Comparison between propofol and total inhalational anaesthesia on cardiovascular outcomes following on-pump cardiac surgery in higher-risk patients: a randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study.
Humans
Propofol
/ administration & dosage
Feasibility Studies
Male
Female
Pilot Projects
Aged
Anesthetics, Intravenous
/ administration & dosage
Middle Aged
Single-Blind Method
Coronary Artery Bypass
/ adverse effects
Anesthesia, Inhalation
/ methods
Treatment Outcome
Risk Assessment
/ methods
Risk Factors
COVID-19
/ epidemiology
Postoperative Complications
/ prevention & control
Anesthetics, Inhalation
/ administration & dosage
Cardiopulmonary Bypass
/ adverse effects
Cardiac Surgical Procedures
Coronary Artery Bypass
Coronary Artery Disease
Drug Interactions
Outcome Assessment, Health Care
Journal
Open heart
ISSN: 2053-3624
Titre abrégé: Open Heart
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101631219
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 May 2024
09 May 2024
Historique:
received:
09
02
2024
accepted:
14
04
2024
medline:
10
5
2024
pubmed:
10
5
2024
entrez:
9
5
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Myocardial revascularisation and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) can cause ischaemia-reperfusion injury, leading to myocardial and other end-organ damage. Volatile anaesthetics protect the myocardium in experimental studies. However, there is uncertainty about whether this translates into clinical benefits because of the coadministration of propofol and its detrimental effects, restricting myocardial protective processes. In this single-blinded, parallel-group randomised controlled feasibility trial, higher-risk patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery with an additive European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation ≥5 were randomised to receive either propofol or total inhalational anaesthesia as single agents for maintenance of anaesthesia. The primary outcome was the feasibility of recruiting and randomising 50 patients across two cardiac surgical centres, and secondary outcomes included the feasibility of collecting the planned perioperative data, clinically relevant outcomes and assessments of effective patient identification, screening and recruitment. All 50 patients were recruited within 11 months in two centres, allowing for a 13-month hiatus in recruitment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 50/108 (46%) of eligible patients were recruited. One patient withdrew before surgery and one patient did not undergo surgery. All but one completed in-hospital and 30-day follow-up. It is feasible to recruit and randomise higher-risk patients undergoing CABG surgery to a study comparing total inhalational and propofol anaesthesia in a timely manner and with high acceptance and completion rates. NCT04039854.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38724266
pii: openhrt-2024-002630
doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2024-002630
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Propofol
YI7VU623SF
Anesthetics, Intravenous
0
Anesthetics, Inhalation
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04039854']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Multicenter Study
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.