Safety and recovery profile of patients after inhalational anaesthesia versus target-controlled or manual total intravenous anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Nicolas Daccache, Yichen Wu, Sean D Jeffries, Joe Zako, Robert Harutyunyan, Eric D Pelletier, Pascal Laferrière-Langlois, Thomas M Hemmerling
{"title":"Safety and recovery profile of patients after inhalational anaesthesia versus target-controlled or manual total intravenous anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.","authors":"Nicolas Daccache, Yichen Wu, Sean D Jeffries, Joe Zako, Robert Harutyunyan, Eric D Pelletier, Pascal Laferrière-Langlois, Thomas M Hemmerling","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2025.02.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the UK, total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) is used in 25% of general anaesthetics and is gaining traction because of its lower environmental impact and effectiveness in reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Although meta-analyses have compared TIVA and inhalational anaesthesia (IA), the optimal delivery method-manual infusion or target-controlled infusion (TCI)-remains underexplored. This review addresses this gap, leveraging the rapidly growing body of evidence to guide optimal anaesthetic practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science from inception to October 10, 2024. Studies comparing TIVA and IA across several patient-related and efficiency outcomes were included. Meta-analyses were performed for all outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess the contribution of different factors including a comparison of TCI with manual infusion in TIVA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 385 RCTs were included. No significant difference in ClassIntra grade 3-4 adverse events was observed between TIVA and IA (risk ratio [RR]: 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-1.12; P=0.97). Subgroup analysis also showed no significant difference for TCI (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.66-1.21; P=0.46) or manual infusion (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.90-1.17; P=0.70) groups. IA was favoured in recovery times and costs, whereas the incidence of PONV and agitation on emergence favoured TIVA. No statistical difference was observed in our other outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>TIVA and IA are comparably safe, with TIVA reducing PONV and agitation, whereas IA offers faster recovery and lower costs. The use of TCI in TIVA might decrease postoperative cognitive dysfunction and increase recovery time, highlighting the need for a systematic review directly comparing TCI and manual infusion.</p><p><strong>Systematic review protocol: </strong>This review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42024413368) on October 10, 2024. A single amendment to the title and order of outcomes was performed on November 21, 2024.</p>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2025.02.007","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: In the UK, total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) is used in 25% of general anaesthetics and is gaining traction because of its lower environmental impact and effectiveness in reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Although meta-analyses have compared TIVA and inhalational anaesthesia (IA), the optimal delivery method-manual infusion or target-controlled infusion (TCI)-remains underexplored. This review addresses this gap, leveraging the rapidly growing body of evidence to guide optimal anaesthetic practice.
Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science from inception to October 10, 2024. Studies comparing TIVA and IA across several patient-related and efficiency outcomes were included. Meta-analyses were performed for all outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess the contribution of different factors including a comparison of TCI with manual infusion in TIVA.
Results: In total, 385 RCTs were included. No significant difference in ClassIntra grade 3-4 adverse events was observed between TIVA and IA (risk ratio [RR]: 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-1.12; P=0.97). Subgroup analysis also showed no significant difference for TCI (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.66-1.21; P=0.46) or manual infusion (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.90-1.17; P=0.70) groups. IA was favoured in recovery times and costs, whereas the incidence of PONV and agitation on emergence favoured TIVA. No statistical difference was observed in our other outcomes.
Conclusions: TIVA and IA are comparably safe, with TIVA reducing PONV and agitation, whereas IA offers faster recovery and lower costs. The use of TCI in TIVA might decrease postoperative cognitive dysfunction and increase recovery time, highlighting the need for a systematic review directly comparing TCI and manual infusion.
Systematic review protocol: This review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42024413368) on October 10, 2024. A single amendment to the title and order of outcomes was performed on November 21, 2024.
期刊介绍：
The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience.
The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence.
Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
