Rationale for Propofol Use in Cardiac Surgery

Comparison Between the Protective Effect of Isoflurane and Propofol on Myocardium During Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

Intravenous non-volatile anaesthetics like propofol are commonly used in cardiac surgeries across several countries. Volatile anaesthetics like isoflurane may help in protecting the myocardium and minimize ischaemia-reperfusion injury. Hence, we did this review to compare the cardioprotective effect of isoflurane and propofol among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

We conducted a search in the databases Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (or MEDLINE), Embase, PubMed Central®, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library from inception until April 2021. We carried out a meta-analysis with random-effects model and reported pooled risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) depending on the type of outcome.

RESULTS

We analysed 13 studies including 808 participants. Almost all were low-quality studies. For cardiac index, the pooled SMD was 0.14 (95% CI: -0.22 to 0.50); for cardiac troponin I, pooled SMD was 0.10 (95% CI: -0.28 to 0.48). For mortality, the RR was 3.00 (95% CI: 0.32 to 28.43); for MI, pooled RR was 1.58 (95% CI: 0.59 to 4.20); and for inotropic drug use, pooled RR was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.90 to 1.21). For length of intensive care unit stay, the pooled SMD was 0.13 (95% CI: -0.29 to 0.55), while pooled SMD for mechanical ventilation time was -0.02 (95% CI: -0.54 to 0.51).

CONCLUSION

Isoflurane did not have significant cardioprotective effect compared to propofol following CABG. Hence, the anaesthetists need to check some viable alternatives to manage these patients and reduce the rate of postoperative complications.

CON: Propofol Is Better Than Etomidate for Induction in Cardiac Surgical Patients

There is an ongoing debate regarding the choice of ideal induction agent between propofol and etomidate for cardiac surgical patients. Etomidate appears to be better than propofol as the induction agent due to the superior hemodynamic stability. However, the adrenal suppression due to etomidate can pose challenges to the anesthesiologist in certain clinical situations.

Cardioprotective effects of propofol-dexmedetomidine in open-heart surgery: A prospective double-blind study

Background:

Myocardial protection in cardiac surgeries is a must and requires multimodal approaches in perioperative period to decrease and prevent the increase of myocardial oxygen demand and consumption that lead to postoperative cardiac complications including myocardial ischemia, dysfunction, and heart failure.

Study Design:

Prospective, controlled, randomized, double-blinded study.

Aims:

This study aims to study the effect of propofol-dexmedetomidine continuous infusion cardioprotection during open-heart surgery in adult patients.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty adult patients of both sexes aged from 30 to 60 years old belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists III or IV undergoing open-heart surgery were randomly divided into two equal groups: Group P (control group) received continuous infusion of propofol at a rate of 2 mg/kg/h and 50 cc 0.9% sodium chloride solution infused at a rate of 0.4 μg/kg/h (used as a placebo) and Group PD received continuous infusion of propofol at a rate of 2 mg/kg/h and dexmedetomidine 200 μg diluted in 50 cc 0.9% sodium chloride solution infused at a rate of 0.4 μg/kg/h. Infusion for all patients started immediately preoperative till skin closure. Hemodynamic measurements of heart rate (HR), invasive mean arterial pressure, and oxygen saturation were recorded at baseline before induction of anesthesia, immediately after intubation, at skin incision, at sternotomy and every 15 min in the 1^st h then every 30 min during the prebypass period then every 15 min in the 1^st h then every 30 min after weaning from CPB till the end of the surgery. Serum biomarkers; cardiac troponin (cTnI) and creatine kinase-myocardial bound (CK-MB) samples were measured basally (T1), 15 min after unclamping of the aorta (T2), immediate postoperative (T3), and 24 h postoperative (T4). Intraoperative data were also recorded including the number of coronary grafts, aortic cross-clamping duration, duration of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), duration of surgery, and rhythm of reperfusion. Fentanyl requirement, extubation time, and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay were also recorded for every case.

Results:

There was no statistically significant differences as regard to demographic data between the studied two groups. HR and blood pressure recorded was lower in the PD group than the control group, and this difference was noted to be statistically significant. Furthermore, the PD group showed lower levels of myocardial enzymes (cTnI and CK-MB), decreased total fentanyl requirement, earlier postoperative extubation, and shorter ICU stay than the P (control) group.

Conclusion:

The use of propofol-dexmedetomidine in CPB surgeries offers more cardioprotective effects than the use of propofol alone.

Volatile Anesthetics versus Propofol for Cardiac Surgery with Cardiopulmonary Bypass

Background

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of anesthesia maintenance with volatile agents compared with propofol on both short- and long-term mortality (primary outcomes) and major clinical events in adults undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

Methods

Randomized clinical trials on the effects of current volatile anesthetics versus propofol in adults undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass were searched (1965 to September 30, 2019) in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and article reference lists. A random effect model on standardized mean difference for continuous outcomes and odds ratio for dichotomous outcomes were used to meta-analyze data.

Results

In total, 37 full-text articles (42 studies, 8,197 participants) were included. The class of volatile anesthetics compared with propofol was associated with lower 1-yr mortality (5.5 vs. 6.8%; odds ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.96]; P = 0.023), myocardial infarction (odds ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.39 to 0.92]; P = 0.023), cardiac troponin release (standardized mean difference, −0.39 [95% CI, −0.59 to −0.18], P = 0.0002), need for inotropic medications (odds ratio, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.24 to 0.67]; P = 0.0004), extubation time (standardized mean difference, −0.35 [95% CI, −0.68 to −0.02]; P = 0.038), and with higher cardiac index/output (standardized mean difference, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.37 to 1.04]; P < 0.0001). The class of volatile anesthetics was not associated with changes in short-term mortality (1.63 vs. 1.65%; odds ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.49]; P = 0.820) and acute kidney injury (odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.77 to 2.03]; P = 0.358).

Conclusions

In adults undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass, the class of volatile anesthetics was superior to propofol with regard to long-term mortality, as well as to many secondary outcomes indicating myocardial protection.

Editor’s Perspective

What We Already Know about This Topic

What This Article Tells Us That Is New

The Cortisol to Cortisone Ratio during Cardiac Catheterisation in Sows

A possible effect of mini-invasive heart intervention on a response of hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal stress axis and conversion of cortisone to cortisol were studied. We have analysed two stress markers levels (cortisol, cortisone) and cortisol/cortisone ratio in 25 sows using minimally invasive heart catheterisation as the stress factor. The values of studied parameters were assessed in four periods of the experiment: (1) the baseline level on the day before intervention, (2) after the introduction of anaesthesia, (3) after conducting tissue stimulation or ablation, and (4) after the end of the catheterisation. For statistical analyses we used the non-parametric Friedman test for four dependent samples (including all four stages of the operation) or three dependent samples (influence of operation only, baseline level was excluded). Statistically significant differences in both Friedman tests were found for cortisol and for cortisone. We have found the highest level of cortisol/cortisone ratio in unstressed conditions, then it decreased to the minimal level at the end of the intervention. We have concluded that cortisol levels are blunted by the influence of anaesthesia after its administration, and therefore decrease back to the baseline at the end of the operation.

Are there any differences between stress hormone levels in non-stress conditions and in potentional stress overload (heart catheterisation) in sows?

In order to study a possible effect of mini-invasive heart intervention on a response of hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal stress axis, we analyzed four stress markers (cortisol, cortisone, DHEA and DHEAS) in 25 sows using minimally invasive heart catheterisation as the stress factor. The marker levels were assessed in four periods of the experiment, (1) the baseline level on the day before intervention, (2) after the introduction of anesthesia, (3) after conducting tissue stimulation or ablation, and (4) after the end of the catheterisation. For statistical analyses we used the non-parametric Friedman test for four dependent samples (including all four stages of the operation) or three dependent samples (influence of operation only, baseline level was excluded). Statistically significant differences in both Friedman tests were found for cortisol and for cortisone. Significant differences for DHEA as well as for DHEAS were found for all tested stages but not for the effect of operation itself. We have concluded that cortisol levels are blunted by the influence of anesthesia after its administration, and therefore decrease back to the baseline at the end of the operation. The other markers (cortisone, DHEA and DHEAS) acted as balanced systems against the injurious stress effect.

Additive effect of propofol and fentanyl precipitating cardiogenic shock

The intravenous administration of propofol and fentanyl has become a common practice in a variety of clinical settings including outpatient dermatologic, cosmetic and oral surgery. The combination provides both systematic sedation and analgesia with low incidence of unwanted side effects. The cardiogenic shock is very uncommon in healthy individuals. The cardiovascular depressive effect of propofol and fentanyl has been well established, but the development of cardiogenic shock is very rare when these drugs are used together. Hence the awareness of this effect is advantageous to the patients undergoing such surgeries

Treatment of hypertension in patients undergoing coronary artery by-pass grafting

Hypertension occurs in up to 80% of patients scheduled to coronary artery by-pass grafting (CABG). In hemodynamically stable patients all anti-hypertensive drugs should be continued till a day of surgery. For vast majority of patients there is no need to use blood pressure lowering agents during CABG, however it is necessary to maintain blood pressure level and avoid extreme blood pressure variations. Upon CABG hypotensive therapy should be modified to the needs of the individual patient and should be monitored individually. Treatment of hypertension ought to be started with caution with lowest possible dosage. Aggressive therapy is strongly discouraged to avoid hemodynamic collapse. Beta-blockers should be administered to all CABG patients unless contraindicated.

Clinical application of the cardioprotective effects of volatile anaesthetics: CON--total intravenous anaesthesia or not total intravenous anaesthesia to anaesthetise a cardiac patient?

Although volatile anaesthetics show strong and easily reproducible cardioprotective effects in animal experiments, these effects are less obvious in clinical settings. Indeed, more than a decade after the first human clinical study, the number of publications has increased extensively, but the encouraging results from previous studies in terms of myocardial protection have failed to translate into an improvement in survival or a decrease the incidence of myocardial infarction. No consensus on the modalities of administration of volatile anaesthetics has been agreed and when the experimental protocols are transposed into daily clinical practice, their cardioprotective effects are still weak. The reasons for the disparities between experimental and clinical studies will be reviewed here, especially the role of patients' co-morbidities and medications as well as the limitations of the main positive clinical trials. Recent data showing anti-inflammatory properties of propofol will also be explained. One of the most important clinical benefits of propofol is that it can be used by target-controlled or continuous infusion for anaesthesia and sedation throughout the surgical and critical care periods without the risk of a transition failure. Further large multi-centre clinical investigations are still required.

Cardiogenic shock following administration of propofol and fentanyl in a healthy woman: a case report

Introduction

Cardiogenic shock is very uncommon in healthy people. The differential diagnosis for patients with acute heart failure in previously healthy hearts includes acute myocardial infarction and myocarditis. However, many drugs can also depress myocardial function. Propofol and fentanyl are frequently used during different medical procedures. The cardiovascular depressive effect of both drugs has been well established, but the development of cardiogenic shock is very rare when these agents are used.

Case presentation

After a minor surgical intervention, a 32-year-old Caucasian woman with no significant medical history went into sudden hemodynamic deterioration due to acute heart failure. An urgent echocardiogram showed severe biventricular dysfunction and an estimated left ventricular ejection fraction of 20%. Extracorporeal life support and mechanical ventilation were required. Five days later her ventricular function had fully recovered, which allowed the progressive withdrawal of medical treatment. Prior to her hospital discharge, cardiac MRI showed neither edema nor pathological deposits on the delayed contrast enhancement sequences. At her six-month follow-up examination, the patient was asymptomatic and did not require treatment.

Conclusion

Although there are many causes of cardiogenic shock, the presence of abrupt hemodynamic deterioration and the absence of a clear cause could be related to the use of propofol and fentanyl.