Choice of anesthetic for cancer resection - Revision history

Aesetholephews at 22:41, 25 July 2024

2024-07-25T22:41:05Z

Aesetholephews: /* 2022 J Clin Med Review */

2024-07-25T22:37:35Z

2022 J Clin Med Review

Aesetholephews at 22:37, 25 July 2024

2024-07-25T22:37:23Z

Aesetholephews at 22:35, 25 July 2024

2024-07-25T22:35:42Z

Aesetholephews at 22:33, 25 July 2024

2024-07-25T22:33:41Z

Aesetholephews: Created page with "==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28797751/ 2017]== Three retrospective studies presented a hazard ratio (HR) adjusting for several confounders. One study reported an increas..."

2024-07-25T22:33:12Z

Created page with "==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28797751/ 2017]== Three retrospective studies presented a hazard ratio (HR) adjusting for several confounders. One study reported an increas..."

New page

==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28797751/ 2017]==
Three retrospective studies presented a hazard ratio (HR) adjusting for several confounders. One study reported an increased overall mortality after INHA with a HR of 1.47 (95% CI 1.31-1.64, p≤0.001), while another study reported a tendency of decreased overall mortality after TIVA (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72-1.00, p=0.051). A third study showed no difference in the overall mortality, but prolonged recurrence-free survival after TIVA with a HR of 0.48 (95% CI 0.27-0.86, p=0.014). In one study, the rate of pulmonary complications was significantly higher after INHA compared with TIVA, while other postoperative complications were comparable. There are currently four propensity-adjusted retrospective studies indicating that TIVA might be the preferred anesthetic choice in cancer surgery. However, evidence is currently of low quality and randomized clinical trials are required for further investigation.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33105278/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36431218/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35637441/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39039548/

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28797751/ 2017 J. Clin Anesth Systematic Review]==
+==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28797751/ 2017 ''J. Clin Anesth'' Systematic Review]==
 Three retrospective studies presented a hazard ratio (HR) adjusting for several confounders. One study reported an increased overall mortality after INHA with a HR of 1.47 (95% CI 1.31-1.64, p≤0.001), while another study reported a tendency of decreased overall mortality after TIVA (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72-1.00, p=0.051). A third study showed no difference in the overall mortality, but prolonged recurrence-free survival after TIVA with a HR of 0.48 (95% CI 0.27-0.86, p=0.014). In one study, the rate of pulmonary complications was significantly higher after INHA compared with TIVA, while other postoperative complications were comparable. There are currently four propensity-adjusted retrospective studies indicating that TIVA might be the preferred anesthetic choice in cancer surgery. However, evidence is currently of low quality and randomized clinical trials are required for further investigation.
-==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33105278/ 2021 Anesth Analg Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis]==
+==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33105278/ 2021 ''Anesth Analg'' Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis]==
 Nineteen retrospective observational studies were included. Patients who received propofol-based TIVA during cancer surgery were associated with significantly better overall survival than those who received volatile anesthesia (HR = 0.79, 95% CI, 0.66-0.94, P = .008, I2 = 82%). In contrast, no statistically significant difference was observed in recurrence-free survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthesia during cancer surgery (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.61-1.07, P = .137, I2 = 85%). In contrast [to desflurane], there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and those who received sevoflurane (HR = 0.92, 95% CI, 0.74-1.14, P = .439, I2 = 70%).
-==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36431218/ 2022 J Clin Med ''Review'']==
+==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36431218/ 2022 ''J Clin Med'' Review]==
+The existing literature includes mainly hypothesis-forming retrospective studies and small randomized trials with many methodological limitations. To date, it is unlikely that use of TIVA or VA affect cancer-free survival days to a clinically relevant extent.
-https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35637441/
+==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35637441/ 2022 ''BMC Anesth'' Retrospective Study]==
-https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39039548/
+A total of 463 patients who had undergone pancreatic cancer resection were collected in this study, of which 421 patients were available (TIVA group, n = 114 INHA group, n = 307). After SIPTW there were no significant differences between the two groups in disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.01, 95%CI, 0.78 to 1.29, P = 0.959) or overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.11, 95%CI, 0.87 to 1.42, P = 0.405).

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33105278/ 2021 Anesth Analg Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis]==
 Nineteen retrospective observational studies were included. Patients who received propofol-based TIVA during cancer surgery were associated with significantly better overall survival than those who received volatile anesthesia (HR = 0.79, 95% CI, 0.66-0.94, P = .008, I2 = 82%). In contrast, no statistically significant difference was observed in recurrence-free survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthesia during cancer surgery (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.61-1.07, P = .137, I2 = 85%). In contrast [to desflurane], there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and those who received sevoflurane (HR = 0.92, 95% CI, 0.74-1.14, P = .439, I2 = 70%).
-==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36431218/ 2022 J Clin ''Med Review'']==
+==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36431218/ 2022 J Clin Med ''Review'']==
 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35637441/
 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39039548/

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28797751/ 2017 J. Clin Anesth]==
+==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28797751/ 2017 J. Clin Anesth Systematic Review]==
 Three retrospective studies presented a hazard ratio (HR) adjusting for several confounders. One study reported an increased overall mortality after INHA with a HR of 1.47 (95% CI 1.31-1.64, p≤0.001), while another study reported a tendency of decreased overall mortality after TIVA (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72-1.00, p=0.051). A third study showed no difference in the overall mortality, but prolonged recurrence-free survival after TIVA with a HR of 0.48 (95% CI 0.27-0.86, p=0.014). In one study, the rate of pulmonary complications was significantly higher after INHA compared with TIVA, while other postoperative complications were comparable. There are currently four propensity-adjusted retrospective studies indicating that TIVA might be the preferred anesthetic choice in cancer surgery. However, evidence is currently of low quality and randomized clinical trials are required for further investigation.
-==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33105278/ 2021 Anesth Analg]==
+==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33105278/ 2021 Anesth Analg Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis]==
 Nineteen retrospective observational studies were included. Patients who received propofol-based TIVA during cancer surgery were associated with significantly better overall survival than those who received volatile anesthesia (HR = 0.79, 95% CI, 0.66-0.94, P = .008, I2 = 82%). In contrast, no statistically significant difference was observed in recurrence-free survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthesia during cancer surgery (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.61-1.07, P = .137, I2 = 85%). In contrast [to desflurane], there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and those who received sevoflurane (HR = 0.92, 95% CI, 0.74-1.14, P = .439, I2 = 70%).
-https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36431218/
+==[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36431218/ 2022 J Clin ''Med Review'']==
 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35637441/
 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39039548/