Delirium in older patients given propofol or sevoflurane anaesthesia for major cancer surgery: a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common and disturbing postoperative complication that might be ameliorated by propofol-based anaesthesia. We therefore tested the primary hypothesis that there is less delirium after propofol-based than after sevoflurane-based anaesthesia within 7 days of major cancer surgery. METHODS: This multicentre randomised trial was conducted in 14 tertiary care hospitals in China. Patients aged 65-90 yr undergoing major cancer surgery were randomised to either propofol-based anaesthesia or to sevoflurane-based anaesthesia. The primary endpoint was the incidence of delirium within 7 postoperative days. RESULTS: A total of 1228 subjects were enrolled and randomised, with 1195 subjects included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (mean age 71 yr; 422 [35%] women); one subject died before delirium assessment. Delirium occurred in 8.4% (50/597) of subjects given propofol-based anaesthesia vs 12.4% (74/597) of subjects given sevoflurane-based anaesthesia (relative risk 0.68 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.48-0.95]; P=0.023; adjusted relative risk 0.59 [95% CI: 0.39-0.90]; P=0.014). Delirium reduction mainly occurred on the first day after surgery, with a prevalence of 5.4% (32/597) with propofol anaesthesia vs 10.7% (64/597) with sevoflurane anaesthesia (relative risk 0.50 [95% CI: 0.33-0.75]; P=0.001). Secondary endpoints, including ICU admission, postoperative duration of hospitalisation, major complications within 30 days, cognitive function at 30 days and 3 yr, and safety outcomes, did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Delirium was a third less common after propofol than sevoflurane anaesthesia in older patients having major cancer surgery. Clinicians might therefore reasonably select propofol-based anaesthesia in patients at high risk of postoperative delirium. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-IPR-15006209) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02662257).

Long-term survival in older patients given propofol or sevoflurane anaesthesia for major cancer surgery: follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Experimental evidence indicates that i.v. anaesthesia might reduce cancer recurrence compared with volatile anaesthesia, but clinical information is observational only. We therefore tested the primary hypothesis that propofol-based anaesthesia improves survival over 3 or more years after potentially curative major cancer surgery. METHODS: This was a long-term follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial in 14 tertiary hospitals in China. We enrolled 1228 patients aged 65-90 yr who were scheduled for major cancer surgery. They were randomised to either propofol-based i.v. anaesthesia or to sevoflurane-based inhalational anaesthesia. The primary endpoint was overall survival after surgery. Secondary endpoints included recurrence-free and event-free survival. RESULTS: Amongst subjects randomised, 1195 (mean age 72 yr; 773 [65%] male) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. At the end of follow-up (median 43 months), there were 188 deaths amongst 598 patients (31%) assigned to propofol-based anaesthesia compared with 175 deaths amongst 597 patients (29%) assigned to sevoflurane-based anaesthesia; adjusted hazard ratio 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83-1.26; P=0.834. Recurrence-free survival was 223/598 (37%) in patients given propofol anaesthesia vs 206/597 (35%) given sevoflurane anaesthesia; adjusted hazard ratio 1.07; 95% CI: 0.89-1.30; P=0.465. Event-free survival was 294/598 (49%) in patients given propofol anaesthesia vs 274/597 (46%) given sevoflurane anaesthesia; adjusted hazard ratio 1.09; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; P=0.298. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival after major cancer surgery was similar with i.v. and volatile anaesthesia. Propofol-based iv. anaesthesia should not be used for cancer surgery with the expectation that it will improve overall or cancer-specific survival. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: ChiCTR-IPR-15006209; NCT02660411.

Development and validation of a preoperative nomogram for predicting positive surgical margins after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Positive surgical margins are independent risk factor for biochemical recurrence, local recurrence, and distant metastasis after radical prostatectomy. However, limited predictive tools are available. This study aimed to develop and validate a preoperative nomogram for predicting positive surgical margins after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). METHODS: From January 2010 to March 2016, a total of 418 patients who underwent LRP without receiving neoadjuvant therapy at Peking University Third Hospital were retrospectively involved in this study. Clinical and pathological results of each patient were collected for further analysis. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression (backward stepwise method) were used for the nomogram development. The concordance index (CI), calibration curve analysis and decision curve analysis were used to evaluate the performance of our model. RESULTS: Of 418 patients involved in this study, 142 patients (34.0%) had a positive surgical margin on final pathology. Based on the backward selection, four variables were included in the final multivariable regression model, including the percentage of positive cores in preoperative biopsy, clinical stage, free prostate specific antigen (fPSA)/total PSA (tPSA), and age. A nomogram was developed using these four variables. The concordance index (C-index) of the nomogram was 0.722 in the development cohort and 0.700 in the bootstrap validations. The bias-corrected calibration plot showed a limited departure from the ideal line with a mean absolute error of 2.0%. In decision curve analyses, the nomogram showed net benefits in the range from 0.2 to 0.7. CONCLUSION: A nomogram to predict positive surgical margins after LRP was developed and validated, which could help urologists plan surgical procedures.