Dataset Information

Long-term prognosis after cancer surgery with inhalational anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:A number of teams have investigated the association between the mode of anesthesia and the long-term outcomes after cancer surgeries, with inconsistent conclusions. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the currently available findings of clinical studies on the long-term outcomes after cancer surgery under inhalational anesthesia with volatile anesthetics (VA) and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol. METHODS:We systematically searched PubMed, Central, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, Web of Science citation index, US clinical trials register, UK clinical trials register, Australia and New Zealand Clinical trials register for clinical studies comparing postoperative outcomes of VA and TIVA. The included outcomes were all-cause mortality, recurrence and recurrence free survival. Meta-analysis was done using the generic inverse variance method. RESULTS:The overall pooled hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was in favor of TIVA [Harzard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.89], so was the recurrence free survival (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.41). The subgroup analysis of mortality in different cancer types did not show any remarkable difference between the intravenous or volatile anesthesia. There was also no significant difference in recurrence. CONCLUSION:Our meta-analysis suggests that TIVA is associated with lower all-cause mortality after cancer surgeries. As cancers of different origins can respond very differently to pharmacological intervention, more clinical trials are needed in each cancer types in order to substantiate the role of anesthesia in cancer surgery prognosis.

SUBMITTER: Jin Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6628011 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Long-term prognosis after cancer surgery with inhalational anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jin Zhaosheng Z Li Ru R Liu Jiaxin J Lin Jun J

International journal of physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology 20190625 3

<h4>Background</h4>A number of teams have investigated the association between the mode of anesthesia and the long-term outcomes after cancer surgeries, with inconsistent conclusions. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the currently available findings of clinical studies on the long-term outcomes after cancer surgery under inhalational anesthesia with volatile anesthetics (VA) and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol.<h4>Methods</h4>We systematically ...[more]

PMID: 31333811

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExternal cephalic version (ECV) is a frequently performed obstetric procedure for fetal breech presentation to avoid cesarean delivery. Neuraxial, intravenous, and inhalational anesthetic techniques have been studied to reduce maternal discomfort caused by the forceful manipulation. This study compares the effects of these anesthetic techniques on ECV and incidence of cesarean delivery.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature search for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or well-conducted quasi-randomized trials of ECV performed either without anesthesia or under neuraxial, intravenous, or inhalational anesthesia. Pairwise random-effects meta-analyses and network meta-analyses were performed to compare and rank the perinatal outcomes of the 3 anesthetic interventions and no anesthesia control, including the rate of successful version, cesarean delivery, maternal hypotension, nonreassuring fetal response, and adequacy of maternal pain control/satisfaction.ResultsEighteen RCTs and 1 quasi-randomized trial involving a total of 2296 term parturients with a noncephalic presenting singleton fetus were included. ECV under neuraxial anesthesia had significantly higher odds of successful fetal version compared to control (odds ratio [OR] = 2.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.88-3.57), compared to intravenous anesthesia (OR = 2.08; 95% CI, 1.36-3.16), and compared to inhalational anesthesia (OR = 2.30; 95% CI, 1.33-4.00). No association was found between anesthesia interventions and rate of cesarean delivery. Neuraxial anesthesia was associated with higher odds of maternal hypotension (OR = 9.33; 95% CI, 3.14-27.68). Intravenous anesthesia was associated with significantly lower odds of nonreassuring fetal response compared to control (OR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.82). Patients received neuraxial anesthesia reported significantly lower visual analog scale (VAS) of procedure-related pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -1.61; 95% CI, -1.92 to -1.31). The VAS scores of pain were also significantly lower with intravenous (SMD = -1.61; 95% CI, -1.92 to -1.31) and inhalational (SMD = -1.19; 95% CI, -1.58 to -0.8) anesthesia. The VAS of patient satisfaction was significantly higher with intravenous anesthesia (SMD = 1.53; 95% CI, 0.64-2.43).ConclusionsCompared to control, ECV with neuraxial anesthesia had a significantly higher successful rate; however, the odds of maternal hypotension increased significantly. All anesthesia interventions provided significant reduction of procedure-related pain. Intravenous anesthesia had significantly higher score in patient satisfaction and lower odds of nonreassuring fetal response. No evidence indicated that anesthesia interventions were associated with significant decrease in the incidence of cesarean delivery compared to control.

Project description:BackgroundThe relationship between the type of anesthesia and the survival outcomes of gastric cancer patients is uncertain. This study compared the overall outcome of gastric cancer patients after surgery with total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) or inhalation anesthesia (IHA).MethodsClinicopathological variables of gastric cancer patients were retrieved from the database of the Surgical Gastric Cancer Patient Registry in West China Hospital, Sichuan University. Patients were grouped according to whether they received TIVA or IHA during the operation. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to balance the baseline variables, and survival outcomes were compared between these two groups. In addition, studies comparing survival outcomes between TIVA and IHA used for gastric cancer surgery and published before April 20th, 2020, were identified, and their data were pooled.ResultsA total of 2827 patients who underwent surgical treatment from Jan 2009 to Dec 2016 were included. There were 323 patients in the TIVA group and 645 patients in the IHA group, with 1:2 PS matching. There was no significant difference in overall survival outcomes between the TIVA and IHA groups before matching the cohort (p = 0.566) or after matching the cohort (p = 0.679) by log-rank tests. In the Cox hazard regression model, there was no significant difference between the TIVA and IHA groups before (HR: 1.054, 95% CI: 0.881-1.262, p = 0.566) or after (HR: 0.957, 95% CI: 0.779-1.177, p = 0.679) PS matching. The meta-analysis of survival outcomes between the TIVA and IHA groups found critical statistical value in the before PS matching cohort (HR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57-0.96 p < 0.01) and after PS matching cohort (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.46-0.94, p < 0.01).ConclusionsCombined with the results of previous studies, total intravenous anesthesia has been shown to be superior to inhalation anesthesia in terms of overall survival for gastric cancer patients undergoing surgical treatment. The selection of intravenous or inhalation anesthesia for gastric cancer surgery should take into account the long-term prognosis of the patient.

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:BackgroundOphthalmic ambulatory surgery is preferred to be performed under general anesthesia either by total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) or by inhalational anesthesia to increase the patient comfort. However, anesthesia-controlled time (ACT) can cause increased non-operative operating room (OR) time which may adversely affect the ORs efficiency. This study was aimed to compare the ACT of desflurane with that of propofol-remifentanil in strabismus ambulatory surgery.MethodsFrom November 2016 to December 2017, a total of 200 strabismus patients (aged 18-60 years old, and scheduled for elective ambulatory surgery at Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center) were randomly assigned to receive either propofol-based TIVA (group TIVA) or desflurane anesthesia (group DES) for maintenance of anesthesia. The primary outcome was the extubation time. Secondary outcomes included surgical time, anesthetic time, OR exit time, and Phase I and II recovery time. The intraoperative incidences of hypotension, bradycardia and oculocardiac reflex (OCR), and the incidences of any post-operative complications were recorded. Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square or Fisher exact tests were used to compare the two groups.ResultsWe found that the extubation time (5.5 [3.9-7.0] vs. 9.7 [8.5-11.4] min, P < 0.001) and the incidence of prolonged time to extubation (0 vs. 6%, P = 0.029) in the DES group were significantly decreased compared with those in the TIVA group. The patients in the DES group displayed shorter OR exit time as compared with that in the TIVA group (7.3 [5.5-8.7] vs. 10.8 [9.3-12.3] min, P < 0.001). The patients using desflurane exhibited more stable hemodynamics during surgery than the patients using propofol-based TIVA, as demonstrated by lower incidences of hypotension (1% vs. 22%, P < 0.001), bradycardia (2% vs. 13%, P = 0.002), and OCR (17% vs. 44%, P < 0.001).ConclusionDES enhanced the ophthalmic OR efficiency by reducing the extubation time and OR exit time, and provided more stable hemodynamics intra-operatively than TIVA in patients undergoing strabismus ambulatory surgery.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, No. NCT02922660; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02922660?id=NCT02922660&draw=2&rank=1.

Dataset Information

Long-term prognosis after cancer surgery with inhalational anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Long-term prognosis after cancer surgery with inhalational anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure