Total Intravenous Anesthesia and Inhalation Anesthesia

NCT ID: NCT03187717

Last Updated: 2017-06-15

Basic Information

• Recruitment Status: COMPLETED
• Total Enrollment: 583 participants
• Study Classification: OBSERVATIONAL
• Study Start Date: 2016-01-01
• Study Completion Date: 2017-02-01

Brief Summary

The aim of us is to define the incidence of postoperative complications and recovery time in view of two anesthesia procedures.

During the period between 01.01.2016 and 01.01.2017, totally 583 patients were included in the study, who had oral and maxillofacial surgeries. Anesthesia types were determined as total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and inhalation anesthesia (IA). Postoperative complications and recovery period were determined as tachycardia, bradycardia, hypertension, hypotension, recovery time, additional analgesia, nausea-vomiting. Both anesthesia procedures were compared in terms of these postoperative complications and recovery time.

Detailed Description

Totally American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II, 18-60 ages, 583 patients who had had oral and maxillofacial operations for 30 minutes and over with TIVA and IA methods between 1st Jan, 2016 and 1st Jan, 2017. The ones who had insufficient data in their files and who were conscious / superficial sedation patients were excluded from the study. The patients were allocated to two groups as TIVA and IA. The total intravenous anesthesia group was named "Group TIVA" , and the volatile anesthesia group was named "Group IA".

All the patients were opened vascular access after being taken into the operation room and were given anesthesia induction with 1 µg/kg fentanyl, 2 mg/kg propofol and 0,8 mg/kg rocuronium. The patients in Group IA were given 1-2% volume sevoflurane in 50% oxygen and 50% nitrous oxide during maintenance of anesthesia, while the patients in group TIVA were applied 4-10 mg/kg/h propofol and 0.05-0.1 µg/kg fentanyl IV infusion with 50% oxygen and 50% air. While being woken up, each patient was given 0.3 mg/kg tenoxicam for analgesia and 0.2 mg/kg metoclopramide for nausea-vomiting prophylaxis in a routine way. Each patient was taken into recovery room after extubation and pulse rate, non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) and oxygen saturation monitorization were done. Postoperative complication and vital finding tracks of each patient were done as usual and were recorded.

Conditions

Postoperative Complications

Study Design

• Observational Model Type: CASE_CONTROL
• Study Time Perspective: RETROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

TIVA (Total intravenous anesthesia)

Group TIVA; patients who used intravenous anesthesia procedure

No interventions assigned to this group

IA (Inhalation anesthesia)

Group IA; patients who used inhalation anesthesia procedure

No interventions assigned to this group

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

• Totally American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II, 18-60 ages patients who had had oral and maxillofacial operations for 30 minutes and over with TIVA and IA procedures between 1st Jan, 2016 and 1st Jan, 2017.

Exclusion Criteria

• The ones who had insufficient data in their files and who were conscious/superficial sedation patients were excluded from the study.

• Minimum Eligible Age: 18 Years
• Maximum Eligible Age: 60 Years
• Eligible Sex: ALL
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Sponsors

Aydin Adnan Menderes University

OTHER

Sponsor Role: lead

Responsible Party

Ozlem Kocaturk

Medical doctor, Assistant Professor

Responsibility Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Ozlem Kocaturk, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Faculty of Dentistry, Adnan Menderes University

References

Gecaj-Gashi A, Hashimi M, Sada F, Baftiu N, Salihu S, Terziqi H, Bruqi B. Propofol vs isoflurane anesthesia-incidence of PONV in patients at maxillofacial surgery. Adv Med Sci. 2010;55(2):308-12. doi: 10.2478/v10039-010-0033-4.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 20934965 (View on PubMed)

Lee WK, Kim MS, Kang SW, Kim S, Lee JR. Type of anaesthesia and patient quality of recovery: a randomized trial comparing propofol-remifentanil total i.v. anaesthesia with desflurane anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2015 Apr;114(4):663-8. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeu405. Epub 2014 Dec 10.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 25500679 (View on PubMed)

Jellish WS, Lien CA, Fontenot HJ, Hall R. The comparative effects of sevoflurane versus propofol in the induction and maintenance of anesthesia in adult patients. Anesth Analg. 1996 Mar;82(3):479-85. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199603000-00009.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 8623947 (View on PubMed)

Watson KR, Shah MV. Clinical comparison of 'single agent' anaesthesia with sevoflurane versus target controlled infusion of propofol. Br J Anaesth. 2000 Oct;85(4):541-6. doi: 10.1093/bja/85.4.541.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 11064611 (View on PubMed)

Bharti N, Chari P, Kumar P. Effect of sevoflurane versus propofol-based anesthesia on the hemodynamic response and recovery characteristics in patients undergoing microlaryngeal surgery. Saudi J Anaesth. 2012 Oct-Dec;6(4):380-4. doi: 10.4103/1658-354X.105876.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 23493938 (View on PubMed)

Adams HA, Schmitz CS, Baltes-Gotz B. [Endocrine stress reaction, hemodynamics and recovery in total intravenous and inhalation anesthesia. Propofol versus isoflurane]. Anaesthesist. 1994 Nov;43(11):730-7. doi: 10.1007/s001010050115. German.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 7840401 (View on PubMed)

Joo HS, Perks WJ. Sevoflurane versus propofol for anesthetic induction: a meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. 2000 Jul;91(1):213-9. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200007000-00040.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 10866915 (View on PubMed)

Dashfield AK, Birt DJ, Thurlow J, Kestin IG, Langton JA. Recovery characteristics using single-breath 8% sevoflurane or propofol for induction of anaesthesia in day-case arthroscopy patients. Anaesthesia. 1998 Nov;53(11):1062-6. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.1998.00571.x.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 10023274 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

OzlemKocaturk

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id