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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |