Difference between revisions of "Choice of anesthetic for cancer resection"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28797751/ 2017 J. Clin Anesth]== | + | ==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28797751/ 2017 J. Clin Anesth Systematic Review]== |
Three retrospective studies presented a hazard ratio (HR) adjusting for several confounders. One study reported an increased overall mortality after INHA with a HR of 1.47 (95% CI 1.31-1.64, p≤0.001), while another study reported a tendency of decreased overall mortality after TIVA (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72-1.00, p=0.051). A third study showed no difference in the overall mortality, but prolonged recurrence-free survival after TIVA with a HR of 0.48 (95% CI 0.27-0.86, p=0.014). In one study, the rate of pulmonary complications was significantly higher after INHA compared with TIVA, while other postoperative complications were comparable. There are currently four propensity-adjusted retrospective studies indicating that TIVA might be the preferred anesthetic choice in cancer surgery. However, evidence is currently of low quality and randomized clinical trials are required for further investigation. | Three retrospective studies presented a hazard ratio (HR) adjusting for several confounders. One study reported an increased overall mortality after INHA with a HR of 1.47 (95% CI 1.31-1.64, p≤0.001), while another study reported a tendency of decreased overall mortality after TIVA (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72-1.00, p=0.051). A third study showed no difference in the overall mortality, but prolonged recurrence-free survival after TIVA with a HR of 0.48 (95% CI 0.27-0.86, p=0.014). In one study, the rate of pulmonary complications was significantly higher after INHA compared with TIVA, while other postoperative complications were comparable. There are currently four propensity-adjusted retrospective studies indicating that TIVA might be the preferred anesthetic choice in cancer surgery. However, evidence is currently of low quality and randomized clinical trials are required for further investigation. | ||
| − | ==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33105278/ 2021 Anesth Analg]== | + | ==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33105278/ 2021 Anesth Analg Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis]== |
Nineteen retrospective observational studies were included. Patients who received propofol-based TIVA during cancer surgery were associated with significantly better overall survival than those who received volatile anesthesia (HR = 0.79, 95% CI, 0.66-0.94, P = .008, I2 = 82%). In contrast, no statistically significant difference was observed in recurrence-free survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthesia during cancer surgery (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.61-1.07, P = .137, I2 = 85%). In contrast [to desflurane], there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and those who received sevoflurane (HR = 0.92, 95% CI, 0.74-1.14, P = .439, I2 = 70%). | Nineteen retrospective observational studies were included. Patients who received propofol-based TIVA during cancer surgery were associated with significantly better overall survival than those who received volatile anesthesia (HR = 0.79, 95% CI, 0.66-0.94, P = .008, I2 = 82%). In contrast, no statistically significant difference was observed in recurrence-free survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthesia during cancer surgery (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.61-1.07, P = .137, I2 = 85%). In contrast [to desflurane], there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and those who received sevoflurane (HR = 0.92, 95% CI, 0.74-1.14, P = .439, I2 = 70%). | ||
| − | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36431218/ | + | ==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36431218/ 2022 J Clin ''Med Review'']== |
| + | |||
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35637441/ | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35637441/ | ||
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39039548/ | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39039548/ | ||
Revision as of 22:37, 25 July 2024
2017 J. Clin Anesth Systematic Review
Three retrospective studies presented a hazard ratio (HR) adjusting for several confounders. One study reported an increased overall mortality after INHA with a HR of 1.47 (95% CI 1.31-1.64, p≤0.001), while another study reported a tendency of decreased overall mortality after TIVA (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72-1.00, p=0.051). A third study showed no difference in the overall mortality, but prolonged recurrence-free survival after TIVA with a HR of 0.48 (95% CI 0.27-0.86, p=0.014). In one study, the rate of pulmonary complications was significantly higher after INHA compared with TIVA, while other postoperative complications were comparable. There are currently four propensity-adjusted retrospective studies indicating that TIVA might be the preferred anesthetic choice in cancer surgery. However, evidence is currently of low quality and randomized clinical trials are required for further investigation.
2021 Anesth Analg Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Nineteen retrospective observational studies were included. Patients who received propofol-based TIVA during cancer surgery were associated with significantly better overall survival than those who received volatile anesthesia (HR = 0.79, 95% CI, 0.66-0.94, P = .008, I2 = 82%). In contrast, no statistically significant difference was observed in recurrence-free survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthesia during cancer surgery (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.61-1.07, P = .137, I2 = 85%). In contrast [to desflurane], there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and those who received sevoflurane (HR = 0.92, 95% CI, 0.74-1.14, P = .439, I2 = 70%).
2022 J Clin Med Review
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35637441/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39039548/