Propofol Total Intravenous Anesthesia Research Articles

Propofol total intravenous anaesthesia in dogs undergoing elective surgery, a comparison of MADTC and conventional variable rate infusion

Propofol total intravenous anaesthesia in dogs undergoing elective surgery, a comparison of MADTC and conventional variable rate infusion

Propofol total intravenous anesthesia vs. sevoflurane inhalation anesthesia: Effects on post‑operative cognitive dysfunction and inflammation in geriatric patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Propofol total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) or sevoflurane inhalation anesthesia (IA) affects post-operative cognitive dysfunction in geriatric patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery; however, relevant real-world clinical evidence on the matter is limited. The present study aimed to compare the effects of propofol TIVA and sevoflurane IA on post-operative cognitive dysfunction in the aforementioned type of patients. The present prospective study enrolled 197 geriatric patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Patients were assigned to the propofol TIVA group (n=97) and sevoflurane IA group (n=100) according to the actual anesthesia regimens. The mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score was assessed before surgery and on day (D)1, D3 and D7 following surgery in both groups. The MMSE score on D1 was higher in the TIVA group compared with the IA group (P=0.006). The change in the MMSE scores from before surgery to D1 (P<0.001), D3 (P=0.011) and D7 (P=0.003) was smaller in the TIVA group vs. the IA group. Multivariate linear regression analyses suggested that the anesthesia method of TIVA (vs. IA) was independently related to the increased MMSE score on D1 (b=0.803; P=0.001) and D7 (b=0.472; P=0.025). The levels of interleukin (IL)-17A, IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor-α on D1, D3 and D7 exhibited a slightly decreasing trend in the TIVA group vs. the IA group, although the difference was not statistically significant (all P>0.05). Notably, the levels of IL-17A before surgery (P=0.015), on D3 (P=0.016) and D7 (P=0.002), as well as those of IL-6 on D1 (P=0.027), were negatively associated with the MMSE score at the corresponding time points. Overall, the present study demonstrates that propofol TIVA ameliorates post-operative cognitive dysfunction on D1 compared with sevoflurane IA and exerts a potentially suppressive effect on inflammation in geriatric patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Propofol partial intravenous anaesthesia with isoflurane alone or in combination with fentanyl and ketamine infusions in three captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) undergoing different diagnostic and surgical procedures

AbstractThree captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) were scheduled for diagnostic and surgical procedures under general anaesthesia. After premedication with oral midazolam (0.2 mg kg−1) and intramuscular medetomidine (20 µg kg−1) and ketamine (3 mg kg−1), anaesthesia was induced with intravenous propofol (1–4 mg kg−1). The animals were then maintained under general anaesthesia with propofol partial intravenous anaesthesia (0.10–0.17 mg kg−1 min−1) and isoflurane. On four occasions, the anaesthetised animals received fentanyl (1–3 µg kg−1 h−1) and ketamine (5–10 µg kg−1 min−1) infusions for analgesia. All animals recovered uneventfully. This case series details the anaesthetic protocols used, the challenges presented to the anaesthetist by this species and the peri‐anaesthetic complications observed. It also introduces the use of propofol total intravenous anaesthesia as an option for safe transportation of captive chimpanzees between facilities.

Effects of pre-medication with dexmedetomidine, midazolam-butorphanol and their combination on propofol total intravenous anaesthesia in goats

Effects of pre-medication with dexmedetomidine, midazolam-butorphanol and their combination on propofol total intravenous anaesthesia in goats

Dexmedetomidine versus Fentanyl as Adjuvant to Propofol Total Intravenous Anesthesia during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangial-Pancreatography Procedure

Abstract Background Various types of sedation and analgesia technique have been used during endoscopy procedures. Providing an adequate regimen of sedation/analgesia might be considered an art, influencing several aspects of endoscopic procedures: the quality of examination, the patient’s cooperation and the patient and physician’s satisfaction with sedation Objective To compare the effects of Dexmedetomidine/Propofol and Fentanyl/Propofol combination for conscious sedation in patients undergoing ERCP regarding hemodynamic changes, patients and endoscopists satisfaction. Patients and Methods Ninety four (94) ages 18-70 ASA ı-ıı were enrolled in this study. Patients were allocated randomly into two equal groups D/P and F/P groups. Patients received either Fentanyl 1 µg/kg or Dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg for 10 min, followed by maintenance dose 0.2 µg to 0.5 µg/kg/min. combined with propofol 1 mg/kg IV and maintenance 3 mg/kg/h regimen. With requiring additional dose if sedation level did not reached. Conduct open airway technique was used while applying o through nasal cannula 3 L/min. (MAP, HR and SPO) were recorded before and after sedation procedures then every 10 min. till the end of procedure, recovery time, postoperative complications, patients and endoscopists were recorded. Results the intra procedure HR, and BP showed statistical significant differences between both groups throughout the procedure with lower value in group D/P (p = 0.042) while there were no statistical significance differences regarding MAP and SPO. During postoperative procedure BP and MAP was statistical significant lower in D/P group (p = 0.015). Post procedure recovery time was shorter in group D/P (p = 0.049), regarding PONV was higher in D/P compared to F/P (p = 0.03), both group were statistical significant satisfied. Conclusion In our study we concluded that Dexmedetomidine/ Propofol combination provided adequate sedation with hemodynamic and respiratory stability with accepted few side effects and a good satisfication scores for patients and endoscopists. It was a good competitive to standard sedative as Fentanyl/Propofol in moderate sedation during ERCP.

Automated Closed-Loop Propofol Anesthesia Versus Desflurane Inhalation Anesthesia in Obese Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgery: A Comparative Randomized Analysis of Recovery Profile.

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. 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). 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). 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.

Automated Closed-Loop Propofol Anesthesia Versus Desflurane Inhalation Anesthesia in Obese Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgery: A Comparative Randomized Analysis of Recovery Profile.

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. 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). 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). 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.

Anaesthetic Techniques and Strategies: Do They Influence Oncological Outcomes?

Background: With the global disease burden of cancer increasing, and with at least 60% of cancer patients requiring surgery and, hence, anaesthesia over their disease course, the question of whether anaesthetic and analgesia techniques during primary cancer resection surgery might influence long term oncological outcomes assumes high priority. Methods: We searched the available literature linking anaesthetic-analgesic techniques and strategies during tumour resection surgery to oncological outcomes and synthesised this narrative review, predominantly using studies published since 2019. Current evidence is presented around opioids, regional anaesthesia, propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) and volatile anaesthesia, dexamethasone, dexmedetomidine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications and beta-blockers. Conclusions: The research base in onco-anaesthesia is expanding. There continue to be few sufficiently powered RCTs, which are necessary to confirm a causal link between any perioperative intervention and long-term oncologic outcome. In the absence of any convincing Level 1 recommending a change in practice, long-term oncologic benefit should not be part of the decision on choice of anaesthetic technique for tumour resection surgery.

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

IntroductionMillions 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...

Ketamine–propofol for total intravenous anaesthesia in rabbits: a comparison of premedication with acepromazine–medetomidine, acepromazine–midazolam or acepromazine–morphine

ObjectiveTo describe ketamine–propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) following premedication with acepromazine and either medetomidine, midazolam or morphine in rabbits. Study designRandomized, crossover experimental study. AnimalsA total of six healthy female New Zealand White rabbits (2.2 ± 0.3 kg). MethodsRabbits were anaesthetized on four occasions, each separated by 7 days: an intramuscular injection of saline alone (treatment Saline) or acepromazine (0.5 mg kg–1) in combination with medetomidine (0.1 mg kg–1), midazolam (1 mg kg–1) or morphine (1 mg kg–1), treatments AME, AMI or AMO, respectively, in random order. Anaesthesia was induced and maintained with a mixture containing ketamine (5 mg mL–1) and propofol (5 mg mL–1) (ketofol). Each trachea was intubated and the rabbit administered oxygen during spontaneous ventilation. Ketofol infusion rate was initially 0.4 mg kg–1 minute–1 (0.2 mg kg–1 minute–1 of each drug) and was adjusted to maintain adequate anaesthetic depth based on clinical assessment. Ketofol dose and physiological variables were recorded every 5 minutes. Quality of sedation, intubation and recovery times were recorded. ResultsKetofol induction doses decreased significantly in treatments AME (7.9 ± 2.3) and AMI (8.9 ± 4.0) compared with treatment Saline (16.8 ± 3.2 mg kg–1) (p < 0.05). The total ketofol dose to maintain anaesthesia was significantly lower in treatments AME, AMI and AMO (0.6 ± 0.1, 0.6 ± 0.2 and 0.6 ± 0.1 mg kg–1 minute–1, respectively) than in treatment Saline (1.2 ± 0.2 mg kg–1 minute–1) (p < 0.05). Cardiovascular variables remained at clinically acceptable values, but all treatments caused some degree of hypoventilation. Conclusions and clinical relevancePremedication with AME, AMI and AMO, at the doses studied, significantly decreased the maintenance dose of ketofol infusion in rabbits. Ketofol was determined to be a clinically acceptable combination for TIVA in premedicated rabbits.

Effects of alfaxalone, propofol and isoflurane on cerebral blood flow and cerebrovascular reactivity to carbon dioxide in dogs: A pilot study.

Propofol total intravenous anesthesia is a common choice to anesthetize patients with increased intracranial pressure, reducing cerebral blood flow while maintaining cerebrovascular reactivity to CO2. Propofol and alfaxalone are commonly used for total intravenous anesthesia in dogs, but the effects of alfaxalone on cerebral blood flow and cerebrovascular reactivity to CO2 are unknown. Our hypothesis was that alfaxalone would not be significantly different to propofol, while isoflurane would increase cerebral blood flow and decrease cerebrovascular reactivity to CO2. Six healthy hound dogs were evaluated in this randomized crossover trial. Dogs were anesthetized with 7.5mg/kg propofol, 3mg/kg alfaxalone or 8% sevoflurane, mechanically ventilated and maintained with propofol (400µg/kg/min), alfaxalone (150µg/kg/min) or 1.7% end-tidal isoflurane, respectively, with one week washout between treatments. Cerebral blood flow and cerebrovascular reactivity to CO2 during hypercapnic and hypocapnic challenges were measured using arterial spin labelling and blood oxygen level-dependent magnetic resonance imaging sequences, respectively. Median (interquartile range, IQR) normocapnic cerebral blood flow was significantly lower (P=0.016) with alfaxalone compared to isoflurane, in the whole brain 15.39mL/min/100g (14.90-19.90mL/min/100g) vs. 34.10mL/min/100g (33.35-43.17mL/min/100g), the grey matter 14.57mL/min/100g (13.66-18.72mL/min/100g) vs. 32.37mL/min/100g (31.03-42.99mL/min/100g), the caudal brain 15.47mL/min/100g (13.37-21.45mL/min/100g) vs. 36.85mL/min/100g (32.50-47.18mL/min/100g) and the temporal lobe grey matter 18.80mL/min/100g (15.89-20.84mL/min/100g) vs. 43.32 (36.07-43.58mL/min/100g). Median (IQR) hypocapnic cerebrovascular reactivity to CO2 was significantly higher (P=0.016) for alfaxalone compared to isoflurane 8.85%S/mm Hg (6.92-10.44%S/mm Hg) vs. 3.90%S/mm Hg (3.80-4.33%S/mm Hg). Alfaxalone maintained lower cerebral blood flow and higher hypocapnic cerebrovascular reactivity to CO2 than isoflurane.

Efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygenation compared with laryngeal mask airway in children undergoing ambulatory oral surgery under deep sedation: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.

High-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) has been suggested as an alternative oxygenation method during procedural sedation. This randomized, non-inferiority trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of HFNO compared with laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in pediatric ambulatory oral surgery under deep sedation. In total, 120 children aged 2-7 years (weight: 10-30 kg) were equally assigned into two groups, namely, HFNO with propofol total intravenous anesthesia infusion (HFNO-IV) or LMA with propofol total intravenous anesthesia infusion (LMA-IV). The primary objective was to monitor carbon dioxide (CO2) accumulation during perioperative surgery. Secondary objectives included monitoring transcutaneous oxygen saturation, grade exposure to the surgical field, perioperative adverse events, or other events. The predefined non-inferiority margin was 7 mmHg. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a novel WeChat applet was implemented to gather follow-up data after discharge. Non-inferiority could be declared for HFNO relative to LMA (mean difference in transcutaneous CO2 (TcCO2) = -1.4 mmHg, 95% CI: -2.9, 0.1 mmHg; P > 0.05). The pre-surgical TcCO2 of the HFNO-IV group (45.4 ± 4.5 mmHg) was similar to that of the LMA-IV group (44.0 ± 3.5 mmHg), within the clinically acceptable normal range. All the children maintained SpO2 levels of >97%. The surgical field exposure score of the HFNO group was significantly better than that of the LMA group. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding risk or adverse events. HFNO was not inferior to LMA for maintaining oxygenation and ventilation in patients undergoing pediatric ambulatory oral surgery under deep sedation under strict isolation from the oral cavity to the upper airway.

Effect of Etomidate vs Propofol for Total Intravenous Anesthesia on Major Postoperative Complications in Older Patients

Older patients may benefit from the hemodynamic stability of etomidate for general anesthesia. However, it remains uncertain whether the potential for adrenocortical suppression with etomidate may increase morbidity. To test the primary hypothesis that etomidate vs propofol for anesthesia does not increase in-hospital morbidity after abdominal surgery in older patients. This multicenter, parallel-group, noninferiority randomized clinical trial (Etomidate vs Propofol for In-hospital Complications [EPIC]) was conducted between August 15, 2017, and November 20, 2020, at 22 tertiary hospitals in China. Participants were aged 65 to 80 years and were scheduled for elective abdominal surgery. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Data analysis followed a modified intention-to-treat principle. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either etomidate or propofol for general anesthesia by target-controlled infusion. Primary outcome was a composite of major in-hospital postoperative complications (with a noninferiority margin of 3%). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative hemodynamic measurements; postoperative adrenocortical hormone levels; self-reported postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting; and mortality at postoperative months 6 and 12. A total of 1944 participants were randomized, of whom 1917 (98.6%) completed the trial. Patients were randomized to the etomidate group (n = 967; mean [SD] age, 70.3 [4.0] years; 578 men [59.8%]) or propofol group (n = 950; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [4.2] years; 533 men [56.1%]). The primary end point occurred in 90 of 967 patients (9.3%) in the etomidate group and 83 of 950 patients (8.7%) in the propofol group, which met the noninferiority criterion (risk difference [RD], 0.6%; 95% CI, -1.6% to 2.7%; P = .66). In the etomidate group, mean (SD) cortisol levels were lower at the end of surgery (4.8 [2.7] μg/dL vs 6.1 [3.4] μg/dL; P < .001), and mean (SD) aldosterone levels were lower at the end of surgery (0.13 [0.05] ng/dL vs 0.15 [0.07] ng/dL; P = .02) and on postoperative day 1 (0.14 [0.04] ng/dL vs 0.16 [0.06] ng/dL; P = .001) compared with the propofol group. No difference in mortality was observed between the etomidate and propofol groups at postoperative month 6 (2.2% vs 3.0%; RD, -0.8%; 95% CI, -2.2% to 0.7%) and 12 (3.3% vs 3.9%; RD, -0.6%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 1.0%). More patients had pneumonia in the etomidate group than in the propofol group (2.0% vs 0.3%; RD, 1.7%; 95% CI, 0.7% to 2.8%; P = .001). Results were consistent in the per-protocol population. Results of this trial showed that, compared with propofol, etomidate anesthesia did not increase overall major in-hospital morbidity after abdominal surgery in older patients, although it induced transient adrenocortical suppression. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02910206.

Clinical Value of Total Intravenous Anesthesia with Sufentanil and Propofol in Radical Mastectomy.

Objective To investigate the clinical value of sufentanil combined with propofol for total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) in radical mastectomy. Methods The data of 120 patients undergoing radical mastectomy of breast cancer in our hospital from February 2020 to February 2021 were retrospectively analyzed, and they were randomly assigned to the experimental group (EXG) (n = 60) and the control group (COG) (n = 60). The anesthesia maintenance scheme was 0.01–0.03 μg/(kg·min) of sufentanil + 80–100 μg/(kg·min) of propofol in EXG and 3 μg/(kg·h) of fentanyl + 80–100 μg/(kg·min) of propofol in COG. The hemodynamic indices, stress indexes, postoperative pain scores, and incidence of adverse reactions were compared between EXG and COG. Results The heart rates (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) after tracheal intubation (T2) and at separation of deep tissues (T3), tracheal extubation (T4), and the end of surgery (T5) were markedly lower in EXG than in COG (P < 0.001). The stress indexes and postoperative pain scores at 1 h (T6), 6 h (T7), and 12 h (T8) after surgery were lower in EXG than in COG (P < 0.001). The incidence of dizziness, headache, pruritus, and emergence agitation in EXG was lower compared with that in COG (P < 0.05). Conclusion Sufentanil combined with propofol for TIVA can stabilize intraoperative hemodynamic indices of patients undergoing radical mastectomy, alleviate perioperative stress response, and reduce pain perception. Therefore, this anesthesia method is safe and merits clinical promotion.

Implementation of an electroencephalogram-guided propofol anesthesia education program in an academic pediatric anesthesia practice.

Propofol total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) is increasingly popular in pediatric anesthesia, but education on its use is variable and over-dosage adverse events are not uncommon. Recent work suggests that electroencephalogram (EEG) parameters can guide propofol dosing in the pediatric population. This education quality improvement project aimed to implement a standardized EEG TIVA training program over 12 months in a large pediatric anesthesia division. The division consisted of 63 faculty, 11 clinical fellows, 32 residents, and 28 nurse anesthetists at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. The program was assessed for effectiveness (a significant improvement in EEG knowledge scores), scalability (training 50% of fellows and staff), and sustainability (recurring EEG lectures for 80% of rotating residents and 100% of new fellows and staff). The key drivers included educational content development (lectures, articles, and hand-outs), training a cohort of EEG TIVA trainers, intraoperative teaching (teaching points and dosing tables), decision support tools (algorithms and anesthesia electronic record pop-ups), and knowledge tests (written exam and verbal quiz during cases). Over 12 months, 78.5% of the division (62/79) completed EEG training and test scores improved (mean score 38% before training vs 59% after training, p < .001). Didactic lectures were given to 100% of the fellows, 100% (11/11) of new staff, and 80% (4/5 blocks) of rotating residents. This quality improvement education project successfully trained pediatric anesthesia faculty, staff, residents, and fellows in EEG-guided TIVA. The training program was effective, scalable, and sustainable over time for newly hired faculty staff and rotating fellows and residents.

Propofol total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia for acute postoperative pain in patients with morphine patient-controlled analgesia: a large-scale retrospective study with covariate adjustment

BackgroundTo compare the postoperative analgesic effect of propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) versus inhalational anaesthesia (GAS) in patients using morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).MethodsA retrospective cohort study was performed in a single tertiary university hospital. Adult patients who used PCA morphine after general anaesthesia across 15 types of surgeries were included. Patients who received propofol TIVA were compared to those who had inhalational anaesthesia. Primary outcomes assessed were postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores and postoperative opioid consumption.ResultsData from 4202 patients were analysed. The overall adjusted NRS pain scores were significantly lower in patients who received propofol TIVA at rest (GEE: β estimate of the mean on a 0 to 10 scale = -0.56, 95% CI = (-0.74 to -0.38), p < 0.001; GAS as reference group) and with movement (β estimate = -0.89, 95% CI = (-1.1 to -0.69), p < 0.001) from postoperative days (POD) 1–3. Propofol TIVA was associated with lower overall adjusted postoperative morphine consumption (β estimate = -3.45, 95% CI = (-4.46 to -2.44), p < 0.001). Patients with propofol TIVA had lower adjusted NRS pain scores with movement for hepatobiliary/pancreatic (p < 0.001), upper gastrointestinal (p < 0.001) and urological surgeries (p = 0.005); and less adjusted postoperative morphine consumption for hepatobiliary/pancreatic (p < 0.001), upper gastrointestinal (p = 0.006) and urological surgeries (p = 0.002). There were no differences for other types of surgeries.ConclusionPropofol TIVA was associated with statistically significant, but small reduction in pain scores and opioid consumption in patients using PCA morphine. Subgroup analysis suggests clinically meaningful analgesia possibly for hepatobiliary/pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal surgeries.Trial registrationThis study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03875872).

Intraoperative effect of low doses of ketamine or dexmedetomidine continuous rate infusions in healthy dogs receiving propofol total intravenous anaesthesia and epidural anaesthesia: A prospective, randomised clinical study

The present study aimed to determine the effect of either ketamine or dexmedetomidine constant rate infusion (CRI) on intraoperative propofol anaesthetic requirements during total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) in healthy dogs undergoing hindlimbs orthopaedic procedures receiving epidural anaesthesia. In this randomised, blinded clinical study, thirty-nine healthy client-owned dogs were premedicated intramuscularly (dexmedetomidine 4 μg/kg and methadone 0.3 mg/kg). General anaesthesia was induced to effect with propofol administered as intravenous bolus, and maintained with propofol TIVA (18 mg/kg/h), adjusted to meet the suitable clinical anaesthetic depth (indicatively±20%) based on clinical judgement. Lumbosacral epidural anaesthesia was performed using bupivacaine (1 mg/kg) and morphine preservative free (0.1 mg/kg). Dogs randomly received either saline (SP; loading dose 1 mL/kg, CRI 1 mL/kg/h), or ketamine (KP; loading dose 1.5 mg/kg, CRI 1.5 mg/kg/h), or dexmedetomidine (DP; loading dose 1 μg/kg/, CRI 1 μg/kg/h). Physiological variables were recorded intraoperatively at 5-min intervals using standard-of-care monitoring. Recovery quality and duration were recorded. Treatment groups were compared with parametric and non-parametric tests as appropriate, p < 0.05.Propofol rates and recovery scores were similar between groups. Overall mean and diastolic blood pressures were higher in group DP compared to group KP (12–14 mmHg, p = 0.016 and p = 0.015, respectively). More dogs required mechanical ventilation in group KP (12 dogs) than in either group SP or DP (7 dogs per group, p = 0.037).Ketamine or dexmedetomidine CRIs, at the studied rates, did not reduce propofol TIVA requirements in dogs undergoing orthopaedic surgery with epidural anaesthesia.

Cost-Effectiveness of Propofol (Diprivan) Versus Inhalational Anesthetics to Maintain General Anesthesia in Noncardiac Surgery in the United States

ObjectivesIt is not known whether using propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) to reduce incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is cost-effective. We assessed the economic impact of propofol TIVA versus inhalational anesthesia in adult patients for ambulatory and inpatient procedures relevant to the US healthcare system. MethodsTwo models simulate individual patient pathways through inpatient and ambulatory surgery with propofol TIVA or inhalational anesthesia with economic inputs from studies on adult surgical US patients. Efficacy inputs were obtained from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the model estimates. ResultsLower PONV rate, shorter stay in the post-anesthesia care unit, and reduced need for rescue antiemetics offset the higher costs for anesthetics, analgesics, and muscle relaxants with propofol TIVA and reduced cost by 11.41 ± 10.73 USD per patient in the inpatient model and 11.25 ± 9.81 USD in the ambulatory patient model. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated strong robustness of the results. ConclusionsMaintenance of general anesthesia with propofol was cost-saving compared to inhalational anesthesia in both inpatient and ambulatory surgical settings in the United States. These economic results support current guideline recommendations, which endorse propofol TIVA to reduce PONV risk and enhance postoperative recovery.

Inhalational versus intravenous maintenance of anesthesia for quality of recovery in patients undergoing corrective lower limb osteotomy: A randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundInhalational anesthesia and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) are the two most popular methods of general anesthesia with distinct characteristics that may affect quality of recovery (QOR) differently. This study compared QOR after corrective lower limb osteotomy between desflurane-based inhalational anesthesia and propofol-based TIVA.MethodsSixty-eight patients, ASA class I or II who underwent corrective lower limb osteotomy were randomized to receive either desflurane anesthesia or propofol TIVA. The primary outcome was quality of recovery 40 (QoR-40) questionnaire scores on postoperative day (POD) 1 and 2. Postoperative nausea scores, antiemetic requirements, and amount of opioid consumption via intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) were assessed as secondary outcomes.ResultsGlobal QoR-40 scores on POD 1 (153.5 (140.3, 171.3) vs. 140.0 (120.0, 173.0), P = 0.056, 95% CI; -22.5, 0.2) and POD 2 (155.5 (146.8, 175.5) vs. 152.0 (134.0, 179.0), P = 0.209, 95% CI; -17.5, 3.9) were comparable between the two groups. Among the five dimensions of QoR-40, physical independence scores were significantly higher in the TIVA group compared to the Desflurane group on POD both 1 and 2. Nausea scores (0.0 (0.0, 0.0) vs. 1.0 (0.0, 3.5), P < 0.001) and number of patients requiring rescue antiemetics (0% vs. 15.2%, P = 0.017) were significantly lower in the TIVA group at the post anesthesia care unit (PACU). Although the number of bolus attempts between 0–24 h and the morphine equivalent dose of analgesics administered via IV PCA between 12–24 h were significantly less in the TIVA group compared to the Desflurane group, there was no significant difference between groups for the overall 48 h postoperative period.ConclusionsPropofol-based TIVA did not improve global QoR-40 scores compared with desflurane-based inhalational anesthesia. However, considering the better QoR-40 scores in the domain of physical independence and less nausea in the early postoperative period, propofol TIVA should be considered as a useful option in patients undergoing corrective lower limb osteotomy.

Crosshairs on Cancer: Propofol Versus Inhalational Agents and Cancer Outcomes.

In this issue of Anesthesia & Analgesia, Chang et al offer a systematic review comparing the effects of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with volatile anesthetics on long-term oncological outcomes. Propofol TIVA was associated with better overall survival compared to volatile anesthetics; however, there was no statistically significant difference in recurrence-free survival between groups. In a subgroup analysis, propofol TIVA was associated with better overall survival compared to desflurane but no difference was seen with sevoflurane. The reader is strongly encouraged to explore the salient details of this review to acquire an in-depth interpretation of the findings. Because the effects of anesthetic drugs are but one factor in a complex array of elements that influence cancer progression, further large-scale, randomized controlled trials are needed to further characterize the effects of anesthetic agents and cancer outcomes.