Dataset Information

Total intravenous anesthesia improves intraoperative visualization during surgery for high-grade chronic rhinosinusitis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) has been proposed as a method to reduce blood loss during endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Impaired sinonasal visualization due to mucosal bleeding may be burdensome in cases of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with high-grade inflammatory disease, suggesting a role for TIVA in that disease subgroup. METHODS:A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted of adults undergoing ESS at a tertiary medical center. Patients considered for inclusion had high-grade CRS defined as either sinonasal polyposis or a preoperative Lund-Mackay score of ?12. Subjects were randomized to receive either TIVA or inhaled anesthesia (IA) during ESS. The primary outcome measure was intraoperative visibility as rated by 3 blinded reviewers utilizing the 10-point Wormald Surgical Field Grading Scale. Secondary outcomes included operative blood loss, complications, and change in quality of life evaluated by the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22). RESULTS:A total of 72 patients were randomized into TIVA (n = 37) and IA (n = 35) study arms. Aggregate median (interquartile range) Wormald scores across all reviewers demonstrated a more favorable visual field with TIVA compared to IA (3.5 [2.4-3.9] vs IA 4.1[3.0-5.8], p = 0.0089). There was significantly less blood loss in the TIVA group compared to the IA group (200 mL [100-450] vs 300 mL [200-500], p = 0.046). Baseline patient characteristics were comparable between cohorts with no significant postoperative complications. No significant changes were detected between postoperative SNOT-22 scores at 3 months (p = 0.278) and at 6 months (p = 0.396) following ESS. CONCLUSION:TIVA contributes to improved intraoperative visualization and decreased blood loss in patients undergoing ESS for high-grade inflammatory sinus disease.

SUBMITTER: Brunner JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6433621 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Total intravenous anesthesia improves intraoperative visualization during surgery for high-grade chronic rhinosinusitis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Brunner Jacob P JP Levy Joshua M JM Ada Melissa L ML Tipirneni Kiranya E KE Barham Henry P HP Oakley Gretchen M GM Cox Daniel R DR Nossaman Bobby D BD McCoul Edward D ED

International forum of allergy & rhinology 20180706 10

<h4>Background</h4>Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) has been proposed as a method to reduce blood loss during endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Impaired sinonasal visualization due to mucosal bleeding may be burdensome in cases of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with high-grade inflammatory disease, suggesting a role for TIVA in that disease subgroup.<h4>Methods</h4>A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted of adults undergoing ESS at a tertiary medical center. Patients considered ...[more]

PMID: 29979837

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBreast cancer (BC) mortality primarily stems from metastases rather than the primary tumor itself. Perioperative stress, encompassing both surgical and anesthetic factors, profoundly impacts the immune system, leading to alterations in neuroendocrine pathways and immune functions, potentially facilitating tumor progression and metastasis. Understanding the immunomodulatory effects of different anesthesia techniques is crucial for optimizing perioperative care in patients with BC. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) serves as one of the key indicators of perioperative immune response.ObjectiveTo compare the effects of inhalation anesthesia (IA) and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) on perioperative immune response in BC surgery patients.MethodsIn this randomized, double-blind clinical trial, BC surgery patients were randomized to receive either TIVA with propofol or IA with sevoflurane. The primary endpoint was NLR assessment. Secondary immune parameters measured included natural killer cells, various T cell subsets, B cells, the immuno-regulatory index [T-helpers (CD3+CD4+)/cytotoxic T-cells (CD3+CD8+)], matrix metallopeptidases (MMP-9), complement components, and immunoglobulins, preoperatively and at 1 and 24 hours postoperatively.ResultsThe study included 98 patients (IA: 48, TIVA: 50). The baseline characteristics exhibited remarkable similarity across the groups. No significant difference in absolute NLR values was found between IA and TIVA groups at any time point (1 hour: p = 0.519, 24 hours: p = 0.333). Decreased IgA and IgM levels post-surgery suggested potential negative impacts of IA on humoral immunity compared to TIVA. CRP levels increased more by 24 hours (p = 0.044) in IA compared to TIVA. No significant differences were observed in natural killer cells, T cell subsets, B cells, MMP-9 levels or complement components between groups. Significant differences in the immuno-regulatory index between the TIVA and IA groups at one hour postoperatively (p = 0.033) were not maintained at 24 hours.ConclusionWhile there were no notable differences in NLR among the types of anesthesia, the observed disparities in immunoglobulin content and C-reactive protein levels between groups suggest that we cannot dismiss the potential immunosuppressive effects of inhalational anesthesia in breast cancer surgeries. Further investigation needed to clarify the impact of various anesthesia methods on immune function and their implications for long-term cancer outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThe risk of postoperative cognitive dysfunction(POCD) in laparoscopic surgery should not be overlooked. Intravenous lidocaine can reduce perioperative inflammatory response in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, while the effect of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine on postoperative cognitive function in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery has not been well studied. We investigated whether intraoperative lidocaine improves postoperative cognitive function after laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, randomized double blinded controlled trial to investigate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on rapid postoperative recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous lidocaine or saline. The primary outcome was cognitive dysfunction defined by a decrease from pre- to postoperative ≥ 2 of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score, at the 3rd and the 7th postoperative days. Secondary outcomes were the MMSE raw score and parameters of the patients' postoperative recovery such as agitation and length of stay in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU), length of hospital stay, markers of inflammation (white blood cell count and CRP), and incidence of complications.ResultsSeventy-three patients in the lidocaine group and 77 patients in the control group completed the trial. The rate of cognitive dysfunction was lower in the lidocaine group than that in the control group, both at the 3rd (18.57% vs. 63.64% for each group respectively; RR = 0.26, 95%CI = 0.19-0.32; p < 0.0001) and at the 7th postoperative day (12.33% vs. 53.25% for each group respectively; RR = 0.28, 95%CI = 0.22-0.35; P < 0.001). The postoperative MMSE scores were also higher in the lidocaine group than in the control group both at the 3rd (median 25 vs. 24 respectively) and at the 7th postoperative day (26 vs. 24 respectively). Also, patients in the lidocaine group displayed a lower white blood cell count than the control group at the 1st postoperative day (8.5 ± 2.7 vs. 10.4 ± 3.3; p < 0. 001). No differences were evidenced for the other secondary outcomes.ConclusionsIntraoperative intravenous lidocaine can significantly improve postoperative cognitive function in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry (16/1/2022, registration number: ChiCTR2200055683).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and several perioperative factors may account for tumor recurrence and metastasis. The anesthetic agents employed during cancer surgery might play a crucial role in cancer cell survival and patient outcomes. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to investigate the relationship between the type of anesthesia and overall survival in patients who underwent breast cancer surgery performed by one experienced surgeon. METHODS:All patients who underwent breast cancer surgery by an experienced surgeon between January 2006 and December 2010 were included in this study. Patients were separated into two groups according to the use of desflurane or propofol anesthesia during surgery. Locoregional recurrence and overall survival rates were assessed for the two groups (desflurane or propofol anesthesia). Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models and propensity score matching analyses were used to compare the hazard ratios for death and adjust for potential confounders (age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, TNM stage, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Charlson Comorbidity Index, anesthesiologists, and functional status). RESULTS:Of the 976 breast cancer patients, 632 patients underwent breast cancer surgery with desflurane anesthesia, while 344 received propofol anesthesia. After propensity scoring, 592 patients remained in the desflurane group and 296 patients in the propofol group. The mortality rate was similar in the desflurane (38 deaths, 4%) and propofol (22 deaths, 4%; p = 0.812) groups in 5-year follow-up. The crude hazard ratio (HR) for all patients was 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.92, p = 0.646). No significant difference in the locoregional recurrence or overall 5-year survival rates were found after breast surgery using desflurane or propofol anesthesia (p = 0.454). Propensity score-matched analyses demonstrated similar outcomes in both groups. Patients who received propofol anesthesia had a higher mortality rate than those who received desflurane anesthesia in the matched groups (7% vs 6%, respectively) without significant difference (p = 0.561). In the propensity score-matched analyses, univariable analysis showed an insignificant finding (HR = 1.23, 95% CI 0.72-2.11, p = 0.449). After adjustment for the time since the earliest included patient, the HR remained insignificant (HR = 1.23, 95% CI 0.70-2.16, p = 0.475). CONCLUSION:In our non-randomized retrospective analysis, neither propofol nor desflurane anesthesia for breast cancer surgery by an experienced surgeon can affect patient prognosis and survival. The influence of propofol anesthesia on breast cancer outcome requires further investigation.

Project description:Background: Propofol injection pain, despite various interventions, still occurs during the anesthesia induction and causes intense discomfort and anxiety in patients. This study aimed to explore the effect of intravenous dexmedetomidine on propofol injection pain prior to anesthesia induction with propofol at 4°C. Methods: A total of 251 patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists I-II) who underwent oral and maxillofacial surgery were randomly assigned to a combination group (n = 63), lidocaine group (n = 62), dexmedetomidine group (n = 63), and placebo-control group (n = 63); they received 0.5 ug/kg dexmedetomidine prior to anesthesia induction with propofol at 4°C, 40 mg lidocaine, 0.5 ug/kg dexmedetomidine prior to anesthesia induction, and normal saline, respectively. Incidence of pain, pain intensity, and reaction to the pain stimulus were evaluated by using verbal categorial scoring (VCS), a numerical rating scale (NRS), and the Surgical Pleth Index (SPI), respectively. In addition, hemodynamic parameters such as heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were also measured. The VCS and NRS were evaluated at 5 s after propofol injection. In addition, SPI, HR, and MAP were evaluated at three time points (before anesthesia induction and 5 and 30 s after propofol injection). Results: The incidence of pain in the combination group (51%) was significantly lower than that in the lidocaine group (71%), dexmedetomidine group (67%), or placebo-control group (94%) (p < 0.001). VCS and NRS scores in the combination group were also lower compared with the other three groups (p < 0.001), with no statistically significant differences between the lidocaine group and dexmedetomidine group (p > 0.05). The SPI of the combination group decreased significantly in comparison with the other three groups at 5 s after propofol injection (F = 96.23, p < 0.001) and 30 s after propofol injection (F = 4.46, p = 0.005). Further comparisons between HR and MAP revealed no significant differences across the groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Because of the sedative nature of dexmedetomidine and analgesic effect of low temperature, this study showed that intravenous dexmedetomidine prior to anesthesia induction with propofol at 4°C is highly effective in attenuating the incidence and severity of pain during injection compared with lidocaine (40 mg), dexmedetomidine 0.5 ug/kg) and placebo. This approach was not associated with any anesthesia complications. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: ChiCTR-2000034663.

Dataset Information

Total intravenous anesthesia improves intraoperative visualization during surgery for high-grade chronic rhinosinusitis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Total intravenous anesthesia improves intraoperative visualization during surgery for high-grade chronic rhinosinusitis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets