Martin R. Tramer

Since 2010, the European Journal of Anaesthesiology has required the reporting of five items concerning ethical approval in articles describing human research: ethics committee’s name and address, chairperson’s name, study’s protocol number and approval date. We aimed to assess whether this requirement has helped to identify and to contact the referenced ethics committees. In this cross-sectional study, we analysed articles requiring ethical approval, according to the Swiss federal law for human research and published in the European Journal of Anaesthesiology in 2011. Ethics committees were searched through our institutional Internet access based on information provided in the articles. The last search was performed in November 2015. Numbers (%) of items reported, of ethics committees identified, and of those that confirmed having provided ethical approval are reported. Of 76 articles requiring ethical approval, 74 (97%) declared it. Ethics committees’ names and addresses were mentioned in 63/74 (85%), protocol numbers in 51/74 (69%), approval dates in 48/74 (65%), and chairpersons’ names in 45/74 (61%). We could identify 44/74 (59%) committees; 36/74 (49%) answered our inquiry and 24/74 (32%) confirmed their role. Thirty-four of 74 articles (46%) reported all five items; in 25/34 (74%), we were able to identify an ethics committee, 18/34 (53%) answered our inquiry, and 15/34 (44%) confirmed their role. Forty of 74 articles (54%) reported ≤4 items; in 19/40 (48%), we were able to identify an ethics committee, 18/40 (45%) answered our inquiry, and 9/40 (23%) confirmed their role. Reporting five items significantly increased identification of ethics committees (p = 0.023) and their confirmation of ethical approval (p = 0.048). Twelve of 74 ethics committees (16%) were unable to confirm their role in approving the study. Even when details concerning ethical approval were reported in these studies of human research, we were unable to identify almost half of the ethics committees concerned. The reporting of five items, compared with reporting ≤4, was associated with facilitated identification of ethics committees, and increased the likelihood that they would be able to confirm the study’s approval. Future research should identify which information facilitates identification of, and contact with, ethics committees.

Buspirone, a partial 5HT_1A agonist and D₂ and D₃ antagonist, has shown promising antiemetic efficacy when given parenterally in animal models, but its efficacy for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is unknown. To study the efficacy and dose-responsiveness of intravenous buspirone for the prevention of PONV. A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed in adults at moderate to high PONV risk undergoing surgery with a general anaesthetic. Patients were randomised to receive an intravenous dose of buspirone (0.3, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 mg) or placebo at the end of surgery. The primary endpoint was the cumulative 24-h PONV incidence (i.e. any nausea and/or vomiting). Vomiting included retching. Nausea was defined as a score of ≥4 on an 11-point verbal rating scale running from zero (no nausea) to ten (the worst nausea imaginable). A total of 257 patients received the study drug and fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the primary efficacy and safety analyses. With placebo, the mean 24-h PONV incidence was 49.0 % (90 % confidence interval [CI] 37.5–60.5 %). With buspirone, that incidence ranged from a mean of 40.8 % (29.3–52.4 %) in the 1 mg arm to 58.0 % (46.5–69.5 %) in the 0.3 mg arm (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). There was no difference between placebo and buspirone at any dose for any other efficacy endpoint, nor in the number or severity of adverse events or any other safety measures. We were unable to show that intravenous single-dose buspirone, at the tested dose-range, was effective at preventing PONV in surgical adult patients. The present study emphasises the difficulty in extrapolating from animal models of emesis to clinical efficacy in PONV.

Some people who suffer an upper gastrointestinal bleed or perforation die. The mortality rate was estimated at 12% in studies published before 1997, but a systematic survey of more recent data is needed. Better treatment is likely to have reduced mortality. An estimate of mortality is helpful in explaining to patients the risks of therapy, especially with NSAIDs. A systematic review of studies published before 1997, and between 1997 and 2008. Any study architecture was acceptable if it reported on cases who died from any cause of upper gastrointestinal bleed or perforation. Analyses were conducted separately for all cases, and those prescribed NSAID or aspirin. Information was available for 61,067 cases (81% published since 1997) of whom 5,001 died. The mortality rate in all cases fell significantly, from 11.6% (95% confidence interval, 11.0 to 12.2) in pre-1997 studies to 7.4% (7.2 to 7.6) in those published since 1997. In 5,526 patients taking NSAID or aspirin, mortality increased, from 14.7% (13.6 to 15.8) before 1997 to 20.9% (18.8 to 22.9) since 1997. Upper gastrointestinal bleed or perforation still carries a finite risk of death. Differences in study architecture, population characteristics, risk factors, definition of mortality, and reporting of outcomes impose limitations on interpreting effect size. Data published since 1997 suggest that mortality in patients suffering from an upper gastrointestinal bleed or perforation has fallen to 1 in 13 overall, but remains higher at about 1 in 5 in those exposed to NSAID or aspirin.

Intrathecal morphine without local anaesthetic is often added to a general anaesthetic to prevent pain after major surgery. Quantification of benefit and harm and assessment of dose–response are needed. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials testing intrathecal morphine alone (without local anaesthetic) in adults undergoing major surgery under general anaesthesia. Twenty-seven studies (15 cardiac–thoracic, nine abdominal, and three spine surgery) were included; 645 patients received intrathecal morphine (dose-range, 100–4000 µg). Pain intensity at rest was decreased by 2 cm on the 10 cm visual analogue scale up to 4 h after operation and by about 1 cm at 12 and 24 h. Pain intensity on movement was decreased by 2 cm at 12 and 24 h. Opioid requirement was decreased intraoperatively, and up to 48 h after operation. Morphine-sparing at 24 h was significantly greater after abdominal surgery {weighted mean difference, −24.2 mg [95% confidence interval (CI) −29.5 to −19.0]}, compared with cardiac–thoracic surgery [−9.7 mg (95% CI −17.6 to −1.80)]. The incidence of respiratory depression was increased with intrathecal morphine [odds ratio (OR) 7.86 (95% CI 1.54–40.3)], as was the incidence of pruritus [OR 3.85 (95% CI 2.40–6.15)]. There was no evidence of linear dose-responsiveness for any of the beneficial or harmful outcomes. In conclusion, intrathecal morphine decreases pain intensity at rest and on movement up to 24 h after major surgery. Morphine-sparing is more pronounced after abdominal than after cardiac–thoracic surgery. Respiratory depression remains a major safety concern.