Dataset Information

Effects of Intra-Operative Total Intravenous Anaesthesia with Propofol versus Inhalational Anaesthesia with Sevoflurane on Post-Operative Pain in Liver Surgery: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Patients receiving total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol have been shown to experience less postoperative pain. We evaluated the post-operative analgesic effects of propofol compared with sevoflurane maintenance of anesthesia in liver surgery. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02179437). METHODS:In this retrospective study, records of patients who underwent liver surgery between 2010 and 2013 were reviewed. Ninety-five patients anesthetized with propofol TIVA were matched with 95 patients anesthetized with sevoflurane. Numeric pain rating scale (NRS) pain scores, postoperative morphine consumption, side effects and patients' satisfaction with pain relief were evaluated. RESULTS:The TIVA group reported lower NRS pain scores during coughing on postoperative days 1 and 2 but not 3 (p = 0.0127, p = 0.0472, p = 0.4556 respectively). They also consumed significantly less daily (p = 0.001 on day 1, p = 0.0231 on day 2, p = 0.0004 on day 3), accumulative (p = 0.001 on day 1, p<0.0001 on day 2 and p = 0.0064 on day 3) and total morphine (p = 0.03) when compared with the sevoflurane group. There were no differences in total duration of intravenous patient controlled analgesia (PCA) morphine use and patient satisfaction. No difference was found in reported side effects. CONCLUSION:Patients anesthetized with propofol TIVA reported less pain during coughing and consumed less daily, accumulative and total morphine after liver surgery.

SUBMITTER: Chan AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4763721 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of Intra-Operative Total Intravenous Anaesthesia with Propofol versus Inhalational Anaesthesia with Sevoflurane on Post-Operative Pain in Liver Surgery: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.

Chan Alfred Chor San AC Qiu Qiu Q Choi Siu Wai SW Wong Stanley Sau Ching SS Chan Albert Chi Yan AC Irwin Michael G MG Cheung Chi Wai CW

PloS one 20160222 2

<h4>Background</h4>Patients receiving total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol have been shown to experience less postoperative pain. We evaluated the post-operative analgesic effects of propofol compared with sevoflurane maintenance of anesthesia in liver surgery. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02179437).<h4>Methods</h4>In this retrospective study, records of patients who underwent liver surgery between 2010 and 2013 were reviewed. Ninety-five patients anesthetized ...[more]

PMID: 26901037

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPostoperative pain control can be challenging in patients undergoing hepatectomy. A previous retrospective study on hepatobiliary/ pancreatic surgeries showed better postoperative pain control in patients who received propofol TIVA. The aim of this study was to determine the analgesic effect of propofol TIVA for hepatectomy. This clinical study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03597997).MethodsA prospective randomized controlled trial was performed to compare the analgesic effect of propofol TIVA versus inhalational anaesthesia. Patients aged between 18 and 80 years old with an American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status of I-III scheduled for elective hepatectomy were recruited. Ninety patients were randomly allocated to receive either propofol TIVA (TIVA group) or inhalational anaesthesia with sevoflurane (SEVO group). Perioperative anaesthetic/analgesic management was the same for both groups. Numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores, postoperative morphine consumption, quality of recovery, patient satisfaction and adverse effects were evaluated during the acute postoperative period and at 3 and 6 months after surgery.ResultsNo significant differences were found for acute postoperative pain scores (both at rest and during coughing) and postoperative morphine consumption between TIVA and SEVO groups. Patients given TIVA had lower pain scores with coughing at 3 months after surgery (p = 0.014, and FDR < 0.1). TIVA group was associated with better quality of recovery on postoperative day (POD) 3 (p = 0.038, and FDR < 0.1), less nausea (p = 0.011, and FDR < 0.1 on POD 2; p = 0.013, and FDR < 0.1 on POD 3) and constipation (p = 0.013, and FDR < 0.1 on POD 3).ConclusionPropofol TIVA did not improve acute postoperative pain control compared to inhalational anaesthesia in patients who underwent hepatectomy. Our results do not support the use of propofol TIVA for reducing acute postoperative pain after hepatectomy.

Project description:BackgroundTo compare the postoperative analgesic effect of propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) versus inhalational anaesthesia (GAS) in patients using morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).MethodsA retrospective cohort study was performed in a single tertiary university hospital. Adult patients who used PCA morphine after general anaesthesia across 15 types of surgeries were included. Patients who received propofol TIVA were compared to those who had inhalational anaesthesia. Primary outcomes assessed were postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores and postoperative opioid consumption.ResultsData from 4202 patients were analysed. The overall adjusted NRS pain scores were significantly lower in patients who received propofol TIVA at rest (GEE: β estimate of the mean on a 0 to 10 scale = -0.56, 95% CI = (-0.74 to -0.38), p < 0.001; GAS as reference group) and with movement (β estimate = -0.89, 95% CI = (-1.1 to -0.69), p < 0.001) from postoperative days (POD) 1-3. Propofol TIVA was associated with lower overall adjusted postoperative morphine consumption (β estimate = -3.45, 95% CI = (-4.46 to -2.44), p < 0.001). Patients with propofol TIVA had lower adjusted NRS pain scores with movement for hepatobiliary/pancreatic (p < 0.001), upper gastrointestinal (p < 0.001) and urological surgeries (p = 0.005); and less adjusted postoperative morphine consumption for hepatobiliary/pancreatic (p < 0.001), upper gastrointestinal (p = 0.006) and urological surgeries (p = 0.002). There were no differences for other types of surgeries.ConclusionPropofol TIVA was associated with statistically significant, but small reduction in pain scores and opioid consumption in patients using PCA morphine. Subgroup analysis suggests clinically meaningful analgesia possibly for hepatobiliary/pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal surgeries.Trial registrationThis study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03875872 ).

Project description:Background and aimTotal intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) has proven advantage over inhalational anesthesia in terms of stable hemodynamic, eco-friendly, and good recovery profile, but apprehension regarding adequate depth of anesthesia and intraoperative recall is still pertaining. This study aims to compare propofol-dexmedetomidine-based TIVA with sevoflurane-based inhalational anesthesia in modified radical mastectomy in terms of depth of anesthesia, intraoperative recall, recovery profile, and hemodynamic status.Settings and designThis prospective randomized controlled study was conducted at a tertiary care center over a time frame of 1 year.MethodologyIn this randomized controlled study, 100 patients were randomly distributed into two groups: TIVA (Group T) and inhalational anesthesia (Group I). Group T patients received injection dexmedetomidine: 1 μg.kg-1 over 10 min followed by 0.7 μg.kg-1.h-1 and injection propofol: 25-100 μg.kg-1.min-1. Ventilation was maintained with oxygen-air gas flow. In Group I, patients were ventilated with nitrous oxide-oxygen (50:50) and sevoflurane. Rest of anesthesia for both the groups was same. Primary objective was to achieve adequate depth of anesthesia as monitored by intraoperative bispectral index value (BIS, 40-60). Hemodynamic variables, recovery profile, and amount of individual anesthetic agent consumed were recorded for comparison between two groups. For comparison of scale variables between two groups, independent sample t-test for significant difference between two sample means has been followed.ResultsIntraoperative BIS and hemodynamic variables were comparable (P > 0.05). Emergence time was 5.10 min in the TIVA group versus 8.38 min in the inhalational group (P = 0.00). Modified Aldrete score was comparable in two groups (P > 0.05). Cost of TIVA agents consumed per patient was 40% lesser than inhalational agents.ConclusionTIVA maintains adequate depth of anesthesia along with stable hemodynamic and good recovery profile, at low cost in an eco-friendly manner.

Project description:BACKGROUND:It 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. METHODS:Studies 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. RESULTS:The 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. CONCLUSIONS:Based 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.

Dataset Information

Effects of Intra-Operative Total Intravenous Anaesthesia with Propofol versus Inhalational Anaesthesia with Sevoflurane on Post-Operative Pain in Liver Surgery: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.

Publications

Effects of Intra-Operative Total Intravenous Anaesthesia with Propofol versus Inhalational Anaesthesia with Sevoflurane on Post-Operative Pain in Liver Surgery: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets