Respiratory complications after oesophagectomy using volatile or intravenous anaesthesia.

IF 8.6 1区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Yuki Hirano, Takaaki Konishi, Hidehiro Kaneko, Shotaro Aso, Satoru Matsuda, Hirofumi Kawakubo, Yuya Kimura, Hiroki Matsui, Kiyohide Fushimi, Hiroyuki Daiko, Osamu Itano, Hideo Yasunaga, Yuko Kitagawa
{"title":"Respiratory complications after oesophagectomy using volatile or intravenous anaesthesia.","authors":"Yuki Hirano, Takaaki Konishi, Hidehiro Kaneko, Shotaro Aso, Satoru Matsuda, Hirofumi Kawakubo, Yuya Kimura, Hiroki Matsui, Kiyohide Fushimi, Hiroyuki Daiko, Osamu Itano, Hideo Yasunaga, Yuko Kitagawa","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The anaesthesia regimen may affect the risk of postoperative respiratory complications. However, the optimal anaesthetic choice for oesophagectomy remains unclear. This retrospective study compared the effect of desflurane, sevoflurane, and propofol anaesthesia on short-term outcomes after oesophagectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data of patients who underwent oesophagectomy for cancer during April 2012-March 2022 were extracted from a nationwide Japanese inpatient database. Propensity score matching weight analysis was conducted to compare respiratory complications, ventilatory failure, and in-hospital mortality between desflurane, sevoflurane, and propofol anaesthesia, adjusting for potential confounders. Sensitivity analyses were performed using multivariable logistic regression and instrumental variable analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 21 080 included patients (desflurane group 7823, sevoflurane group 8932, and propofol group 4325 patients), respiratory complications and ventilatory failure occurred in 3399 (16.1%) and 960 (4.6%) patients respectively. Upon matching weight analysis, sevoflurane and propofol anaesthesia were significantly associated with higher incidences of respiratory complications (OR 1.13, 95% c.i. 1.03 to 1.24 and OR 1.43, 95% c.i. 1.28 to 1.58 respectively) and ventilatory failure (OR 1.21, 95% c.i. 1.02 to 1.43 and OR 1.29, 95% c.i. 1.06 to 1.56 respectively) compared with desflurane anaesthesia. In-hospital mortality after desflurane anaesthesia was the lowest of the three anaesthesia (1.6% and 1.8% versus 1.2%; OR 1.30, 95% c.i. 0.98 to 1.73 and OR 1.49, 95% c.i. 1.08 to 2.06 respectively). Multivariable logistic regression and instrumental variable analyses demonstrated similar results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Sevoflurane and propofol anaesthesia for oesophagectomy were associated with worse respiratory outcomes compared with desflurane anaesthesia.</p>","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"112 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf052","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The anaesthesia regimen may affect the risk of postoperative respiratory complications. However, the optimal anaesthetic choice for oesophagectomy remains unclear. This retrospective study compared the effect of desflurane, sevoflurane, and propofol anaesthesia on short-term outcomes after oesophagectomy.

Methods: Data of patients who underwent oesophagectomy for cancer during April 2012-March 2022 were extracted from a nationwide Japanese inpatient database. Propensity score matching weight analysis was conducted to compare respiratory complications, ventilatory failure, and in-hospital mortality between desflurane, sevoflurane, and propofol anaesthesia, adjusting for potential confounders. Sensitivity analyses were performed using multivariable logistic regression and instrumental variable analyses.

Results: Among 21 080 included patients (desflurane group 7823, sevoflurane group 8932, and propofol group 4325 patients), respiratory complications and ventilatory failure occurred in 3399 (16.1%) and 960 (4.6%) patients respectively. Upon matching weight analysis, sevoflurane and propofol anaesthesia were significantly associated with higher incidences of respiratory complications (OR 1.13, 95% c.i. 1.03 to 1.24 and OR 1.43, 95% c.i. 1.28 to 1.58 respectively) and ventilatory failure (OR 1.21, 95% c.i. 1.02 to 1.43 and OR 1.29, 95% c.i. 1.06 to 1.56 respectively) compared with desflurane anaesthesia. In-hospital mortality after desflurane anaesthesia was the lowest of the three anaesthesia (1.6% and 1.8% versus 1.2%; OR 1.30, 95% c.i. 0.98 to 1.73 and OR 1.49, 95% c.i. 1.08 to 2.06 respectively). Multivariable logistic regression and instrumental variable analyses demonstrated similar results.

Conclusions: Sevoflurane and propofol anaesthesia for oesophagectomy were associated with worse respiratory outcomes compared with desflurane anaesthesia.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
7.30%
发文量
1102
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Surgery (BJS), incorporating the European Journal of Surgery, stands as Europe's leading peer-reviewed surgical journal. It serves as an invaluable platform for presenting high-quality clinical and laboratory-based research across a wide range of surgical topics. In addition to providing a comprehensive coverage of traditional surgical practices, BJS also showcases emerging areas in the field, such as minimally invasive therapy and interventional radiology. While the journal appeals to general surgeons, it also holds relevance for specialty surgeons and professionals working in closely related fields. By presenting cutting-edge research and advancements, BJS aims to revolutionize the way surgical knowledge is shared and contribute to the ongoing progress of the surgical community.
×
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