Intravenous versus inhalational techniques for rapid emergence from anaesthesia in patients undergoing brain tumour surgery: A Cochrane systematic review

Abstract

Background: Early and rapid emergence from anaesthesia is desirable for most neurosurgical patients. With the availability of newer intravenous and inhalational anaesthetic agents, all of which have inherent advantages and disadvantages, we remain uncertain as to which technique may result in more rapid early recovery from anaesthesia. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of intravenous versus inhalational techniques for rapid emergence from anaesthesia in patients undergoing brain tumour surgery. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 6) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1966 to June 2014) and EMBASE via Ovid SP (1980 to June 2014). We also searched specific websites, such as www.indmed.nic.in, www.cochrane-sadcct. org and www.clinicaltrials.gov (October 2014). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the use of intravenous anaesthetic agents such as propofol and thiopentone with inhalational anaesthetic agents such as isoflurane and sevoflurane for maintenance of general anaesthesia during brain tumour surgery. Primary outcomes were emergence from anaesthesia (assessed by time to follow verbal commands, in minutes) and adverse events during emergence, such as haemodynamic changes, agitation, desaturation, muscle weakness, nausea and vomiting, shivering and pain. Secondary outcomes were time to eye opening, recovery from anaesthesia using the Aldrete or modified Aldrete score (i.e., time to attain score ≥9, in minutes), opioid consumption, brain relaxation (as assessed by the surgeon on a 4- or 5-point scale) and complications of anaesthetic techniques, such as intraoperative haemodynamic instability in terms of hypotension or hypertension (mmHg), increased or decreased heart rate (beats/min) and brain swelling. We used standardised methods in conducting the systematic review, as described by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used a fixed-effect model when we found no evidence of significant heterogeneity between studies, and a random-effects model when heterogeneity was likely. Results: We included 15 RCTs with 1833 participants. We determined that none of the RCTs were of high methodological quality. For our primary outcomes, pooled results from two trials suggest that time to emergence from anaesthesia, that is, time needed to follow verbal commands, was longer with isoflurane than with propofol (mean difference [MD] –3.29 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] –5.41––1.18, low-quality evidence), and time to emergence from anaesthesia was not different with sevoflurane compared with propofol (MD 0.28 min slower with sevoflurane, 95% CI – 0.56–1.12, four studies, low-quality evidence). Pooled analyses for adverse events suggest lower risk of nausea and vomiting with propofol than with sevoflurane (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% CI 0.51–0.91, low-quality evidence) or isoflurane (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26–0.78) and greater risk of haemodynamic changes with propofol than with sevoflurane (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.07–3.17), but no differences in the risk of shivering or pain. Pooled analyses for brain relaxation suggest lower risk of tense brain with propofol than with isoflurane (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67–1.17, low-quality evidence), but no difference when propofol is compared with sevoflurane. Conclusions: The finding of our review is that the intravenous technique is comparable with the inhalational technique of using sevoflurane to provide early emergence from anaesthesia. Adverse events with both techniques are also comparable. However, we derived evidence of low quality from a limited number of studies. The use of isoflurane delays emergence from anaesthesia. These results should be interpreted with caution. RCTs based on uniform and standard methods are needed.

Keywords

Brain relaxation - inhalational anaesthetic - intravenous anaesthetic

• REFERENCES

• 1 Engelhard K, Werner C. Inhalational or intravenous anesthetics for craniotomies? Pro inhalational. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2006; 19: 504-8
• 2 Lauta E, Abbinante C, Del Gaudio A, Aloj F, Fanelli M, de Vivo P. et al. Emergence times are similar with sevoflurane and total intravenous anesthesia: Results of a multicenter RCT of patients scheduled for elective supratentorial craniotomy. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2010; 22: 110-8
• 3 Magni G, Baisi F, La Rosa I, Imperiale C, Fabbrini V, Pennacchiotti ML. et al. No difference in emergence time and early cognitive function between sevoflurane-fentanyl and propofol-remifentanil in patients undergoing craniotomy for supratentorial intracranial surgery. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2005; 17: 134-8
• 4 Todd MM, Warner DS, Sokoll MD, Maktabi MA, Hindman BJ, Scamman FL. et al. A prospective, comparative trial of three anesthetics for elective supratentorial craniotomy. Propofol/fentanyl, isoflurane/nitrous oxide, and fentanyl/nitrous oxide. Anesthesiology 1993; 78: 1005-20
• 5 Citerio G, Franzosi MG, Latini R, Masson S, Barlera S, Guzzetti S. et al. Anaesthesiological strategies in elective craniotomy: Randomized, equivalence, open trial – The NeuroMorfeo trial. Trials 2009; 10: 19
• 6 Talke P, Caldwell JE, Brown R, Dodson B, Howley J, Richardson CA. A comparison of three anesthetic techniques in patients undergoing craniotomy for supratentorial intracranial surgery. Anesth Analg 2002; 95: 430-5
• 7 Ozkose Z, Ercan B, Unal Y, Yardim S, Kaymaz M, Dogulu F. et al. Inhalation versus total intravenous anesthesia for lumbar disc herniation: Comparison of hemodynamic effects, recovery characteristics, and cost. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2001; 13: 296-302
• 8 Visser K, Hassink EA, Bonsel GJ, Moen J, Kalkman CJ. Randomized controlled trial of total intravenous anesthesia with propofol versus inhalation anesthesia with isoflurane-nitrous oxide: Postoperative nausea with vomiting and economic analysis. Anesthesiology 2001; 95: 616-26
• 9 Alkire MT, Haier RJ, Barker SJ, Shah NK, Wu JC, Kao YJ. Cerebral metabolism during propofol anesthesia in humans studied with positron emission tomography. Anesthesiology 1995; 82: 393-403
• 10 Craen RA, Gelb AW. The anaesthetic management of neurosurgical emergencies. Can J Anaesth 1992; 39 Suppl (Suppl. 01) R29-39
• 11 Stephan H, Sonntag H, Schenk HD, Kohlhausen S. Effect of Disoprivan (propofol) on the circulation and oxygen consumption of the brain and CO2 reactivity of brain vessels in the human. Anaesthesist 1987; 36: 60-5
• 12 Pinaud M, Lelausque JN, Chetanneau A, Fauchoux N, Ménégalli D, Souron R. Effects of propofol on cerebral hemodynamics and metabolism in patients with brain trauma. Anesthesiology 1990; 73: 404-9
• 13 Gupta A, Stierer T, Zuckerman R, Sakima N, Parker SD, Fleisher LA. Comparison of recovery profile after ambulatory anesthesia with propofol, isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane: A systematic review. Anesth Analg 2004; 98: 632-41
• 14 McKeage K, Perry CM. Propofol: A review of its use in intensive care sedation of adults. CNS Drugs 2003; 17: 235-72
• 15 Petersen KD, Landsfeldt U, Cold GE, Petersen CB, Mau S, Hauerberg J. et al. Intracranial pressure and cerebral hemodynamic in patients with cerebral tumors: A randomized prospective study of patients subjected to craniotomy in propofol-fentanyl, isoflurane-fentanyl, or sevoflurane-fentanyl anesthesia. Anesthesiology 2003; 98: 329-36
• 16 Hans P, Bonhomme V. Why we still use intravenous drugs as the basic regimen for neurosurgical anaesthesia. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2006; 19: 498-503
• 17 Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Searching for studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S. editors. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. Ch. 6. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org [Last updated on 2011 Mar].
• 18 Higgins JP, Green S. editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org [Last updated on 2011 Mar].
• 19 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-88
• 20 Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539-58
• 21 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ. GRADE Working Group. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians?. BMJ 2008; 336: 995-8
• 22 Ali Z, Prabhakar H, Bithal PK, Dash HH. Bispectral index-guided administration of anesthesia for transsphenoidal resection of pituitary tumors: A comparison of 3 anesthetic techniques. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2009; 21: 10-5
• 23 Banevicius G, Rugyte D, Macas A, Tamaŝauskas A, Stankevicius E. The effects of sevoflurane and propofol on cerebral hemodynamics during intracranial tumors surgery under monitoring the depth of anesthesia. Medicina (Kaunas) 2010; 46: 743-52
• 24 Bonhomme V, Demoitie J, Schaub I, Hans P. Acid-base status and hemodynamic stability during propofol and sevoflurane-based anesthesia in patients undergoing uncomplicated intracranial surgery. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2009; 21: 112-9
• 25 Cafiero T, Cavallo LM, Frangiosa A, Burrelli R, Gargiulo G, Cappabianca P. et al. Clinical comparison of remifentanil-sevoflurane vs. remifentanil-propofol for endoscopic endonasal transphenoidal surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2007; 24: 441-6
• 26 Citerio G, Pesenti A, Latini R, Masson S, Barlera S, Gaspari F. et al. A multicentre, randomised, open-label, controlled trial evaluating equivalence of inhalational and intravenous anaesthesia during elective craniotomy. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2012; 29: 371-9
• 27 Fábregas N, Valero R, Carrero E, González M, Soley R, Nalda MA. Intravenous anesthesia using propofol during lengthy neurosurgical interventions. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 1995; 42: 163-8
• 28 Grundy BL, Pashayan AG, Mahla ME, Shah BD. Three balanced anesthetic techniques for neuroanesthesia: Infusion of thiopental sodium with sufentanil or fentanyl compared with inhalation of isoflurane. J Clin Anesth 1992; 4: 372-7
• 29 Ittichaikulthol W, Pausawasdi S, Srichintai P, Sarnvivad P. Propofol vs. isoflurane for neurosurgical anesthesia in Thai patients. J Med Assoc Thai 1997; 80: 454-60
• 30 Magni G, La Rosa I, Gimignani S, Melillo G, Imperiale C, Rosa G. Early postoperative complications after intracranial surgery: Comparison between total intravenous and balanced anesthesia. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2007; 19: 229-34
• 31 Sneyd JR, Andrews CJ, Tsubokawa T. Comparison of propofol/remifentanil and sevoflurane/remifentanil for maintenance of anaesthesia for elective intracranial surgery. Br J Anaesth 2005; 94: 778-83
• 32 Van Aken H, Van Hemelrijck J, Merckx L, Möllhoff T, Mulier J, Lübbesmeyer HJ. Total intravenous anesthesia using propofol and alfentanil in comparison with balanced anesthesia in neurosurgery. Anasth Intensivther Notfallmed 1990; 25: 54-8
• 33 Van Hemelrijck J, Van Aken H, Merckx L, Mulier J. Anesthesia for craniotomy: Total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and alfentanil compared to anesthesia with thiopental sodium, isoflurane, fentanyl, and nitrous oxide. J Clin Anesth 1991; 3: 131-6
• 34 Weninger B, Czerner S, Steude U, Weninger E. Comparison between TCI-TIVA, manual TIVA and balanced anaesthesia for stereotactic biopsy of the brain. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 2004; 39: 212-9
• 35 Bastola P, Bhagat H, Wig J. Comparative evaluation of propofol, sevoflurane and desflurane for neuroanaesthesia: A prospective randomised study in patients undergoing elective supratentorial craniotomy. Indian J Anaesth 2015; 59: 287-94
• 36 Necib S, Tubach F, Peuch C, LeBihan E, Samain E, Mantz J. et al. Recovery from anesthesia after craniotomy for supratentorial tumors: Comparison of propofol-remifentanil and sevoflurane-sufentanil (the PROMIFLUNIL trial). J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2014; 26: 37-44
• 37 Prabhakar H, Singh GP, Mahajan C, Kapoor I, Kalaivani M, Anand V. Intravenous versus inhalational techniques for rapid emergence from anaesthesia in patients undergoing brain tumour surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016; 9 Art. No.: CD010467 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010467.pub2.