Yu-Tong Zhang, Ying Chen, Kai-Xi Shang, Hong Yu, Xue-Fei Li, Hai Yu
{"title":"挥发性麻醉与静脉麻醉对微创食管切除术患者术后肺部并发症的影响：随机临床试验。","authors":"Yu-Tong Zhang, Ying Chen, Kai-Xi Shang, Hong Yu, Xue-Fei Li, Hai Yu","doi":"10.1213/ANE.0000000000006814","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The effect of intraoperative anesthetic regimen on pulmonary outcome after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is yet undetermined. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of volatile anesthesia (sevoflurane or desflurane) compared with propofol-based intravenous anesthesia on pulmonary complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients scheduled for minimally invasive esophagectomy were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 general anesthetic regimens (sevoflurane, desflurane, or propofol). The primary outcome was the incidence of pulmonary complications within the 7 days postoperatively, which was a collapsed composite end point, including respiratory infection, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, atelectasis, respiratory failure, bronchospasm, pulmonary embolism, and aspiration pneumonitis. The severity of pulmonary complications, surgery-related complications, and other secondary outcomes were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 647 patients assessed for eligibility, 558 were randomized, and 553 were analyzed. A total of 185 patients were assigned to the sevoflurane group, 185 in the desflurane, and 183 in the propofol group. Patients receiving a volatile anesthetic (sevoflurane or desflurane) had a significantly lower incidence (36.5% vs 47.5%; odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.91; P = .013) and lower severity grade of pulmonary complications ( P = .035) compared to the patients receiving propofol. There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy, the use of volatile anesthesia (sevoflurane or desflurane) resulted in the reduced risk and severity of pulmonary complications within the first 7 postoperative days as compared to propofol-based intravenous anesthesia.</p>","PeriodicalId":7784,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia and analgesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of Volatile Anesthesia Versus Intravenous Anesthesia on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Yu-Tong Zhang, Ying Chen, Kai-Xi Shang, Hong Yu, Xue-Fei Li, Hai Yu\",\"doi\":\"10.1213/ANE.0000000000006814\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The effect of intraoperative anesthetic regimen on pulmonary outcome after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is yet undetermined. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of volatile anesthesia (sevoflurane or desflurane) compared with propofol-based intravenous anesthesia on pulmonary complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients scheduled for minimally invasive esophagectomy were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 general anesthetic regimens (sevoflurane, desflurane, or propofol). The primary outcome was the incidence of pulmonary complications within the 7 days postoperatively, which was a collapsed composite end point, including respiratory infection, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, atelectasis, respiratory failure, bronchospasm, pulmonary embolism, and aspiration pneumonitis. The severity of pulmonary complications, surgery-related complications, and other secondary outcomes were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 647 patients assessed for eligibility, 558 were randomized, and 553 were analyzed. A total of 185 patients were assigned to the sevoflurane group, 185 in the desflurane, and 183 in the propofol group. Patients receiving a volatile anesthetic (sevoflurane or desflurane) had a significantly lower incidence (36.5% vs 47.5%; odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.91; P = .013) and lower severity grade of pulmonary complications ( P = .035) compared to the patients receiving propofol. There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy, the use of volatile anesthesia (sevoflurane or desflurane) resulted in the reduced risk and severity of pulmonary complications within the first 7 postoperative days as compared to propofol-based intravenous anesthesia.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7784,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesia and analgesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesia and analgesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000006814\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia and analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000006814","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effect of Volatile Anesthesia Versus Intravenous Anesthesia on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Background: The effect of intraoperative anesthetic regimen on pulmonary outcome after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is yet undetermined. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of volatile anesthesia (sevoflurane or desflurane) compared with propofol-based intravenous anesthesia on pulmonary complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy.
Methods: Patients scheduled for minimally invasive esophagectomy were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 general anesthetic regimens (sevoflurane, desflurane, or propofol). The primary outcome was the incidence of pulmonary complications within the 7 days postoperatively, which was a collapsed composite end point, including respiratory infection, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, atelectasis, respiratory failure, bronchospasm, pulmonary embolism, and aspiration pneumonitis. The severity of pulmonary complications, surgery-related complications, and other secondary outcomes were also assessed.
Results: Of 647 patients assessed for eligibility, 558 were randomized, and 553 were analyzed. A total of 185 patients were assigned to the sevoflurane group, 185 in the desflurane, and 183 in the propofol group. Patients receiving a volatile anesthetic (sevoflurane or desflurane) had a significantly lower incidence (36.5% vs 47.5%; odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.91; P = .013) and lower severity grade of pulmonary complications ( P = .035) compared to the patients receiving propofol. There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes between the 2 groups.
Conclusions: In patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy, the use of volatile anesthesia (sevoflurane or desflurane) resulted in the reduced risk and severity of pulmonary complications within the first 7 postoperative days as compared to propofol-based intravenous anesthesia.
期刊介绍：
Anesthesia & Analgesia exists for the benefit of patients under the care of health care professionals engaged in the disciplines broadly related to anesthesiology, perioperative medicine, critical care medicine, and pain medicine. The Journal furthers the care of these patients by reporting the fundamental advances in the science of these clinical disciplines and by documenting the clinical, laboratory, and administrative advances that guide therapy. Anesthesia & Analgesia seeks a balance between definitive clinical and management investigations and outstanding basic scientific reports. The Journal welcomes original manuscripts containing rigorous design and analysis, even if unusual in their approach.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
