Effect of Isoflurane versus Propofol on the Early Outcome of Living Donor Adult Kidney Transplantation.

IF 0.3 Q4 TRANSPLANTATION
S Milani, M Sadeghi, H Shademan, M Afzal Aghaee
{"title":"Effect of Isoflurane versus Propofol on the Early Outcome of Living Donor Adult Kidney Transplantation.","authors":"S Milani,&nbsp;M Sadeghi,&nbsp;H Shademan,&nbsp;M Afzal Aghaee","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Optimizing anesthetic management for the best possible outcome is essential in kidney transplantation (KT).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the difference in grafted kidney function and early kidney transplant outcome when the pairs of donor-recipient were anesthetized with isoflurane compared to propofol.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-eight pairs of kidney transplant donor-recipient were anesthetized with isoflurane, and 22 pairs were anesthetized with propofol. Blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine (SCr), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were assessed in the preoperative period, on the first postoperative day, before discharge from the hospital, and 6 months after KT. Short-term (6 months) outcomes of KT were assessed by the incidence of delayed graft function, acute rejection episodes, and graft failure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the serial measurements of SCr, BUN, eGFR, and the early outcomes (6 months) after surgery. Interestingly, donor warm ischemic time in the propofol group was significantly longer than in the isoflurane group (4.05±1.02, 2.93±0.87 minutes, respectively) (p=0.001). Moreover, postoperative hospital stay in the propofol group were significantly shorter compared to the isoflurane group (9.63±2.96, 11.78±4.91 days, respectively) (p=0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There were no significant differences in transplanted kidney function and the early outcome of kidney transplantation between the two study groups. However, earlier hospital discharge after surgery in the propofol group suggests that propofol may be a more appropriate anesthetic choice in these patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":14242,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Organ Transplantation Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9758993/pdf/ijotm-12-15.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Organ Transplantation Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"TRANSPLANTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Optimizing anesthetic management for the best possible outcome is essential in kidney transplantation (KT).

Objective: To evaluate the difference in grafted kidney function and early kidney transplant outcome when the pairs of donor-recipient were anesthetized with isoflurane compared to propofol.

Methods: Thirty-eight pairs of kidney transplant donor-recipient were anesthetized with isoflurane, and 22 pairs were anesthetized with propofol. Blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine (SCr), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were assessed in the preoperative period, on the first postoperative day, before discharge from the hospital, and 6 months after KT. Short-term (6 months) outcomes of KT were assessed by the incidence of delayed graft function, acute rejection episodes, and graft failure.

Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the serial measurements of SCr, BUN, eGFR, and the early outcomes (6 months) after surgery. Interestingly, donor warm ischemic time in the propofol group was significantly longer than in the isoflurane group (4.05±1.02, 2.93±0.87 minutes, respectively) (p=0.001). Moreover, postoperative hospital stay in the propofol group were significantly shorter compared to the isoflurane group (9.63±2.96, 11.78±4.91 days, respectively) (p=0.02).

Conclusion: There were no significant differences in transplanted kidney function and the early outcome of kidney transplantation between the two study groups. However, earlier hospital discharge after surgery in the propofol group suggests that propofol may be a more appropriate anesthetic choice in these patients.

异氟醚与异丙酚对成人活体肾移植早期预后的影响。
背景:优化麻醉管理以获得最佳可能结果在肾移植(KT)中至关重要。目的:比较异氟醚麻醉与异丙酚麻醉对供受体移植肾功能及早期肾移植预后的影响。方法:采用异氟醚麻醉38对肾移植供受体,异丙酚麻醉22对肾移植供受体。术前、术后第一天、出院前和KT后6个月分别评估血尿素氮(BUN)、血清肌酐(SCr)、肾小球滤过率(eGFR)。KT的短期(6个月)结果通过延迟移植物功能、急性排斥发作和移植物衰竭的发生率来评估。结果:两组患者SCr、BUN、eGFR系列指标及术后早期(6个月)预后比较,差异无统计学意义。异丙酚组供体热缺血时间明显长于异氟醚组(分别为4.05±1.02、2.93±0.87 min) (p=0.001)。异丙酚组术后住院时间明显短于异氟醚组(分别为9.63±2.96、11.78±4.91天)(p=0.02)。结论:两组移植肾功能及肾移植早期转归无显著差异。然而,手术后较早出院的异丙酚组提示异丙酚可能是这些患者更合适的麻醉选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Organ Transplantation Medicine (IJOTM) is a quarterly peer-reviewed English-language journal that publishes high-quality basic sciences and clinical research on transplantation. The scope of the journal includes organ and tissue donation, procurement and preservation; surgical techniques, innovations, and novelties in all aspects of transplantation; genomics and immunobiology; immunosuppressive drugs and pharmacology relevant to transplantation; graft survival and prevention of graft dysfunction and failure; clinical trials and population analyses in the field of transplantation; transplant complications; cell and tissue transplantation; infection; post-transplant malignancies; sociological and ethical issues and xenotransplantation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信