Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Previous research has shown different effects of anesthetics on cancer cell growth. Here, the authors investigated the association between type of anesthetic and patient survival after elective colon cancer surgery. Methods A retrospective cohort study included patients who received elective colon cancer surgery between January 2005 and December 2014. Patients were grouped according to anesthesia received: propofol or desflurane. After exclusion of those who received combined propofol anesthesia with inhalation anesthesia or epidural anesthesia, survival curves were constructed from the date of surgery to death. After propensity matching, univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare hazard ratios for death. Subgroup analyses were performed for tumor–node–metastasis staging and postoperative metastasis. Results A total of 706 patients (307 deaths, 43.5%) with desflurane anesthesia and 657 (88 deaths, 13.4%) with propofol anesthesia were eligible for analysis. After propensity matching, 579 patients remained in each group (189 deaths, 32.6%, in the desflurane group vs. 87, 15.0%, in the propofol group). In the matched analyses, the propofol-treated group had a better survival, irrespective of lower tumor–node–metastasis stage (hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.42; P < 0.001) or higher tumor–node–metastasis stage (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.55; P < 0.001) and presence of metastases (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.86; P = 0.002) or absence of metastases (hazard ratio, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.62; P = 0.016). Simple propensity score adjustment produced similar findings. Conclusions Propofol anesthesia for colon cancer surgery is associated with better survival irrespective of tumor–node–metastasis stage.

Background: Previous studies have shown that anaesthetic technique can affect outcomes of cancer surgery. We investigated the association between anaesthetic technique and patient outcomes after elective hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods: This was a retrospective single-centre cohort study of patients who received elective hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma from January 2005 to December 2014. Patients were grouped according to propofol or desflurane anaesthesia. KaplaneMeier analysis was performed and survival curves were constructed from the date of surgery to death. After propensity matching, univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare hazard ratios for death. Subgroup analyses were performed for tumourenodeemetastasis staging and distant metastasis and local recurrence. Results: A total of 492 patients (369 deaths, 75.0%) with desflurane anaesthesia and 452 (139 deaths, 30.8%) with propofol anaesthesia were eligible for analysis. After propensity matching, 335 patients remained in each group. In the matched analysis, propofol anaesthesia had a better survival with hazard ratio of 0.47 (95% confidence interval, 0.38e0.59; P<0.001). Subgroup analyses also showed significantly better survival in the absence of distant metastasis (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.37e0.60; P<0.001) or local recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.14e0.34; P<0.001) in the matched groups. Conclusions: Propofol anaesthesia was associated with better survival in hepatocellular carcinoma patients who underwent hepatectomy. Prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the effects of propofol anaesthesia on surgical outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

Reducing anesthesia-controlled time (ACT) may improve operation room (OR) efficiency result from different anesthetic techniques. However, the information about the difference in ACT between desflurane (DES) anesthesia and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) techniques for open major upper abdominal surgery under general anesthesia (GA) is not available in the literature.This retrospective study uses our hospital database to analyze the ACT of open major upper abdominal surgery without liver resection after either desflurane/fentanyl-based anesthesia or TIVA via target-controlled infusion with fentanyl/propofol from January 2010 to December 2011. The various time intervals including waiting for anesthesia time, anesthesia time, surgical time, extubation time, exit from OR after extubation, total OR time, and postanesthetic care unit (PACU) stay time and percentage of prolonged extubation (≥15 minutes) were compared between these 2 anesthetic techniques.We included data from 343 patients, with 159 patients receiving TIVA and 184 patients receiving DES. The only significant difference is extubation time, TIVA was faster than the DES group (8.5 ± 3.8 vs 9.4 ± 3.7 minutes; P = 0.04). The factors contributed to prolonged extubation were age, gender, body mass index, DES anesthesia, and anesthesia time.In our hospital, propofol-based TIVA by target-controlled infusion provides faster emergence compared with DES anesthesia; however, it did not improve OR efficiency in open major abdominal surgery. Older, male gender, higher body mass index, DES anesthesia, and lengthy anesthesia time were factors that contribute to extubation time.

No abstract

No abstract

Conservative treatment appeared safe and effective in >80% of symptomatic SISMAD cases, without apparent benefit for antithrombotic agent use. Initial or secondary intervention was more often endovascular, with favorable success rates and short-term outcomes. Large, prospective randomized trials with long-term follow-up are warranted on the treatment for symptomatic SISMAD.