Inhalational versus total intravenous anesthesia in noncardiac surgery: a comparative review of clinical outcomes.

IF 4 4区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-02 DOI:10.4097/kja.25634
Ah Ran Oh, Jungchan Park
{"title":"Inhalational versus total intravenous anesthesia in noncardiac surgery: a comparative review of clinical outcomes.","authors":"Ah Ran Oh, Jungchan Park","doi":"10.4097/kja.25634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Inhalational anesthetics have long been the cornerstone of general anesthesia in noncardiac surgery owing to their reliable pharmacokinetics, ease of administration, and cardiopulmonary benefits such as bronchodilation and myocardial preconditioning. Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), achieved using short-acting agents such as propofol and remifentanil, and supported by target-controlled infusion systems and depth-of-anesthesia monitors, has emerged as a widely adopted alternative. TIVA is associated with improved recovery profiles, reduced incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and potential neuroprotective and immunomodulatory effects. In this review, we compared the pharmacological mechanisms and clinical implications of inhalational anesthesia and TIVA, focusing on myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery and other perioperative outcomes. We summarized evidence from randomized controlled trials, large-scale observational studies, and health system-level analyses across multiple outcome domains: all-cause mortality, cardiovascular complications, pulmonary and renal outcomes, oncological prognosis, and system-level factors, such as cost-effectiveness and environmental impact. While inhalational agents demonstrated advantages in terms of cardioprotection and airway management, TIVA was found to offer potential benefits in select populations, particularly in cancer surgery and neuroanesthesia. No single technique demonstrated consistent superiority across all clinical contexts. Therefore, the selection of anesthetic technique should be personalized based on surgical risk, patient comorbidities, institutional infrastructure, and clinician expertise. Emerging trends in sustainability and precision medicine further underscore the need for individualized evidence-based strategies. By combining mechanistic insights with evidence from clinical practice, this review aimed to provide a balanced framework to guide optimal anesthetic decision-making in noncardiac surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":17855,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":"264-270"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13247346/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.25634","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Inhalational anesthetics have long been the cornerstone of general anesthesia in noncardiac surgery owing to their reliable pharmacokinetics, ease of administration, and cardiopulmonary benefits such as bronchodilation and myocardial preconditioning. Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), achieved using short-acting agents such as propofol and remifentanil, and supported by target-controlled infusion systems and depth-of-anesthesia monitors, has emerged as a widely adopted alternative. TIVA is associated with improved recovery profiles, reduced incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and potential neuroprotective and immunomodulatory effects. In this review, we compared the pharmacological mechanisms and clinical implications of inhalational anesthesia and TIVA, focusing on myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery and other perioperative outcomes. We summarized evidence from randomized controlled trials, large-scale observational studies, and health system-level analyses across multiple outcome domains: all-cause mortality, cardiovascular complications, pulmonary and renal outcomes, oncological prognosis, and system-level factors, such as cost-effectiveness and environmental impact. While inhalational agents demonstrated advantages in terms of cardioprotection and airway management, TIVA was found to offer potential benefits in select populations, particularly in cancer surgery and neuroanesthesia. No single technique demonstrated consistent superiority across all clinical contexts. Therefore, the selection of anesthetic technique should be personalized based on surgical risk, patient comorbidities, institutional infrastructure, and clinician expertise. Emerging trends in sustainability and precision medicine further underscore the need for individualized evidence-based strategies. By combining mechanistic insights with evidence from clinical practice, this review aimed to provide a balanced framework to guide optimal anesthetic decision-making in noncardiac surgery.

吸入麻醉与全静脉麻醉在非心脏手术中:临床结果的比较回顾。
吸入麻醉剂长期以来一直是非心脏手术全身麻醉的基础,因为它们具有可靠的药代动力学、易于给药和心肺益处,如支气管扩张和心肌预处理。全静脉麻醉(TIVA)是一种被广泛采用的替代方法,使用短效药物如异丙酚和瑞芬太尼,并辅以靶控输注系统和麻醉深度监测器。TIVA与改善恢复情况、减少术后恶心和呕吐发生率以及潜在的神经保护和免疫调节作用有关。在这篇综述中,我们比较了吸入麻醉和TIVA的药理学机制和临床意义,重点关注非心脏手术后心肌损伤和其他围手术期结局。我们总结了来自随机对照试验、大规模观察性研究和多个结局领域的卫生系统级分析的证据:全因死亡率、心血管并发症、肺部和肾脏结局、肿瘤预后和系统级因素,如成本效益和环境影响。虽然吸入药物在心脏保护和气道管理方面表现出优势,但TIVA被发现在特定人群中提供潜在的益处,特别是在癌症手术和神经麻醉中。没有一种技术在所有临床情况下表现出一致的优势。因此,麻醉技术的选择应根据手术风险、患者合并症、机构基础设施和临床医生专业知识进行个性化选择。可持续性和精准医学的新趋势进一步强调了个体化循证战略的必要性。通过将机制见解与临床实践证据相结合,本综述旨在提供一个平衡的框架来指导非心脏手术的最佳麻醉决策。
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
6.20
自引率
6.90%
发文量
84
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书