Does Propofol Anesthesia Lead to Less Postoperative Pain Compared With Inhalational Anesthesia?: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Noninvasive intracranial pressure profile in 31 patients submitted to fullendoscopic spine surgery

PURPOSE

Full-endoscopic spine surgery (FESS) is associated with specific complications, possibly linked to increased intracranial pressure (ICP) resulting from continuous saline infusion into the epidural space. This study aimed to assess the impact of saline irrigation and its correlation with noninvasively obtained ICP waveform changes.

METHODS

Patients undergoing FESS between January 2019 and November 2020 were included. Noninvasive ICP (n-ICP) monitoring utilized an extracranial strain sensor generating ICP waveforms, from which parameters P2/P1 ratio and time to peak (TTP) values were derived and correlated to irrigation and vital parameters. Documentation occurred at specific surgical intervals (M0-preoperatively; M1 to M4-intraoperatively; M5-postoperatively). Mixed-model analysis of variance and multiple comparisons tests were applied, with M0 as the baseline.

RESULTS

Among 31 enrolled patients, three experienced headaches unrelated to increased ICP at M5. The P2/P1 ratio and TTP decreased during surgery (p < 0.001 and p < 0.004, respectively). Compared to baseline, P2/P1 ratio and vital parameters remained significantly lower at M5. No significant differences were observed for fluid parameters throughout surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated a decline in the n-ICP parameters after anesthetic induction despite the anticipated increase in ICP due to constant epidural irrigation. The n-ICP parameters behaved independently of fluid parameters, suggesting a potential protective effect of anesthesia.

Comparing subjective quality of recovery between remimazolam- and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia for surgical procedures: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine that has been recently introduced as an alternative to propofol for general anesthesia. While both agents have been compared in terms of safety and efficacy, their relative effects on postoperative quality of recovery (QoR) remain unclear. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of remimazolam and propofol on subjective QoR in surgical patients who underwent general anesthesia.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to May 28, 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing remimazolam and propofol in terms of postoperative QoR. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) was used to assess study quality. QoR score on postoperative day (POD) 1 (primary outcome), QoR scores on PODs 2-3, QoR dimensions, time to loss of consciousness, other recovery characteristics, and rescue analgesia requirement were evaluated using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 13 studies published between 2022 and 2024 involving 1,418 patients. QoR was evaluated using either the QoR-15 (10 studies) or QoR-40 (3 studies) questionnaire. The pooled results indicated no significant difference in the QoR scores on POD 1 (standardized mean difference: 0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 0.20, 0.23, P = 0.88, I2 = 73%) and PODs 2-3 between remimazolam and propofol. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in QoR dimensions, length of postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, and time to extubation as well as in the risks of agitation and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Patients administered remimazolam exhibited slower anesthetic induction (mean difference (MD): 32.27 s) but faster recovery of consciousness (MD: - 1.60 min) than those administered propofol. Moreover, remimazolam was associated with a lower risk of rescue analgesia requirement in the PACU (risk ratio: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.89, P = 0.009, I2 = 0%) but not in the ward.

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam is a potential alternative to propofol for general anesthesia as it offers similar QoR to the latter and has advantages in terms of consciousness recovery and immediate postoperative analgesia requirement.

Using the nociception level index to compare the intraoperative antinociceptive effect of propofol and sevoflurane during clinical and experimental noxious stimulus in patients under general anesthesia

STUDY

Propofol and sevoflurane are two anesthetic agents widely used to induce and maintain general anesthesia (GA). Their intrinsic antinociceptive properties remain unclear and are still debated.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether propofol presents stronger antinociceptive properties than sevoflurane using intraoperative clinical and experimental noxious stimulations and evaluating postoperative pain outcomes.

DESIGN

A prospective randomized monocentric trial.

SETTING

Perioperative care.

PATIENTS

60 adult patients with ASA status I to III who underwent elective abdominal laparoscopic surgery under GA were randomized either in propofol or sevoflurane group to induce and maintain GA.

INTERVENTIONS

We used clinical and experimental noxious stimulations (intubation, tetanic stimulation) to assess the antinociceptive properties of propofol and sevoflurane in patients under GA and monitored using the NOL index, BIS index, heart rate, and mean arterial blood pressure.

MEASUREMENTS

We measured the difference in the NOL index alterations after intubation and tetanic stimulation during either intravenous anesthesia (propofol) or inhaled anesthesia (sevoflurane). We also intraoperatively measured the NOL index and remifentanil consumption and recorded postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption in the post-anesthesia care unit. Intraoperative management was standardized by targeting similar values of depth of anesthesia (BIS index), hemodynamic (HR and MAP), NOL index values (below the threshold of 20), same multimodal analgesia and type of surgery.

MAIN RESULTS

We found the antinociceptive properties of propofol and sevoflurane similar. The only minor difference was after tetanic stimulation: the delta NOL was higher in the sevoflurane group (39 ± 13 for the propofol group versus 47 ± 15 for sevoflurane; P = 0.04). Intraoperative and postoperative pain outcomes and opioid consumption were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a precise intraoperative experimental and clinical protocol using the NOL index, propofol does not provide a higher level of antinociception during anesthesia or analgesia after surgery when compared to sevoflurane. Anesthesiologists may prefer propofol over sevoflurane to reduce PONV or anesthesia-related pollution, but not for superior antinociceptive properties.

Propofol total intravenous anesthesia vs. sevoflurane inhalation anesthesia: Effects on post‑operative cognitive dysfunction and inflammation in geriatric patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery

Propofol total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) or sevoflurane inhalation anesthesia (IA) affects post-operative cognitive dysfunction in geriatric patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery; however, relevant real-world clinical evidence on the matter is limited. The present study aimed to compare the effects of propofol TIVA and sevoflurane IA on post-operative cognitive dysfunction in the aforementioned type of patients. The present prospective study enrolled 197 geriatric patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Patients were assigned to the propofol TIVA group (n=97) and sevoflurane IA group (n=100) according to the actual anesthesia regimens. The mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score was assessed before surgery and on day (D)1, D3 and D7 following surgery in both groups. The MMSE score on D1 was higher in the TIVA group compared with the IA group (P=0.006). The change in the MMSE scores from before surgery to D1 (P<0.001), D3 (P=0.011) and D7 (P=0.003) was smaller in the TIVA group vs. the IA group. Multivariate linear regression analyses suggested that the anesthesia method of TIVA (vs. IA) was independently related to the increased MMSE score on D1 (b=0.803; P=0.001) and D7 (b=0.472; P=0.025). The levels of interleukin (IL)-17A, IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor-α on D1, D3 and D7 exhibited a slightly decreasing trend in the TIVA group vs. the IA group, although the difference was not statistically significant (all P>0.05). Notably, the levels of IL-17A before surgery (P=0.015), on D3 (P=0.016) and D7 (P=0.002), as well as those of IL-6 on D1 (P=0.027), were negatively associated with the MMSE score at the corresponding time points. Overall, the present study demonstrates that propofol TIVA ameliorates post-operative cognitive dysfunction on D1 compared with sevoflurane IA and exerts a potentially suppressive effect on inflammation in geriatric patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Propofol Alleviates Anxiety-Like Behaviors Associated with Pain by Inhibiting the Hyperactivity of PVNCRH Neurons via GABAA Receptor β3 Subunits

Pain, a comorbidity of anxiety disorders, causes substantial clinical, social, and economic burdens. Emerging evidence suggests that propofol, the most commonly used general anesthetic, may regulate psychological disorders; however, its role in pain-associated anxiety is not yet described. This study investigates the therapeutic potential of a single dose of propofol (100 mg kg-1) in alleviating pain-associated anxiety and examines the underlying neural mechanisms. In acute and chronic pain models, propofol decreased anxiety-like behaviors in the elevated plus maze (EPM) and open field (OF) tests. Propofol also reduced the serum levels of stress-related hormones including corticosterone, corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH), and norepinephrine. Fiber photometry recordings indicated that the calcium signaling activity of CRH neurons in the paraventricular nucleus (PVNCRH) is reduced after propofol treatment. Interestingly, artificially activating PVNCRH neurons through chemogenetics interfered with the anxiety-reducing effects of propofol. Electrophysiological recordings indicated that propofol decreases the activity of PVNCRH neurons by increasing spontaneous inhibitory postsynaptic currents (sIPSCs). Further, reducing the levels of γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptor β3 (GABAAβ3) subunits in PVNCRH neurons diminished the anxiety-relieving effects of propofol. In conclusion, this study provides a mechanistic and preclinical rationale to treat pain-associated anxiety-like behaviors using a single dose of propofol.

Comparison of postoperative pain in children after maintenance anaesthesia with propofol or sevoflurane: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol and sevoflurane are two of the most commonly used anaesthetics for paediatric surgery. Data from some clinical trials suggest that postoperative pain incidence is lower when propofol is used for maintenance of anaesthesia compared with sevoflurane, although this is not clear.

METHODS

This meta-analysis compared postoperative pain following maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol or sevoflurane in paediatric surgeries. PubMed Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared postoperative pain between sevoflurane and propofol anaesthesia in children. After quality assessment, a meta-analysis was carried out using bias-adjusted inverse heterogeneity methods, heterogeneity using I2 and publication bias using Doi plots.

RESULTS

In total, 13 RCTs with 1174 children were included. The overall synthesis suggested nearly two-fold higher odds of overall postoperative pain in the sevoflurane group compared with the propofol group (odds ratio [OR] 1.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-3.15, I2=58.2%). Further, children in the sevoflurane group had higher odds of having higher pain scores (OR 3.18, 95% CI 1.83-5.53, I2=20.9%), and a 60% increase in the odds of requiring postoperative rescue analgesia compared with propofol (OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.89-2.88, I2=58.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Children maintained on inhalational sevoflurane had higher odds of postoperative pain compared with those maintained on propofol. The results also suggest that sevoflurane is associated with higher odds of needing postoperative rescue analgesia compared with propofol.

REGISTRATION

The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with registration ID CRD42023445913.

Volatile vs Total intravenous Anaesthesia for major non-cardiac surgery: a pragmatic randomised triaL (VITAL)

BACKGROUND

Improving outcomes after surgery is a major public health research priority for patients, clinicians and the NHS. The greatest burden of perioperative complications, mortality and healthcare costs lies amongst the population of patients aged over 50 years who undergo major non-cardiac surgery. The Volatile vs Total Intravenous Anaesthesia for major non-cardiac surgery (VITAL) trial specifically examines the effect of anaesthetic technique on key patient outcomes: quality of recovery after surgery (quality of recovery after anaesthesia, patient satisfaction and major post-operative complications), survival and patient safety.

METHODS

A multi-centre pragmatic efficient randomised trial with health economic evaluation comparing total intravenous anaesthesia with volatile-based anaesthesia in adults (aged 50 and over) undergoing elective major non-cardiac surgery under general anaesthesia.

DISCUSSION

Given the very large number of patients exposed to general anaesthesia every year, even small differences in outcome between the two techniques could result in substantial excess harm. Results from the VITAL trial will ensure patients can benefit from the very safest anaesthesia care, promoting an early return home, reducing healthcare costs and maximising the health benefits of surgical treatments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN62903453. September 09, 2021.

Randomized controlled trial of the effect of general anesthetics on postoperative recovery after minimally invasive nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

General anesthetic techniques can affect postoperative recovery. We compared the effect of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and desflurane anesthesia on postoperative recovery.

METHODS

In this randomized trial, 150 patients undergoing robot-assisted or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer were randomly allocated to either the TIVA or desflurane anesthesia (DES) group. Postoperative recovery was evaluated using the Korean version of the Quality of Recovery-15 questionnaire (QoR-15K) at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h postoperatively. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) was performed to analyze longitudinal QoR-15K data. Fentanyl consumption, pain severity, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and quality of life three weeks after discharge were also compared.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed for 70 patients in each group. The TIVA group showed significantly higher QoR-15K scores at 24 and 48 h postoperatively (24 h: DES, 96 [77, 109] vs. TIVA, 104 [82, 117], median difference 8 [95% CI: 1, 15], P = 0.029; 48 h: 110 [95, 128] vs. 125 [109, 130], median difference 8 [95% CI: 1, 15], P = 0.022), however not at 72 h (P = 0.400). The GEE revealed significant effects of group (adjusted mean difference 6.2, 95% CI: 0.39, 12.1, P = 0.037) and time (P < 0.001) on postoperative QoR-15K scores without group-time interaction (P = 0.051). However, there were no significant differences in other outcomes, except for fentanyl consumption, within the first 24 h postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol-based TIVA showed only a transient improvement in postoperative recovery than desflurane anesthesia, without significant differences in other outcomes.

Chronic pain after posterolateral and axillary approaches to lung surgery: a monocentric observational study

PURPOSE

Post-thoracotomy pain syndrome (PTPS) and chronic postsurgical neuropathic pain (CPNP) were evaluated 4 months after thoracic surgery whether the approach was a posterolateral (PL) incision or the less invasive axillary (AX) one.

METHODS

Patients, 79 in each group, undergoing a thoracotomy between July 2014 and November 2015 were analyzed 4 months after surgery in this prospective monocentric cohort study.

RESULTS

More PL patients suffered PTPS (60.8% vs. 40.5%; p = 0.017) but CPNP was equally present (45.8% and 46.9% in the PL and AX groups). Patients with PTPS have more limited daily activities (p < 0.001) but a similar psychological disability (i.e., catastrophism). Patients with CPNP have an even greater limitation of daily activities (p = 0.007) and more catastrophism (p = 0.0002). Intensity of pain during mobilization of the homolateral shoulder at postoperative day 6 (OR = 1.40, CI 95% [1.13-1.75], p = 0.002); age (OR = 0.97 [0.94-1.00], p = 0.022), and presence of pain before surgery (OR = 2.22 [1.00-4.92], p = 0.049) are related to the occurrence of PTPS; while, height of hypoesthesia area on the breast line measured 6 days after surgery is the only factor related to that of CPNP (OR = 1.14 [1.01-1.30], p = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery was associated with less frequent PTPS, but with equal risk of CPNP. Pain before surgery and its postoperative intensity are associated with PTPS. This must lead to a more aggressive care of pain patients before surgery and of a better management of postoperative pain. CPNP can be forecasted according to the early postoperative height of hypoesthesia area on the breast line.

The incidence, impact, and risk factors for moderate to severe persistent pain after breast cancer surgery: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Few Australasian studies have evaluated persistent pain after breast cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the incidence, impact, and risk factors of moderate to severe persistent pain after breast cancer surgery in a New Zealand cohort.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

METHODS

Consented patients were reviewed at 3 timepoints (preoperative, 2 weeks and 6 months postoperative). Pain incidence and interference, psychological distress and upper limb disability were assessed perioperatively. Clinical, demographic, psychological, cancer treatment-related variables, quantitative sensory testing, and patient genotype (COMT, OPRM1, GCH1, ESR1, and KCNJ6) were assessed as risk factors using multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the 173 patients recruited, 140 completed the 6-month follow-up. Overall, 15.0% (n = 21, 95% CI: 9.5%-22.0%) of patients reported moderate to severe persistent pain after breast cancer surgery with 42.9% (n = 9, 95% CI: 21.9%-66.0%) reporting likely neuropathic pain. Pain interference, upper limb dysfunction and psychological distress were significantly higher in patients with moderate to severe pain (P < .004). Moderate to severe preoperative pain (OR= 3.60, 95% CI: 1.13-11.44, P = .03), COMT rs6269 GA genotype (OR = 5.03, 95% CI: 1.49-17.04, P = .009) and psychological distress at postoperative day 14 (OR= 1.08, 95% CI: 1.02-1.16, P = .02) were identified as risk factors. Total intravenous anesthesia (OR= 0.31, 95% CI: 0.10 - 0.99, P = .048) was identified as protective.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of moderate to severe persistent pain after breast cancer surgery is high with associated pain interference, physical disability, and psychological distress. Important modifiable risk factors were identified to reduce this important condition.

Dexmedetomidine-Oxycodone combination for conscious sedation during colonoscopy in obese patients: A randomized controlled trial

Background

Obesity is a risk factor for sedation-related respiratory depression during colonoscopy. In a colonoscopy, propofol is frequently used because of its strong sedative and hypnotic properties. However, propofol is associated with marked respiratory depression. The objective of this trial was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine plus oxycodone for conscious sedation during colonoscopy in obese patients.

Methods

A total of 120 patients had colonoscopies, and they were divided into two groups at random: Dexmedetomidine and oxycodone were used to sedate group Dex + oxy; while group Pro + oxy received anesthesia with propofol plus oxycodone. Parameters including blood pressure, heart rate, respiration, blood oxygen saturation, injection pain, and recovery time were recorded for both groups.

Results

The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly reduced in group Dex + oxy compared with group Pro + oxy (4.9% vs 20.3%, P = 0.011). Blood pressure was lower, and heart rate was higher in group Pro + oxy compared with group Dex + oxy (P < 0.05). In addition, group Dex + oxy showed a significantly shorter caecal insertion time, recovery time to orientation, and recovery time to walking than group Pro + oxy (P < 0.05). Endoscopist satisfaction scores were significantly higher in group Dex + oxy compared with group Pro + oxy (P = 0.042).

Conclusion

For obese patients, dexmedetomidine plus oxycodone effectively sedate them with few adverse effects, while also reducing colonoscopy operation difficulty by allowing obese patients to reposition. Thus, dexmedetomidine plus oxycodone could be used safely as a conscious sedation method for colonoscopy in obese patients.

Trial registration

The protocol was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR1800017283, July 21, 2018).

The analgesic effect of total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol versus inhalational anaesthesia for acute postoperative pain after hepatectomy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain control can be challenging in patients undergoing hepatectomy. A previous retrospective study on hepatobiliary/ pancreatic surgeries showed better postoperative pain control in patients who received propofol TIVA. The aim of this study was to determine the analgesic effect of propofol TIVA for hepatectomy. This clinical study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03597997).

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled trial was performed to compare the analgesic effect of propofol TIVA versus inhalational anaesthesia. Patients aged between 18 and 80 years old with an American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status of I-III scheduled for elective hepatectomy were recruited. Ninety patients were randomly allocated to receive either propofol TIVA (TIVA group) or inhalational anaesthesia with sevoflurane (SEVO group). Perioperative anaesthetic/analgesic management was the same for both groups. Numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores, postoperative morphine consumption, quality of recovery, patient satisfaction and adverse effects were evaluated during the acute postoperative period and at 3 and 6 months after surgery.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found for acute postoperative pain scores (both at rest and during coughing) and postoperative morphine consumption between TIVA and SEVO groups. Patients given TIVA had lower pain scores with coughing at 3 months after surgery (p = 0.014, and FDR < 0.1). TIVA group was associated with better quality of recovery on postoperative day (POD) 3 (p = 0.038, and FDR < 0.1), less nausea (p = 0.011, and FDR < 0.1 on POD 2; p = 0.013, and FDR < 0.1 on POD 3) and constipation (p = 0.013, and FDR < 0.1 on POD 3).

CONCLUSION

Propofol TIVA did not improve acute postoperative pain control compared to inhalational anaesthesia in patients who underwent hepatectomy. Our results do not support the use of propofol TIVA for reducing acute postoperative pain after hepatectomy.

Effects of anesthetic depth on postoperative pain and delirium: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether anesthetic depth affects postoperative outcomes remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of deep vs. light anesthesia on postoperative pain, cognitive function, recovery from anesthesia, complications, and mortality.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched until January 2022 for randomized controlled trials comparing deep and light anesthesia in adult surgical patients. The co-primary outcomes were postoperative pain and delirium (assessed using the confusion assessment method). We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We assessed publication bias using the Begg's rank correlation test and Egger's linear regression. We evaluated the evidence using the trial sequential analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. We conducted subgroup analyses for pain scores at different postoperative time points and delirium according to cardiac or non-cardiac surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 26 trials with 10,743 patients were included. Deep anesthesia compared with light anesthesia (a mean difference in bispectral index of -12 to -11) was associated with lower pain scores at rest at 0 to 1 h postoperatively (weighted mean difference = -0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.25 to -0.18, P  = 0.009; moderate-quality evidence) and an increased incidence of postoperative delirium (24.95% vs. 15.92%; risk ratio = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.28-1.91, P  < 0.0001; high-quality evidence). No publication bias was detected. For the exploratory secondary outcomes, deep anesthesia was associated with prolonged postoperative recovery, without affecting neurocognitive outcomes, major complications, or mortality. In the subgroup analyses, the deep anesthesia group had lower pain scores at rest and on movement during 24 h postoperatively, without statistically significant subgroup differences, and deep anesthesia was associated with an increased incidence of delirium after non-cardiac and cardiac surgeries, without statistically significant subgroup differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Deep anesthesia reduced early postoperative pain but increased postoperative delirium. The current evidence does not support the use of deep anesthesia in clinical practice.

Future liver remnant volume is associated with postoperative fentanyl consumption following open donor hepatectomy: a retrospective multivariate analysis

PURPOSE

Liver resection has a risk of postoperative hepatic dysfunction, including drug metabolism. Since fentanyl is primarily metabolized in the liver, liver resection requires exercising caution against fentanyl overdose in postoperative analgesia. The rationale for dose adjustment of fentanyl in the preoperative prescription for patients undergoing liver resection remains unclear. We examined whether postoperative fentanyl consumption is associated with the future liver remnant after liver resection and investigated factors influencing fentanyl consumption.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 89 living liver donors undergoing open liver resection received intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with fentanyl 2 mg with thoracic epidural analgesia. The primary outcome was postoperative hourly consumption of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with fentanyl. Future liver remnant volume (ml) and the ratio of future liver remnant volume to whole liver volume (%) were estimated by computed tomography volumetry and compared to determine which correlated more strongly with fentanyl hourly consumption. Multivariable analysis identified independent factors affecting fentanyl consumption, with adjustments for patient characteristics and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia setting.

RESULTS

Future liver remnant volume (ml) was significantly correlated more strongly than the ratio of future liver remnant (%) with postoperative fentanyl consumption (r = 0.53 vs. 0.36, p < 0.001). Larger future liver remnant volume (β = 0.25, p = 0.006) and age < 45 years (β = 0.24, p = 0.009) were independently associated with higher fentanyl consumption, while sex and weight were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Future liver remnant volume was significantly associated with postoperative fentanyl consumption. Smaller remnant liver volume and older age (≥ 45 years) were independent factors reducing postoperative fentanyl consumption in patients undergoing open donor hepatectomy.

Effect of anesthesia on the outcome of high-grade glioma patients undergoing supratentorial resection: study protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

High-grade glioma (HGG) is the most malignant brain tumor with poor outcomes. Whether anesthetic methods have an impact on the outcome of these patients is still unknown. Retrospective study has found no difference between intravenous and inhalation anesthesia on the overall survival (OS) of the HGG patients, however, intravenous anesthesia with propofol might be beneficial in a subgroup of patients with a Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Scale less than 80. Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the results.

METHODS

This is a single-centered, randomized controlled, parallel-group trial. Three hundred forty-four patients with primary HGG for tumor resection will be randomly assigned to receive either intravenous anesthesia with propofol or inhalation anesthesia with sevoflurane. The primary outcome is the OS of the patients within 18 months. Secondary outcomes include progression-free survival (PFS), the numerical rating scale (NRS) of pain intensity and sleep quality, the postoperative encephaloedema volume, complications, and the length of hospital stay of the patients.

DISCUSSION

This is a randomized controlled trial to compare the effect of intravenous and inhalation anesthesia maintenance on the outcome of supratentorial HGG patients. The results will contribute to optimizing the anesthesia methods in these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02756312. Registered on 29 April 2016 and last updated on 9 Sep 2020.

The Effect of Propofol plus Remifentanil for PostoperativePain and Heart Rate Management in Patients Undergoing Abdominal Hysterectomy

Purpose

To explore the effect of propofol plus remifentanil for postoperative pain and heart rate management in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy.

Methods

In this prospective randomized controlled study, 96 patients who underwent abdominal hysterectomy in an affiliated hospital of Fujian Medical University from April 2016 to April 2017 were recruited and randomized into the study group (n = 48) and control group (n = 48) via the random number table method. The control group received remifentanil for anesthesia, and the study group was given propofol plus remifentanil. The postoperative pain and heart rates of patients were compared between the two groups.

Results

No significant difference was observed in the heart rate and adrenaline values between the two groups before anesthesia, and the study group had significantly lower adrenaline values and heart rates intraoperatively and 15 min after operation than the control group. Patients in the study group showed shorter time-lapse before independent breathing recovery, extubation, and resuscitation compared to those in the control group. The study group received less patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) as compared to the study group within 48 h after operation. In the study group, the numeric rating scale (NRS) scores within 1 h, 2 h, 6 h, 8 h, and 12 h after operation were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < 0.001). Propofol plus remifentanil offer a viable alternative for postoperative pain management and stress alleviation after abdominal hysterectomy with a high safety profile. Further clinical trials are, however, required prior to clinical promotion.

The Effect of Propofol versus Sevoflurane on Postoperative Delirium in Parkinson's Disease Patients Undergoing Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery: An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The selection of the maintenance of general anesthesia may affect the development of postoperative delirium (POD), notably for Parkinson's disease (PD) patients, due to their lower cognitive reserve. The present study was designed to compare the potential impact of propofol vs. sevoflurane based general anesthesia maintenance methods on the development of POD in PD patients following deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery.

METHODS

A total of 125 PD patients who were scheduled to undergo DBS surgery were randomly divided into the propofol (n = 63) and the sevoflurane groups (n = 62). The patients in the two groups randomly received propofol- or sevoflurane-based general anesthesia. The Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) was employed by an investigator who was blinded to the anesthesia regimen and was administered twice per day from postoperative day 1 until discharge.

RESULTS

The incidence of POD was 22.22% (14/63) with propofol anesthesia and 20.97% (13/62) with sevoflurane anesthesia (p = 0.865). In addition, no difference was noted in the duration and severity of delirium between the propofol and sevoflurane groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, propofol- and sevoflurane-based general anesthesia exhibited comparable results with regard to the POD incidence in PD patients undergoing deep brain stimulation surgery.

Propofol total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia for acute postoperative pain in patients with morphine patient-controlled analgesia: a large-scale retrospective study with covariate adjustment

Background

To compare the postoperative analgesic effect of propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) versus inhalational anaesthesia (GAS) in patients using morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed in a single tertiary university hospital. Adult patients who used PCA morphine after general anaesthesia across 15 types of surgeries were included. Patients who received propofol TIVA were compared to those who had inhalational anaesthesia. Primary outcomes assessed were postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores and postoperative opioid consumption.

Results

Data from 4202 patients were analysed. The overall adjusted NRS pain scores were significantly lower in patients who received propofol TIVA at rest (GEE: β estimate of the mean on a 0 to 10 scale = -0.56, 95% CI = (-0.74 to -0.38), p < 0.001; GAS as reference group) and with movement (β estimate = -0.89, 95% CI = (-1.1 to -0.69), p < 0.001) from postoperative days (POD) 1–3. Propofol TIVA was associated with lower overall adjusted postoperative morphine consumption (β estimate = -3.45, 95% CI = (-4.46 to -2.44), p < 0.001). Patients with propofol TIVA had lower adjusted NRS pain scores with movement for hepatobiliary/pancreatic (p < 0.001), upper gastrointestinal (p < 0.001) and urological surgeries (p = 0.005); and less adjusted postoperative morphine consumption for hepatobiliary/pancreatic (p < 0.001), upper gastrointestinal (p = 0.006) and urological surgeries (p = 0.002). There were no differences for other types of surgeries.

Conclusion

Propofol TIVA was associated with statistically significant, but small reduction in pain scores and opioid consumption in patients using PCA morphine. Subgroup analysis suggests clinically meaningful analgesia possibly for hepatobiliary/pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal surgeries.

Trial registration

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03875872).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01683-9.

Postdischarge pain, nausea and patient satisfaction after diagnostic and breast-conserving ambulatory surgery for breast cancer: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The aims of this study were to assess first day postdischarge pain, nausea and patient satisfaction in ambulatory breast cancer surgical patients, after diagnostic and breast conserving procedures.

METHODS

A total of 781 women, aged 18-85 years were included in this prospective, cross-sectional study. All patients received standardized multimodal pain prophylaxis with paracetamol, COX-II inhibitor, dexamethasone and wound infiltration with local anaesthetics. Nausea prophylaxis was provided with ondansetron. Most patients received general anaesthesia with propofol and remifentanil. Data were collected using a validated questionnaire during telephone follow-up on the first postoperative day.

RESULTS

The response rate was 94.5%. NRS ≥ 4 was reported by 5.3% at rest, by 17% during activity and by 30.7% as the worst pain score. Young age was strongly associated with more pain both at rest, during activity and regarding worst pain since discharge. Postdischarge nausea was present in 17.8%, and vomiting in 1.2%. High pain score during activity and higher level of worst pain, were associated with nausea. There was no association between nausea and age, type of anaesthesia, surgical procedure or pain at rest. Patient satisfaction was high (97.8%-99.7%) regarding information, time for discharge and overall satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Pain scores and incidence of nausea were generally low on the day after surgery. Young age was a strong predictor for postdischarge pain. A high worst pain score and high pain score during the activity were associated with postdischarge nausea. Patient satisfaction was high.

Effects of intrathecal opioids on cesarean section: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the beneficial and harmful effects of opioids used as adjuncts to local anesthetics in patients undergoing cesarean section under spinal anesthesia.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception until March, 2021 without language restrictions. The primary outcome was the complete analgesia duration (Time to VAS > 0). Data were synthesized using the Bayesian random-effects model. Evidence confidence was evaluated using the Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 66 placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comprising 4400 patients undergoing elective cesarean section. Compared with the placebo, intrathecal opioids (fentanyl, sufentanil, and morphine) significantly prolonged the analgesia duration by 96, 96, and 190 min, respectively (mean difference). Despite morphine ranking first, opioid efficacy was similar; the results were inconsistent with respect to other analgesic outcomes. Except for diamorphine, all opioids were associated with significant increases in the pruritus incidence. Sufentanil and morphine were associated with increases in the respiratory depression incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirmed that intrathecal opioids benefit postoperative analgesia. Although morphine seems to be the most appropriate agent, some results were inconsistent, and the evidence confidence was often moderate or low, especially for adverse outcomes. Well-designed RCTs with an evidence-based approach are imperative for determining the most appropriate opioid for cesarean sections.

Breast Cancer and Anaesthesia: Genetic Influence

Breast cancer is the leading cause of mortality in women. It is a heterogeneous disease with a high degree of inter-subject variability even in patients with the same type of tumor, with individualized medicine having acquired significant relevance in this field. The clinical and morphological heterogeneity of the different types of breast tumors has led to a diversity of staging and classification systems. Thus, these tumors show wide variability in genetic expression and prognostic biomarkers. Surgical treatment is essential in the management of these patients. However, the perioperative period has been found to significantly influence survival and cancer recurrence. There is growing interest in the pro-tumoral effect of different anaesthetic and analgesic agents used intraoperatively and their relationship with metastatic progression. There is cumulative evidence of the influence of anaesthetic techniques on the physiopathological mechanisms of survival and growth of the residual neoplastic cells released during surgery. Prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to obtain quality evidence on the relationship between cancer and anaesthesia. This document summarizes the evidence currently available about the effects of the anaesthetic agents and techniques used in primary cancer surgery and long-term oncologic outcomes, and the biomolecular mechanisms involved in their interaction.

Comparison of Outcomes After Breast Cancer Surgery Between Inhalational and Propofol-Based Intravenous Anaesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

General anaesthesia is the commonly provided for breast cancer surgery, but the effects of inhalational anaesthesia and propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia on short- and long-term outcomes after breast cancer surgery are not clear. In this study, we conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore the superior anaesthetic for breast cancer surgery patients.

Methods

We searched the Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang databases (up to January, 2021) for RCTs in which inhalational anaesthesia and propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia were compared and short- and long-term outcomes were assessed in breast cancer surgical patients. The meta-analysis was performed by Stata 12.0.

Results

Twenty RCTs with a total of 2201 patients were included. Compared with inhalational anaesthesia, propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia was associated with more postoperative rescue analgesia (I²=0%, RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.07–1.30, P=0.001) but a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (I²=25.5%, RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.62–0.81, P<0.001) and postoperative rescue antiemetics (I²=0%, RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58–0.82, P<0.001). Propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia preserved nature killer cell cytotoxicity (I²=86.2%, SMD: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.13–1.39, P=0.018), decreased IL-6 level (I²=98.0%, SMD: −3.09, 95% CI: −5.70– −0.48, P=0.021) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (I²=0%, SMD: −0.28, 95% CI: −0.53– −0.03, P=0.030), and increased 2-year recurrence-free survival rate (I²=0%, RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.00–1.20, P=0.043) but did not affect recurrence or the overall survival rate (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia increases postoperative rescue analgesia but reduces PONV compared with inhalational anaesthesia in breast cancer surgery. The benefit of propofol over inhalational anaesthetics in the preservation of anti-cancer immunity is obvious, but it is difficult to conclude that propofol can exert long-term benefits due to the small sample size.

Cost-Effectiveness of Propofol (Diprivan) Versus Inhalational Anesthetics to Maintain General Anesthesia in Noncardiac Surgery in the United States

OBJECTIVES

It is not known whether using propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) to reduce incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is cost-effective. We assessed the economic impact of propofol TIVA versus inhalational anesthesia in adult patients for ambulatory and inpatient procedures relevant to the US healthcare system.

METHODS

Two models simulate individual patient pathways through inpatient and ambulatory surgery with propofol TIVA or inhalational anesthesia with economic inputs from studies on adult surgical US patients. Efficacy inputs were obtained from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the model estimates.

RESULTS

Lower PONV rate, shorter stay in the post-anesthesia care unit, and reduced need for rescue antiemetics offset the higher costs for anesthetics, analgesics, and muscle relaxants with propofol TIVA and reduced cost by 11.41 ± 10.73 USD per patient in the inpatient model and 11.25 ± 9.81 USD in the ambulatory patient model. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated strong robustness of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintenance of general anesthesia with propofol was cost-saving compared to inhalational anesthesia in both inpatient and ambulatory surgical settings in the United States. These economic results support current guideline recommendations, which endorse propofol TIVA to reduce PONV risk and enhance postoperative recovery.

Year in Review 2020: Noteworthy Literature in Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology

The year 2020 was marred by the emergence of a deadly pandemic that disrupted every aspect of life. Despite the disruption, notable research accomplishments in the practice of cardiothoracic anesthesiology occurred in 2020 with an emphasis on optimizing care, improving outcomes, and expanding what is possible for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This year's edition of Noteworthy Literature Review will focus on specific themes in cardiac anesthesiology that include preoperative anemia, predictors of acute kidney injury following cardiac surgery, pain management modalities, anticoagulation strategies after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, mechanical circulatory support, and future directions in research.

Does a combined intravenous-volatile anesthesia offer advantages compared to an intravenous or volatile anesthesia alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In anesthesia, additive drug interactions are used for reducing dose and dose-dependent side-effects. The combination of propofol with volatile anesthetics is rather unusual but might have advantages compared to the single use regarding PONV, time to extubation, movement during surgery and postoperative pain perception.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL for relevant studies comparing combined intravenous volatile anesthesia with total intravenous or balanced anesthesia. The studies identified were summarized in a meta-analysis with the standardized mean difference or risk ratio as the effect size.

RESULTS

Ten studies provided data. The risk for PONV in the recovery room was significantly reduced for a combined anesthesia compared to a balanced anesthesia (RR 0.657, CI 0.502-0.860, p-value 0.002). There was no significant difference detected either in the time to extubation or in pain perception. Movement during surgery was significantly reduced for a combined compared to a total intravenous anesthesia (RR 0.241, CI 0.135-0.428, p-value 0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of propofol and volatiles may have some advantages in the early occurrence of PONV compared to a balanced anesthesia. To sufficiently evaluate potential advantages of a combination of volatiles and propofol further high-quality trials are needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019126627 .

A Prospective Randomized Comparison of Postoperative Pain and Complications after Thyroidectomy under Different Anesthetic Techniques: Volatile Anesthesia versus Total Intravenous Anesthesia

While the postoperative outcome is favorable, post-thyroidectomy pain is considerable. Reducing the postoperative acute pain, therefore, is considered important. This study investigated whether the pain intensity and need for rescue analgesics during the immediate postoperative period after thyroidectomy differ according to the methods of anesthesia. Seventy-two patients undergoing total thyroidectomy under general anesthesia were examined. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either total intravenous anesthesia with remifentanil and propofol (TIVA, n = 35) or propofol induction and maintenance with desflurane and nitrous oxide (volatile anesthesia [VA], n = 37). The mean administered dose of remifentanil was 1977.7 ± 722.5 μg in the TIVA group, which was approximately 0.268 ± 0.118 μg/min/kg during surgery. Pain scores based on a numeric rating scale (NRS) and the need for rescue analgesics were compared between groups at the postoperative anesthetic care unit (PACU). The immediate postoperative NRS values of the TIVA and VA groups were 5.7 ± 1.7 and 4.7 ± 2.3, respectively (P = 0.034). Postoperative morphine equianalgesic doses in the PACU were higher in the TIVA group than in the VA group (16.7 ± 3.8 mg vs. 14.1 ± 5.9 mg, P = 0.027). The incidence of immediate postanesthetic complications did not differ significantly between groups. In conclusion, more rescue analgesics were required in the TIVA group than in the VA group to adequately manage postoperative pain while staying in the PACU after thyroidectomy.

Comparative Effects of Total Intravenous Anesthesia with Propofol and Remifentanil Versus Inhalational Sevoflurane with Dexmedetomidine on Emergence Delirium in Children Undergoing Strabismus Surgery

Background

Emergence delirium (ED) is common after strabismus surgery due to postoperative visual disturbance, vomiting, and pain. Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) has many advantages like smooth emergence from anesthesia, decreased incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and postoperative analgesia.

Objectives

Our study aimed to compare the incidence of ED using inhalational sevoflurane with dexmedetomidine (DEX) versus TIVA with remifentanil.

Methods

Eighty-four patients aged 3 - 11 years scheduled for strabismus surgery under general anesthesia were randomly allocated into two groups. Patients in group I received sevoflurane and DEX (group I, n = 42), while group II patients received TIVA with propofol and remifentanil infusion (group II, n = 42). Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and pulse oximetry (SpO₂) were monitored before induction, at induction, and every 10 minutes during the surgery. In the postanesthetic care unit (PACU), pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium (PAED), face, legs, activity, cry, and consolability (FLACC), need for rescue analgesics, recovery time, level of parents' satisfaction, and PONV were recorded.

Results

Based on the results, HR and MAP significantly decreased 10 and 20 min after induction compared to baseline in group I after infusion of DEX. The incidence of PONV was significantly lower in group II than in group I, while the recovery time was significantly shorter in group I. The incidence of emergence delirium decreased in both groups.

Conclusions

The use of either total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil or sevoflurane inhalational anesthesia with dexmedetomidine resulted in a lower incidence of emergence delirium, although dexmedetomidine resulted in hypotension, bradycardia, and PONV.

The Effect of Propofol Versus Volatile Anesthetics on Persistent Pain After Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

Sternal incisions can generate persistent and intense post-sternotomy pain. Propofol has been shown to improve postoperative analgesia, but the preventive effect on persistent pain after cardiac surgery is unknown. The hypothesis of the present study was that intraoperative propofol-based anesthesia compared with volatile anesthesia could reduce the risk of chronic pain after cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

A single-center, two-arm, patient-and-evaluator-blinded, randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

A single major urban teaching and university hospital.

PATIENTS

Five-hundred adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery via sternotomy randomly were assigned. With six withdrawals from the study and five from surgery, 244 in the total intravenous anesthesia group and 245 in the volatile group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients randomly were assigned to receive either propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia or volatile anesthesia during surgery.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcomes were the incidence of pain at three, six, and 12 months after surgery defined as pain score >0 on the numeric rating scale. The secondary outcomes included acute pain, opioid use during the first 72 hours after surgery, and quality of life. The use of propofol did not significantly affect chronic pain at three months (55.4% v 52.9%, difference 2.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -6.6 to 11.6; p = 0.656), six months (35.5% v 37.5%, difference -2.0%, 95% CI -10.9 to 6.9; p = 0.657), or 12 months (18.2% v 20.7%, difference -2.5%, 95% CI -9.8 to 4.8; p = 0.495) compared with volatile anesthetics. Furthermore, there were no differences in acute pain score; morphine-equivalent consumption during the first 72 hours; and quality of life at three, six, and 12 months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative administration of propofol did not reduce persistent pain after cardiac surgery compared with volatile anesthetics.

Anaesthesia and cancer: can anaesthetic drugs modify gene expression?

Cancer remains a primary cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and its incidence continues to increase. The most common cause of death in cancer patients is tumour recurrence. Surgery is the gold standard in the treatment of most tumours. However, cancer surgery can lead to the release of tumour cells into the systemic circulation. Surgical stress and several perioperative factors have been suggested to boost tumour growth, thereby increasing the risk of metastatic recurrence. Preclinical and clinical studies suggest that anaesthetics and adjuvants administered during the perioperative period may impact cancer recurrence and survival. This document summarises the current evidence regarding the effects of anaesthetic drugs and analgesic techniques on the immune system, systemic inflammatory response and tumour cells, as well as their impact on cancer recurrence.

Comparison of Sevoflurane and Propofol on the Incidence of Postoperative Pain and Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty With Chronic Pain Before Surgery

BACKGROUND

Propofol and sevoflurane as frequently used general anesthetics can affect postoperative pain. Our study explored whether the incidence of postoperative pain differed among patients with chronic pain undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) anesthetized with sevoflurane or propofol.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to groups receiving either sevoflurane (Group S, n = 50) or propofol (Group P, n = 47) for anesthesia maintenance during TKA. The incidences of postoperative pain and quality of life (QoL) were measured using the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) scale at 1, 3, and 7 days post-operation (DPO), and 1 and 3 months post-operation (MPO).

RESULTS

At 3 DPO, fewer patients reported moderate pain (P = 0.001) and more patients reported no pain (P = 0.003) in Group S than that in Group P. At 3 MPO, more patients reported no pain (P = 0.04) and fewer patients reported moderate pain (P = 0.04) in Group S than in Group P. No significant differences were found in the incidence of postoperative pain between the 2 groups of patients at the other time points. The EQ-5D scores were higher in Group S than in Group P (P = 0.022), and the difference was 0.15 at most, which was not optimal. The EQ-5D clinical results might be not very significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Sevoflurane anesthesia may have potential advantages in reducing postoperative pain in patients undergoing TKA with a preoperative VAS score > 4.

Effects of propofol and sevoflurane on blood glucose, hemodynamics, and inflammatory factors of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and gastric cancer

Effects of propofol and sevoflurane on blood glucose, hemodynamics, and inflammatory factors of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and gastric cancer (GC) were investigated. One hundred and ten patients with T2DM and GC, treated in The First Affiliated Hospital of Baotou Medical College (Baotou, China) from January 2017 to December 2018, were selected. Sixty patients anesthetized by propofol were included in the propofol group, whereas 50 patients anesthetized by sevoflurane were included in the sevoflurane group. The level of blood glucose, hemodynamic indicators, and inflammatory factors of the patients in the two groups were compared at T₀ (before anesthesia), T₁ (2 min after intubation), T₂ (5 min after pneumoperitoneum), and T₃ (60 min after surgery). Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) cognitive function scores were compared at T0 (before anesthesia), T4 (6 h after surgery), and T5 (72 h after surgery) between the two groups. The anesthetic effect and the incidence of adverse reactions were also compared between the two groups. The heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO₂) and average artery pressure decreased slightly and then increased after the surgery was started; whereas, the levels of the serum inflammatory factors first increased and then decreased, to return to their initial levels. MMSE scores of the patients in two groups at T₄ were significantly lower than those at T₀ (P<0.05), and the MMSE score at T₄ was significantly higher in the propofol group than that in the sevoflurane group (P<0.05). The time of spontaneous breathing, verbal response, eye opening, and extubation in the propofol group was significantly shorter than that in the sevoflurane group (P<0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in the propofol group was lower than that in the sevoflurane group. The effect of propofol is less than that of sevoflurane, thus propofol is more suitable for the anesthesia of patients with T2DM and GC.

Influence of volatile anesthesia versus total intravenous anesthesia on chronic postsurgical pain after cardiac surgery using the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials criteria: study protocol for a prospective randomized controlled trial

Background

Many patients develop chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) after cardiac surgery, which interferes with their sleep, mood, and quality of life. Studies have suggested that propofol improves postoperative analgesia compared with volatile anesthetics, but its preventive effect on CPSP following cardiac surgery is still unknown. This study compares the incidence of CPSP following cardiac surgery for those receiving volatile anesthesia and those receiving propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) using criteria recommended by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT).

Methods/design

This is a prospective randomized controlled trial. In total, 500 adults undergoing cardiac surgery will be randomly allocated to the volatile or the TIVA group. The volatile group will receive sevoflurane or desflurane during surgery as general anesthesia. The TIVA group will receive propofol-based intravenous agents and no volatile agents during surgery. The primary outcomes will be the frequency of CPSP at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery. In this case, CPSP is sternal or thoracic pain. It is defined as either (1) numerical rating scale (NRS) > 0 or (2) meeting all six IMMPACT criteria for CPSP. The IMMPACT criteria are validated pain instruments.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first prospective randomized controlled trial to investigate the prevention of CPSP following cardiac surgery for patients receiving volatile anesthesia compared to those receiving propofol-based TIVA using validated pain instruments in accordance with the IMMPACT recommendations. This study will provide important information on which of these two anesthetic regimens is better for preventing CPSP after cardiac surgery.

Trial registration

Chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR1900020747. Registered on 16 January 2019.

Pharmacologic Modulation of Noxious Stimulus-evoked Brain Activation in Cynomolgus Macaques Observed with Functional Neuroimaging

Maintaining effective analgesia during invasive procedures performed under general anesthesia is important for minimizing postoperative complications and ensuring satisfactory patient wellbeing and recovery. While patients under deep sedation may demonstrate an apparent lack of response to noxious stimulation, areas of the brain related to pain perception may still be activated. Thus, these patients may still experience pain during invasive procedures. The current study used anesthetized or sedated cynomolgus macaques and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to assess the activation of the parts of the brain involved in pain perception during the application of peripheral noxious stimuli. Noxious pressure applied to the foot resulted in the bilateral activation of secondary somatosensory cortex (SII) and insular cortex (Ins), which are both involved in pain perception, in macaques under either propofol or pentobarbital sedation. No activation of SII/Ins was observed in macaques treated with either isoflurane or a combination of medetomidine, midazolam, and butorphanol. No movement or other reflexes were observed in response to noxious pressure during stimulation under anesthesia or sedation. The current findings show that despite the lack of visible behavioral symptoms of pain during anesthesia or sedation, brain activation suggests the presence of pain depending on the anesthetic agent used. These data suggest that fMRI could be used to noninvasively assess pain and to confirm the analgesic efficacy of currently used anesthetics. By assessing analgesic efficacy, researchers may refine their experiments, and design protocols that improve analgesia under anesthesia.

Anesthetic effect of propofol combined with remifentanil or sevoflurane anesthesia on patients undergoing radical gastrectomy

Anesthetic effect of propofol combined with remifentanil or sevoflurane intravenous anesthesia on patients undergoing radical gastrectomy was evaluated. The clinical data of 516 cancer patients who received radical gastrectomy in the First Bethune Hospital of Jilin University between January 2011 and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. In total 203 patients with propofol combined with remifentanil anesthesia were used as group A, and 313 patients with propofol combined with sevoflurane anesthesia as group B. The changes of respiration and circulation were analyzed at the time of entering the operating room (t0), the beginning of the operation (t1), 10 min after the beginning of the operation (t2) and 10 min after operation (t3). The onset time of anesthesia, the total time of operation, the time of waking up after operation and the time of leaving the operating room were analyzed. The effects of sedation and amnesia were evaluated, and the occurrence of adverse reactions were recorded. The inhibition of circulation and respiration was more obvious at t1 and t2 in group A when compared to group B (P<0.05), and the respiration and circulation in group B was more stable than that in group A (P<0.001). Patients' sedation scores in group A were lower than those in group B, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05); there were 56 (27.59%) patients and 30 (9.58%) patients with postoperative pain in group A and group B, respectively (P<0.001). The application of propofol combined with sevoflurane in the anesthesia of patients undergoing radical gastrectomy can make the respiration and circulation more stable, and reduce the incidence of postoperative pain and adverse reactions.

Effects of intraoperative propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia on postoperative pain in spine surgery: Comparison with desflurane anesthesia - a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

As reported, patients experience less postoperative pain after propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). In the present study, we investigated the postoperative analgesic effects between propofol-based TIVA and desflurane anesthesia after spine surgery.

METHODS

Sixty patients were included who received (surgical time >180 minutes) lumbar spine surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either TIVA (with target-controlled infusion) with propofol/fentanyl-based anesthesia (TIVA group) or desflurane/fentanyl-based anesthesia (DES group), titrated to maintain Bispectral Index values between 45 and 55. All patients received patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with fentanyl for postoperative pain relief. Numeric pain rating scale (NRS) pain scores, postoperative fentanyl consumption, postoperative rescue tramadol use, and fentanyl-related side effects were recorded.

RESULTS

The TIVA group patients reported lower NRS pain scores during coughing on postoperative day 1 but not day 2 and 3 (P = .002, P = .133, P = .161, respectively). Less fentanyl consumption was observed on postoperative days 1 and 2, but not on day 3 (375 μg vs 485 μg, P = .032, 414 μg vs 572 μg, P = .033, and 421 μg vs 479 μg, P = .209, respectively), less cumulative fentanyl consumption at postoperative 48 hours (790 μg vs 1057 μg, P = .004) and 72 hours (1210 μg vs 1536 μg, P = .004), and total fentanyl consumption (1393 μg vs 1704 μg, P = .007) when compared with the DES group. No difference was found in rescue tramadol use and fentanyl-related side effects.

CONCLUSION

Patients anesthetized with propofol-based TIVA reported less pain during coughing and consumed less daily and total PCA fentanyl after lumbar spine surgery.

Alkylphenol inverse agonists of HCN1 gating: H-bond propensity, ring saturation and adduct geometry differentially determine efficacy and potency

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In models of neuropathic pain, inhibition of HCN1 is anti-hyperalgesic. 2,6-di-iso-propyl phenol (propofol) and its non-anesthetic congener, 2,6-di-tert-butyl phenol, inhibit HCN1 channels by stabilizing closed state(s).

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Using in vitro electrophysiology and kinetic modeling, we systematically explore the contribution of ligand architecture to alkylphenol-channel coupling.

KEY RESULTS

When corrected for changes in hydrophobicity (and propensity for intra-membrane partitioning), the decrease in potency upon 1-position substitution (NCO∼OH >> SH >>> F) mirrors the ligands' H-bond acceptor (NCO > OH > SH >>> F) but not donor profile (OH > SH >>> NCO∼F). H-bond elimination (OH to F) corresponds to a ΔΔG of ∼4.5 kCal mol^-1 loss of potency with little or no disruption of efficacy. Substitution of compact alkyl groups (iso-propyl, tert-butyl) with shorter (ethyl, methyl) or more extended (sec-butyl) adducts disrupts both potency and efficacy. Ring saturation (with the obligate loss of both planarity and π electrons) primarily disrupts efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

A hydrophobicity-independent decrement in potency at higher volumes suggests the alkylbenzene site has a volume of ≥800 ų. Within this, a relatively static (with respect to ligand) H-bond donor contributes to initial binding with little involvement in generation of coupling energy. The influence of π electrons/ring planarity and alkyl adducts on efficacy reveals these aspects of the ligand present towards a face of the channel that undergoes structural changes during opening. The site's characteristics suggest it is "druggable"; introduction of other adducts on the ring may generate higher potency inverse agonists.

The effect of total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol on postoperative pain after third molar surgery: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) with propofol may reduce pain after surgery compared with inhalational anaesthetic techniques. Whether propofol provides analgesic benefit may be influenced by the surgical procedure and anaesthetic/analgesic regime. Third molar surgery is a consistent and fairly standard surgical technique that provides a good model for postoperative pain. We investigated whether propofol TIVA or sevoflurane (SEVO) inhalational anaesthesia would produce better quality pain relief after third molar surgery.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for bilateral third molar surgery received propofol TIVA or SEVO inhalational anaesthesia. Postoperative numerical rating pain scores, analgesic consumption, adverse effects and global pain satisfaction were assessed.

RESULTS

Data from 48 patients in each group were analysed. The area under curves for numerical rating scale pain scores were significantly lower in the propofol TIVA group at rest and during mouth opening between 1 and 72 hr after surgery (p = 0.013 at rest, p = 0.021 with mouth opening). There was no difference in postoperative analgesic consumption. Propofol TIVA was associated with less postoperative headache (p = 0.041 in the postoperative anaesthetic care unit, p = 0.036 in ward). There were no differences in other adverse effects including postoperative nausea and vomiting. Global pain satisfaction and level of postoperative discomfort at 24 hr after surgery were significantly better in the propofol TIVA group (p = 0.008 and p = 0.009, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Propofol TIVA was associated with reduced postoperative pain after bilateral third molar surgery, but did not reduce postoperative analgesic consumption.

SIGNIFICANCE

Choice of general anaesthetic technique can affect postoperative analgesia. The results of this study suggest that propofol TIVA improves postoperative pain and patient satisfaction after third molar surgery compared to inhalational anaesthesia.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Propofol

Propofol is an intravenous hypnotic drug that is used for induction and maintenance of sedation and general anaesthesia. It exerts its effects through potentiation of the inhibitory neurotransmitter γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) at the GABAA receptor, and has gained widespread use due to its favourable drug effect profile. The main adverse effects are disturbances in cardiopulmonary physiology. Due to its narrow therapeutic margin, propofol should only be administered by practitioners trained and experienced in providing general anaesthesia. Many pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) models for propofol exist. Some are used to inform drug dosing guidelines, and some are also implemented in so-called target-controlled infusion devices, to calculate the infusion rates required for user-defined target plasma or effect-site concentrations. Most of the models were designed for use in a specific and well-defined patient category. However, models applicable in a more general population have recently been developed and published. The most recent example is the general purpose propofol model developed by Eleveld and colleagues. Retrospective predictive performance evaluations show that this model performs as well as, or even better than, PK models developed for specific populations, such as adults, children or the obese; however, prospective evaluation of the model is still required. Propofol undergoes extensive PK and PD interactions with both other hypnotic drugs and opioids. PD interactions are the most clinically significant, and, with other hypnotics, tend to be additive, whereas interactions with opioids tend to be highly synergistic. Response surface modelling provides a tool to gain understanding and explore these complex interactions. Visual displays illustrating the effect of these interactions in real time can aid clinicians in optimal drug dosing while minimizing adverse effects. In this review, we provide an overview of the PK and PD of propofol in order to refresh readers' knowledge of its clinical applications, while discussing the main avenues of research where significant recent advances have been made.

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

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.

Propofol induces apoptosis of breast cancer cells by downregulation of miR-24 signal pathway

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol, an intravenous anesthetic agent, has been found to inhibit growth of breast cancer cells. However, the mechanisms underlying the antitumor are not known. A recent report has found that propofol could significantly downregulate miR-24 expression in the human malignant cancers. In breast cancer cells, overexpression of miR-24 promotes cell proliferation and inhibits cell apoptosis by downregulation of p27. The miR-24 has been reported to be overexpressed in breast cancer and breast cancer cell lines. In the present study, we hypothesized that propofol induces apoptosis of breast cancer cells by miR-24/p27 signal pathway.

METHODS

Breast cancer MDA-MB-435 cells were exposed to propofol (10 μM) for 6 hr and cell death was assessed using TUNEL staining, Flow cytometry and cleaved caspase-3 expression. microRNA-24 (miR-24) expression was assessed using quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). miR-24 was overexpressed using a miR-24 mimic. P27 was knocked down using a small interfering RNA. p27 and cleaved caspase-3 expression was assessed by Western blot.

RESULTS

MDA-MB-435 exposed to propofol showed a significant increase in apoptotic cells, followed by the downregulation of miR-24, upregulation of p27 expression and cleaved caspase-3 expression. Targeting p27 inhibits propofol-induced cell apoptosis; miR-24 overexpression decreased propofol-induced cell apoptosis, cleaved caspase-3 and p27 expression.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol inducescell death in MDA-MB-435 cells via inactivation of miR-24/p27 signal pathway.

The analgesic effects of intraoperative total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol versus sevoflurane after colorectal surgery

Clinical studies have shown that total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol is associated with better postoperative pain control compared with inhalational anesthesia, while other studies have not shown any benefit. The analgesic effect of TIVA with propofol in colorectal surgery has not been studied. The aim of this study is to evaluate the postoperative analgesic effects of TIVA with propofol versus inhalational sevoflurane in colorectal surgery.This is a retrospective case-control study. Records of patients undergoing colorectal surgery from 2014 to 2016 (36 months) were retrieved. Ninety-five patients who received TIVA with propofol were matched against 95 patients who received inhalational sevoflurane. Acute postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores, postoperative morphine consumption, patient satisfaction, and side effects were compared and analyzed for differences between TIVA with propofol and sevoflurane.There were no significant differences in NRS pain scores, incidence of side effects, and patient satisfaction between the 2 groups. Patients receiving TIVA with propofol had significantly reduced total morphine consumption (P < .001), and daily morphine consumption on postoperative days 1 (P = .031), 2 (P = .002), and 3 (P = .031) compared with those receiving sevoflurane.TIVA with propofol was not associated with improved postoperative analgesia, better patient satisfaction, or reduced side effects. It may reduce postoperative opioid consumption after colorectal surgery.

Effects of propofol anesthesia versus sevoflurane anesthesia on postoperative pain after radical gastrectomy: a randomized controlled trial

Purpose

After a radical gastrectomy, patients may experience severe pain. Some studies have reported that the use of propofol significantly reduced postoperative pain, while others have argued that this effect was not significant. Thus, we aimed to assess whether anesthesia with propofol could help to reduce pain after an open radical gastrectomy procedure.

Patients and methods

Sixty patients who were scheduled to undergo a laparotomy for radical gastrectomy were randomly assigned to either the propofol or sevoflurane group (n=30 each). A target-controlled infusion of propofol or inhalation of sevoflurane, titrated to bispectral index of 40–60, was maintained. All patients were administered a standardized multimodal analgesic plan, including intraoperative dexmedetomidine, dexamethasone, and postoperative flurbiprofen axetil, as well as patient-controlled fentanyl. Hemodynamics, pain scores, fentanyl consumption, adverse events, and the incidence of chronic pain 1 month and 3 months following hospital discharge were recorded.

Results

The intensity of postoperative pain was relatively low to moderate in all the patients. The propofol group showed lower pain scores, at rest and while coughing, up to 48 h postoperatively compared to the sevoflurane group (P<0.05). Cumulative fentanyl consumption 0–24 h after surgery was lower for the propofol group (364.4 ± 139.1 vs. 529.3 ± 237.9 µg; P=0.002). However, for fentanyl consumption 0–48 h, the difference between the two groups was not significant (710.9 ± 312.8 vs. 850.9 ± 292.0 µg; P=0.078). There were no differences in the incidences of adverse events or chronic pain between the groups.

Conclusions

Overall, the multimodal analgesic approach reduced postoperative pain after an open radical gastrectomy procedure in all patients anesthetized with either propofol or sevoflurane. Furthermore, our results indicated better analgesic outcome for the propofol group, especially in the early postoperative period.

Anaesthesia during oesophagectomy

In this review, we will provide an overview of the current state of the art of perioperative practices for open and laparoscopic oesophagus surgery from the anaesthetist's perspective. Morbidity and mortality after oesophagectomy is still high despite multidisciplinary and enhanced recovery pathways showing promising results. The anaesthetist has an important role in the complex care of the oesophageal cancer patient. Minimizing unnecessary fluid administration, adequate pain management, hypotension, and protective lung ventilation are examples of proven strategies that can improve outcome after this high-risk surgery.