Retrospective cohort investigation of perioperative upper respiratory events in children undergoing general anesthesia via a supraglottic airway: A comparison of sevoflurane and desflurane

Adverse respiratory events with sevoflurane compared with desflurane in ambulatory surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of studies have concluded that the number of adverse events in the upper airway caused by desflurane does not differ significantly from the number of adverse events caused by sevoflurane. The advantages of desflurane in ambulatory surgery should be reassessed.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare adverse respiratory events and recovery outcomes in patients undergoing desflurane or sevoflurane-based anaesthesia in ambulatory surgery.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search for eligible RCTs in PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ScienceDirect and Embase published up to June 2019.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

RCTs investigating the occurrence of adverse respiratory events, including airway irritation, stridor, coughing, respiratory distress and laryngospasm, emergence agitation, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), time to eye opening and time to discharge from the operation room after desflurane or sevoflurane-based anaesthesia.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials were included and analysed. A total of 634 patients were included in the desflurane group, and 633 patients in the sevoflurane group. The occurrence of respiratory complications was significantly higher with desflurane-based anaesthesia than with sevoflurane-based anaesthesia (Total n = 673, 20.0 vs. 12.8%, relative risk (RR) 1.59 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.20)) with low heterogeneity (I² = 20%). There was no difference in the occurrence of emergence agitation (Total n = 626, 29.1 vs. 27.2%, RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.30)) or the incidence of PONV between the desflurane and sevoflurane groups (Total n = 989, 19.0 vs. 21.0%, RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.26)). Time to eye opening was significantly faster with desflurane than that with sevoflurane (Total n = 1072, mean difference = −3.32 min (95% CI −4.02 to −2.61)) with a substantial heterogeneity (I² = 72.6%). There was no significant difference in the time to discharge from the operation room between the two groups (Total n = 1056, mean difference = −0.45 min (95% CI −5.89 to 4.99)).

CONCLUSION

Despite recent reports that there is no significant difference in adverse respiratory events between desflurane and sevoflurane, a pooled analysis revealed that desflurane resulted in a higher rate than sevoflurane. Therefore, the consequences of desflurane should not be neglected and its airway irritant properties should be taken into account.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42019147939).

Desflurane versus sevoflurane in pediatric anesthesia with a laryngeal mask airway: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Desflurane with a laryngeal mask airway may have advantages during ambulatory anesthesia. However, desflurane-induced airway irritability makes the use of desflurane challenging, especially in children. This study compared desflurane with sevoflurane maintenance anesthesia in terms of respiratory events and the emergence characteristics in children with a laryngeal mask airway.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial evaluated 200 children undergoing strabismus surgery allocated to desflurane or sevoflurane groups. After inducing anesthesia with sevoflurane and thiopental sodium 5 mg kg, the anesthetic agent was changed to desflurane in the desflurane group, whereas sevoflurane was continued in the sevoflurane group. Respiratory events, emergence time, recovery time, and emergence agitation were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The overall respiratory events did not differ between the groups. However, the incidence of mild desaturation (90% ≤ SpO2 < 97%) was significantly higher in the desflurane group (7%) than in the sevoflurane group (0%) (P = .007). Emergence was significantly faster in the desflurane group (6.6 ± 3.9 vs 8.0 ± 2.2 min, P = .003). The recovery time and emergence agitation in the postanesthesia care unit were comparable between groups. Laryngospasm developed in 5 children (1 in the sevoflurane group and 4 in the desflurane group, P = .365); of these, 4 patients were younger than 3 years.

CONCLUSION

Desflurane maintenance anesthesia in children with a laryngeal mask airway shows a similar rate of overall respiratory events compared with sevoflurane anesthesia. However, anesthesiologists should be cautious of using desflurane in younger children concerning desaturation events during emergence.