Why the study?
Does low-flow sevoflurane anesthesia affect postoperative renal and hepatic function compared to isoflurane anesthesia in surgical patients?
Does low-flow sevoflurane anesthesia affect postoperative renal and hepatic function compared to isoflurane anesthesia in surgical patients?
Low-flow sevoflurane anesthesia appears to have a similar postoperative renal and hepatic safety profile to isoflurane, despite the generation of degradation products like Compound A.
This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
The safety of low-flow sevoflurane anesthesia, which produces higher concentrations of toxic compounds, has been questioned. One hundred surgical patients received sevoflurane or isoflurane anesthesia at a total flow rate of 1 L/min. End-tidal CO2 concentrations and inspired and end-tidal anesthetic concentrations were monitored during anesthesia. Pre- and postanesthetic clinical laboratory studies were performed in both groups, and no significant differences were found between groups. In the sevoflurane group, the concentrations of degradation products in the circuit were measured by gas chromatography and the temperature of the CO2 absorbent was also measured. Two degradation products were detected: CF2 = C(CF3-O-CH2 F (Compound A) and CH3 OCF2 CH(CF3)OCH2 F (Compound B). The highest measured mean concentration of Compound A was 24.6 +/- 7.2 (13.6-41.3) ppm, and that of Compound B (detected in 12 patients) was 1.5 ppm. In both groups, total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase were increased postoperatively. There was no difference between groups. Low concentrations of Compound A were present in low-flow sevoflurane anesthesia, but no significant differences in clinical laboratory values were observed between low-flow sevoflurane and isoflurane anesthesia. (Anesth Analg 1996;82:173-6)
Supports comparable renal/hepatic lab safety for low-flow sevoflurane versus isoflurane; leaves open causal Compound A effects pending randomized trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bito et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: