You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 7, Issue 10
  • Comparison of the cerebroprotective effect of inhalation anaesthesia and total intravenous anaesthesia in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Anaesthesia
Research
Comparison of the cerebroprotective effect of inhalation anaesthesia and total intravenous anaesthesia in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. Feng Chen1,
  2. Guangyou Duan1,
  3. Zhuoxi Wu1,
  4. Zhiyi Zuo2,
  5. Hong Li1
  1. 1 Department of Anesthesiology, Xinqiao Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China
  2. 2 Department of Anesthesiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Hong Li; lh78553{at}163.com

Abstract

Objective Neurological dysfunction remains a devastating postoperative complication in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), and previous studies have shown that inhalation anaesthesia and total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) may produce different degrees of cerebral protection in these patients. Therefore, we conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to compare the neuroprotective effects of inhalation anaesthesia and TIVA.

Design Searching in PubMed, EMBASE, Science Direct/Elsevier, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Cochrane Library up to August 2016, we selected related randomised controlled trials for this meta-analysis.

Results A total of 1485 studies were identified. After eliminating duplicate articles and screening titles and abstracts, 445 studies were potentially eligible. After applying exclusion criteria (full texts reported as abstracts, review article, no control case, lack of outcome data and so on), 13 studies were selected for review. Our results demonstrated that the primary outcome related to S100B level in the inhalation anaesthesia group was significantly lower than in the TIVA group after CPB and 24 hours postoperatively (weighted mean difference (WMD); 95% CI (CI): −0.41(–0.81 to –0.01), −0.32 (−0.59 to −0.05), respectively). Among secondary outcome variables, mini-mental state examination scores of the inhalation anaesthesia group were significantly higher than those of the TIVA group 24 hours after operation (WMD (95% CI): 1.87 (0.82 to 2.92)), but no significant difference was found in arteriovenous oxygen content difference, cerebral oxygen extraction ratio and jugular bulb venous oxygen saturation, which were assessed at cooling and rewarming during CPB.

Conclusion This study demonstrates that anaesthesia with volatile agents appears to provide better cerebral protection than TIVA for patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB, suggesting that inhalation anaesthesia may be more suitable for patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

  • anaesthesia
  • cerebral protection
  • cardiac surgery
  • cardiopulmonary bypass.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014629

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors FC, HL and ZZ: conceived and designed the experiments. FC, GD, ZW and ZZ: performed the experiments. FC, GD and ZW: analysed the data. ZZ and HL: contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools. FC, GD, HL, ZZ: wrote the paper. All authors: reviewed the manuscript.

    • Funding This study was supported by a grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81571870) and the NaturalScience Foundation Project of Chongqing (cstc20136jjB10026).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement No additional data are available.