Effect of Volatile Anesthesia Versus Intravenous Anesthesia on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Journal
Anesthesia and analgesia
ISSN: 1526-7598
Titre abrégé: Anesth Analg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 1310650
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024
Historique:
medline:
10
1
2024
pubmed:
10
1
2024
entrez:
9
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38195081
doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000006814
pii: 00000539-990000000-00702
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 International Anesthesia Research Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Klevebro F, Elliott JA, Slaman A, et al. Cardiorespiratory comorbidity and postoperative complications following esophagectomy: a European multicenter cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:2864–2873.
Booka E, Takeuchi H, Suda K, et al. Meta-analysis of the impact of postoperative complications on survival after oesophagectomy for cancer. BJS Open. 2018;2:276–284.
Seesing MFJ, Gisbertz SS, Goense L, et al. A propensity score matched analysis of open versus minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy in the Netherlands. Ann Surg. 2017;266:839–846.
Tsunoda S, Obama K, Hisamori S, et al. Lower incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications following robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: propensity score-matched comparison to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:639–647.
Bhayani NH, Gupta A, Dunst CM, Kurian AA, Reavis KM, Swanstrom LL. Esophagectomies with thoracic incisions carry increased pulmonary morbidity. JAMA Surg. 2013;148:733–738.
Low DE, Allum W, De Manzoni G, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in esophagectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS(R)) Society Recommendations. World J Surg. 2019;43:299–330.
Singh P, Gossage J, Markar S, et al. Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS)/Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) consensus statement on intraoperative and postoperative interventions to reduce pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy. Br J Surg. 2022;109:1096–1106.
Durkin C, Schisler T, Lohser J. Current trends in anesthesia for esophagectomy. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2017;30:30–35.
Kaufmann K, Heinrich S. Minimizing postoperative pulmonary complications in thoracic surgery patients. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2021;34:13–19.
Beck-Schimmer B, Bonvini JM, Braun J, et al. Which anesthesia regimen is best to reduce morbidity and mortality in lung surgery?: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology. 2016;125:313–321.
de la Gala F, Pineiro P, Reyes A, et al. Postoperative pulmonary complications, pulmonary and systemic inflammatory responses after lung resection surgery with prolonged one-lung ventilation Randomized controlled trial comparing intravenous and inhalational anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2017;119:655–663.
Li XF, Hu JR, Wu Y, Chen Y, Zhang MQ, Yu H. Comparative effect of propofol and volatile anesthetics on postoperative pulmonary complications after lung resection surgery: a randomized clinical trial. Anesth Analg. 2021;133:949–957.
Zhang GH, Wang W. Effects of sevoflurane and propofol on the development of pneumonia after esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2017;17:164.
Lee JJ, Kim GH, Kim JA, et al. Comparison of pulmonary morbidity using sevoflurane or propofol-remifentanil anesthesia in an Ivor Lewis operation. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2012;26:857–862.
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010; 340:c332–c332.
Zhang R, Liu S, Sun H, et al. The application of single-lumen endotracheal tube anaesthesia with artificial pneumothorax in thoracolaparoscopic oesophagectomy. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;19:308–310.
van Workum F, Slaman AE, van Berge Henegouwen MI, et al. Propensity score-matched analysis comparing minimally invasive Ivor Lewis versus minimally invasive mckeown esophagectomy. Ann Surg. 2020;271:128–133.
Ye H, Wang X, Li X, et al. Effect of single-port inflatable mediastinoscopy simultaneous laparoscopic-assisted radical esophagectomy on respiration and circulation. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021;16:288.
Yu H, Tian W, Xu Z, et al. Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with opioids after thoracoscopic lung surgery: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2022;22:253.
Bluth T, Serpa Neto A, Schultz MJ, et al.; Writing Committee for the PROBESE Collaborative Group of the PROtective VEntilation Network (PROVEnet) for the Clinical Trial Network of the European Society of Anaesthesiology. Effect of intraoperative high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with recruitment maneuvers vs low peep on postoperative pulmonary complications in obese patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;321:2292–2305.
Li XF, Jiang D, Jiang YL, et al. Comparison of low and high inspiratory oxygen fraction added to lung-protective ventilation on postoperative pulmonary complications after abdominal surgery: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Anesth. 2020;67:110009.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–213.
Stark PA, Myles PS, Burke JA. Development and psychometric evaluation of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-15. Anesthesiology. 2013;118:1332–1340.
Shi W, Chen Y, Zhang MQ, Che GW, Yu H. Effects of methylprednisolone on early postoperative pain and recovery in patients undergoing thoracoscopic lung surgery: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Anesth. 2021;75:110526.
Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28:3083–3107.
Walsh M, Srinathan SK, McAuley DF, et al. The statistical significance of randomized controlled trial results is frequently fragile: a case for a fragility index. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:622–628.
Canet J, Gallart L, Gomar C, et al.; ARISCAT Group. Prediction of postoperative pulmonary complications in a population-based surgical cohort. Anesthesiology. 2010;113:1338–1350.
Low DE, Alderson D, Cecconello I, et al. International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg. 2015;262:286–294.
Schilling T, Kozian A, Senturk M, et al. Effects of volatile and intravenous anesthesia on the alveolar and systemic inflammatory response in thoracic surgical patients. Anesthesiology. 2011;115:65–74.
Schilling T, Kozian A, Kretzschmar M, et al. Effects of propofol and desflurane anaesthesia on the alveolar inflammatory response to one-lung ventilation. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99:368–375.
Demarquette A, Perrault T, Alapetite T, et al. Spin and fragility in randomised controlled trials in the anaesthesia literature: a systematic review. Br J Anaesth. 2023;130:528–535.
Wagner J, Strosing KM, Spassov SG, et al. Sevoflurane posttreatment prevents oxidative and inflammatory injury in ventilator-induced lung injury. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0192896.