BackgroundIt is unclear if anaesthesia maintenance with propofol is advantageous or beneficial over inhalational agents. This study is intended to compare the effects of propofol vs. inhalational agents in maintaining general anaesthesia on patient-relevant outcomes and patient satisfaction.MethodsStudies were identified by electronic database searches in PubMed™, EMBASE™ and the Cochrane™ library between 01/01/1985 and 01/08/2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of peer-reviewed journals were studied. Of 6688 studies identified, 229 RCTs were included with a total of 20,991 patients. Quality control, assessment of risk of bias, meta-bias, meta-regression and certainty in evidence were performed according to Cochrane. Common estimates were derived from fixed or random-effects models depending on the presence of heterogeneity. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was the primary outcome. Post-operative pain, emergence agitation, time to recovery, hospital length of stay, post-anaesthetic shivering and haemodynamic instability were considered key secondary outcomes.ResultsThe risk for PONV was lower with propofol than with inhalational agents (relative risk (RR) 0.61 [0.53, 0.69], p < 0.00001). Additionally, pain score after extubation and time in the post-operative anaesthesia care unit (PACU) were reduced with propofol (mean difference (MD) − 0.51 [− 0.81, − 0.20], p = 0.001; MD − 2.91 min [− 5.47, − 0.35], p = 0.03). In turn, time to respiratory recovery and tracheal extubation were longer with propofol than with inhalational agents (MD 0.82 min [0.20, 1.45], p = 0.01; MD 0.70 min [0.03, 1.38], p = 0.04, respectively). Notably, patient satisfaction, as reported by the number of satisfied patients and scores, was higher with propofol (RR 1.06 [1.01, 1.10], p = 0.02; MD 0.13 [0.00, 0.26], p = 0.05). Secondary analyses supported the primary results.ConclusionsBased on the present meta-analysis there are several advantages of anaesthesia maintenance with propofol over inhalational agents. While these benefits result in an increased patient satisfaction, the clinical and economic relevance of these findings still need to be addressed in adequately powered prospective clinical trials.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-018-0632-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective: To determine whether RAL affects perioperative outcomes and long-term efficacy in NSCLC patients, compared with traditional VAL. Summary of Background Data: RAL is a promising treatment for NSCLC. However, its efficacy has not been fully evaluated. Methods: A single-center, open-labeled prospective randomized clinical trial was launched in May 2017 to compare the efficacy of RAL and VAL. By May 2020, 320 patients were enrolled. The perioperative results of RAL and VAL were compared. Results: The 320 enrolled patients were randomly assigned to the RAL group (n ¼ 157) and the VAL group (n ¼ 163). Perioperative outcomes were comparable between the 2 groups, including the length of hospital stay (P ¼ 0.76) and the rate of postoperative complications (P ¼ 0.45). No perioperative mortality occurred in either group. The total amount of chest tube drainage {830 mL [interquartile range (IQR), 550-1130 mL] vs 685 mL [IQR, 367.5-1160 mL], P ¼ 0.

This study confirms a synergistic interaction between remifentanil and propofol during surgery, whereas the contribution of remifentanil in the absence of stimulation seems limited. In addition, our results suggest that the propofol effect site concentration provides a guide to the value at which the patient recovers consciousness.

The impact of smoking on perioperative respiratory problems should make anaesthetists take this widespread preoperative condition seriously, particularly in young adults. The presented method of incident reporting (based on a national classification) could contribute to future research in anaesthetic epidemiology.

No abstract