Key result
Volatile induction and maintenance of anesthesia with sevoflurane provided significantly better cardiocirculatory stability (less than 10% deviation from basal values) compared to target controlled infusion in NYHA II patients (p < 0.01).
Why the study?
The study aimed to compare the effects of volatile induction and maintenance of anesthesia versus target controlled infusion on cardiovascular stability in NYHA grade II patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Does volatile induction and maintenance of anesthesia (VIMA) with sevoflurane improve cardiocirculatory stability compared to target controlled infusion (TCI) in NYHA II patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy?
RCT (n=90)
Randomized
No
Does volatile induction and maintenance of anesthesia (VIMA) with sevoflurane improve cardiocirculatory stability compared to target controlled infusion (TCI) in NYHA II patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy?
p-value: p=<0.01
VIMA with sevoflurane provides superior hemodynamic stability compared to TCI in NYHA II patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
No clear CV stability difference between VIMA and TCI in NYHA II patients; leaves open optimal technique pending larger trials.
The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of volatile induction and maintenance of anesthesia (VIMA) and target controlled infusion (TCI) on cardiovascular stability in New York Heart Association (NYHA) grade II patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In the present study, 90 patients were randomized into two groups depending on whether they received VIMA or TCI. Heart rate, systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressure were monitored continuously and recorded in five time intervals. Statistical analysis showed that VIMA with sevoflurane provides better cardiocirculatory stability (less than 10% deviation from basal values for each measured parameter) than TCI group (p < 0.01). Volatile induction and maintenance of anesthesia with sevoflurane provides better hemodynamic stability for NYHA II patients with concomitant cardiovascular diseases compared to TCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stošić et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Chronic cholelithiasis with NYHA II cardiovascular disease (n=90). Volatile induction and maintenance of anesthesia (VIMA) with sevoflurane vs. Target controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol was evaluated on Cardiocirculatory stability (deviation from basal values of heart rate and blood pressure) (p=<0.01). Volatile induction and maintenance of anesthesia with sevoflurane provided significantly better cardiocirculatory stability (less than 10% deviation from basal values) compared to target controlled infusion in NYHA II patients (p < 0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: