Dataset Information

Intraoperative immunomodulatory effects of sevoflurane versus total intravenous anesthesia with propofol in bariatric surgery (the OBESITA trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled pilot trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Obesity is associated with a chronic systemic inflammatory process. Volatile or intravenous anesthetic agents may modulate immune function, and may do so differentially in obesity. However, no study has evaluated whether these potential immunomodulatory effects differ according to type of anesthesia in obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

Methods/design

The OBESITA trial is a prospective, nonblinded, single-center, randomized, controlled clinical pilot trial. The trial will include 48 patients with a body mass index ??35?kg/m², scheduled for laparoscopic bariatric surgery using sleeve or a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass technique, who will be allocated 1:1 to undergo general inhalational anesthesia with sevoflurane or total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol. The primary endpoint is the difference in plasma interleukin (IL)-6 levels when comparing the two anesthetic agents. Blood samples will be collected prior to anesthesia induction (baseline), immediately after anesthetic induction, and before endotracheal extubation. Levels of other proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines, neutrophil chemotaxis, macrophage differentiation, phagocytosis, and occurrence of intraoperative and postoperative complications will also be evaluated.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first randomized clinical trial designed to compare the effects of two different anesthetics on immunomodulation in obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Our hypothesis is that anesthesia with sevoflurane will result in a weaker proinflammatory response compared to anesthesia with propofol, with lower circulating levels of IL-6 and other proinflammatory mediators, and increased macrophage differentiation into the M2 phenotype in adipose tissue.

Trial registration

Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos, RBR-77kfj5 . Registered on 25 July 2018.

SUBMITTER: de Sousa GC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6540380 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intraoperative immunomodulatory effects of sevoflurane versus total intravenous anesthesia with propofol in bariatric surgery (the OBESITA trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled pilot trial.

de Sousa Giselle Carvalho GC Cruz Fernanda Ferreira FF Heil Luciana Boavista LB Sobrinho Carlos José Saboya CJS Saddy Felipe F Knibel Frederico Paranhos FP Pereira Joana Barreto JB Schultz Marcus J MJ Pelosi Paolo P Gama de Abreu Marcelo M Silva Pedro Leme PL Rocco Patricia Rieken Macedo PRM

Trials 20190528 1

<h4>Background</h4>Obesity is associated with a chronic systemic inflammatory process. Volatile or intravenous anesthetic agents may modulate immune function, and may do so differentially in obesity. However, no study has evaluated whether these potential immunomodulatory effects differ according to type of anesthesia in obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery.<h4>Methods/design</h4>The OBESITA trial is a prospective, nonblinded, single-center, randomized, controlled clinical pi ...[more]

PMID: 31138279

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and Objectives: Remimazolam offers advantages over propofol in terms of hemodynamic stability. However, it remains unclear whether remimazolam-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) can reduce intraoperative hypotension compared to propofol-based TIVA, especially after prone positioning. In this study, we compared the effects of remimazolam- and propofol-based TIVA on intraoperative hemodynamic stability in patients undergoing surgery in the prone position. Materials and Methods: This study randomly assigned patients undergoing major spinal surgery in the prone position to the propofol or remimazolam group. Target-controlled infusion (2-3.5 μg/mL for induction and 2-3 μg/mL for maintenance) was used in the propofol group and continuous infusion (6 mg/kg/h for induction and 1-2 mg/kg/h for maintenance) was used in the remimazolam group; target-controlled infusion (3-5 ng/mL) of remifentanil was performed in both groups. The primary outcomes were the incidence of hypotensive episodes during the first hour after prone positioning. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of severe hypotension and the total amount of inotropic or vasopressor medication. Systolic and mean arterial pressure, heart rate, cardiac index and output, stroke volume, stroke volume variation, and pleth variability index were also evaluated. These variables were recorded per minute for the first 10 min after prone positioning, and every 10 min thereafter. Results: The study enrolled 94 patients (47 patients in each group). The incidence of hypotension or severe hypotension did not differ significantly between the two groups during the first hour after prone positioning. The total amount of ephedrine administered during the first hour after prone positioning was lesser (p = 0.020) and the mean arterial pressure during the initial 10 min after prone positioning was higher in the remimazolam group (p = 0.003). Conclusions: Our study uncovered no significant differences in the incidence of hypotension between remimazolam- and propofol-based TIVA in patients undergoing major spine surgery in prone position.

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: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.

Dataset Information

Intraoperative immunomodulatory effects of sevoflurane versus total intravenous anesthesia with propofol in bariatric surgery (the OBESITA trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled pilot trial.

Background

Methods/design

Discussion

Trial registration

Publications

Intraoperative immunomodulatory effects of sevoflurane versus total intravenous anesthesia with propofol in bariatric surgery (the OBESITA trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled pilot trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets