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.

Impact of general anesthesia on postoperative complications in orthognathic surgery: a retrospective comparison of total intravenous anesthesia versus volatile anesthesia.

Orthognathic surgery has a high incidence of postoperative nausea (PON) and vomiting (POV), delaying mobility initiation and postoperative recovery. Bleeding is another risk associated with this surgical procedure. We aimed to compare total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and volatile anesthesia in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery in terms of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) incidence and hemodynamic changes. This retrospective study included 82 patients who underwent bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomies at Saga University Hospital between April 2016 and April 2021. We compared the effects of TIVA and volatile anesthesia on PONV onset after surgery, acute postoperative hemodynamic changes (blood pressure and heart rate), and factors contributing to PONV. PON was significantly lower in the TIVA group than in the volatile anesthesia group. The total dose of fentanyl contributed to the onset of POV, while the onset of PON was associated with low volumes of fluid infusion and urine in the TIVA and volatile anesthesia groups, respectively. Furthermore, post-extubation hemodynamic change was significantly smaller in the TIVA group than in the volatile anesthesia group. Therefore, TIVA could have a reduced risk of PONV and hemodynamic changes in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery. Employing TIVA could mitigate perioperative complications and enhance patient safety.

Comparison of Propofol-Based Total Intravenous Anesthesia versus Volatile Anesthesia with Sevoflurane for Postoperative Delirium in Adult Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Single-Blinded Study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the incidence of delirium and early (at 1 week) postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) between propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and volatile anesthesia with sevoflurane in adult patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). DESIGN: This was a prospective randomized single-blinded study. SETTING: The study was conducted at a single institution, the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, a tertiary care institution and university-level teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-two patients undergoing elective CABG under CPB participated in this study. INTERVENTIONS: This study was conducted on 72 adult patients (>18 years) undergoing elective CABG under CPB who were randomized to receive propofol or sevoflurane. Anesthetic depth was monitored to maintain the bispectral index between 40 and 60. Delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit. Early POCD was diagnosed when there was a reduction of >2 points in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score compared to baseline. Cerebral oximetry changes using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), atheroma grades, and intraoperative variables were compared between the 2 groups. MEASUREMENTS & MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were randomized to receive propofol (n = 36) or sevoflurane (n = 36). The mean patient age was 59.4 ± 8.6 years. The baseline and intraoperative variables, including atheroma grades, NIRS values, hemoglobin, glycemic control, and oxygenation, were comparable in the 2 groups. Fifteen patients (21.7%) patients developed delirium, and 31 patients (44.9%) had early POCD. The incidence of delirium was higher with sevoflurane (n = 12; 34.2%) compared to propofol (n = 3; 8.8%) (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-2.62; p = 0.027)*. POCD was higher with sevoflurane (n = 20; 57.1%) compared to propofol (n = 11; 32.3%) (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.01-2.62; p = 0.038)*. In patients aged >65 years, delirium was higher with sevoflurane (7/11; 63.6%) compared to propofol (1/7; 14.2%) (p = 0.03)*. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol-based TIVA was associated with a lower incidence of delirium and POCD compared to sevoflurane in this cohort of patients undergoing CABG under CPB. Large-scale, multicenter randomized trials with longer follow-up are needed to substantiate the clinical relevance of this observation.

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.

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.

Comparison of Complications between Total Intravenous Anaesthesia and Combined Intravenous and Inhalation Anaesthesia after Renal Biopsy in Children.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the influence of total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) compared to combined intravenous and inhalation anaesthesia (CIIA) in paediatric patients undergoing renal biopsy. METHODS: A total of 86 children with nephrotic syndrome, acute glomerulonephritis, chronic glomerulonephritis, IgG nephropathy, systemic lupus erythematosus and purpura nephritis were selected from January 2018 to January 2023 in our hospital. All children were divided into the total intravenous anaesthesia group and intravenous inhalational anaesthesia group according to the anaesthesia method. The experimental group comprised 46 children with renal diseases who underwent static aspiration compound anaesthesia during renal biopsy at our hospital from January 2018 to January 2023. Conversely, the control group included 40 children with renal diseases who underwent total intravenous anaesthesia during renal biopsy at the hospital within the same period. Hemodynamic parameters, such as mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and oxygen saturation (SPO2), were assessed at four different time points: Before anesthesia induction (T0), during anesthesia induction (T1), after anesthesia induction (T2), and at the conclusion of the surgery (T3). Puncture success rate, time to renal puncture, time to get out of bed, postoperative recovery from anaesthesia (including time to postoperative awakening and time to return to spontaneous respiration) and incidence of adverse anaesthetic reactions were also included. RESULTS: We observed notable variations in HR and MAP at T2 and T3, as well as SPO2 levels, duration of awakening from anaesthesia and time taken to resume spontaneous respiration between the two groups at T2 (p < 0.05). No statistically significant variances were detected between the two groups concerning adverse reactions to anaesthesia, puncture success rate, duration to renal puncture and time to mobilisation from bed (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, compared with the total intravenous anaesthesia, the implementation of the sedation-aspiration-combined anaesthesia in renal biopsy in children with renal disease features less haemodynamic fluctuation, better postoperative anaesthesia recovery and does not increase the incidence of adverse reactions.

Delayed Emergence from Total Intravenous Anesthesia Following Posterior Spinal Correction and Fusion for Scoliosis: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND Postoperative acute liver failure, a complication following spine surgery, can cause delayed emergence from total intravenous anesthesia. Here, we report a case of acute severe postoperative liver failure following posterior spinal correction and fusion in a patient with congenital scoliosis. CASE REPORT A girl's congenital scoliosis worsened, and posterior spinal correction and fusion was scheduled. General anesthesia was induced with sevoflurane, fentanyl, target-controlled-infusion with propofol, and rocuronium. General anesthesia was maintained using target-controlled-infusion with propofol and remifentanil. The operation was completed with no remarkable complications. The operative time was 516 min and the anesthesia time was 641 min in the prone position. Emergence from anesthesia was poor, and it took 68 min to remove the tracheal tube after discontinuation of the anesthetic agents. The patient was drowsy and was transferred to her room in a general ward without reporting any pain, nausea, or dyspnea. On postoperative day 1, the results of laboratory investigations were suggestive of acute liver failure; contrast-enhanced computed tomography revealed a poorly enhanced area in the umbilical portion of the left liver lobe portal vein, indicating ischemic liver damage. Although no additional treatment was administered for acute liver failure, the patient recovered over time, and laboratory values normalized. No other postoperative complications were observed, and the patient was discharged on postoperative day 1. CONCLUSIONS Delayed emergence from general anesthesia may be due to acute liver failure following posterior spinal correction and fusion. There are several possible causes of postoperative liver failure, including anesthetics, prone position, and spinal surgery.

Effect of Volatile Anesthesia Versus Intravenous Anesthesia on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The effect of intraoperative anesthetic regimen on pulmonary outcome after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is yet undetermined. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of volatile anesthesia (sevoflurane or desflurane) compared with propofol-based intravenous anesthesia on pulmonary complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy. METHODS: Patients scheduled for minimally invasive esophagectomy were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 general anesthetic regimens (sevoflurane, desflurane, or propofol). The primary outcome was the incidence of pulmonary complications within the 7 days postoperatively, which was a collapsed composite end point, including respiratory infection, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, atelectasis, respiratory failure, bronchospasm, pulmonary embolism, and aspiration pneumonitis. The severity of pulmonary complications, surgery-related complications, and other secondary outcomes were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 647 patients assessed for eligibility, 558 were randomized, and 553 were analyzed. A total of 185 patients were assigned to the sevoflurane group, 185 in the desflurane, and 183 in the propofol group. Patients receiving a volatile anesthetic (sevoflurane or desflurane) had a significantly lower incidence (36.5% vs 47.5%; odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.91; P = .013) and lower severity grade of pulmonary complications ( P = .035) compared to the patients receiving propofol. There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy, the use of volatile anesthesia (sevoflurane or desflurane) resulted in the reduced risk and severity of pulmonary complications within the first 7 postoperative days as compared to propofol-based intravenous anesthesia.

Incidence of intraoperative hypotension in older patients undergoing total intravenous anesthesia by remimazolam versus propofol: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: An increase in the frequency of surgeries among older individuals is observed in some countries. Hypotension is common and exaggerated in older patients and can lead to increased morbidity and mortality. Total intravenous anesthesia is commonly administered with propofol, while remimazolam has been suggested as an alternative to propofol because of advantages such as a more stable hemodynamic profile and less respiratory suppression. We conducted a single-blind, parallel-group randomized controlled trial to compare the incidence of intraoperative hypotension between patients administered with remimazolam and propofol. METHODS: A total of 132 patients, aged between 65 to 80 years and undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy or transurethral resection of bladder tumors were randomly assigned to the propofol or remimazolam group with a permuted block system while being blinded to the hypnotic agent. Remifentanil was administered via target-controlled infusion in both groups, with an initial effect-site concentration of 3.0 ng/mL and titration range of 1.5 to 4.0 ng/mL intraoperatively. The primary outcome of this study was the overall incidence of hypotension during general anesthesia. RESULTS: Patients in the propofol group experienced higher intraoperative hypotension than those in the remimazolam group (59.7% vs 33.3%, P = .006). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that remimazolam administration was associated with reduced hypotension (adjusted odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.16-0.73). Secondary outcomes such as recovery time, delirium, and postoperative nausea and vomiting were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION: Total intravenous anesthesia with remimazolam was associated with less intraoperative hypotension than propofol in older patients, with a comparable recovery profile.

General purpose models for intravenous anesthetics, the next generation for target-controlled infusion and total intravenous anesthesia?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There are various pharmacokinetic-dynamic models available, which describe the time course of drug concentration and effect and which can be incorporated into target-controlled infusion (TCI) systems. For anesthesia and sedation, most of these models are derived from narrow patient populations, which restricts applicability for the overall population, including (small) children, elderly, and obese patients. This forces clinicians to select specific models for specific populations. RECENT FINDINGS: Recently, general purpose models have been developed for propofol and remifentanil using data from multiple studies and broad, diverse patient groups. General-purpose models might reduce the risks associated with extrapolation, incorrect usage, and unfamiliarity with a specific TCI-model, as they offer less restrictive boundaries (i.e., the patient "doesn't fit in the selected model") compared with the earlier, simpler models. Extrapolation of a model can lead to delayed recovery or inadequate anesthesia. If multiple models for the same drug are implemented in the pump, it is possible to select the wrong model for that specific case; this can be overcome with one general purpose model implemented in the pump. SUMMARY: This article examines the usability of these general-purpose models in relation to the more traditional models.

Pro-Con Debate: Should All General Anesthesia Be Done Using Target-Controlled Propofol Infusion Guided by Objective Monitoring of Depth of Anesthesia?

In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss whether all general anesthesia should be done using target-controlled propofol anesthesia guided by monitoring of depth of anesthesia. This is an ongoing debate since more than 25 years, representing a scientific, cultural as well as geographical divide in the anesthesia community. The Pro side argues that total intravenous anesthesia causes less postoperative nausea and higher patient satisfaction than anesthesia using volatile anesthetics. Target-controlled infusion (TCI) of anesthetic agents allows for better titration of intravenous anesthesia using pharmacokinetic models. Processed EEG monitors, such as bispectral index monitoring, allows for better assessing the effect of TCI anesthesia than solely assessment of clinical parameters, such as ECG or blood pressure. The combination of TCI propofol and objective depth of anesthesia monitoring allows creating a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic profile for each patient. Finally, anesthesia using volatile anesthetics poses health risks for healthcare professionals and contributes to greenhouse effect. The Con side argues that for procedures accompanied with ischemia and reperfusion injury of an organ or tissue and for patients suffering from a severe inflammation' the use of volatile anesthetics might well have its advantages above propofol. In times of sudden shortage of drugs, volatile anesthetics can overcome the restriction in the operating theater or even on the intensive care unit, which is another advantage. Volatile anesthetics can be used for induction of anesthesia when IV access is impossible, end-tidal measurements of volatile anesthetic concentration allows confirmation that patients receive anesthetics. Taking environmental considerations into account, both propofol and volatile anesthetics bear certain harm to the environment, be it as waste product or as greenhouse gases. The authors therefore suggest to carefully considering advantages and disadvantages for each patient in its according environment. A well-balanced choice based on the available literature is recommended. The authors recommend careful consideration of advantages and disadvantages of each technique when tailoring an anesthetic to meet patient needs. Where appropriate, anesthesia providers are encouraged to account for unique features of anesthetic drug behavior, patient-reported and observed postoperative outcomes, and economic and environmental considerations when choosing any of the 2 described techniques.

The safety and efficacy between remimazolam and propofol in intravenous anesthesia of endoscopy operation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is the most widely used intravenous anesthetic in endoscopic surgery, but is associated with several adverse reactions. Public research has shown that remimazolam, a safe general anesthetic, is increasingly being used as a substitute for propofol in clinical operations. Our meta-analysis aimed to analyze whether the adverse reaction rate of remimazolam in endoscopic surgery is acceptable and whether the surgical success rate is not lower than that of propofol. AIM: This meta-analysis examined the adverse events and efficacy of remimazolam vs. propofol during endoscopic surgery. METHOD: MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched. Seven studies comparing remimazolam and propofol were included in our meta-analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Cochrane manual were used to assess the quality of the results published in all included studies to ensure that our meta-analysis results are reliable and worthwhile. RESULTS: Compared to propofol, the use of remimazolam reduced postoperative injection pain [relative risk (RR)=0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.12, P <0.00001], postoperative hypotension (RR=0.45, 95% CI: 0.28-0.73, P =0.001), and postoperative respiratory depression (RR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.08-0.47, P =0.0002); however, it also slightly reduced the success rate of the operation [risk difference (RD)=-0.02, 95% CI: -0.04 to -0.01, P =0.0007]. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of bradycardia symptoms after the operation (RD=-0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.01, P =0.35), recovery time after the operation [standardized mean difference (SMD)=0.68, 95% CI: -0.43 to 1.80, P =0.23] or discharge time (SMD=0.17, 95% CI: -0.58 to 0.23, P =0.41). We also performed a subgroup analysis of each corresponding outcome. CONCLUSION: Our analysis showed that remimazolam may be a safer shock option than propofol for endoscopic surgery. However, further research is required to determine their utility.

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.

Effects of total intravenous anesthesia with etomidate and propofol on postoperative cognitive dysfunction.

Increased incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is observed in elderly patients underwent intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with endotracheal intubation. Modulation of anesthetics compatibility may reduce the severity of POCD. Elderly patients scheduled for TIVA with endotracheal intubation were randomly divided into the control group (1.00?2.00 mg/kg propofol) and the etomidate and propofol combination group (1.00?2.00 mg/kg propofol and 0.30 mg/kg etomidate). Serum cortisol, S100?, and neuron-specific enolase (NSE), interleukin (IL)-6, and IL-10 were monitored during or after the operation. Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were utilized to assess the severity of POCD. 63 elderly patients in the etomidate and propofol combination group and 60 patients in the control group were enrolled, and there was no significant difference in gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status, surgical specialty, intraoperative blood loss, and operation time between the two groups. Significantly increased serum cortisol, S100?, NSE, IL-6, and reduced MMSE and MoCA scores were detected in the control group at different time points after the operation (0-72 h post operation) when compared to those before the operation. Similar trends for these observed factors were found in the etomidate and propofol combination group. In addition, the etomidate and propofol combination group showed better effects in reducing the serum levels of cortisol, S100?, NSE, IL-6, and increasing the MMSE and MoCA scores when compared to the control group. The present study demonstrates that the combination of propofol with etomidate could alleviate POCD in elderly patients underwent TIVA with endotracheal intubation anesthesia.

Feasibility pilot trial for the Trajectories of Recovery after Intravenous propofol versus inhaled VolatilE anesthesia (THRIVE) pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Millions of patients receive general anaesthesia for surgery annually. Crucial gaps in evidence exist regarding which technique, propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) or inhaled volatile anaesthesia (INVA), yields superior patient experience, safety and outcomes. The aim of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a large comparative effectiveness trial assessing patient experiences and outcomes after receiving propofol TIVA or INVA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol was cocreated by a diverse team, including patient partners with personal experience of TIVA or INVA. The design is a 300-patient, two-centre, randomised, feasibility pilot trial. Patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery requiring general anaesthesia with a tracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway will be eligible. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to propofol TIVA or INVA, stratified by centre and procedural complexity. The feasibility endpoints include: (1) proportion of patients approached who agree to participate; (2) proportion of patients who receive their assigned randomised treatment; (3) completeness of outcomes data collection and (4) feasibility of data management procedures. Proportions and 95% CIs will be calculated to assess whether prespecified thresholds are met for the feasibility parameters. If the lower bounds of the 95% CI are above the thresholds of 10% for the proportion of patients agreeing to participate among those approached and 80% for compliance with treatment allocation for each randomised treatment group, this will suggest that our planned pragmatic 12 500-patient comparative effectiveness trial can likely be conducted successfully. Other feasibility outcomes and adverse events will be described. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the ethics board at Washington University (IRB# 202205053), serving as the single Institutional Review Board for both participating sites. Recruitment began in September 2022. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, internet-based educational materials and mass media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05346588.

Postoperative acute kidney injury after volatile or intravenous anesthesia: a meta-analysis.

Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication after surgery. The pathophysiology of postoperative AKI is complex. One potentially important factor is anesthetic modality. We, therefore, conducted a meta-analysis of the available literature regarding anesthetic modality and incidence of postoperative AKI. Records were retrieved until January 17, 2023, with the search terms ("propofol" OR "intravenous") AND ("sevoflurane" OR "desflurane" OR "isoflurane" OR "volatile" OR "inhalational") AND ("acute kidney injury" OR "AKI"). A meta-analysis for common effects and random effects was performed after exclusion assessment. Eight records were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 15,140 patients (n = 7,542 propofol and n = 7,598 volatile). The common and random effects model revealed that propofol was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative AKI compared with volatile anesthesia [odds ratio: 0.63 (95% confidence interval: 0.56-0.72) and 0.49 (95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.73), respectively]. In conclusion, the meta-analysis revealed that propofol anesthesia is associated with a lower incidence of postoperative AKI compared with volatile anesthesia. This may motivate choosing propofol-based anesthesia in patients with increased risk of postoperative AKI due to preexisting renal impairment or surgery with a high risk of renal ischemia.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study analyzed the available literature on anesthetic modality and incidence of postoperative AKI. The meta-analysis revealed that propofol is associated with lower incidence of AKI compared with volatile anesthesia. It might therefore be considerable to use propofol anesthesia in surgeries with increased susceptibility for developing renal injuries such as cardiopulmonary bypass and major abdominal surgery.