Recovery Kinetics and Postoperative Outcomes of Propofol-Based Total Intravenous Anesthesia Versus Sevoflurane in Ambulatory Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Studies.

IF 1.5 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anesthesiology Research and Practice Pub Date : 2026-10-01 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1155/anrp/2531080
Ivan Šitum, Roberto Giurazza, Martina Perić Šitum, Ante Erceg, Slobodan Mihaljević, Marco Rispoli, Francesco Coppolino, Zoran Karlović
{"title":"Recovery Kinetics and Postoperative Outcomes of Propofol-Based Total Intravenous Anesthesia Versus Sevoflurane in Ambulatory Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Studies.","authors":"Ivan Šitum, Roberto Giurazza, Martina Perić Šitum, Ante Erceg, Slobodan Mihaljević, Marco Rispoli, Francesco Coppolino, Zoran Karlović","doi":"10.1155/anrp/2531080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Optimal anesthetic selection is critical for recovery and patient outcomes in ambulatory surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with sevoflurane in adults undergoing outpatient procedures, focusing on randomized evidence published since 2014 to reflect contemporary clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a PRISMA-compliant, random-effects meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials (<i>n</i> = 1345 randomized participants), published between 2014 and 2025, comparing propofol TIVA with sevoflurane in adults undergoing ambulatory surgery. Primary outcomes were readiness for discharge, postanesthesia care unit (PACU) length of stay (LOS), and emergence time. Secondary outcomes included postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain scores, requirement for rescue antiemetics and analgesics, unplanned hospital admissions, and adverse events. All-cause mortality was prespecified for extraction but was not reported in the included trials (PROSPERO: CRD420251151311).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen RCTs were included. For the primary outcomes, discharge readiness was shorter with TIVA in a single core trial (not a pooled meta-analytic estimate) (mean difference [MD] -5.8 min; 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.63 to -0.97; <i>p</i> = 0.019), although no significant differences were observed for PACU LOS (MD -1.3 min; 95% CI -7.3 to 4.8; <i>p</i> = 0.56). Emergence times were not pooled due to extreme heterogeneity between studies. Regarding secondary outcomes, TIVA was associated with a lower risk of PONV (risk ratio 0.67; 95% CI 0.47-0.96; absolute risk difference -0.11; approximate number needed to treat 9), with attenuation toward the null under trim-and-fill, and with lower postoperative pain scores (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.30; among VAS 0-10 trials, MD -0.29 points). Mortality was not reported in any of the included trials.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Contemporary randomized evidence suggests that propofol TIVA may reduce PONV and yield a small reduction in postoperative pain scores. Evidence regarding discharge readiness, PACU LOS, and emergence is limited or inconsistent and does not support a general claim of faster early recovery with either technique. Anesthetic choice should balance these symptomatic effects against patient factors and institutional resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":7834,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology Research and Practice","volume":"2026 ","pages":"2531080"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13628567/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/anrp/2531080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Optimal anesthetic selection is critical for recovery and patient outcomes in ambulatory surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with sevoflurane in adults undergoing outpatient procedures, focusing on randomized evidence published since 2014 to reflect contemporary clinical practice.

Methods: We performed a PRISMA-compliant, random-effects meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials (n = 1345 randomized participants), published between 2014 and 2025, comparing propofol TIVA with sevoflurane in adults undergoing ambulatory surgery. Primary outcomes were readiness for discharge, postanesthesia care unit (PACU) length of stay (LOS), and emergence time. Secondary outcomes included postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain scores, requirement for rescue antiemetics and analgesics, unplanned hospital admissions, and adverse events. All-cause mortality was prespecified for extraction but was not reported in the included trials (PROSPERO: CRD420251151311).

Results: Fifteen RCTs were included. For the primary outcomes, discharge readiness was shorter with TIVA in a single core trial (not a pooled meta-analytic estimate) (mean difference [MD] -5.8 min; 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.63 to -0.97; p = 0.019), although no significant differences were observed for PACU LOS (MD -1.3 min; 95% CI -7.3 to 4.8; p = 0.56). Emergence times were not pooled due to extreme heterogeneity between studies. Regarding secondary outcomes, TIVA was associated with a lower risk of PONV (risk ratio 0.67; 95% CI 0.47-0.96; absolute risk difference -0.11; approximate number needed to treat 9), with attenuation toward the null under trim-and-fill, and with lower postoperative pain scores (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.30; among VAS 0-10 trials, MD -0.29 points). Mortality was not reported in any of the included trials.

Conclusions: Contemporary randomized evidence suggests that propofol TIVA may reduce PONV and yield a small reduction in postoperative pain scores. Evidence regarding discharge readiness, PACU LOS, and emergence is limited or inconsistent and does not support a general claim of faster early recovery with either technique. Anesthetic choice should balance these symptomatic effects against patient factors and institutional resources.

基于异丙酚的全静脉麻醉与七氟醚在门诊手术中的恢复动力学和术后结果:随机研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:在门诊手术中,最佳的麻醉选择对病人的康复和预后至关重要。本系统综述和荟萃分析比较了异丙酚全静脉麻醉(TIVA)和七氟醚在成人门诊手术中的应用,重点关注2014年以来发表的随机证据,以反映当代临床实践。方法:我们对2014年至2025年间发表的15项随机对照试验(n = 1345名随机受试者)进行了符合prisma标准的随机效应荟萃分析,比较了异丙酚TIVA和七氟醚在接受门诊手术的成人中的应用。主要结局为出院准备、麻醉后护理单位(PACU)住院时间(LOS)和急诊时间。次要结局包括术后恶心和呕吐(PONV)和疼痛评分、急救止吐药和镇痛药的需求、意外住院和不良事件。全因死亡率为提取预先指定,但在纳入的试验中未报告(PROSPERO: CRD420251151311)。结果:纳入15项随机对照试验。对于主要结果,在单一核心试验中(非合并荟萃分析估计),TIVA的出院准备时间较短(平均差异[MD] -5.8分钟;95%置信区间[CI] -10.63至-0.97;p = 0.019),尽管PACU LOS没有观察到显著差异(MD -1.3分钟;95% CI -7.3至4.8;p = 0.56)。由于研究之间的极端异质性,出现时间没有汇总。至于次要结局,TIVA与PONV风险较低相关(风险比0.67;95% CI 0.47-0.96;绝对风险差-0.11;治疗所需的近似数量9),在修剪填充下向零值减弱,术后疼痛评分较低(标准化平均差[SMD] -0.30;在VAS 0-10试验中,MD -0.29分)。在所有纳入的试验中均未报告死亡率。结论:当代随机证据表明,异丙酚TIVA可以降低PONV,并使术后疼痛评分小幅下降。关于出院准备、PACU LOS和急诊的证据有限或不一致,并且不支持使用任何一种技术更快早期恢复的一般主张。麻醉剂的选择应平衡这些症状效应与患者因素和机构资源之间的关系。
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
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
18 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