Long-term oncologic outcomes of breast conserving surgery with propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia or volatile inhalational general anesthesia without propofol: a propensity score-matched, population-based cohort study
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhang J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8569355 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC8159053 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe bispectral index (BIS) may be unreliable to gauge anesthetic depth when dexmedetomidine is administered. By comparison, the electroencephalogram (EEG) spectrogram enables the visualization of the brain response during anesthesia and may prevent unnecessary anesthetic consumption.MethodsThis retrospective study included 140 adult patients undergoing elective craniotomy who received total intravenous anesthesia using a combination of propofol and dexmedetomidine infusions. Patients were equally matched to the spectrogram group (maintaining the robust EEG alpha power during surgery) or the index group (maintaining the BIS score between 40 and 60 during surgery) based on the propensity score of age and surgical type. The primary outcome was the propofol dose. Secondary outcome was the postoperative neurological profile.ResultsPatients in the spectrogram group received significantly less propofol (1585 ± 581 vs. 2314 ± 810 mg, P < 0.001). Fewer patients in the spectrogram group exhibited delayed emergence (1.4% vs. 11.4%, P = 0.033). The postoperative delirium profile was similar between the groups (profile P = 0.227). Patients in the spectrogram group exhibited better in-hospital Barthel's index scores changes (admission state: 83.6 ± 27.6 vs. 91.6 ± 17.1; discharge state: 86.4 ± 24.3 vs. 85.1 ± 21.5; group-time interaction P = 0.008). However, the incidence of postoperative neurological complications was similar between the groups.ConclusionsEEG spectrogram-guided anesthesia prevents unnecessary anesthetic consumption during elective craniotomy. This may also prevent delayed emergence and improve postoperative Barthel index scores.
| S-EPMC10834723 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) has been reported to improve long-term outcome following cancer surgery, when compared with inhalation agents. However, such investigational reports are still controversial, and no studies have been conducted in relation to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) surgery. The present study aimed to compare the favorable effects of TIVA versus inhalation agents on recurrence-free survival and overall survival after curative resection of NSCLC. This retrospective cohort study examined medical records of the patients who were diagnosed with NSCLC and underwent curative resection at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital from August 2003 to July 2012. The primary outcome included the comparison of postoperative overall survival and recurrence-free survival in both groups. To balance the 2 groups for analysis, a propensity matching method was used, and stratified Cox proportional hazard models were used for statistical analysis. This study included 943 cases of NSCLC for final analysis, and the cases were divided into the TIVA group (n = 749) and inhalation group (n = 194). Propensity matching produced 196 patients in each group. The final analysis revealed no significant difference in the hazard ratio (HR) for recurrence between the TIVA and inhalation groups ( P = .233). The HR for death between the 2 groups was not significantly different either ( P = .551). In this study, we found no benefit of propofol-based TIVA for long-term oncologic outcome after NSCLC surgery, relative to inhalation agents.
| S-EPMC6028176 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies indicate that patients can be "seeded" with their own cancer cells during oncologic surgery and that the immune response to these circulating cancer cells might influence the risk of cancer recurrence. Preliminary data from animal studies and some retrospective analyses suggest that anesthetic technique might affect the immune response during surgery and hence the risk of cancer recurrence. In 2015, experts called for prospective scientific inquiry into whether anesthetic technique used in cancer resection surgeries affects cancer-related outcomes such as recurrence and mortality. Therefore, we designed a pragmatic phase 3 multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) called General Anesthetics in Cancer Resection (GA-CARES).MethodsAfter clinical trial registration and institutional review board approval, patients providing written informed consent were enrolled at five sites in New York (NY) State. Eligible patients were adults with known or suspected cancer undergoing one of eight oncologic surgeries having a high risk of cancer recurrence. Exclusion criteria included known or suspected history of malignant hyperthermia or hypersensitivity to either propofol or volatile anesthetic agents. Patients were randomized (1:1) stratified by center and surgery type using REDCap to receive either propofol or volatile agent for maintenance of general anesthesia (GA). This pragmatic trial, which seeks to assess the potential impact of anesthetic type in "real world practice", did not standardize any aspect of patient care. However, potential confounders, e.g., use of neuroaxial anesthesia, were recorded to confirm the balance between study arms. Assuming a 5% absolute difference in 2-year overall survival rates (85% vs 90%) between study arms (primary endpoint, minimum 2-year follow-up), power using a two-sided log-rank test with type I error of 0.05 (no planned interim analyses) was calculated to be 97.4% based on a target enrollment of 1800 subjects. Data sources include the National Death Index (gold standard for vital status in the USA), NY Cancer Registry, and electronic harvesting of data from electronic medical records (EMR), with minimal manual data abstraction/data entry.DiscussionEnrollment has been completed (n = 1804) and the study is in the follow-up phase. This unfunded, pragmatic trial, uses a novel approach for data collection focusing on electronic sources.Trial registrationRegistered (NCT03034096) on January 27, 2017, prior to consent of the first patient on January 31, 2017.
| S-EPMC9832634 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous researches have shown that anesthetic techniques can influence the patient outcomes of cancer surgery. Here, we studied the relationship between type of anesthetic and patient outcomes following elective, open pancreatic cancer surgery. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who received elective, open pancreatic cancer surgery between January 2005 and July 2018. Patients were grouped according to the anesthesia they received, namely desflurane or propofol. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted, and survival curves were presented from the date of surgery to death. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare hazard ratios for death after propensity matching. Subgroup analyses were performed for all-cause mortality, cancer-specific mortality, and disease progression. RESULTS:A total of 68 patients (56 deaths, 82.0%) under desflurane anesthesia, and 72 patients (43 deaths, 60.0%) under propofol anesthesia were included. Fifty-eight patients remained in each group after propensity matching. The propofol anesthesia was associated with improved survival (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.99; P = 0.047) in the matched analysis. Subgroup analyses showed significantly better cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.97; P = 0.037) in the propofol group. Additionally, patients under propofol had less postoperative recurrence, but not fewer postoperative metastases formation, than those under desflurane (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.90; P = 0.028) in the matched analysis. CONCLUSIONS:In a limited sample size, we observed that propofol anesthesia was associated with improved survival in open pancreatic cancer surgery compared with desflurane anesthesia. Further investigations are needed to inspect the influences of propofol anesthesia on patient outcomes of pancreatic cancer surgery.
| S-EPMC7241788 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious research has shown that anesthetic techniques can influence patient outcomes following cancer surgery. However, the effects of anesthesia in patients undergoing glioblastoma surgery are still not known. We studied the relationship between the type of anesthesia and patient outcomes following elective glioblastoma surgery.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent elective glioblastoma surgery between January 2008 and December 2018. Patients were grouped according to the anesthesia they received, desflurane or propofol. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted, and survival curves were presented from the date of surgery to death. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare hazard ratios for death after propensity matching.ResultsA total of 50 patients (45 deaths, 90.0%) under desflurane anesthesia and 53 patients (38 deaths, 72.0%) under propofol anesthesia were included. Thirty-eight patients remained in each group after propensity matching. Propofol anesthesia was associated with improved survival (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.85; P = 0.011) in a matched analysis. Furthermore, patients under propofol anesthesia exhibited less postoperative recurrence than those under desflurane anesthesia (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.98; P = 0.040) in a matched analysis.ConclusionsIn this limited sample size, we observed that propofol anesthesia was associated with improved survival and less postoperative recurrence in glioblastoma surgery than desflurane anesthesia. Further investigations are needed to examine the influence of propofol anesthesia on patient outcomes following glioblastoma surgery.
| S-EPMC8341516 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6837387 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous researches have shown that anesthetic techniques may influence the patients' outcomes after cancer surgery. Here, we studied the relationship between the type of anesthetic techniques and patients' outcomes following elective robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who received elective, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy between January 2008 and December 2018. Patients were grouped according to the anesthesia they received, namely desflurane or propofol. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted, and survival curves were presented from the date of surgery to death. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare hazard ratios for death after propensity matching. Subgroup analyses were performed for tumor-node-metastasis stage and disease progression. The primary outcome was overall survival, and the secondary outcome was postoperative biochemical recurrence. RESULTS:A total of 365 patients (24 deaths, 7.0%) under desflurane anesthesia, and 266 patients (2 deaths, 1.0%) under propofol anesthesia were included. The all-cause mortality rate was significantly lower in the propofol anesthesia than in the desflurane anesthesia during follow-up (P = 0.001). Two hundred sixty-four patients remained in each group after propensity matching. The propofol anesthesia was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.48; P = 0.003) in the matched analysis. Subgroup analyses showed that patients under propofol anesthesia had less postoperative biochemical recurrence than those under desflurane (hazard ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.91; P = 0.038) in the matched analysis. CONCLUSIONS:Propofol anesthesia was associated with improved overall survival in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with desflurane anesthesia. In addition, patients under propofol anesthesia had less postoperative biochemical recurrence.
| S-EPMC7077845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMillions of patients receive general anaesthesia for surgery annually. Crucial gaps in evidence exist regarding which technique, propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) or inhaled volatile anaesthesia (INVA), yields superior patient experience, safety and outcomes. The aim of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a large comparative effectiveness trial assessing patient experiences and outcomes after receiving propofol TIVA or INVA.Methods and analysisThis protocol was cocreated by a diverse team, including patient partners with personal experience of TIVA or INVA. The design is a 300-patient, two-centre, randomised, feasibility pilot trial. Patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery requiring general anaesthesia with a tracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway will be eligible. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to propofol TIVA or INVA, stratified by centre and procedural complexity. The feasibility endpoints include: (1) proportion of patients approached who agree to participate; (2) proportion of patients who receive their assigned randomised treatment; (3) completeness of outcomes data collection and (4) feasibility of data management procedures. Proportions and 95% CIs will be calculated to assess whether prespecified thresholds are met for the feasibility parameters. If the lower bounds of the 95% CI are above the thresholds of 10% for the proportion of patients agreeing to participate among those approached and 80% for compliance with treatment allocation for each randomised treatment group, this will suggest that our planned pragmatic 12 500-patient comparative effectiveness trial can likely be conducted successfully. Other feasibility outcomes and adverse events will be described.Ethics and disseminationThis study is approved by the ethics board at Washington University (IRB# 202205053), serving as the single Institutional Review Board for both participating sites. Recruitment began in September 2022. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, internet-based educational materials and mass media.Trial registration numberNCT05346588.
| S-EPMC10111921 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsTen 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).ConclusionsThe 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 registrationPROSPERO CRD42019126627 .
| S-EPMC7883423 | biostudies-literature