Skip to main content

Daily Anesthesiology Research Analysis

3 papers

Three impactful anesthesiology-related studies stood out: a NEJM multicenter RCT shows acute normovolemic hemodilution does not reduce allogeneic transfusion in cardiac surgery; a large meta-analysis finds remimazolam matches propofol efficacy with less hypotension and injection pain but slower awakening; and a randomized cross-over ICU trial suggests stimulants may transiently improve clinical arousal in acute disorders of consciousness without clear pupillometry effects. Together, these data r

Summary

Three impactful anesthesiology-related studies stood out: a NEJM multicenter RCT shows acute normovolemic hemodilution does not reduce allogeneic transfusion in cardiac surgery; a large meta-analysis finds remimazolam matches propofol efficacy with less hypotension and injection pain but slower awakening; and a randomized cross-over ICU trial suggests stimulants may transiently improve clinical arousal in acute disorders of consciousness without clear pupillometry effects. Together, these data refine perioperative blood management, sedation agent selection, and neurocritical care strategies.

Research Themes

  • Perioperative blood management and transfusion strategies
  • Comparative effectiveness of anesthetic/sedative agents
  • Neurocritical care interventions for disorders of consciousness

Selected Articles

1. A Randomized Trial of Acute Normovolemic Hemodilution in Cardiac Surgery.

81Level IRCTThe New England journal of medicine · 2025PMID: 40503713

In a 2010-patient, multinational, single-blind RCT, acute normovolemic hemodilution did not reduce the proportion of cardiac surgical patients receiving allogeneic red-cell transfusion compared with usual care. Safety outcomes were similar, with a small numerical increase in reoperation for bleeding in the ANH arm.

Impact: This high-quality RCT provides definitive evidence against routine ANH to reduce transfusions in modern cardiac surgery, guiding resource allocation and protocol design.

Clinical Implications: Routine ANH for transfusion reduction in cardiac surgery is not supported; programs should reassess ANH use and focus on multimodal blood conservation strategies with proven benefit.

Key Findings

  • Allogeneic red-cell transfusion occurred in 27.3% (ANH) vs 29.2% (usual care), RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.81–1.07), P=0.34
  • Reoperation for bleeding: 3.8% (ANH) vs 2.6% (usual care)
  • 30-day/in-hospital mortality similar: 1.4% (ANH) vs 1.6% (usual care)

Methodological Strengths

  • Multinational, multicenter randomized controlled design with large sample size
  • Prespecified primary and safety outcomes with single-blind allocation

Limitations

  • Single-blind design may introduce performance bias
  • Slight numerical increase in reoperation for bleeding warrants careful interpretation

Future Directions: Investigate targeted subgroups or protocol variations where ANH might confer benefit, and compare against alternative blood conservation strategies.

2. Stimulants for disorders of consciousness in the intensive care unit: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

77Level IRCTBrain : a journal of neurology · 2025PMID: 40501148

In a randomized, double-blind, cross-over ICU trial of 50 patients with acute disorders of consciousness, apomorphine and methylphenidate did not significantly improve pupillometry-derived command-following. However, both agents were associated with episodes of improved clinical arousal in a subset, particularly among those with higher baseline pupillary responsiveness, without drug-related adverse events.

Impact: This rigorous trial advances neurocritical care by identifying a potential responsive phenotype and safety of stimulants in ICU disorders of consciousness, informing future targeted trials.

Clinical Implications: Routine stimulant use to enhance consciousness cannot be recommended, but patients with higher pupillary responsiveness may merit consideration within protocols or trials.

Key Findings

  • No significant increase in pupillometry command-following with apomorphine (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93–1.96) or methylphenidate (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.89–1.86)
  • Clinical arousal improved at least once in 20% of patients post-dosing; more episodes after stimulants than placebo
  • Higher baseline pupillary responsiveness predicted better arousal responses

Methodological Strengths

  • Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over design in ICU setting
  • Objective primary endpoint using automated pupillometry with pharmacokinetic confirmation

Limitations

  • Primary endpoint negative; modest sample size with missing administrations due to clinical course
  • Heterogeneous etiologies and short-term assessments limit generalizability

Future Directions: Enrich future trials for patients with higher pupillary responsiveness; evaluate dosing, timing, and combined biomarkers to optimize stimulant responsiveness.

3. Anesthetic efficacy with remimazolam compared with propofol: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

75.5Level IMeta-analysisInternational journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025PMID: 40503766

Across 27 RCTs (n=7283), remimazolam achieved similar sedation/anesthesia success versus propofol, with less hypotension and injection pain and, in procedural sedation, a lower risk of hypoxemia but longer awakening times. Nausea, vomiting, and discharge times were similar.

Impact: Provides comprehensive comparative evidence for a newer benzodiazepine sedative, informing agent selection where hemodynamic stability and injection pain are concerns.

Clinical Implications: Remimazolam is a viable alternative to propofol with lower hypotension and injection pain; anticipate slower wake-up, especially in procedural sedation, and monitor for hypoxemia benefits.

Key Findings

  • Sedation/anesthesia success comparable: RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.97–1.00; P=0.10)
  • Remimazolam reduced hypotension and injection pain versus propofol
  • In procedural sedation, remimazolam reduced hypoxemia risk but lengthened awakening; no such effects in general anesthesia

Methodological Strengths

  • Comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with large aggregate sample
  • Subgroup analyses separating procedural sedation and general anesthesia

Limitations

  • Heterogeneity in dosing protocols and procedural contexts
  • Longer awakening may impact throughput; individual trial quality varies

Future Directions: Head-to-head pragmatic trials on workflow outcomes, cost, and patient-centered endpoints; optimal dosing to minimize delayed awakening.