1,022
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + − + − + − + − https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39039548/+ + +
Choice of anesthetic for cancer resection (view source)
Revision as of 22:41, 25 July 2024
, 25 Julyno edit summary
==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28797751/ 2017]==
==[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/
==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33105278/ 2021 ''Anesth Analg'' Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis]==
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36431218/
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/35637441/
==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36431218/ 2022 ''J Clin Med'' Review]==
The existing literature includes mainly hypothesis-forming retrospective studies and small randomized trials with many methodological limitations. To date, it is unlikely that use of TIVA or VA affect cancer-free survival days to a clinically relevant extent.
==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35637441/ 2022 ''BMC Anesth'' Retrospective Study]==
A total of 463 patients who had undergone pancreatic cancer resection were collected in this study, of which 421 patients were available (TIVA group, n = 114 INHA group, n = 307). After SIPTW there were no significant differences between the two groups in disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.01, 95%CI, 0.78 to 1.29, P = 0.959) or overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.11, 95%CI, 0.87 to 1.42, P = 0.405).