Dataset Information

Does a combined intravenous-volatile anesthesia offer advantages compared to an intravenous or volatile anesthesia alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In anesthesia, additive drug interactions are used for reducing dose and dose-dependent side-effects. The combination of propofol with volatile anesthetics is rather unusual but might have advantages compared to the single use regarding PONV, time to extubation, movement during surgery and postoperative pain perception.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL for relevant studies comparing combined intravenous volatile anesthesia with total intravenous or balanced anesthesia. The studies identified were summarized in a meta-analysis with the standardized mean difference or risk ratio as the effect size.

Results

Ten studies provided data. The risk for PONV in the recovery room was significantly reduced for a combined anesthesia compared to a balanced anesthesia (RR 0.657, CI 0.502-0.860, p-value 0.002). There was no significant difference detected either in the time to extubation or in pain perception. Movement during surgery was significantly reduced for a combined compared to a total intravenous anesthesia (RR 0.241, CI 0.135-0.428, p-value 0.000).

Conclusions

The combination of propofol and volatiles may have some advantages in the early occurrence of PONV compared to a balanced anesthesia. To sufficiently evaluate potential advantages of a combination of volatiles and propofol further high-quality trials are needed.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42019126627 .

SUBMITTER: Wolf A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7883423 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does a combined intravenous-volatile anesthesia offer advantages compared to an intravenous or volatile anesthesia alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wolf Alexander A Selpien Helene H Haberl Helge H Unterberg Matthias M

BMC anesthesiology 20210215 1

<h4>Background</h4>In anesthesia, additive drug interactions are used for reducing dose and dose-dependent side-effects. The combination of propofol with volatile anesthetics is rather unusual but might have advantages compared to the single use regarding PONV, time to extubation, movement during surgery and postoperative pain perception.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL for relevant studies comparing combined intravenous volatile anesthesia with total intra ...[more]

PMID: 33588751

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundDexamethasone is a common adjuvant for local anesthetics in regional anesthesia, but the optimal route of administration is controversial. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effect of perineural versus intravenous dexamethasone on local anesthetic regional nerve-blockade outcomes.Materials and methodsMedline (through PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Biosis Previews databases were systematically searched (published from inception of each database to January 1, 2017) to identify randomized controlled trials. The data of the selected trials were statistically analyzed to find any significant differences between the two modalities. The primary outcome was the duration of analgesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of motor block, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and postoperative analgesic dose at 24 hours. We conducted a planned subgroup analysis to compare the effects between adding epinephrine or not.ResultsTen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria of our analysis, with a total of 749 patients. Without the addition of epinephrine, the effects of perineural and intravenous dexamethasone were equivalent concerning the duration of analgesia (mean difference 0.03 hours, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.24). However, with the addition of epinephrine, the analgesic duration of perineural dexamethasone versus intravenous dexamethasone was prolonged (mean difference 3.96 hours, 95% CI 2.66-5.27). Likewise, the impact of epinephrine was the same on the duration of motor block. The two routes of administration did not show any significant differences in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, nor on postoperative analgesic consumption at 24 hours.ConclusionOur results show that perineural dexamethasone can prolong the effects of analgesic duration when compared to the intravenous route, only when epinephrine is coadministered. Without epinephrine, the two modalities show equivalent effect as adjuvants on regional anesthesia.

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.

Project description:ImportanceEmergence agitation is common after nasal surgery under general anesthesia and may lead to serious consequences for the patient, including an increased risk of injury, pain, hemorrhage, and self-extubation. Despite decades of research, studies on the incidence, risk factors, and prevention of emergence agitation in adult patients are ongoing, and opinions differ on the different effects of inhalation and intravenous anesthesia.ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of anesthetic method on the occurrence of emergence agitation after nasal surgery.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective, randomized, single-blind, clinical trial included 80 patients undergoing open rhinoplasty, septoplasty, turbinoplasty, endoscopic sinus surgery, and functional endoscopic sinus surgery under general anesthesia who were randomized to receive total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with remifentanil hydrochloride and propofol (n = 40) or volatile induction and maintenance of anesthesia (VIMA) with sevoflurane and nitrous oxide (n = 40) in Asan Medical Center, a tertiary referral center in Seoul, Republic of Korea. Data were collected from August 24 through October 14, 2016, and analyzed from October 26, 2016, through September 14, 2017.Main outcomes and measuresThe occurrence of emergence agitation defined by the following 2 individual criteria: a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score of at least 1 and a Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale score of at least 5 immediately after extubation.ResultsAmong the 80 patients included in the analysis (68.8% men [n = 55]; mean [SD] age, 41.6 [17.9] years), emergence agitation measured by the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale occurred in 8 of 40 patients (20.0%) in the VIMA group and 1 of 40 (2.5%) in the TIVA group. The risk difference was 17.5 (95% CI, 3.6-31.4). Emergence agitation measured by the Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale score occurred in 10 of 40 patients (25.0%) in the VIMA group and 1 of 40 (2.5%) in the TIVA group. The risk difference was 22.5 (95% CI, 7.3-37.7).Conclusions and relevanceThe occurrence of emergence agitation after nasal surgery under general anesthesia can be significantly reduced by using TIVA rather than VIMA.Trial registrationCRIS identifier: KCT0002145.

Project description:The cardioprotective effects of volatile anesthetics versus total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) are controversial, especially in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Using current generation high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn), we aimed to evaluate the effect of anesthetics on the occurrence of myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS). From February 2010 to December 2016, 3555 patients without preoperative hs-cTn elevation underwent non-cardiac surgery under general anesthesia. Patients were grouped according to anesthetic agent; 659 patients were classified into a propofol-remifentanil total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) group, and 2896 patients were classified into a volatile group. To balance the use of remifentanil between groups, a balanced group (n = 1622) was generated with patients who received remifentanil infusion in the volatile group, and two separate comparisons were performed (TIVA vs. volatile and TIVA vs. balanced). The primary outcome was occurrence of MINS, defined as rise of hs-cTn I ? 0.04 ng/mL within postoperative 48 hours. The secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI), and adverse events during hospital stay (mortality, type I myocardial infarction (MI), and new-onset arrhythmia). In propensity-matched analyses, the occurrence of MINS was lower in the TIVA group compared to the volatile group (OR 0.642; 95% CI 0.450-0.914; p = 0.014). However, after balancing the use of remifentanil, there was no difference between groups in the risk of MINS (OR 0.832; 95% CI 0.554-1.251; p-value = 0.377). There were no significant associations between the two groups in type 1 MI, new-onset atrial fibrillation, in-hospital and 30-day mortality before and after balancing the use of remifentanil. However, the incidence of postoperative AKI was lower in the TIVA group (OR 0.362; 95% CI 0.194-0.675; p-value = 0.001). After balancing the use of remifentanil, volatile anesthesia and TIVA showed comparable effects on MINS in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery without preoperative myocardial injury. Further studies are needed on the benefit of remifentanil infusion.

Dataset Information

Does a combined intravenous-volatile anesthesia offer advantages compared to an intravenous or volatile anesthesia alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Does a combined intravenous-volatile anesthesia offer advantages compared to an intravenous or volatile anesthesia alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure