Cargando…

Propofol vs. inhalational agents to maintain general anaesthesia in ambulatory and in-patient surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if anaesthesia maintenance with propofol is advantageous or beneficial over inhalational agents. This study is intended to compare the effects of propofol vs. inhalational agents in maintaining general anaesthesia on patient-relevant outcomes and patient satisfaction. METHO...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schraag, Stefan, Pradelli, Lorenzo, Alsaleh, Abdul Jabbar Omar, Bellone, Marco, Ghetti, Gianni, Chung, Tje Lin, Westphal, Martin, Rehberg, Sebastian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30409186
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-018-0632-3
_version_ 1783369828317265920
author Schraag, Stefan
Pradelli, Lorenzo
Alsaleh, Abdul Jabbar Omar
Bellone, Marco
Ghetti, Gianni
Chung, Tje Lin
Westphal, Martin
Rehberg, Sebastian
author_facet Schraag, Stefan
Pradelli, Lorenzo
Alsaleh, Abdul Jabbar Omar
Bellone, Marco
Ghetti, Gianni
Chung, Tje Lin
Westphal, Martin
Rehberg, Sebastian
author_sort Schraag, Stefan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: It is unclear if anaesthesia maintenance with propofol is advantageous or beneficial over inhalational agents. This study is intended to compare the effects of propofol vs. inhalational agents in maintaining general anaesthesia on patient-relevant outcomes and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Studies were identified by electronic database searches in PubMed™, EMBASE™ and the Cochrane™ library between 01/01/1985 and 01/08/2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of peer-reviewed journals were studied. Of 6688 studies identified, 229 RCTs were included with a total of 20,991 patients. Quality control, assessment of risk of bias, meta-bias, meta-regression and certainty in evidence were performed according to Cochrane. Common estimates were derived from fixed or random-effects models depending on the presence of heterogeneity. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was the primary outcome. Post-operative pain, emergence agitation, time to recovery, hospital length of stay, post-anaesthetic shivering and haemodynamic instability were considered key secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The risk for PONV was lower with propofol than with inhalational agents (relative risk (RR) 0.61 [0.53, 0.69], p < 0.00001). Additionally, pain score after extubation and time in the post-operative anaesthesia care unit (PACU) were reduced with propofol (mean difference (MD) − 0.51 [− 0.81, − 0.20], p = 0.001; MD − 2.91 min [− 5.47, − 0.35], p = 0.03). In turn, time to respiratory recovery and tracheal extubation were longer with propofol than with inhalational agents (MD 0.82 min [0.20, 1.45], p = 0.01; MD 0.70 min [0.03, 1.38], p = 0.04, respectively). Notably, patient satisfaction, as reported by the number of satisfied patients and scores, was higher with propofol (RR 1.06 [1.01, 1.10], p = 0.02; MD 0.13 [0.00, 0.26], p = 0.05). Secondary analyses supported the primary results. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the present meta-analysis there are several advantages of anaesthesia maintenance with propofol over inhalational agents. While these benefits result in an increased patient satisfaction, the clinical and economic relevance of these findings still need to be addressed in adequately powered prospective clinical trials. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-018-0632-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6225663
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62256632018-11-19 Propofol vs. inhalational agents to maintain general anaesthesia in ambulatory and in-patient surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis Schraag, Stefan Pradelli, Lorenzo Alsaleh, Abdul Jabbar Omar Bellone, Marco Ghetti, Gianni Chung, Tje Lin Westphal, Martin Rehberg, Sebastian BMC Anesthesiol Research Article BACKGROUND: It is unclear if anaesthesia maintenance with propofol is advantageous or beneficial over inhalational agents. This study is intended to compare the effects of propofol vs. inhalational agents in maintaining general anaesthesia on patient-relevant outcomes and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Studies were identified by electronic database searches in PubMed™, EMBASE™ and the Cochrane™ library between 01/01/1985 and 01/08/2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of peer-reviewed journals were studied. Of 6688 studies identified, 229 RCTs were included with a total of 20,991 patients. Quality control, assessment of risk of bias, meta-bias, meta-regression and certainty in evidence were performed according to Cochrane. Common estimates were derived from fixed or random-effects models depending on the presence of heterogeneity. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was the primary outcome. Post-operative pain, emergence agitation, time to recovery, hospital length of stay, post-anaesthetic shivering and haemodynamic instability were considered key secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The risk for PONV was lower with propofol than with inhalational agents (relative risk (RR) 0.61 [0.53, 0.69], p < 0.00001). Additionally, pain score after extubation and time in the post-operative anaesthesia care unit (PACU) were reduced with propofol (mean difference (MD) − 0.51 [− 0.81, − 0.20], p = 0.001; MD − 2.91 min [− 5.47, − 0.35], p = 0.03). In turn, time to respiratory recovery and tracheal extubation were longer with propofol than with inhalational agents (MD 0.82 min [0.20, 1.45], p = 0.01; MD 0.70 min [0.03, 1.38], p = 0.04, respectively). Notably, patient satisfaction, as reported by the number of satisfied patients and scores, was higher with propofol (RR 1.06 [1.01, 1.10], p = 0.02; MD 0.13 [0.00, 0.26], p = 0.05). Secondary analyses supported the primary results. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the present meta-analysis there are several advantages of anaesthesia maintenance with propofol over inhalational agents. While these benefits result in an increased patient satisfaction, the clinical and economic relevance of these findings still need to be addressed in adequately powered prospective clinical trials. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-018-0632-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-11-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6225663/ /pubmed/30409186 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-018-0632-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Schraag, Stefan
Pradelli, Lorenzo
Alsaleh, Abdul Jabbar Omar
Bellone, Marco
Ghetti, Gianni
Chung, Tje Lin
Westphal, Martin
Rehberg, Sebastian
Propofol vs. inhalational agents to maintain general anaesthesia in ambulatory and in-patient surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Propofol vs. inhalational agents to maintain general anaesthesia in ambulatory and in-patient surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Propofol vs. inhalational agents to maintain general anaesthesia in ambulatory and in-patient surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Propofol vs. inhalational agents to maintain general anaesthesia in ambulatory and in-patient surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Propofol vs. inhalational agents to maintain general anaesthesia in ambulatory and in-patient surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Propofol vs. inhalational agents to maintain general anaesthesia in ambulatory and in-patient surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort propofol vs. inhalational agents to maintain general anaesthesia in ambulatory and in-patient surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30409186
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-018-0632-3
work_keys_str_mv AT schraagstefan propofolvsinhalationalagentstomaintaingeneralanaesthesiainambulatoryandinpatientsurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT pradellilorenzo propofolvsinhalationalagentstomaintaingeneralanaesthesiainambulatoryandinpatientsurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT alsalehabduljabbaromar propofolvsinhalationalagentstomaintaingeneralanaesthesiainambulatoryandinpatientsurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bellonemarco propofolvsinhalationalagentstomaintaingeneralanaesthesiainambulatoryandinpatientsurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ghettigianni propofolvsinhalationalagentstomaintaingeneralanaesthesiainambulatoryandinpatientsurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chungtjelin propofolvsinhalationalagentstomaintaingeneralanaesthesiainambulatoryandinpatientsurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT westphalmartin propofolvsinhalationalagentstomaintaingeneralanaesthesiainambulatoryandinpatientsurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT rehbergsebastian propofolvsinhalationalagentstomaintaingeneralanaesthesiainambulatoryandinpatientsurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis