35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Propofol vs. inhalational agents to maintain general anaesthesia in ambulatory and in-patient surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          It is unclear if anaesthesia maintenance with propofol is advantageous or beneficial over inhalational agents. This study is intended to compare the effects of propofol vs. inhalational agents in maintaining general anaesthesia on patient-relevant outcomes and patient satisfaction.

          Methods

          Studies were identified by electronic database searches in PubMed™, EMBASE™ and the Cochrane™ library between 01/01/1985 and 01/08/2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of peer-reviewed journals were studied. Of 6688 studies identified, 229 RCTs were included with a total of 20,991 patients. Quality control, assessment of risk of bias, meta-bias, meta-regression and certainty in evidence were performed according to Cochrane. Common estimates were derived from fixed or random-effects models depending on the presence of heterogeneity. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was the primary outcome. Post-operative pain, emergence agitation, time to recovery, hospital length of stay, post-anaesthetic shivering and haemodynamic instability were considered key secondary outcomes.

          Results

          The risk for PONV was lower with propofol than with inhalational agents (relative risk (RR) 0.61 [0.53, 0.69], p < 0.00001). Additionally, pain score after extubation and time in the post-operative anaesthesia care unit (PACU) were reduced with propofol (mean difference (MD) − 0.51 [− 0.81, − 0.20], p = 0.001; MD − 2.91 min [− 5.47, − 0.35], p = 0.03). In turn, time to respiratory recovery and tracheal extubation were longer with propofol than with inhalational agents (MD 0.82 min [0.20, 1.45], p = 0.01; MD 0.70 min [0.03, 1.38], p = 0.04, respectively). Notably, patient satisfaction, as reported by the number of satisfied patients and scores, was higher with propofol (RR 1.06 [1.01, 1.10], p = 0.02; MD 0.13 [0.00, 0.26], p = 0.05). Secondary analyses supported the primary results.

          Conclusions

          Based on the present meta-analysis there are several advantages of anaesthesia maintenance with propofol over inhalational agents. While these benefits result in an increased patient satisfaction, the clinical and economic relevance of these findings still need to be addressed in adequately powered prospective clinical trials.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-018-0632-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

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

          A factorial trial of six interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

          Untreated, one third of patients who undergo surgery will have postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although many trials have been conducted, the relative benefits of prophylactic antiemetic interventions given alone or in combination remain unknown. We enrolled 5199 patients at high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting in a randomized, controlled trial of factorial design that was powered to evaluate interactions among as many as three antiemetic interventions. Of these patients, 4123 were randomly assigned to 1 of 64 possible combinations of six prophylactic interventions: 4 mg of ondansetron or no ondansetron; 4 mg of dexamethasone or no dexamethasone; 1.25 mg of droperidol or no droperidol; propofol or a volatile anesthetic; nitrogen or nitrous oxide; and remifentanil or fentanyl. The remaining patients were randomly assigned with respect to the first four interventions. The primary outcome was nausea and vomiting within 24 hours after surgery, which was evaluated blindly. Ondansetron, dexamethasone, and droperidol each reduced the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting by about 26 percent. Propofol reduced the risk by 19 percent, and nitrogen by 12 percent; the risk reduction with both of these agents (i.e., total intravenous anesthesia) was thus similar to that observed with each of the antiemetics. All the interventions acted independently of one another and independently of the patients' baseline risk. Consequently, the relative risks associated with the combined interventions could be estimated by multiplying the relative risks associated with each intervention. Absolute risk reduction, though, was a critical function of patients' baseline risk. Because antiemetic interventions are similarly effective and act independently, the safest or least expensive should be used first. Prophylaxis is rarely warranted in low-risk patients, moderate-risk patients may benefit from a single intervention, and multiple interventions should be reserved for high-risk patients. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Long-term Survival for Patients Undergoing Volatile versus IV Anesthesia for Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis.

            Surgical resection remains the best option for long-term survival in many solid tumors. Surgery can, however, lead to tumor cell release into the circulation. Data have suggested differential effects of anesthetic agents on cancer cell growth. This retrospective analysis investigated the association of anesthetic technique with long-term survival in patients presenting for elective surgery in a comprehensive cancer center over 3 yr.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users' guides to the medical literature.

              Clinical decisions should be based on the totality of the best evidence and not the results of individual studies. When clinicians apply the results of a systematic review or meta-analysis to patient care, they should start by evaluating the credibility of the methods of the systematic review, ie, the extent to which these methods have likely protected against misleading results. Credibility depends on whether the review addressed a sensible clinical question; included an exhaustive literature search; demonstrated reproducibility of the selection and assessment of studies; and presented results in a useful manner. For reviews that are sufficiently credible, clinicians must decide on the degree of confidence in the estimates that the evidence warrants (quality of evidence). Confidence depends on the risk of bias in the body of evidence; the precision and consistency of the results; whether the results directly apply to the patient of interest; and the likelihood of reporting bias. Shared decision making requires understanding of the estimates of magnitude of beneficial and harmful effects, and confidence in those estimates.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                stefanschraag@icloud.com
                l.pradelli@adreshe.com
                a.omaralsaleh@adreshe.com
                m.bellone@adreshe.com
                g.ghetti@adreshe.com
                tje-lin.chung@fresenius-kabi.com
                martin.westphal@fresenius-kabi.com
                sebastian.rehberg@evkb.de
                Journal
                BMC Anesthesiol
                BMC Anesthesiol
                BMC Anesthesiology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2253
                8 November 2018
                8 November 2018
                2018
                : 18
                : 162
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0590 2070, GRID grid.413157.5, Department of Perioperative Medicine, , Golden Jubilee National Hospital, ; Clydebank, G81 4DY Scotland, UK
                [2 ]AdRes-Health Economics and Outcome Research, Torino, Italy
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0451 3831, GRID grid.462236.7, Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH, ; Bad Homburg, Germany
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0551 4246, GRID grid.16149.3b, Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, , University Hospital, ; Münster, Germany
                [5 ]Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital, Greifswald, Germany
                [6 ]Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency, Transfusion and Pain Medicine, Evangelisches Klinikum Bethel, Bielefeld, Germany
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2375-9549
                Article
                632
                10.1186/s12871-018-0632-3
                6225663
                30409186
                b701b061-360c-4c7d-8533-bc905e433cba
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 5 August 2018
                : 29 October 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: Fresenius Kabi
                Award ID: Not applicable
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                propofol,sevoflurane,desflurane,isoflurane,total intravenous anaesthesia,inhalational anaesthesia,postoperative nausea and vomiting,postoperative pain,target controlled infusion,patient reported outcomes

                Comments

                Comment on this article