The renal safety of sevoflurane.
R. Bedford,H. Ives
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-200003000-00001
2000-03-01
Abstract:S ince its introduction into American clinical practice in 1995, sevoflurane has been given to tens of millions of patients without a single report of nephrotoxicity, either in the scientific literature or to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Accordingly, it might seem curious that the current labeling for sevoflurane continues to warn against its prolonged administration at relatively low fresh gas flow rates (#1 L/min) because of the potential risks of patient exposure to Compound A [CH2FTMOTMC (¢CF2)(CF3)], one of the degradation products of sevoflurane [CH2FTMOTMCH (CF3)2] resulting from its interaction with standard carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbents. Indeed, the article by Mazze et al. (1) in the current issue appears to call into question the necessity of a fresh gas flow rate warning in the prescribing information for sevoflurane. Among 1,941 surgical patients given sevoflurane, Mazze et al. (1) found that sevoflurane did not influence serum creatinine differently from comparative anesthetics (primarily isoflurane) given to 1,495 patients. The large sample size also enabled tests of the effect of pre-existing abnormalities in serum creatinine and of administration of potentially nephrotoxic antibiotics, and these studies also indicated that the effects of sevoflurane did not differ from those of comparative anesthetics: no anesthetic was associated with a clinically significant increase in serum creatinine. Thus, the report by Mazze et al. (1) supports the view that sevoflurane is a safe anesthetic that does not adversely affect the kidney when used as presently recommended in the package insert. Given the clinical advantages offered by sevoflurane, particularly an absence of pungency and a relatively low solubility, such a sense of safety is welcome. Why, then, the FDA’s insistence on a minimal fresh gas flow rate warning? The answer lies in three limitations to the Mazze et al. (1) study. First, 91% of the patients received sevoflurane at fresh gas inflow rates of .2 L/min. Such high inflow rates limit rebreathing and thereby minimize the respired concentration of Compound A because Compound A arises from the action of CO2 absorbents on sevoflurane. Thus, Mazze et al. (1) did not rigorously test the capacity of Compound A to produce renal injury. Second, 97% of Mazze et al.’s (1) patients received less than 4 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration(MAC) h of anesthesia and, thus, do not provide a test of the effect of prolonged sevoflurane anesthesia. However, others have tested the effect of prolonged sevoflurane anesthesia, albeit in far smaller numbers than examined by Mazze et al. (1). All such tests find that prolonged (.5 MAC-h) sevoflurane anesthesia does not increase serum creatinine (2–5). A third and critical limitation of the Mazze et al. (1) study is the reliance on serum creatinine level as the primary marker of renal insult. Serum creatinine concentration is a powerful tool that reflects glomerular filtration rate. However, although glomerular filtration rate declines (serum creatinine rises) in certain renal diseases, many diseases damage the kidney without decreasing glomerular filtration rate (6). These include glomerular and tubulointerstitial diseases. Thus, serum creatinine is a good marker of neither increased glomerular permeability (“leakiness”) nor tubular integrity, and despite the power of serum creatinine as a tool, the thorough physician would be remiss in using creatinine as the sole measure of renal integrity. Markers of increased glomerular permeability include proteinuria, particularly albuminuria. Markers of tubular integrity include glucosuria and enzymuria [e.g., the appearance of abnormal levels of N-acetyl-b-glucoseaminidase (NAG) or a-glutathioneS-transferase in the urine]. Mazze et al. (1) argue that only increased serum creatinine and, perhaps albuminuria, are validated markers of renal disease, and thus, the use of other markers is unwarranted. However, validation (i.e., substantiation by histopathology) has been documented primarily for disease rather than for drug toxicity, and toxic drugs may target tubules rather than the glomerulus. As indicated in the preceding paragraph, reliance on serum creatinine neglects injury to the glomerulus that allows increased permeability of albumin but does not affect glomerular filtration capacity and neglects injury that RFB is a paid consultant to AstraZeneca. Accepted for publication November 9, 1999. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Bedford, James Haley Veteran’s Administration Hospital, Anesthesiology Service, 13000 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., Tampa, FL 33612. Address e-mail to rbedford@com1.med.usf.edu.