Comparison of the effects of inhalational anesthesia with desflurane and total intravenous anesthesia on cardiac biomarkers after aortic valve replacement

Volatile Anesthetic Use Versus Total Intravenous Anesthesia for Patients Undergoing Heart Valve Surgery: A Nationwide Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Many studies have suggested that volatile anesthetic use may improve postoperative outcomes after cardiac surgery compared to total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) owing to its potential cardioprotective effect. However, the results were inconclusive, and few studies have included patients undergoing heart valve surgery.

METHODS

This nationwide population-based study included all adult patients who underwent heart valve surgery between 2010 and 2019 in Korea based on data from a health insurance claim database. Patients were divided based on the use of volatile anesthetics: the volatile anesthetics or TIVA groups. After stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), the association between the use of volatile anesthetics and the risk of cumulative 1-year all-cause mortality (the primary outcome) and cumulative long-term (beyond 1 year) mortality were assessed using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 30,755 patients included in this study, the overall incidence of 1-year mortality was 8.5%. After stabilized IPTW, the risk of cumulative 1-year mortality did not differ in the volatile anesthetics group compared to the TIVA group (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.07; P = .602), nor did the risk of cumulative long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.04; P = .579) at a median (interquartile range) follow-up duration of 4.8 (2.6-7.6) years.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with TIVA, volatile anesthetic use was not associated with reduced postoperative mortality risk in patients undergoing heart valve surgery. Our findings indicate that the use of volatile anesthetics does not have a significant impact on mortality after heart valve surgery. Therefore, the choice of anesthesia type can be based on the anesthesiologists' or institutional preference and experience.

Myocardial Protection by Desflurane: From Basic Mechanisms to Clinical Applications

ABSTRACT

Coronary heart disease is an affliction that is common and has an adverse effect on patients' quality of life and survival while also raising the risk of intraoperative anesthesia. Mitochondria are the organelles most closely associated with the pathogenesis, development, and prognosis of coronary heart disease. Ion abnormalities, an acidic environment, the production of reactive oxygen species, and other changes during abnormal myocardial metabolism cause the opening of mitochondrial permeability transition pores, which disrupts electron transport, impairs mitochondrial function, and even causes cell death. Differences in reliability and cost-effectiveness between desflurane and other volatile anesthetics are minor, but desflurane has shown better myocardial protective benefits in the surgical management of patients with coronary artery disease. The results of myocardial protection by desflurane are briefly summarized in this review, and biological functions of the mitochondrial permeability transition pore, mitochondrial electron transport chain, reactive oxygen species, adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels, G protein-coupled receptors, and protein kinase C are discussed in relation to the protective mechanism of desflurane. This article also discusses the effects of desflurane on patient hemodynamics, myocardial function, and postoperative parameters during coronary artery bypass grafting. Although there are limited and insufficient clinical investigations, they do highlight the possible advantages of desflurane and offer additional suggestions for patients.

Inhalational or total intravenous anesthetic for cardiac surgery: does the debate even exist?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Perioperative myocardial injury related to cardiac surgery is associated with organ dysfunction and increased mortality. Volatile anesthetics (VA) have been used during cardiac surgery for decades because of their direct and indirect preconditioning and protection against ischemia-reperfusion injury. The current review provides a summary of the latest literature comparing pharmacological preconditioning and the potential benefits of using VA versus total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) for general anesthesia to improve outcomes after cardiac surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent literature reports lower mortality and better outcomes when VA is used alone or in combination with remote ischemic preconditioning compared with groups receiving TIVA. However, inconsistent research findings over the years have led to continued debate regarding the anesthetic technique considered more favorable for cardiac surgery.

SUMMARY

Research findings regarding the use of volatile anesthetic versus TIVA for better outcomes after cardiac surgery are inconsistent. Variability in timing, duration, dosing, and type of VA as well as surgical and patient-related factors may have influenced these results. Therefore, either technique can reasonably be adopted depending on provider and institutional preference and used safely in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Newer Volatile Anesthetic Agents in Cardiac Anesthesia: Review of Literature

Myocardial protection with volatile anesthetic agents have been suggested by multiple studies. These studies, however, are scattered and are often limited to a particular aspect of cardiac anesthesia. Older inhalational agents like halothane is known to cause significant hepatic damage in patients undergoing long duration surgeries while isoflurane is known to have marked vasodilating properties that also affects the coronary arteries leading to coronary “steal” phenomenon. Additionally, newer agents, like sevoflurane and desflurane, have shown more prominent cardioprotective effects than older agents. We searched ScholarOne, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library. The medical subject headings (MeSH) terms “anaesthesia, inhalational,” “anaesthesia, intravenous, or TIVA,” and “Cardiac anaesthesia or Cardiac Surgery” were used. Additional studies were identified by review of the reference sections of all eligible studies. The aim of this review article is to bring together the evidences with newer inhalational agents and provide a holistic view of their benefits and shortcomings in cardiac anesthesia.

A Comparison of Volatile Anesthesia and Total Intravenous Anesthesia (TIVA) Effects on Outcome From Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to compare one-year mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with volatile anesthesia or total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). Secondary objectives were to compare in-hospital and 30-day mortality, postoperative levels of creatine kinase (CK-MB) and cardiac troponin, and durations of tracheal intubation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

SETTING

International, multi-institution centers.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults patients undergoing heart surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Volatile anesthesia and TIVA.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference between patients receiving TIVA and volatile anesthesia in one-year mortality (n = 6440, OR = 1.22, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.54, p = 0.09, Z = 1.67, I² = 0%), troponin (n = 3127, SMD = 0.26, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.52, p = 0.05, Z = 1.92, I² = 90%) and CK-MB concentration 24h postoperatively (n = 1214, SMD = 0.10, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.36, unadjusted p = 0.48, Z = 0.71, I² = 79%), or time to tracheal extubation (n = 1059, SMD = 0.10, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.49, p = 0.60, Z = 0.53, I2 = 88%). The durations of ICU stay (n = 2003, SMD = 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.57, p = 0.04, Z = 2.05, I² = 88%) and hospital stay (n = 1214, SMD = 0.42, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.75, p = 0.01, Z = 2.53, I² = 91%) were shorter in the volatile anesthetic compared to TIVA group.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences in mortality (in-hospital, 30-day, 1-year), troponin and CK-MB concentrations 24 h postoperatively, or time to tracheal extubation were found between patients who had volatile anesthesia or TIVA. Compared to TIVA, volatile anesthesia was associated with shorter durations of hospital and ICU stays.

Volatile Anesthetics versus Propofol for Cardiac Surgery with Cardiopulmonary Bypass

Background

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of anesthesia maintenance with volatile agents compared with propofol on both short- and long-term mortality (primary outcomes) and major clinical events in adults undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

Methods

Randomized clinical trials on the effects of current volatile anesthetics versus propofol in adults undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass were searched (1965 to September 30, 2019) in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and article reference lists. A random effect model on standardized mean difference for continuous outcomes and odds ratio for dichotomous outcomes were used to meta-analyze data.

Results

In total, 37 full-text articles (42 studies, 8,197 participants) were included. The class of volatile anesthetics compared with propofol was associated with lower 1-yr mortality (5.5 vs. 6.8%; odds ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.96]; P = 0.023), myocardial infarction (odds ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.39 to 0.92]; P = 0.023), cardiac troponin release (standardized mean difference, −0.39 [95% CI, −0.59 to −0.18], P = 0.0002), need for inotropic medications (odds ratio, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.24 to 0.67]; P = 0.0004), extubation time (standardized mean difference, −0.35 [95% CI, −0.68 to −0.02]; P = 0.038), and with higher cardiac index/output (standardized mean difference, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.37 to 1.04]; P < 0.0001). The class of volatile anesthetics was not associated with changes in short-term mortality (1.63 vs. 1.65%; odds ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.49]; P = 0.820) and acute kidney injury (odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.77 to 2.03]; P = 0.358).

Conclusions

In adults undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass, the class of volatile anesthetics was superior to propofol with regard to long-term mortality, as well as to many secondary outcomes indicating myocardial protection.

Editor’s Perspective

What We Already Know about This Topic

What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Comparison of In-hospital Outcomes Between Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using Administrative Data

OBJECTIVE

The number of surgeries for valvular heart disease performed in Japan has greatly increased over the past decade, and surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVR) constitute the vast majority of aortic valve replacement procedures. Although transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was recently introduced, studies have yet to compare the clinical outcomes between TAVI and SAVR in the Japanese healthcare setting. This study aimed to compare in-hospital outcomes between TAVI and SAVR using a multicenter administrative database.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Acute care hospitals in Japan.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 16,775 patients diagnosed with aortic valve stenosis.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The main study outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Based on multiple logistic regression analysis using inverse probability of treatment weighting, the odds ratio of in-hospital mortality for TAVI (relative to SAVR) was calculated to be 0.36 (95% confidence intervals: 0.13-0.98; p = 0.04). In patients aged 80 years or older, the odds ratio was even lower at 0.34 (95% confidence intervals: 0.15-0.73; p < 0.01). In addition, the incidences of reoperations, hemorrhagic complications, cardiac tamponade, and postoperative infections were significantly higher in the SAVR patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This large-scale multicenter comparative analysis of TAVI and SAVR in Japan indicated that TAVI produced better clinical outcomes in patients with aortic valve stenosis. The improved outcomes were particularly notable in patients aged 80 years or older.