ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of volatile anaesthesia and total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) in terms of patient outcomes after cardiac surgery remains a topic of debate. METHODS: Multicentre randomised trial in 16 tertiary hospitals in China. Adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive volatile anaesthesia (sevoflurane or desflurane) or propofol-based TIVA. The primary outcome was a composite of predefined major complications during hospitalisation and mortality 30 days after surgery. RESULTS: Of the 3123 randomised patients, 3083 (98.7%; mean age 55 yr; 1419 [46.0%] women) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The composite primary outcome was met by a similar number of patients in both groups (volatile group: 517 of 1531 (33.8%) patients vs TIVA group: 515 of 1552 (33.2%) patients; relative risk 1.02 [0.92-1.12]; P=0.76; adjusted odds ratio 1.05 [0.90-1.22]; P=0.57). Secondary outcomes including 6-month and 1-yr mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU and hospital stay, and healthcare costs, were also similar for the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults undergoing cardiac surgery, we found no difference in the clinical effectiveness of volatile anaesthesia and propofol-based TIVA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-IOR-17013578).