Propofol curtails survival in perioperative and critically ill patients by a relative reduction of 10%: should propofol be abandoned?
Benedicte Hauquiert,Sydney Blackman,Emily Perriens,Maha Bendoumou,Ileana Ene,Aicha Van Engelgem,Anaïs Carrasco Sanchez,Maya Ramos Prieto,Ovidiu Vornicu,Arnaud Robert,Gauthier Nendumba,Julien Moury,Anne-Sophie Dincq,Patrick Evrard,Pierre Bulpa,Isabelle Michaux,Patrick M. Honore
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-24-52
IF: 3.616
2024-10-19
Annals of Translational Medicine
Abstract:Benedicte Hauquiert 1 , Sydney Blackman 2 , Emily Perriens 3 , Maha Bendoumou 3 , Ileana Ene 3 , Aicha Van Engelgem 3 , Anaïs Carrasco Sanchez 3 , Maya Ramos Prieto 3 , Ovidiu Vornicu 1,4 , Arnaud Robert 1 , Gauthier Nendumba 1 , Julien Moury 1 , Anne-Sophie Dincq 1,4 , Patrick Evrard 1 , Pierre Bulpa 1 , Isabelle Michaux 1 , Patrick M. Honore 1 1 ICU Department, CHU UCL Godinne Namur, UCL Louvain Medical School, Yvoir, Belgium; 2 Department of Gynecology, CHIREC Hospitals, ULB University, Brussels, Belgium; 3 Faculty of Medicine, ULB University, Brussels, Belgium; 4 Anesthesiology Department, CHU UCL Godinne Namur, UCL Louvain Medical School, Yvoir, Belgium Comment on: Kotani Y, Pruna A, Turi S, et al . Propofol and survival: an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Crit Care 2023;27:139. Keywords: Propofol; mortality; pharmacokinetics; hypnotic agents; hypnotic rotation strategies Submitted Mar 10, 2024. Accepted for publication Aug 16, 2024. Published online Aug 30, 2024. doi: 10.21037/atm-24-52 The release of the meta-analysis by Kotani et al. generated a significant response in the anesthesiology and intensive care unit (ICU) community. According to the 252 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comprising more than 30,000 patients included in this meta-analysis, the use of propofol is associated with a potential increase of 10% in mortality in comparison to other sedative strategies (1). It is important to note that this study is not definitive and further research is needed to confirm these findings. Nevertheless, this analysis has highlighted limitations. Some of these limitations could have been addressed by conducting a large RCT comparing propofol with another sedative strategy and distinguishing patients undergoing surgical procedures and those in the ICU (1). Propofol has numerous benefits, including rapid onset and elimination, short duration of action, rapid recovery from anesthesia, a very low incidence of adverse effects, and an absence of mutagenic or teratogenic effects, establishing it as an optimal hypnotic agent (1). Moreover, research indicates a higher incidence of postoperative delirium with inhalational agents compared to propofol following major oncological surgeries (2,3). Nonetheless, propofol is not devoid of detrimental effects, such as propofol-related infusion syndrome (PRIS) and the risk of accidental microbial contamination (4-7). In terms of drug interactions, various meta-analyses have revealed that total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) is associated with increased mortality rates in specific cardiac surgery populations when compared to volatile anesthetic agents. This is attributed to propofol's lack of the pharmacological ischemic preconditioning effect that is characteristic of halogenated agents (8,9). Furthermore, propofol usage has been linked to a heightened incidence of nephrogenic diabetes insipidus, similar to the effects observed with sevoflurane (10). Only two out of the 252 studies included in the meta-analysis reported a significantly higher mortality rate in the propofol group. One of these studies, conducted by Likhvantsev et al. (11), involved 900 patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and presented a high mortality rate in both groups, making it a significant outlier for this meta-analysis (12). However, it should be noted that an error was made in the data extraction; the corrected 1-year mortality rate in this study is 17.8% (52 out of 292) in the sevoflurane group and 24.8% (81 out of 326) in the propofol group. These results differ from those reported in the meta-analysis by Kotani et al. , which documented rates of 11.6% (52 out of 450) and 18% (81 out of 450) respectively, not accounting for the large amount of loss of follow-up (13,14). It is important to note that the study by Likhvantsev et al. is the only RCT in the cardiac surgery subgroup analysis that does not cross the line of no effect, thereby carrying a cumulative weight of 61% in the forest plot (11,13). In a subsequent study, two of the authors compared the use of volatile anesthetic in patients undergoing elective CABG (2,709 patients) versus TIVA (2,691 patients) in a 5,400-patient RCT (15). This study did not demonstrate a significant difference in 1-year mortality between the groups [relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69 to 1.29; P=0.71]. Notably, this negative RCT was not included in the meta-analysis (12). The authors employed a fixed-effect model, which should be used only if it is reasonable to assume that all studies share the same common effect. The aut -Abstract Truncated-
oncology,medicine, research & experimental