Dataset Information

Comparison of dexmedetomidine vs. remifentanil combined with sevoflurane during radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Remifentanil is widely used for ultrasound-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We determined whether dexmedetomidine could be an alternative to remifentanil for RFA of HCC under general anesthesia with sevoflurane.

Methods

We prospectively randomized patients scheduled to undergo RFA for HCC to a dexmedetomidine (DEX) group or remifentanil (REMI) group (47 patients each). In the DEX group, a bolus infusion (0.4 ?g kg^-?1) was started 15 min before anesthesia induction and continued at 0.2 ?g kg^-?1 h^-?1 until 10 min before the end of surgery. In the REMI group, 3 ?g kg^-?1 h^-?1 of remifentanil was administered from 15 min before anesthesia induction to the end of the surgery. The primary endpoint was postoperative pain intensity. Secondary endpoints included analgesic requirement, postoperative liver function, patient comfort, and hemodynamic changes. Group allocation was concealed from patients and data analysts but not from anesthesiologists.

Results

Postoperative pain intensity, analgesic consumption, comfort, liver function, and time to emergence and extubation did not differ between the two groups. Heart rate, but not mean arterial pressure, was significantly lower in the DEX group than in the REMI group, at 1 min after intubation and from 30 min after the start of the surgery until anesthesia recovery. Sevoflurane concentration and dosage were significantly lower in the DEX group than in the REMI group.

Conclusion

During RFA for HCC, low-dose dexmedetomidine reduced the heart rate and need for inhalational anesthetics, without exacerbating postoperative discomfort or liver dysfunction. Although it did not exhibit outstanding advantages over remifentanil in terms of pain management, dexmedetomidine could be a safe alternative adjuvant for RFA under sevoflurane anesthesia.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR-OPC-15006613 . Registered on 16 June 2015.

SUBMITTER: Pan J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6326039 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of dexmedetomidine vs. remifentanil combined with sevoflurane during radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized controlled trial.

Pan Jingru J Li Xianlong X He Ye Y Jian Chaojun C Chen Hui-Xin HX Hei Ziqing Z Zhou Shaoli S

Trials 20190108 1

<h4>Background</h4>Remifentanil is widely used for ultrasound-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We determined whether dexmedetomidine could be an alternative to remifentanil for RFA of HCC under general anesthesia with sevoflurane.<h4>Methods</h4>We prospectively randomized patients scheduled to undergo RFA for HCC to a dexmedetomidine (DEX) group or remifentanil (REMI) group (47 patients each). In the DEX group, a bolus infusion (0.4 μg k ...[more]

PMID: 30621749

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a curative modality for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who are not suitable for resection. It remains controversial whether a surgical or percutaneous approach is more appropriate for HCC. Method: A search was performed on the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from the date of database inception until April 17, 2021. Studies reporting outcomes of comparisons between surgical RFA (SRFA) and percutaneous RFA (PRFA) were included in this study. The meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0 software. Result: A total of 10 retrospective studies containing 12 cohorts, involving 740 patients in the PRFA group and 512 patients in the SRFA group, were selected. Although the tumor size in PRFA group was smaller than the SRFA group (p = 0.007), there was no significant difference in complete ablation rate between the SRFA and PRFA groups (95.63% and 97.33%, respectively; Odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.26-1.24; p = 0.15). However, the SRFA group showed a significantly lower local tumor recurrence than the PRFA group in the sensitivity analysis (28.7% in the PRFA group and 21.79% in the SRFA group, respectively; OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.14-2.95; p = 0.01). Pooled analysis data showed that the rate of severe perioperative complications did not differ significantly between the PRFA and SRFA groups (14.28% and 12.11%, respectively; OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.67-2.53; p = 0.44). There was no significant difference in the 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates, as well as the 1- and 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) between the PRFA and SRFA groups. The 5-year DFS of the PRFA group was significantly lower than the SRFA group (hazard ratio 0.73; 95% CI 0.54-0.99). Conclusion: Based on our meta-analysis, the surgical route was superior to PRFA in terms of local control rate. Furthermore, the surgical approach did not increase the risk of major complications.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of liver resection (LR), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and radiofrequency ablation combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (RFA+TACE) in the treatment of very-early- and early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).MethodsWe systemically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational analyses with propensity score-matched cohort analyses (PSMs) comparing any two of the three treatments were included in this study. The primary result was overall survival (OS) and the secondary result was recurrence-free survival (RFS), which were analyzed by calculating the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsA total of 25 studies (4249 patients), including 10 RCTs and 15 PSM observational studies, met the inclusion criteria. Although there was no significant difference between LR and RFA in terms of one-year OS, though LR showed superior performance for three- and five-year OS (at three years, HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.56-0.96; at five years, HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55-0.94). In addition, significantly higher rates of RFS at one-, three- and five-year follow-up were found for LR than for RFA alone (at one year, HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.51-0.92; at three years, HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.55-0.81; at five years, HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.48-0.78). The combination of RFA+TACE was superior to RFA alone based on one-year RFS (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.34-0.96), while there were no significant differences in OS at one, three, and five years, and in RFS at three and five years.ConclusionsFor very-early- and early-stage HCC, this systematic review and network meta-analysis showed that the efficacy of LR is superior to that of RFA alone, regardless of whether the evaluation is based on either OS or RFS. The advantages of RFA+TACE compared to RFA alone are limited, and further studies are needed to determine whether combination therapy is necessary, i.e., results in significantly improved outcomes.Systematic review registrationThe study was registered with http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42022299269.

Project description:It remains controversial whether surgical resection, compared to radiofrequency ablation (RFA), improves overall survival (OS) in patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to compare OS after RFA with that after resection for HCC. This retrospective study included patients who underwent RFA or surgical resection as initial treatment for hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related HCC at a very early or early stage. A total of 761 patients (RFA, n = 194; resection, n = 567) from Seoul National University Hospital (Seoul, South Korea) and 1277 patients (RFA, n = 352; resection, n = 925) from the Korean Primary Liver Cancer Registry were included in the hospital and nationwide cohorts, respectively. Primary and secondary endpoints were OS and recurrence-free survival (RFS), respectively. Additional analysis was performed when the history of the antiviral treatment and the type of prescribed nucleos(t)ide analogue were confirmed. The rate of complications was compared between the two treatment groups in the hospital cohort. Baseline characteristics were balanced, using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). In the hospital cohort, the RFA group had a smaller mean tumor size (1.7 vs. 3.9 cm) but a higher proportion of cirrhotic patients than the resection group (85.6% vs. 63.1%) (both p < 0.01). During 81.0 (interquartile range, 62.3-107.1) months of follow-up, there was no difference in OS (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.870, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.400-1.897, p = 0.73) and RFA was associated with shorter RFS (aHR = 1.562, 95% CI = 1.099-2.219, p = 0.01) after employing IPTW. Antiviral treatment was independently associated with longer OS (aHR = 0.444, 95% CI = 0.251-0.786, p = 0.01) as well as RFS (aHR = 0.544, 95% CI = 0.391-0.757, p < 0.01) in the hospital cohort. In the nationwide cohort, there was no difference in OS (aHR = 0.981, 95% CI = 0.661-1.456, p = 0.92) between the two treatment groups when adjusted for antiviral treatment, which was a negative independent risk factor for mortality (aHR = 0.655, 95% CI = 0.451-0.952, p = 0.03) after IPTW. Among patients treated with tenofovir (n = 96) or entecavir (n = 184) in the hospital cohort, there was no difference in either OS (aHR = 0.522, 95% CI = 0.058-4.724, p = 0.56) or RFS (aHR = 1.116, 95% CI = 0.738-1.688, p = 0.60). The overall incidence of complications was higher in the resection group (26.3%) than in the RFA group (13.9%) (p < 0.01). RFA may provide comparable OS to resection in the treatment of very early or early HCC with a lower rate of complications, although RFS is marginally shorter than in the resection group after adjusting for antiviral treatment. Regardless of the type of NA, antiviral treatment in patients with HBV-related HCC is strongly associated with both OS and RFS.

Dataset Information

Comparison of dexmedetomidine vs. remifentanil combined with sevoflurane during radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized controlled trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Comparison of dexmedetomidine vs. remifentanil combined with sevoflurane during radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets