Evaluation of Automated Delivery of Propofol Using a Closed-Loop Anesthesia Delivery System in Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Study

Abstract

Automated propofol total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) administered by a closed-loop anesthesia delivery system (CLADS) exhibits greater efficiency than conventional manual methods, but its use in major thoracic surgery is limited. Prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study. Single-center tertiary care hospital. Patients undergoing thoracic surgery. Patients were randomly allocated to receive CLADS-driven (CLADS group) or manually controlled (manual group) propofol TIVA. Anesthesia depth consistency (primary objective) and anesthesia delivery performance, propofol usage, work ergonomics, intraoperative hemodynamics, and recovery profile (secondary objectives) were analyzed. No differences were found for anesthesia depth consistency (percentage of time the bispectral index was within ± 10 of target) (CLADS group: 82.5% [78.5%-87.2%] v manual group: 86.5% [74.2%-92.5%]; p = 0.581) and delivery performance, including median performance error (CLADS group: 3 [-4 to 6] v manual group: 1 [-2.5 to 6]); median absolute performance error (CLADS group: 10 [10-12] v manual group:10 [8-12]); wobble (CLADS group: 10 [8-12] v manual group: 9 [6-10.5]); and global score (CLADS group: 24.2 [21.2-29.3] v manual group: 22.1 [17.3-32.3]) (p > 0.05). However, propofol requirements were significantly lower in the CLADS group for induction (CLADS group: 1.27 ± 0.21] mg/kg v manual group: 1.78 ± 0.51 mg/kg; p = 0.014) and maintenance (CLADS group: 4.02 ± 0.99 mg/kg/h v manual group: 5.11 ± 1.40 mg/kg/h; p = 0.025) of TIVA. Ergonomically, CLADS-driven TIVA was found to be significantly superior to manual control (infusion adjustment frequency/h) (manual infusion: 9.6 [7.8-14.9] v CLADS delivery [none]). In thoracic surgery patients, CLADS-automated propofol TIVA confers significant ergonomic advantage along with lower propofol usage.