BACKGROUND: A recently published randomized control trial (RCT) showed a protection of the remnant liver from ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury by pharmacological pre-conditioning with a volatile anaesthetic in patients undergoing hepatic resection. Whether the continuous application of volatile anaesthetics (pharmacological conditioning) also protects against I/R injury is unknown. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing liver resection with inflow occlusion from 2005-2007 were included in the trial. Two groups of anaesthesia regimens with either continuous application of the volatile anaesthetic sevoflurane (pharmacological conditioning) or continuous infusion of the intravenous (i.v.) anaesthetic propofol (control group) were compared. Endpoints were serum-peak-aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/ alanine aminotranferease (ALT) levels, length of stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) stays, and the occurrence of post-operative complications. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-seven patients were included. Pharmacological conditioning did not protect the remnant liver from IR injury (adjusted difference for peak-AST:61.9 U/l, 95% confidence interval (CI): -151.7-275.4 U/l, P = 0.568; peak-ALT:136.1 U/l, 95% CI: -113.7-385.9 U/l, P = 0.284) nor reduce LOS (adjusted difference 0.9 days, 95% CI: -2.6-4.3 days, P = 0.622) or ICU stay (1.6 days, 95% CI: -0.2-3.3 days, P = 0.079), and was not associated with reduced complication rates (adjusted OR 1.12, 95% CI:0.6-2.3, P = 0.761) compared with the control group. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, continuous volatile anaesthesia in liver resection does not provide protection of the remnant liver from IR injury compared with continuous i.v. anaesthesia.
BACKGROUND: A recently published randomized control trial (RCT) showed a protection of the remnant liver from ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury by pharmacological pre-conditioning with a volatile anaesthetic in patients undergoing hepatic resection. Whether the continuous application of volatile anaesthetics (pharmacological conditioning) also protects against I/R injury is unknown. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing liver resection with inflow occlusion from 2005-2007 were included in the trial. Two groups of anaesthesia regimens with either continuous application of the volatile anaesthetic sevoflurane (pharmacological conditioning) or continuous infusion of the intravenous (i.v.) anaesthetic propofol (control group) were compared. Endpoints were serum-peak-aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/ alanine aminotranferease (ALT) levels, length of stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) stays, and the occurrence of post-operative complications. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-seven patients were included. Pharmacological conditioning did not protect the remnant liver from IR injury (adjusted difference for peak-AST:61.9 U/l, 95% confidence interval (CI): -151.7-275.4 U/l, P = 0.568; peak-ALT:136.1 U/l, 95% CI: -113.7-385.9 U/l, P = 0.284) nor reduce LOS (adjusted difference 0.9 days, 95% CI: -2.6-4.3 days, P = 0.622) or ICU stay (1.6 days, 95% CI: -0.2-3.3 days, P = 0.079), and was not associated with reduced complication rates (adjusted OR 1.12, 95% CI:0.6-2.3, P = 0.761) compared with the control group. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, continuous volatile anaesthesia in liver resection does not provide protection of the remnant liver from IR injury compared with continuous i.v. anaesthesia.
Authors: Rene Schmidt; Eva Tritschler; Alexander Hoetzel; Torsten Loop; Matjaz Humar; Leonie Halverscheid; Klaus K Geiger; Benedikt H J Pannen Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: David A Kooby; Jennifer Stockman; Leah Ben-Porat; Mithat Gonen; William R Jarnagin; Ronald P Dematteo; Scott Tuorto; David Wuest; Leslie H Blumgart; Yuman Fong Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Nora Jahn; Maria Theresa Völker; Sven Laudi; Sebastian Stehr; Stefan Schneeberger; Gerald Brandacher; Elisabeth Sucher; Sebastian Rademacher; Daniel Seehofer; Hans Michael Hau; Robert Sucher Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 4.964