount of anesthesia consumed and procedural and anesthesia duration. The analyses, however, had significant heterogeneity, making the estimates highly unreliable. On the other hand, some studies indicate potential advantages of using etCA, such as reducing the number of interventions required during anesthesia; however, the evidence remains limited, preventing a full exploration of these advantages.