Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: The effect of intraoperative anesthetic regimen on pulmonary outcome after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is yet undetermined. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of volatile anesthesia (sevoflurane or desflurane) compared with propofol-based intravenous anesthesia on pulmonary complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy. METHODS: Patients scheduled for minimally invasive esophagectomy were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 general anesthetic regimens (sevoflurane, desflurane, or propofol). The primary outcome was the incidence of pulmonary complications within the 7 days postoperatively, which was a collapsed composite end point, including respiratory infection, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, atelectasis, respiratory failure, bronchospasm, pulmonary embolism, and aspiration pneumonitis. The severity of pulmonary complications, surgery-related complications, and other secondary outcomes were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 647 patients assessed for eligibility, 558 were randomized, and 553 were analyzed. A total of 185 patients were assigned to the sevoflurane group, 185 in the desflurane, and 183 in the propofol group. Patients receiving a volatile anesthetic (sevoflurane or desflurane) had a significantly lower incidence (36.5% vs 47.5%; odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.91; P = .013) and lower severity grade of pulmonary complications ( P = .035) compared to the patients receiving propofol. There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy, the use of volatile anesthesia (sevoflurane or desflurane) resulted in the reduced risk and severity of pulmonary complications within the first 7 postoperative days as compared to propofol-based intravenous anesthesia.
Zhang et al. (Tue,) studied this question.