Hyperbaric bupivacaine versus prilocaine for spinal anesthesia combined with total intravenous anesthesia during oncological colon surgery in a 23-hour stay enhanced recovery protocol: A non-randomized study.

After the success of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol, perioperative care has been further optimized in accelerated enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs), where optimal pain management is crucial. Spinal anesthesia was introduced as adjunct to general anesthesia to reduce postoperative pain and facilitate mobility. This study aimed to determine which spinal anesthetic agent provides best pain relief in accelerated ERP for colon carcinoma. This single center study was a secondary analysis conducted among patients included in the aCcelerated 23-Hour erAS care for colon surgEry study who underwent elective laparoscopic colon surgery. The first 30 patients included received total intravenous anesthesia combined with spinal anesthesia with prilocaine, the 30 patients subsequently included received spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine. Primary endpoint of this study was the total amount of morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) administered during hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were amounts of MMEs administered in the recovery room and surgical ward, pain score using the numeric rating scale, complication rates and length of hospital stay. Compared to prilocaine, the total amount of MMEs administered was significantly lower in the bupivacaine group (n = 60, 16.3 vs 6.3, P = .049). Also, the amount of MMEs administered and median pain scores were significantly lower after intrathecal bupivacaine in the recovery room (MMEs 11.0 vs 0.0, P = .012 and numeric rating scale 2.0 vs 1.5, P = .004). On the surgical ward, median MMEs administered, and pain scores were comparable. Postoperative outcomes were similar in both groups. Spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine was associated with less opioid use and better pain reduction immediately after surgery compared to prilocaine within an accelerated ERP for elective, oncological colon surgery.

Optimizing nicardipine dosage for effective control of pituitrin-induced hypertension in laparoscopic myomectomy undergoing total intravenous anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the median effective dose (ED50) and 95% effective dose (ED95) of nicardipine for treating pituitrin-induced hypertension during laparoscopic myomectomy, providing guidance for the management of intraoperative blood pressure in such patients. METHODS: Among the initial 40 participants assessed, 24 underwent elective laparoscopic myomectomy. A sequential up-and-down method was employed to ascertain the ED50 of nicardipine based on its antihypertensive efficacy. Nicardipine was initially administered at 6 µg/kg following the diagnosis of pituitrin-induced hypertension in the first patient. Dosing adjustments were made to achieve the desired antihypertensive effect, restoring systolic blood pressure and heart rate to within ± 20% of baseline within 120 s. The dosing increment or reduction was set at 0.5 µg/kg for effective or ineffective responses, respectively. The ED50 and ED95 of nicardipine were calculated using Probit regression by Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) to establish dose-response curves and confidence intervals. RESULTS: 24 patients were included for analysis finally. The ED50 and ED95 of nicardipine for blood pressure control after pituitrin injection were determined. The study found that the ED50 of nicardipine for treating pituitrin-induced hypertension was 4.839 µg/kg (95% CI: 4.569-5.099 µg/kg), and the ED95 was estimated at 5.308 µg/kg (95% CI: 5.065-6.496 µg/kg). Nicardipine effectively mitigated the hypertensive response caused by pituitrin without inducing significant tachycardia or hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: Nicardipine effectively controlled blood pressure after pituitrin injection during laparoscopic myomectomy, with ED50 and ED95 values established. This research highlights the potential utility of nicardipine in addressing hypertensive responses induced by pituitrin, particularly in clinical settings where pituitrin is routinely administered.

Application of propofol-remifentanil intravenous general anesthesia combined with regional block in pediatric ophthalmic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to observe the anesthetic effect and safety of intravenous anesthesia without muscle relaxant with propofol-remifentanil combined with regional block under laryngeal mask airway in pediatric ophthalmologic surgery. METHODS: A total of 90 undergoing ophthalmic surgery were anesthetized with general anesthesia using the laryngeal mask airway without muscle relaxant. They were randomly divided into two groups: 45 children who received propofol-remifentanil intravenous anesthesia combined with regional block (LG group), and 45 children who received total intravenous anesthesia (G group). The peri-operative circulatory indicators, awakening time after general anesthesia, postoperative analgesic effect and the incidence of anesthesia-related adverse events were respectively compared between the two groups. RESULTS: All the children successfully underwent the surgical procedure. The awakening time after general anesthesia and removal time of laryngeal mask were significantly shorter in the LG group than in the G group (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the heart rates in the perioperative period between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of intraoperative physical response, respiratory depression, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and emergence agitation (EA) between the two groups (P > 0.05). The pain score at the postoperative hour 2 was lower in the LG group than in the G group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Propofol-remifentanil intravenous anesthesia combined with long-acting local anesthetic regional block anesthesia, combined with laryngeal mask ventilation technology without muscle relaxants, can be safely used in pediatric eye surgery to achieve rapid and smooth recovery from general anesthesia and better postoperative analgesia. This anesthesia scheme can improve the comfort and safety of children in perioperative period, and has a certain clinical popularization value.

Total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and remifentanil is associated with reduction in operative time in surgery for glioblastoma when compared with inhalational anaesthesia with sevoflurane.

BACKGROUND: Total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) is emerging as a preferred neuroanaesthetic agent compared with inhalational anaesthetic (IA) agents. We asked if TIVA with propofol and remifentanil was associated with shorter operative times compared to IA using sevoflurane in brain tumour surgery under GA. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing surgery for glioblastoma (GBM). We assessed choice of GA agent (TIVA or IA) with total time patient was under GA (anaesthetic time), operative time and time taken to recover fully from GA (recovery time). RESULTS: Over a two year period 263 patients underwent surgery under GA for their GBM including 188 craniotomy operations, 63 burr hole biopsy procedures and 12 open biopsy procedures. Of these, 79 operations took place under TIVA and 184 operations under IA. TIVA was associated with significantly reduced mean operative time including time taken to wake up in theatre (104 min with TIVA, 129 min with IA; p = 0.02). TIVA was also associated with trends toward shorter mean recovery time (118 min, versus 135 min with IA; p = 0.08) and shorter mean anaesthetic time (163 min, versus 181 min with IA; p = 0.07). There was no difference between TIVA and IA groups as regards duration of inpatient stay, readmission rates, complications or survival. CONCLUSIONS: TIVA with propofol and remifentanil may reduce anaesthetic, operative and recovery times in patients undergoing surgery for their GBM. These findings may be attributable to favourable effects on intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion, as well as rapid recovery from GA. In addition to clinical advantages, there may be financial and logistical benefits.

Accuracy of closed-loop and open-loop propofol delivery systems by bispectral index monitoring in breast surgery patients: a prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: This randomized and controlled prospective study tested the hypothesis that closed-loop Target-Controlled Infusion (TCI) of propofol would be associated with better system performance when compared with open-loop controlled delivery of propofol. METHODS: Patients scheduled for elective breast surgery were randomly assigned to two groups: a closed-loop group, in which propofol infusion was performed by a closed-loop TCI system that used the Bispectral Index (BIS) as a feedback parameter to titrate the rate of propofol infusion, and an open-loop group, in which propofol infusion was performed manually and guided by the bispectral index. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients were recruited for this study (closed-loop group n = 79; open-loop group n = 77). The Global Score (GS) of the closed-loop group was lower than that of the open-loop group (34.3 and 42.2) (p = 0.044). The proportions of time with a BIS value between 40 and 60 were almost identical in the closed-loop group and the open-loop group (68.7 ± 10.6% and 66.7 ± 13.3%) (p = 0.318). The individuals in the closed-loop group consumed more propofol compared with those in the open-loop group (7.20 ± 1.65 mg.kg-1.h-1 vs. 6.03 ± 1.31 mg.kg-1.h-1, p < 0.001). No intraoperative recall, somatic events or adverse events occurred. No significant difference in heart rate was observed between the two groups (p = 0.169). CONCLUSION: The closed-loop protocol was associated with lower BIS variability and lower out-of-range BIS values, at the cost of a greater consumption of propofol when compared to the open loop group. REGISTER NUMBER: ChiCTR-INR-17010399.

A randomized controlled trial of propofol-remifentanil total intravenous anesthesia and sevoflurane-fentanyl anesthesia on early postoperative fatigue in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

PURPOSE: Even after uncomplicated surgery, postoperative fatigue prevalence has been reported to be 30-80% for various surgeries. We evaluated postoperative fatigue according to anesthetic technique in patients who underwent colorectal surgery. METHODS: One hundred thirty patients who underwent colorectal surgery were randomly assigned to either propofol-remifentanil total intravenous anesthesia (propofol-remifentanil group, n = 65) or sevoflurane-fentanyl anesthesia (sevoflurane-fentanyl group, n = 65). The primary outcome was the prevalence of postoperative fatigue, as defined by the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (total score ≥ 16), at 24 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were early postoperative complications during hospitalization and laboratory examination. RESULTS: The final analyses included 127 patients. The prevalence of postoperative fatigue on the 1st postoperative day was lower in the propofol-remifentanil group than the sevoflurane-fentanyl group: 56.3% (36/64) in the propofol-remifentanil group and 73.0% (46/63) in the sevoflurane-fentanyl group (relative risk [RR] = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-1.00; P = 0.048). However, there was no difference between the two groups in postoperative fatigue at postoperative day 3. Other postoperative outcomes including the severity of pain and the incidence of nausea/vomiting were not different between the two groups, but postoperative atelectasis on chest X-ray was higher in the sevoflurane-fentanyl group (2/64 [3.1%] vs. 9/63 [14.3%], P = 0.025). C-reactive protein change from preoperative to postoperative day 1 and 5 was significantly lower in the propofol-remifentanil group (P = 0.044). CONCLUSION: Propofol-remifentanil total intravenous anesthesia was associated with reduced postoperative fatigue at the 1st postoperative day compared with sevoflurane-fentanyl anesthesia. Clinical trial The Korean Clinical Research Registry (study identifier: KCT0006917, principal investigator's name: MiHye Park, date of registration: January 12, 2022).

On the horns of a dilemma: choosing total intravenous anaesthesia or volatile anaesthesia for cancer surgery, an enduring controversy.

Two methods for administering general anaesthesia are widely used: propofol-based total intravenous anaesthesia (propofol-TIVA) and inhalation volatile agent-based anaesthesia. Both modalities, which have been standards of care for several decades, boast a robust safety profile. Nevertheless, the potential differential effects of these anaesthetic techniques on immediate, intermediate, and extended postoperative outcomes remain a subject of inquiry. We discuss a recently published longitudinal analysis stemming from a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing sevoflurane-based inhalation anaesthesia with propofol-TIVA in older patients with cancer, which showed a reduced incidence of emergence and postoperative delirium, comparable postoperative complication rates within 30 days after surgery, and comparable long-term survival rates. We undertake an assessment of the trial's methodological strengths and limitations, contextualise its results within the broader scientific evidence, and explore avenues for resolving the extant controversies in anaesthetic choice for cancer surgery. We aim to pave the way for the incorporation of precision medicine paradigms into the evolving landscape of perioperative care for patients with cancer.

Type of anesthesia for cancer resection surgery: No differential impact on cancer recurrence in mouse models of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is essential for curative treatment of solid tumors. Evidence from recent retrospective clinical analyses suggests that use of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia during cancer resection surgery is associated with improved overall survival compared to inhaled volatile anesthesia. Evaluating these findings in prospective clinical studies is required to inform definitive clinical guidelines but will take many years and requires biomarkers to monitor treatment effect. Therefore, we examined the effect of different anesthetic agents on cancer recurrence in mouse models of breast cancer with the overarching goal of evaluating plausible mechanisms that could be used as biomarkers of treatment response. METHODS: To test the hypothesis that volatile anesthesia accelerates breast cancer recurrence after surgical resection of the primary tumor, we used three mouse models of breast cancer. We compared volatile sevoflurane anesthesia with intravenous propofol anesthesia and used serial non-invasive bioluminescent imaging to track primary tumor recurrence and metastatic recurrence. To determine short-term perioperative effects, we evaluated the effect of anesthesia on vascular integrity and immune cell changes after surgery in animal models. RESULTS: Survival analyses found that the kinetics of cancer recurrence and impact on survival were similar regardless of the anesthetic agent used during cancer surgery. Vascular permeability, immune cell infiltration and cytokine profiles showed no statistical difference after resection with inhaled sevoflurane or intravenous propofol anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: These preclinical studies found no evidence that choice of anesthetic agent used during cancer resection surgery affected either short-term perioperative events or long-term cancer outcomes in mouse models of breast cancer. These findings raise the possibility that mouse models do not recapitulate perioperative events in cancer patients. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that future evaluation of effects of anesthesia on cancer outcomes should focus on cancer types other than breast cancer.

Impact of total intravenous anesthesia and total inhalation anesthesia as the anesthesia maintenance approaches on blood glucose level and postoperative complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is a prevalent metabolic disease in the world. Previous studies have shown that anesthetics can affect perioperative blood glucose levels which related to adverse clinical outcomes. Few studies have explored the choice of general anesthetic protocol on perioperative glucose metabolism in diabetes patients. We aimed to compare total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with total inhalation anesthesia (TIHA) on blood glucose level and complications in type 2 diabetic patients undergoing general surgery. METHODS: In this double-blind controlled trial, 116 type 2 diabetic patients scheduled for general surgery were randomly assigned to either the TIVA group or TIHA group (n = 56 and n = 60, respectively). The blood glucose level at different time points were measured and analyzed by the repeated-measures analysis of variance. The serum insulin and cortisol levels were measured and analyzed with t-test. The incidence of complications was followed up and analyzed with chi-square test or Fisher's exact test as appropriate. The risk factors for complications were analyzed using the logistic stepwise regression. RESULTS: The blood glucose levels were higher in TIHA group than that in TIVA group at the time points of extubation, 1 and 2 h after the operation, 1 and 2 days after the operation, and were significantly higher at 1 day after the operation (10.4 ± 2.8 vs. 8.1 ± 2.1 mmol/L; P < 0.01). The postoperative insulin level was higher in TIVA group than that in TIHA group (8.9 ± 2.9 vs. 7.6 ± 2.4 IU/mL; P = 0.011). The postoperative cortisol level was higher in TIHA group than that in TIVA group (15.3 ± 4.8 vs. 12.2 ± 8.9 ug/dL ; P = 0.031). No significant difference regarding the incidence of complications between the two groups was found based on the current samples. Blood glucose level on postoperative day 1 was a risk factor for postoperative complications (OR: 1.779, 95%CI: 1.009 ~ 3.138). CONCLUSIONS: TIVA has less impact on perioperative blood glucose level and a better inhibition of cortisol release in type 2 diabetic patients compared to TIHA. A future large trial may be conducted to find the difference of complications between the two groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol registered on the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry on 20/01/2020 (ChiCTR2000029247).

Automated Closed-Loop Propofol Anesthesia Versus Desflurane Inhalation Anesthesia in Obese Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgery: A Comparative Randomized Analysis of Recovery Profile.

INTRODUCTION: Precision general anesthesia (GA) techniques that minimize the presence of residual anesthetic and facilitate recovery, are desirable in patients with morbid obesity. Automated administration of propofol total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), which facilitates precision propofol delivery by factoring in continuous patient input variable (bispectral index) to establish a closed feedback loop system, may help mitigate concerns related to propofol's lipid solubility and adverse accumulation kinetics in patients with morbid obesity. This randomized study evaluated the recovery of patients with morbid obesity undergoing bariatric surgery under propofol TIVA automated by a closed-loop anesthesia delivery system (CLADS) versus desflurane GA. METHODS: Forty patients, randomly allocated to receive propofol TIVA (CLADS group) or desflurane GA (desflurane group), were evaluated for postoperative recovery (early and intermediate) (primary objective); they were evaluated for intraoperative hemodynamics, anesthesia depth consistency, anesthesia delivery performance characteristics, patient satisfaction, and incidence of adverse events (sedation, pain, postoperative nausea, and vomiting) (secondary objective). RESULTS: No difference was found for the time-to-eye-opening (CLADS group: 4.7 [3.0, 6.7] min vs. desflurane group: 5.6 [4.0, 6.9] min, P = 0.576), time-to-tracheal-extubation (CLADS group: 6.7 [4.7, 9.3] min vs. desflurane group: 7.0 [5.8, 9.2] min, P = 0.528), ability-to-shift score from operating room table to the transport bed (CLADS group: 3 [3.0, 3.5] vs. desflurane group: 3 [3.0, 4.0], P = 0.703), and time to achieve a modified Aldrete score 9/10 (CLADS group: 15 [15.0, 37.5] min vs. desflurane group: 15 [15.0, 43.7] min, P = 0.867). CONCLUSION: Automated propofol TIVA as administered by CLADS, which matched desflurane GA with respect to depth of anesthesia consistency and postanesthesia recovery profile, can be explored further as an alternative anesthesia technique in patients with morbid obesity.

Total intravenous anesthesia versus inhalation anesthesia: how do outcomes compare?

RECENT FINDINGS: Surgical procedures that involve general anesthesia are performed with either volatile anesthetics or propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia. Both techniques are safe and provide appropriate conditions for surgery. Despite being a well established anesthetic, the use of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) remains low. Possible explanations include the perceived increase risk of awareness, lack of target controlled infusion devices, increased turnover time for device set up and individual preference. SUMMARY: There are some scenarios where patients could potentially benefit from propofol-based TIVA rather than a volatile anesthetic (e.g. postoperative nausea and vomiting) and some other clinical scenarios where the use of propofol-based anesthesia remains controversial since the strength of the evidence remains low. PURPOSE: In this review we will summarize the clinical evidence comparing the effect of propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthetic on postoperative outcomes such as postoperative nausea and vomiting, postoperative pain, quality of recovery, postoperative cognitive dysfunction and cancer outcomes.

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.

Recovery Benefit With Total Intravenous Anesthesia in Patients Receiving Rhinoplasty.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the difference in recovery when comparing total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) to inhalational gas anesthesia in patients receiving rhinoplasty. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Postoperative anesthesia care unit (PACU). METHODS: Patients who received a functional or cosmetic rhinoplasty at a single academic institution between April 2017 and November 2020 were included. Inhalational gas anesthesia was in the form of sevoflurane. Phase I recovery time, which was defined as the time it took a patient to reach ≥9/10 on the Aldrete scoring system was recorded, as well as the usage of pain medication in the PACU. The postoperative course and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were also collected. RESULTS: Two hundred and two patients were identified with 149 (73.76%) who received TIVA and 53 (26.24%) who received sevoflurane. For the patients who received TIVA, the average recovery time was 101.44 minutes (standard deviation [SD]: 34.64) compared to an average recovery time of 121.09 minutes (SD: 50.19) for patients who received sevoflurane leading to a difference of 19.65 minutes (p = 0.002). Patients who received TIVA experienced less PONV (p = 0.001). There were no differences in the postoperative course including surgical or anesthesia complications, postoperative complications, hospital or Emergency Department admissions, or administration of pain medication (p > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: When utilizing TIVA over inhalational anesthesia, patients undergoing rhinoplasty had significantly increased benefits in terms of reduced phase I recovery times and decreased incidence of PONV. TIVA was demonstrated to be a safe and efficacious method of anesthesia for this patient population.

Perioperative management and surgical field optimization in functional endoscopic sinus surgery.

A sound anesthesiologist-surgeon collaboration is crucial for the success of functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). The aim of this narrative review was to describe if and how anesthetic choice can decrease bleeding and improve visibility in the surgical field (VSF) and thus contribute to successful FESS. A literature search was conducted on evidence-based practices published from 2011 to 2021 describing perioperative care, intravenous/inhalation anesthetics, and operative approaches for FESS and their effects on blood loss and VSF. With regards to preoperative care and operative approaches, best clinical practices include topical vasoconstrictors at the time of surgery, medical management (steroids) preoperatively, and patient positioning, as well as anesthetic techniques including controlled hypotension, ventilation settings, and anesthetics choices. Four out of five meta-analyses and six out of 11 randomized controlled trials favored total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) over inhalation anesthesia (IA) for improved VSF. The effects on VSF were more dependent on adjunct medications used (remifentanil, alpha-2 agonists, etc.), rather than the choice of anesthetic technique (i.e., TIVA vs. IA). The current literature is inconclusive regarding the impact of anesthetic choice on VSF during FESS. We recommend that anesthesiologists use the anesthetic technique with which they are most comfortable to facilitate efficiency, recovery, cost, and collaboration with the perioperative team. Future studies should be designed to consider disease severity, the method for measuring blood loss, and a standardized VSF score. Studies should also investigate the long-term effects of TIVA- and IA- induced hypotension.

Unwanted spontaneous responsiveness and burst suppression in patients undergoing entropy-guided total intravenous anesthesia with target-controlled infusion: An observational prospective trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence of unwanted spontaneous responsiveness and burst suppression (BSupp) in patients undergoing state entropy (SE) and surgical pleth index (SPI)-guided total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with target-controlled infusion (TCI). DESIGN: Observational, prospective, single-center study. SETTINGS: Operating room. PATIENTS: 107 adult (<65 years) and elderly (≥65 years) women undergoing breast surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Propofol-remifentanil TIVA-TCI-guided by SE for depth of anesthesia monitoring (target value 40-60) and SPI for antinociception monitoring (target value 20-50) without neuromuscular blockade. MEASUREMENTS: Age; body mass index; American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification; concentration at the effect site of propofol (CeP) and remifentanil (CeR) at loss of responsiveness (LoR), median during anesthesia maintenance (MdM), and at return of responsiveness (RoR); propofol infusion duration; incidence of postoperative delirium (POD) with Confusing Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit. MAIN RESULTS: During SE-SPI-guided TIVA-TCI, 13.1% of patients showed unwanted spontaneous responsiveness, whereas 45.8% showed BSupp. Unwanted spontaneous responsiveness was observed mainly in adults (p < 0.05), and higher CeP RoR (p < 0.05) was registered. BSupp was observed mainly in patients showing a lower CeP MdM (p < 0.01) and CeP RoR (p < 0.05). Unwanted spontaneous responsiveness and BSupp were not associated with significant differences in CeRs. An age-related hysteresis effect was observed, resulting in higher CeP LoR than CeP RoR (p < 0.001). 12.2% of patients showed POD. Only preoperative serum albumin was associated with increased likelihood of POD (p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: The SE-SPI-guided TIVA-TCI did not prevent unwanted spontaneous responsiveness and BSupp. CeP RoR may be used as a proxy for anesthetic sensitivity.

Comparison of the Effect of Ketamine and Dexmedetomidine Combined with Total Intravenous Anesthesia in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Procedures: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.

This randomized prospective clinical study aimed to investigate the effects of dexmedetomidine or ketamine administration to total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) on postoperative analgesia in subjects undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures. 90 adults, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status 1 and II patients, who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures were included in the study and randomized into three groups equally. Remifentanil, propofol, and rocuronium infusions were used for TIVA guided by the bispectral index. In group KETA, 10 µg/kg/min ketamine was added to TIVA before surgery, and in group DEX, 0.5 µg/kg/h dexmedetomidine was added to TIVA before surgery. Normal saline infusions were infused in the control group. Postoperative analgesia was provided with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) morphine (1 mg bolus morphine, 5 min lockout time). Hemodynamic parameters, scores of visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, rescue morphine requirements, and side effects such as sedation, nausea, and vomiting were recorded for 48 hours after surgery. Postoperative first analgesic requirement time was longer in group KETA (P < 0.001), and it was longer in group DEX than in the control group (P < 0.001). Pain scores were lower in group KETA and group DEX than in the control group at all corresponding times throughout the 48 h period of observation. Intravenous PCA morphine consumptions were higher in the control group than in group KETA (P < 0.001 for all followed-up times), and they were higher in group DEX than in group KETA (P < 0.001 for all followed-up times). It is concluded that the use of dexmedetomidine or ketamine infusions can be suitable as an additive for TIVA in the intraoperative period. Furthermore, the addition of both drugs to the TIVA protocol may improve postoperative pain relief and decrease opioid consumption.

Comparison of the effects of inhalational and total intravenous anesthesia on quality of recovery in patients undergoing endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

Background: Endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery has shown promising results. However, fast and high-quality recovery after this procedure remains a challenge for neuroanesthesiologists. This study aimed to compare the quality of recovery after transsphenoidal pituitary surgery between patients who received inhalational anesthesia with sevoflurane and patients who received propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). Methods: Eighty-two patients undergoing transsphenoidal pituitary surgery were randomized to receive either sevoflurane inhalation with manual infusion of remifentanil (sevoflurane group) or effect-site target-controlled infusion of propofol and remifentanil (TIVA group). The primary outcome was the 40-item Quality of Recovery (QoR-40) score on postoperative day 1. The QoR-40 questionnaire was completed by patients the day before surgery and on postoperative days 1 and 2. Emergence agitation and recovery characteristics were also assessed. Results: There were no significant differences between the groups in the global QoR-40 scores on both postoperative days 1 and 2 (difference -8.7, 95% CI -18.0 to 0.7, and P = 0.204; -3.6, 95% CI -13.0 to 5.8, and P > 0.999, respectively). The time to verbal response and time to extubation were significantly shorter in the sevoflurane group than in the TIVA group (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). However, the incidence of emergence agitation was lower in the TIVA group than in the sevoflurane group (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Both inhalational anesthesia with sevoflurane and propofol-based TIVA were appropriate anesthetic techniques for patients undergoing endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery in terms of the quality of recovery up to 2 days postoperatively. Rapid emergence was observed in the sevoflurane group, while smooth emergence was observed in the TIVA group.

On the horns of a dilemma: choosing total intravenous anaesthesia or volatile anaesthesia.

There are two established techniques of delivering general anaesthesia: propofol-based total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) and volatile agent-based inhaled anaesthesia. Both techniques are offered as standard of care and have an established safety track record lasting more than 30 years. However, it is not currently known whether the choice of anaesthetic technique results in a fundamentally different patient experience or affects early, intermediate-term, and longer-term postoperative outcomes. This editorial comments on a recently published study that suggests that inhaled volatile anaesthesia might be associated with fewer postoperative surgical complications than propofol-based TIVA for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. We consider the strengths and limitations of the study, place these findings in the context of the broader evidence, and discuss how the current controversies regarding anaesthetic technique can be resolved, thereby helping to bring precision medicine into the modern practice of perioperative care.

Total Intravenous Anesthesia With Dexmedetomidine for Hemodynamic Stability and Enhanced Recovery in Facial Aesthetic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing facial rejuvenation surgery are at unique risk of perioperative complications from the anesthetic utilized during the procedure. The ideal anesthetic agent is one that is safe to use in the outpatient population, has analgesic, sedative, and anesthetic properties, yet does not cause respiratory depression or hemodynamic irregularities. OBJECTIVES: A retrospective analysis of a large outpatient facelift cohort was performed to determine if dexmedetomidine, an α 2-adrenergic receptor agonist, meets the criteria of an ideal adjunct for propofol in a total intravenous anesthesia protocol. METHODS: The charts of 791 patients who underwent rhytidectomy with total intravenous anesthesia were reviewed and data of patients' operative risk factors, perioperative management including medications administered, perioperative vital signs, and postoperative adverse events were recorded. Statistical univariate analyses were performed on the data. RESULTS: Dexmedetomidine resulted in a significant reduction and maintenance of blood pressure from onset of anesthesia until discharge from the postanesthetic recovery unit. The utilization of opioids and anxiolytics was significantly less than previously reported for other anesthetic types. The postoperative nausea/vomiting rate was 0.8% (6 patients). There were no postoperative admissions for inpatient management. Forty-three (5.3%) patients required a conversion to general endotracheal anesthesia and statistically significant risk factors include increased BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists Class II or higher, preoperative hypertension, and multiple procedures performed. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine in a large cohort of outpatients undergoing facelift. Dexmedetomidine meets the requirements for an ideal adjunct anesthetic within a total intravenous anesthesia protocol.

Consistency of remifentanil concentrations in propofol-Remifentanil infusions. A laboratory-based study.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in two-agent single-pump intravenous infusions for anesthesia and sedation in pediatric patients. Propofol-remifentanil is one such mixture. The poor miscibility of such admixtures when remifentanil is added in very high concentrations and when the admixtures are maintained in static conditions has been demonstrated; however, these physiochemical properties have not been examined in clinically relevant concentrations or settings. AIM: To examine if propofol-remifentanil admixtures maintain consistent remifentanil delivery when mixed in clinically relevant remifentanil concentrations and subjected to the physical effects of an actively infusing, directly-engaged syringe driver system with an extension line, as occurs when propofol-remifentanil is administered to a patient. METHODS: A propofol 10 mg.ml-1 combined with remifentanil 5 mcg.ml-1 solution was run using a Paedfusor® propofol target-controlled infusion model for 10 kg and 20 kg children for 57 min at a target plasma concentration of 3 mcg.ml-1 through a 30 ml syringe, 180 cm minimum volume extension line, lever lock cannula, interlink injection site, and 22 g intravenous cannula into sample pots. Samples were taken at the completion of the loading bolus, 1 and 2 min postcompletion of loading bolus, and every 5 min thereafter. The remifentanil concentration in these samples was then assayed using chromatography. RESULTS: There was no difference in the concentration of remifentanil in the samples based on the duration of infusion to the endpoint of 1 h, or on the patient weight model used. The concentration remained 5 mcg.ml-1 +/- 0.5 mcg.ml-1 per sample. The measurement uncertainty for the assay at 0.5 mcg.ml-1 is +/- 0.2 mcg.ml-1 . CONCLUSION: The concentration of remifentanil was 5 mcg.ml-1 +/- 0.5 mcg.ml-1 and was consistent across 57 min of infusion, and two different pediatric weight profiles.