https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2588-3324
Figures
Abstract
Background
To determine whether the anesthetic method of propofol total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) is associated with postoperative outcome in ESRD patients, we evaluated the incidence of postoperative major adverse cardiac events (MACE), comparing propofol TIVA versus anesthesia with volatile anesthesia in ESRD patients.
Methods
Retrospectively, we identified cases with ESRD patients who underwent surgery under general anesthesia. Patients were divided into those who received only volatile anesthesia (volatile group) and those who received only propofol TIVA (TIVA group). The incidence of MACE and potential confounding variables were compared separately in a univariate logistic model and subsequently by multivariate logistic regression.
Results
Among the 2576 cases in ESRD patients, 1374 were in the TIVA group and 1202 were in the volatile group. The multivariate analysis included 12 factors, including the anesthesia method, of which five factors were significant. Factors that were associated with a significantly lower MACE risk included preoperative chloride concentration (OR: 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92–0.99), baseline SBP (OR: 0.98; 95% CI, 0.98–0.99), and propofol TIVA (OR: 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22–0.60).
Citation: Cho HB, Kim MG, Park SY, Song S, Jang YS, Park S, et al. (2021) The influence of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia on postoperative outcomes in end-stage renal disease patients: A retrospective observation study. PLoS ONE 16(7): e0254014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254014
Editor: Vincenzo Lionetti, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, ITALY
Received: April 6, 2021; Accepted: June 17, 2021; Published: July 22, 2021
Copyright: © 2021 Cho et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are available on Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/NVG95).
Funding: This research was supported by the Soonchunhyang University Research Fund and Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2020R1I1A1A01061146).
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is the last stage of chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis. The aging of the world’s population and improved survival in the ESRD population has resulted in a gradual increase in the prevalence of ESRD [1, 2]. As many as 9.7 million patients worldwide required dialysis in 2010 and the number is projected to double by 2030 [3]. The number of patients with ESRD who need surgery has also increased [4, 5]. Chronic kidney disease is an independent risk factor for postoperative death and cardiovascular events after noncardiac surgery [6]. Most ESRD patients have multiple comorbidities. Therefore, ESRD patients are more susceptible to the adverse effects of surgery and anesthesia [6–8]. As such, careful perioperative management and optimization of the anesthetic technique is important. It is increasingly recognized that the anesthetic technique and other perioperative factors have the potential to affect the surgical outcome [9].
Propofol is a suitable agent to induce and maintain general anesthesia because of its rapid onset, clear recovery, and several other properties that potentially affect the surgical outcome. However, there are conflicting findings about postoperative outcomes associated with intraoperative volatile anesthetics versus propofol. It has been reported that the cardioprotective effects of volatile anesthetics was superior to propofol by improving postischemic recovery in cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass [10]. On the other hand, many studies have found that propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), compared with volatile anesthetics, is associated with improved survival after surgery in cancer patients or patients without solid cancer [11, 12]. Propofol has antioxidant properties, as well as anti-inflammation and immunomodulatory effects that are organ protective and may contribute to a better surgical outcome compared with volatile anesthesia [13–19]. These findings suggest that the use of propofol may be beneficial in high-risk populations, such as ESRD patients. However, the prognostic significance of propofol TIVA in ESRD patients is uncertain.
While there are potential advantages, some clinicians may fear side effects. For example, propofol induces vasodilation and hypotension, so hemodynamic fluctuations could be more prominent during general anesthesia using propofol [20, 21]. Additionally, there is a concerns of overdose in ESRD patients, because most pharmacokinetic models used for TIVA were developed in young, healthy individuals.
We performed a retrospective database study to assess the relationship between anesthetic method and postoperative major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which are a major cause of morbidity and mortality after surgery, by comparing propofol TIVA and anesthesia with volatile anesthetics in ESRD patients after non-cardiac surgery. Variables associated with blood pressure fluctuations during general anesthesia were also evaluated.
Materials and methods
Study design
This retrospective cohort study was approved by the Soonchunhyang University Hospital Institutional Review Board (SCHUH 2020–09–001). Written informed consent was waived because of the retrospective nature of the study. We present the findings following the format recommended by the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines.
After approval from the institutional review board, all ESRD on hemodialysis patients in our institutional database (age 20–80 years) who underwent general anesthesia between March 2018 and April 2020 were initially included. Considering the high mortality related to the procedures, any patients who had undergone cardiac surgery, cancer surgery, organ transplantation, or emergency surgery were excluded. General anesthesia was not combined with any type of regional block. To clearly distinguish the effects of each anesthetic method, patients who received both forms of anesthesia within the study period, either during the same surgical procedure or for additional procedures, were excluded. Patients who had multiple procedures during the study period and received the same form of anesthesia remained eligible. Patients were divided into those who received only volatile anesthesia (volatile group) and those who received only propofol TIVA (TIVA group).
Anesthetic management
We have a general anesthetic protocol for ESRD patients. Patients receive hemodialysis one or two days before surgery. And the laboratory tests including hemoglobin, platelet count, electrolytes, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, albumin, phosphate, and calcium levels are checked after hemodialysis. Clinical patient characteristics such as underlying disease and the laboratory test results are formally recorded in the pre-anesthetic evaluation report form. Patients maintain cardio-protective medications like beta-blockers, anti-hypercholesterolemic agent, anti-arrhythmic medications, except anticoagulation therapy. Angiotensin receptor blocker or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors are discontinued on the day of surgery. When patients receive TIVA, the target concentrations of propofol and remifentanil are maintained at 2–5 μg/ml and 0–6 ng/ml, respectively, according to a bispectral index (BIS) value of 40–60. When patients receive volatile anesthesia, induction is performed using intravenous 1–1.5 mg/kg propofol. Anesthesia is maintained with the volatile anesthetics desflurane or sevoflurane. The volatile anesthetic dose is adjusted to achieve a target BIS value of 40–60. Remifentanil is maintained at 0–6 ng/ml as needed. Fentanyl (0.3–0.5 μg/kg) was injected at the beginning of skin closure, in both anesthetic methods.
As per our protocol, blood pressure and heart rate were measured every minute and recorded automatically. Patients received intravenous 4 mg ephedrine or 50 μg phenylephrine as necessary to maintain systolic blood pressure within 20% of the baseline, a pre-anesthetic value, during the operation. If these drugs were insufficient to maintain blood pressure and the vital signs were severely unstable, inotropic agents, including dopamine, dobutamine, epinephrine, or norepinephrine were infused continuously.
Variables
Preoperative morbidities, including hypertension, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction (MI), current angina, congestive heart failure, valvular heart disease, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung disease, diabetes mellitus, cerebrovascular accident, dementia, liver cirrhosis, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists rating scale were assessed based on the preoperative anesthetic record. Preoperative test results, including left ventricular ejection fraction by echocardiography and pulmonary function tests, as well as hemoglobin, platelet count, electrolytes, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, albumin, phosphate, and calcium levels were recorded for analysis. Intraoperative records, including anesthetics, blood pressure, heart rate, BIS, SpO2, body temperature, the volume of blood loss, crystalloids or colloids infused, transfusion, anesthetic duration, and vasoactive agents used to stabilize vital signs were evaluated. We calculated the total duration when systolic blood pressure (SBP) was ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was ≥ 90 mmHg, defined as hypertensive duration, and calculated the duration of SBP ≤ 90 or mean blood pressure (MBP) ≤ 65 as hypotensive duration. A heart rate (HR) > 100 was considered tachycardia and < 50 as bradycardia. These variables were chosen as potential confounders, as they have either been shown or posited to affect outcomes [22–24].
Data sources/Measurement
All data related to the procedure and anesthesia were obtained from electronic medical patient records and the real-time vital recorder file [25]. Data related to outcomes were obtained by submitting a batch data request to the Korean National Statistical Office (Microdata Integrated Service, on-demand, https://mdis.kostat.go.kr) and the electronic medical patient records. Since the Republic of Korea manages the death data of its citizens through the resident registration number, we can get correct data. And we extracted other postoperative MACEs from electronic medical records by requesting patients who newly diagnosed or managed within 30 days after surgery, using all related Insurance fee code, diagnostic code, prescription code. Surgical severity was graded from low to high according to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines [26].
Statistical analysis
The primary outcome was postoperative MACE. Postoperative MACE was defined as a composite of all-cause death, sudden cardiac arrest, congestive heart failure, non-fatal MI, stress-induced cardiomyopathy, and new onset of cardiac arrhythmia, severe hypotension requiring inotropic support, new-onset pulmonary edema, pulmonary hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, and pulmonary embolism within 30 days after surgery. Patient demographics, comorbidities, test results, and intraoperative recordings were compared between the groups using the t-test or the Mann–Whitney U-test for continuous variables or the chi-square or Fisher’s exact test as appropriate. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to assess the normality of the distribution. The overall incidence of MACE and potential confounding variables were compared separately in a univariate logistic model and subsequently by multivariate logistic regression. Variables with a p-value < 0.2 in the univariate analysis were used as candidate risk factors in the multivariate model. All variables included in the multivariate model should have complete data. Cases with missing co-variate data would excluded during the analysis. We used a two-sided 5% α-level to evaluate differences in the model. The results are expressed using the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) and plotted using a forest plot. All statistical analyses were performed using R software (version 4.0.2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
Results
In total, 3276 ESRD patients aged 20–80 years underwent general anesthesia during the study period. After the exclusion criteria were applied, 1374 patients remained in the TIVA group and 1202 were in the volatile group, and all were included for the analysis (Fig 1). Among the patients, 23.3% had multiple procedures during the study period (21.9% in TIVA group, 14.1% in volatile group).
TIVA group, patients who received only propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia; Volatile group, patients who received only volatile anesthesia.
Table 1 lists the clinical characteristics of patients, including preoperative morbidities and laboratory data. Gender, age, weight, body mass index, and the prevalence of several preoperative morbidities differed significantly between the two groups. Among the preoperative test results, forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) (%) differed significantly but forced vital capacity (FVC) (%) and FEV1/FVC (%) did not differ significantly and had no clinical implication. Among preoperative laboratory test results, chloride concentration differed significantly between the groups. Surgery type and severity were similar between the two groups (S1 Table). Table 2 lists the intraoperative data, including anesthetics and vital signs. The baseline SBP, a pre-anesthetic value, was higher, and the baseline HR was lower in the TIVA group than in the volatile group. The mean MBP, DBP, and HR values during anesthesia were significantly lower in the TIVA group than in the volatile group. The calculated hypertensive duration, hypotensive duration, and tachycardia duration were significantly longer in the volatile group than in the TIVA group. The BIS and SpO2 values were significantly different but there was no clinical implication. The volume of blood loss and intraoperative crystalloid infusion was greater and anesthetic duration was longer in the volatile group than in the TIVA group. No transfusions occurred among the cases analyzed. Table 2 also lists data regarding intraoperatively administered vasoactive agents; no significant differences were observed between the two groups. The incidence of postoperative MACE was significantly lower in the TIVA group than the volatile group (P < 0.001) but the cause of the category distribution did not differ significantly between the two groups (Table 3). No pulmonary hypertension or cerebrovascular accident was detected within 30 days after surgery.
Table 4 presents the logistic regression results. There was no missing co-variate data, we could include all cases for the analysis. Patient characteristics that differed between the groups or are reportedly significantly associated with an increased risk for mortality in ESRD [22–24] were included in the univariate analysis. The calculated duration values, intraoperative mean blood pressures or heart rate were not included because they could be associated with anesthetic method. Only the baseline blood pressure and heart rate were included in the analysis. The multivariate analysis included 10 factors, including the anesthesia method, of which five factors were significant (Table 4). A forest plot (Fig 2) was prepared with only the factors finally selected using the variable selection method with stepwise selection. Factors that were associated with a significantly lower MACE risk included preoperative chloride concentration (OR: 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92–0.99), baseline SBP (OR: 0.98; 95% CI, 0.98–0.99), and propofol TIVA (OR: 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22–0.60) (Fig 2). The OR of propofol TIVA for MACE decreased from 0.43 to 0.37. Patients who were older (OR: 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02–1.06) and those previously diagnosed with MI (OR: 3.26; 95% CI, 1.31–8.11) were at significantly higher risk for MACE.
(a) Results of univariate analysis. (b) Only the factors finally selected using the variable selection method were plotted by stepwise selection. TIVA, total intravenous anesthesia; MI, myocardial infarction; Baseline SBP, preanesthetic systolic blood pressure; Baseline HR, preanesthetic heart rate; MBP, mean blood pressure during anesthesia; HR, heart rate during anesthesia. OR (95% CI): odds ratio and 95% confidence interval.
Discussion
This retrospective study of 2576 cases in ESRD patients evaluated the relationship between the postoperative outcome and the anesthetic method. Propofol TIVA was associated with reduced odds of postoperative MACE after adjusting for confounding variables. We inferred that the anesthetic method affected the postoperative outcome in patients with ESRD and that patients had a better outcome if they received propofol TIVA rather than volatile anesthesia.
We cannot conclude with certainty that the difference in the anesthetic method was a definite cause of the difference in outcome because of the retrospective nature of this study. Moreover, it was not possible to determine the mechanism for this difference. However, the possibility of improving the outcome of TIVA was sufficiently demonstrated in this study.
Surgery causes significant physiological stress and induces oxidative stress through the overproduction of free radicals or reactive oxygen species (ROS) [17, 18]. The overproduction of ROS during surgery damages cellular macromolecules, including DNA, proteins, and lipids. The balance between the oxidative stress from surgery and the antioxidant capacity of the body is believed to contribute to surgical complications [27]. Propofol is a phenolic derivative with the formula 2,6-diisopropylphenol that acts as an antioxidant by reacting with free radicals [17]. Several in-vivo and in-vitro studies have demonstrated the free radical scavenging properties of propofol either by directly chelating ROS, inhibiting lipid peroxidation, or increasing antioxidant capacity [18, 28–31]. Bellanti et al. reported that propofol reduces mitochondrial dysfunction by preserving respiratory activity, membrane potential and energy homeostasis, and limiting free radicals’ production [9]. These antioxidant activities are significant, fast, stable, and dynamic at clinical concentrations [30, 32]. Therefore, propofol can potentially influence the postoperative outcome through its antioxidant effects and their roles in organ protection.
Other mechanisms that have been linked to the potential organ-protective effect of propofol include anti-apoptosis by suppressing the pro-apoptotic protein Bax and an anti-inflammatory effect by inhibiting macrophage production of tumor necrosis factor-α and interleukins [13, 14]. Perioperative inflammation increases vulnerability to postoperative organ dysfunction and mortality in patients undergoing surgery [33, 34]. Surgery and the stress response suppress the activity of the cell-mediated immune system, particularly natural killer cell activity [35]. Propofol has been reported to be associated with a less adverse inflammatory profile and has immunoprotective effects. It preserves the function of natural killer cells [15], it enhances activation and differentiation of peripheral T-helper cells that augment cellular immunity [16], and it diminishes the production of cytokines [36]. Overall, propofol has been shown to have antioxidant and anti-inflammation properties, and produce a protective effect on the immune system, which may have contributed to the better outcomes after surgery compared with volatile anesthesia.
Because of severe comorbidities and a lack of renal function, patients with ESRD are at considerable perioperative risk. The literature consistently demonstrates considerably higher mortality in ESRD patients than their counterparts with normal renal function during the perioperative period of cardiac and noncardiac surgeries [37–39]. In previous studies, the overall mortality rate for ESRD patients undergoing general surgery was approximately 4% [40, 41]. This is similar with our volatile group mortality (4.2%, 51 death among 1202) but lower in TIVA group (1.6%, 22 death among 1374). Several studies have found that the high morbidity and mortality of ESRD patients is primarily due to cardiovascular complications [41–43]. Cardiovascular causes, including arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, congestive heart failure, acute MI, and atherosclerotic heart disease are responsible for 48% of deaths among dialysis patients [2]. Additionally, postoperative adverse cardiac events are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients after non-cardiac surgery in general population [44, 45]. Therefore, we evaluated postoperative MACE in ESRD patients after non-cardiac surgery, the most important outcome, to investigate the safety of propofol TIVA in ESRD patients. The adjusted OR of propofol TIVA for postoperative MACE was 0.35, which was lower than the unadjusted OR of 0.43 when compared to volatile anesthesia in patients with ESRD. We speculate that the previously described beneficial effects of propofol were maximized in this vulnerable patient group.
As introduced above, theoretical advantages of propofol TIVA are anticipated for ESRD patients. However, the complexity and variability in drug handling may remain an issue for using TIVA and may restrict the use of propofol TIVA in ESRD patients. In 1998, Ickx et al. investigated the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol in 11 patients with ESRD compared with healthy patients [46]. They found that ESRD requiring hemodialysis did not significantly affect the pharmacokinetics of propofol. The mean total body clearance of propofol was not reduced significantly in the ESRD group (30.66 mL∙kg-1∙min-1) compared with the control group (33.75 mL∙kg-1∙min-1). ESRD patients tended to exhibit a greater volume distribution at steady state than patients in the control group (11.25 vs. 5.79 mL∙kg-1, respectively). Ickx et al. also found that elimination half-life values were unchanged by renal failure. Mean times to induction of anesthesia were similar in both groups, and recovery time was significantly shorter in the ESRD group than in the control group. They concluded that the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of propofol after infusion were not markedly affected by renal failure. Dahaba et al. reported that ESRD does not prolong recovery from TIVA with remifentanil and propofol and concluded that patients with ESRD can be anesthetized with TIVA using propofol [47]. Together, these previous findings indicate that TIVA can be used in ESRD patients, but no convincing data were available to show that the outcome was improved by TIVA compared to volatile anesthesia. Although many studies have found that propofol-based TIVA may contribute to a better surgical outcome [13–19], ESRD patients are excluded in most studies. The ESRD patients are very susceptible to the adverse effects of surgery primarily due to cardiovascular complications [41–43]. Therefore, it would be more important in ESRD patients. Our findings confirmed that propofol TIVA was associated with a decreased risk of postoperative MACE in ESRD patients who are at a higher risk of postoperative MACE. These results highlight the potential utility of TIVA for postoperative safety in ESRD patients.
Hypotension is another reason for reservations using TIVA in ESRD patients. These patients may arrive in the operating room in a volume-depleted state after recent dialysis and fluid restrictions. Thus, they are prone to hypotensive responses to vasodilating drugs with negative inotropic effects. Tailoring blood pressure is very important for ESRD patients to reduce perioperative morbidity. Dahaba et al. demonstrated that TIVA produces more hypotension in ESRD patients than in control subjects and requires more ephedrine, despite a lower concentration of remifentanil [47]. In our study population, MBP and SBP were lower in the TIVA group than the volatile group. This finding is consistent with those of Dahaba et al., but we found that remifentanil concentration was high and did not require more ephedrine or phenylephrine or an inotropic agent in the TIVA group. We also found that the hypotensive duration was longer in the volatile group. Unfortunately, we could not include the hypotensive duration values for analysis, because they may be closely related to anesthetic method difference.
Limitations
Our study had several limitations. First, this was a retrospective analysis for which the greatest criticism is that baseline characteristics of the two groups differed. The choice of anesthetic was based on the anesthesiologist’s preference, but more patients in the volatile group were female, and more had MI, VHD, and cerebrovascular accident. And although the surgical severity was comparable, there were differences in some surgery types including aortic and other major vascular surgery. Other problems are the volume of blood loss and the volume of infused crystalloid were different between the groups. As has already been shown in many studies, bleeding has a significant effect on patient prognosis. Also, in ESRD, volume infusion can be a burden on the patient. We performed a multivariate analysis to exclude the effects of these differences. However, we could not include all confounding factors such as postoperative pain and pre-and post-operative inflammatory parameters, although these are an influencing factor of postoperative outcomes. Second, hemodialysis-dependent duration was lacking in our study. It may be argued that there is a time-dependent relationship between hemodialysis-dependent duration and outcome. We were unable to determine the hemodialysis duration for each patient due to a lack of formally recorded data. However, it would have not influenced the anesthetic choice. Third, we analyzed based on the surgery case and included the patients who had multiple procedures during the study period. And it is not clear how this influences the outcome. Fourth, improvements in ESRD care over the period could have influenced the outcomes, but the study period was relatively short (2 years) and the proportions of TIVA and volatile agents remained remarkably similar throughout this study. Fifth, if the patients experienced MACE out of the hospital, it could not be included in the analysis. Finally, propofol was used to induce general anesthesia in both groups. However, the dose of propofol is reportedly related to the outcome [12]. We excluded patients who received both forms of anesthesia within the study period.
In conclusion, after adjusting for established prognostic factors in multivariate models, TIVA remained an independent factor for decreasing postoperative MACE in ESRD patients. These results indicate that propofol TIVA might be a suitable anesthetic method for ESRD patients. However, further studies are needed to conclude this, because this is a retrospective study and assessed in peripheral vascular surgeries, there are limitations to applying to other situations.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Surgery type, severity and postoperative pain.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254014.s001
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Jesus RNC, Concon G. H., Braga M. M., Marques J. G. R., Chaim R. A., Gestic F. D. M., et al. Prevalence and Factors Associated with Hepatic Iron Overload in Obese Individuals Undergoing Bariatric Surgery: a Cross-Sectional Study. Obes Surg. 2020;26:26. pmid:32979184.
- 2. Saran R, Robinson B, Abbott KC, Bragg-Gresham J, Chen X, Gipson D, et al. US Renal Data System 2019 Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of Kidney Disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2020;75(1 Suppl 1):A6–a7. Epub 2019/11/11. pmid:31704083.
- 3. Liyanage T, Ninomiya T, Jha V, Neal B, Patrice HM, Okpechi I, et al. Worldwide access to treatment for end-stage kidney disease: a systematic review. Lancet. 2015;385(9981):1975–82. Epub 2015/03/18. pmid:25777665.
- 4. Kanda H, Hirasaki Y, Iida T, Kanao-Kanda M, Toyama Y, Chiba T, et al. Perioperative Management of Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2017;31(6):2251–67. Epub 2017/08/15. pmid:28803771.
- 5. Webster AC, Nagler EV, Morton RL, Masson P. Chronic Kidney Disease. Lancet. 2017;389(10075):1238–52. Epub 2016/11/27. pmid:27887750.
- 6. Mathew A, Devereaux PJ, O’Hare A, Tonelli M, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Nevis IF, et al. Chronic kidney disease and postoperative mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Kidney Int. 2008;73(9):1069–81. Epub 2008/02/22. pmid:18288098.
- 7. Chikuda H, Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Takeshita K, Kawaguchi H, Matsuda S, et al. Mortality and morbidity in dialysis-dependent patients undergoing spinal surgery: analysis of a national administrative database in Japan. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(5):433–8. Epub 2012/03/09. pmid:22398737.
- 8. Brakoniecki K, Tam S, Chung P, Smith M, Alfonso A, Sugiyama G. Mortality in patients with end-stage renal disease and the risk of returning to the operating room after common General Surgery procedures. Am J Surg. 2017;213(2):395–8. Epub 2016/06/23. pmid:27329074.
- 9. Bellanti F, Mirabella L, Mitarotonda D, Blonda M, Tamborra R, Cinnella G, et al. Propofol but not sevoflurane prevents mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress by limiting HIF-1α activation in hepatic ischemia/reperfusion injury. Free Radic Biol Med. 2016;96:323–33. Epub 2016/05/3. pmid:27154980.
- 10. Bonanni A, Signori A, Alicino C, Mannucci I, Grasso MA, Martinelli L, et al. Volatile Anesthetics versus Propofol for Cardiac Surgery with Cardiopulmonary Bypass: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials. Anesthesiology. 2020;132(6):1429–46. Epub 2020/03/25. pmid:32205551.
- 11. Yap A, Lopez-Olivo MA, Dubowitz J, Hiller J, Riedel B. Anesthetic technique and cancer outcomes: a meta-analysis of total intravenous versus volatile anesthesia. Can J Anaesth. 2019;66(5):546–61. Epub 2019/03/06. pmid:30834506.
- 12. Schaefer MS, Raub D, Xu X, Shaydenfish D, Teja B, Chhangani K, et al. Association between propofol dose and 1-year mortality in patients with or without a diagnosis of solid cancer. Br J Anaesth. 2020;124(3):271–80. Epub 2020/01/07. pmid:31902588.
- 13. Engelhard K, Werner C, Eberspächer E, Pape M, Blobner M, Hutzler P, et al. Sevoflurane and propofol influence the expression of apoptosis-regulating proteins after cerebral ischaemia and reperfusion in rats. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2004;21(7):530–7. Epub 2004/08/21. pmid:15318464.
- 14. Chen RM, Chen TG, Chen TL, Lin LL, Chang CC, Chang HC, et al. Anti-inflammatory and antioxidative effects of propofol on lipopolysaccharide-activated macrophages. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2005;1042:262–71. Epub 2005/06/21. pmid:15965071.
- 15. Ke JJ, Zhan J, Feng XB, Wu Y, Rao Y, Wang YL. A comparison of the effect of total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and remifentanil and inhalational anaesthesia with isoflurane on the release of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines in patients undergoing open cholecystectomy. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2008;36(1):74–8. Epub 2008/03/11. pmid:18326136.
- 16. Ren XF, Li WZ, Meng FY, Lin CF. Differential effects of propofol and isoflurane on the activation of T-helper cells in lung cancer patients. Anaesthesia. 2010;65(5):478–82. Epub 2010/03/27. pmid:20337621.
- 17. Tsuchiya H, Ueno T, Tanaka T, Matsuura N, Mizogami M. Comparative study on determination of antioxidant and membrane activities of propofol and its related compounds. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2010;39(1–3):97–102. Epub 2009/11/10. pmid:19897032.
- 18. Rosenfeldt F, Wilson M, Lee G, Kure C, Ou R, Braun L, et al. Oxidative stress in surgery in an ageing population: pathophysiology and therapy. Exp Gerontol. 2013;48(1):45–54. Epub 2012/04/03. pmid:22465624.
- 19. Sayed S, Idriss NK, Sayyedf HG, Ashry AA, Rafatt DM, Mohamed AO, et al. Effects of propofol and isoflurane on haemodynamics and the inflammatory response in cardiopulmonary bypass surgery. Br J Biomed Sci. 2015;72(3):93–101. Epub 2015/10/30. pmid:26510263.
- 20. Robinson BJ, Ebert TJ, O’Brien TJ, Colinco MD, Muzi M. Mechanisms whereby propofol mediates peripheral vasodilation in humans. Sympathoinhibition or direct vascular relaxation? Anesthesiology. 1997;86(1):64–72. Epub 1997/01/01. pmid:9009941.
- 21. Reich DL, Hossain S, Krol M, Baez B, Patel P, Bernstein A, et al. Predictors of hypotension after induction of general anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2005;101(3):622–8, table of contents. Epub 2005/08/24. pmid:16115962.
- 22. Ganesh SK, Stack AG, Levin NW, Hulbert-Shearon T, Port FK. Association of elevated serum PO(4), Ca x PO(4) product, and parathyroid hormone with cardiac mortality risk in chronic hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001;12(10):2131–8. Epub 2001/09/20. pmid:11562412.
- 23. Bradbury BD, Fissell RB, Albert JM, Anthony MS, Critchlow CW, Pisoni RL, et al. Predictors of early mortality among incident US hemodialysis patients in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;2(1):89–99. Epub 2007/08/21. pmid:17699392.
- 24. Bae MH, Lee JH, Yang DH, Park HS, Cho Y, Chae SC. Usefulness of surgical parameters as predictors of postoperative cardiac events in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Circ J. 2014;78(3):718–23. Epub 2013/12/20. pmid:24351662.
- 25. Lee HC, Jung CW. Vital Recorder-a free research tool for automatic recording of high-resolution time-synchronised physiological data from multiple anaesthesia devices. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):1527. Epub 2018/01/26. pmid:29367620.
- 26. Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Brown KA, Calkins H, Chaikof E, Fleischmann KE, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery): Developed in Collaboration With the American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, and Society for Vascular Surgery. Circulation. 2007;116(17):1971–96. Epub 2007/09/29. pmid:17901356.
- 27. Senoner T, Schindler S, Stättner S, Öfner D, Troppmair J, Primavesi F. Associations of Oxidative Stress and Postoperative Outcome in Liver Surgery with an Outlook to Future Potential Therapeutic Options. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2019;2019:3950818. Epub 2019/03/25. pmid:30906502.
- 28. Kahraman S, Kilinç K, Dal D, Erdem K. Propofol attenuates formation of lipid peroxides in tourniquet-induced ischaemia-reperfusion injury. Br J Anaesth. 1997;78(3):279–81. Epub 1997/03/01. pmid:9135305.
- 29. Sayin MM, Ozatamer O, Taşöz R, Kilinç K, Unal N. Propofol attenuates myocardial lipid peroxidation during coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2002;89(2):242–6. Epub 2002/10/16. pmid:12378660.
- 30. Li W, Zhang Y, Liu Y, Yue F, Lu Y, Qiu H, et al. In vitro kinetic evaluation of the free radical scavenging ability of propofol. Anesthesiology. 2012;116(6):1258–66. Epub 2012/04/27. pmid:22534248.
- 31. Tsai YF, Lin CC, Lee WC, Yu HP. Propofol attenuates ischemic reperfusion-induced formation of lipid peroxides in liver transplant recipients. Transplant Proc. 2012;44(2):376–9. Epub 2012/03/14. pmid:22410021.
- 32. Murphy PG, Myers DS, Davies MJ, Webster NR, Jones JG. The antioxidant potential of propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol). Br J Anaesth. 1992;68(6):613–8. Epub 1992/06/01. pmid:1319189.
- 33. Haga Y, Beppu T, Doi K, Nozawa F, Mugita N, Ikei S, et al. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome and organ dysfunction following gastrointestinal surgery. Crit Care Med. 1997;25(12):1994–2000. Epub 1997/12/24. pmid:9403749.
- 34. Becher RD, Hoth JJ, Miller PR, Meredith JW, Chang MC. Systemic inflammation worsens outcomes in emergency surgical patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;72(5):1140–9. Epub 2012/06/08. pmid:22673238.
- 35. Ben-Eliyahu S, Page GG, Yirmiya R, Shakhar G. Evidence that stress and surgical interventions promote tumor development by suppressing natural killer cell activity. Int J Cancer. 1999;80(6):880–8. Epub 1999/03/13. pmid:10074922.
- 36. Takaono M, Yogosawa T, Okawa-Takatsuji M, Aotsuka S. Effects of intravenous anesthetics on interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-10 production by lipopolysaccharide-stimulated mononuclear cells from healthy volunteers. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2002;46(2):176–9. Epub 2002/04/11. pmid:11942866.
- 37. Chikwe J, Castillo JG, Rahmanian PB, Akujuo A, Adams DH, Filsoufi F. The impact of moderate-to-end-stage renal failure on outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2010;24(4):574–9. Epub 2010/06/24. pmid:20570181.
- 38. Thourani VH, Sarin EL, Kilgo PD, Lattouf OM, Puskas JD, Chen EP, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing valve surgery with end-stage renal failure receiving chronic hemodialysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;144(1):117–23. Epub 2011/08/27. pmid:21868043.
- 39. Gajdos C, Hawn MT, Kile D, Henderson WG, Robinson T, McCarter M, et al. The risk of major elective vascular surgical procedures in patients with end-stage renal disease. Ann Surg. 2013;257(4):766–73. Epub 2012/09/18. pmid:22982978.
- 40. Kellerman PS. Perioperative care of the renal patient. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154(15):1674–88. Epub 1994/08/08. pmid:8042884.
- 41. Schneider CR, Cobb W, Patel S, Cull D, Anna C, Roettger R. Elective surgery in patients with end stage renal disease: what’s the risk? Am Surg. 2009;75(9):790–3; discussion 3. Epub 2009/09/25. pmid:19774950.
- 42. Gaber AO, Moore LW, Aloia TA, Suki WN, Jones SL, Graviss EA, et al. Cross-sectional and case-control analyses of the association of kidney function staging with adverse postoperative outcomes in general and vascular surgery. Ann Surg. 2013;258(1):169–77. Epub 2013/03/13. pmid:23478526.
- 43. Squires MH 3rd, Lad NL, Fisher SB, Kooby DA, Weber SM, Brinkman A, et al. The effect of preoperative renal insufficiency on postoperative outcomes after major hepatectomy: a multi-institutional analysis of 1,170 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219(5):914–22. Epub 2014/09/28. pmid:25260685.
- 44. Guidelines for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management for noncardiac surgery (JCS 2008)—digest version. Circ J. 2011;75(4):989–1009. Epub 2011/03/24. pmid:21427501.
- 45. Nagayoshi Y, Kawano H, Kojima S, Soejima H, Kaikita K, Nakayama M, et al. Significance of coronary vasospasm in the perioperative management of non-cardiac surgery. Circ J. 2012;76(8):1965–71. Epub 2012/06/06. pmid:22664755.
- 46. Ickx B, Cockshott ID, Barvais L, Byttebier G, De Pauw L, Vandesteene A, et al. Propofol infusion for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia in patients with end-stage renal disease. Br J Anaesth. 1998;81(6):854–60. Epub 1999/04/22. pmid:10211008.
- 47. Dahaba AA, von Klobucar F, Rehak PH, List WF. Total intravenous anesthesia with remifentanil, propofol and cisatracurium in end-stage renal failure. Can J Anaesth. 1999;46(7):696–700. Epub 1999/08/12. pmid:10442969.