3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Volatile versus Total Intravenous Anesthesia for Cancer Prognosis in Patients Having Digestive Cancer Surgery

      , , ,
      Anesthesiology
      Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Previous experimental and clinical studies have shown that anesthetic agents have varying effects on cancer prognosis; however, the results were inconsistent among these studies. The authors compared overall and recurrence-free survival in patients given volatile or intravenous anesthesia for digestive tract cancer surgery.

          Methods

          The authors selected patients who had elective esophagectomy, gastrectomy, hepatectomy, cholecystectomy, pancreatectomy, colectomy, and rectal cancer surgery from July 2010 to March 2018 using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. Patients were divided into a volatile anesthesia group (desflurane, sevoflurane, or isoflurane with/without nitrous oxide) and a propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia group. The authors hypothesized that total intravenous anesthesia is associated with greater overall and recurrence-free survival than volatile anesthesia. Subgroup analyses were performed for each type of surgery.

          Results

          The authors identified 196,303 eligible patients (166,966 patients in the volatile anesthesia group and 29,337 patients in the propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia group). The numbers (proportions) of death in the volatile anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia groups were 17,319 (10.4%) and 3,339 (11.4%), respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.07; P = 0.28) or recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.03; P = 0.59), whereas instrumental variable analyses showed a slight difference in recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.98; P = 0.01). Subgroup analyses showed no significant difference in overall or recurrence-free survival between the groups in any type of surgery.

          Conclusions

          Overall and recurrence-free survival were similar between volatile and intravenous anesthesia in patients having digestive tract surgery. Selection of the anesthetic approach for these patients should be based on other factors.

          Editor’s Perspective
          What We Already Know about This Topic
          What This Article Tells Us That Is New

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries.

          With advances in the effectiveness of treatment and disease management, the contribution of chronic comorbid diseases (comorbidities) found within the Charlson comorbidity index to mortality is likely to have changed since development of the index in 1984. The authors reevaluated the Charlson index and reassigned weights to each condition by identifying and following patients to observe mortality within 1 year after hospital discharge. They applied the updated index and weights to hospital discharge data from 6 countries and tested for their ability to predict in-hospital mortality. Compared with the original Charlson weights, weights generated from the Calgary, Alberta, Canada, data (2004) were 0 for 5 comorbidities, decreased for 3 comorbidities, increased for 4 comorbidities, and did not change for 5 comorbidities. The C statistics for discriminating in-hospital mortality between the new score generated from the 12 comorbidities and the Charlson score were 0.825 (new) and 0.808 (old), respectively, in Australian data (2008), 0.828 and 0.825 in Canadian data (2008), 0.878 and 0.882 in French data (2004), 0.727 and 0.723 in Japanese data (2008), 0.831 and 0.836 in New Zealand data (2008), and 0.869 and 0.876 in Swiss data (2008). The updated index of 12 comorbidities showed good-to-excellent discrimination in predicting in-hospital mortality in data from 6 countries and may be more appropriate for use with more recent administrative data. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Using the Standardized Difference to Compare the Prevalence of a Binary Variable Between Two Groups in Observational Research

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Anesthesiology
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                0003-3022
                1528-1175
                July 01 2020
                October 01 2020
                July 01 2020
                October 01 2020
                : 133
                : 4
                : 764-773
                Article
                10.1097/ALN.0000000000003440
                32930730
                211ddfb7-8f64-492d-bfa9-477e0e6bd7b8
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article