Comparison of minimal-flow sevoflurane versus desflurane anesthesia: randomized clinical trial

Abstract Background and objectives: Minimal-flow anesthesia provides various advantages, such as reduced environmental pollution, proper humidification and warming of anesthetic gases, and reduced costs. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of minimal-flow sevoflurane and desflurane anesthesia and their effects on hemodynamics, postoperative recovery, respiratory parameters, and liver and kidney functions. Methods: A total of 60 ASA I-II patients aged 18-70 years who underwent posterior spinal instrumentation were included in the study. The patients were divided into Group S (sevoflurane) and Group D (desflurane). After anesthesia induction, the gas flow was initiated at a rate of 4 L.min-1 using a concentration of 8% in Group D and 3.5% in Group S, and the time to reach 0.8 MAC was recorded. The gas flow was then switched to minimal flow. Patient hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, body temperatures and arterial blood gas levels were recorded. The integrated pulmonary index (IPI) was monitored postoperatively. Biochemical findings were recorded 12 hours after the operation. The amount of bleeding and blood transfused, and the costs involved were calculated. Results: The patients’ demographic characteristics, duration of surgery, hemodynamic parameters, IPI values, body temperatures, and arterial blood gas levels were similar at all time points. Biochemical findings, amount of bleeding and amount of blood transfused were similar between the two groups. The mean cost was lower in Group S than in Group D (p = 0.007). Conclusion: The study found no significant difference in terms of reliability between minimalflow sevoflurane and desflurane anesthesia. Furthermore, the procedure was found to be more cost-effective for Group S than for Group D.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Taş,Berna Ayanoğlu, Şanlı Karip,Ceren, Abitağaoğlu,Süheyla, Celal Öztürk,Mehmet, Arı,Dilek Erdoğan
Format: Digital revista
Language:English
Published: Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA) 2022
Online Access:http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2352-22912022000100077
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id oai:scielo:S2352-22912022000100077
record_format ojs
spelling oai:scielo:S2352-229120220001000772022-02-24Comparison of minimal-flow sevoflurane versus desflurane anesthesia: randomized clinical trialTaş,Berna AyanoğluŞanlı Karip,CerenAbitağaoğlu,SüheylaCelal Öztürk,MehmetArı,Dilek Erdoğan Anesthesia Rebreathing Desflurane Sevoflurane Abstract Background and objectives: Minimal-flow anesthesia provides various advantages, such as reduced environmental pollution, proper humidification and warming of anesthetic gases, and reduced costs. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of minimal-flow sevoflurane and desflurane anesthesia and their effects on hemodynamics, postoperative recovery, respiratory parameters, and liver and kidney functions. Methods: A total of 60 ASA I-II patients aged 18-70 years who underwent posterior spinal instrumentation were included in the study. The patients were divided into Group S (sevoflurane) and Group D (desflurane). After anesthesia induction, the gas flow was initiated at a rate of 4 L.min-1 using a concentration of 8% in Group D and 3.5% in Group S, and the time to reach 0.8 MAC was recorded. The gas flow was then switched to minimal flow. Patient hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, body temperatures and arterial blood gas levels were recorded. The integrated pulmonary index (IPI) was monitored postoperatively. Biochemical findings were recorded 12 hours after the operation. The amount of bleeding and blood transfused, and the costs involved were calculated. Results: The patients’ demographic characteristics, duration of surgery, hemodynamic parameters, IPI values, body temperatures, and arterial blood gas levels were similar at all time points. Biochemical findings, amount of bleeding and amount of blood transfused were similar between the two groups. The mean cost was lower in Group S than in Group D (p = 0.007). Conclusion: The study found no significant difference in terms of reliability between minimalflow sevoflurane and desflurane anesthesia. Furthermore, the procedure was found to be more cost-effective for Group S than for Group D.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology v.72 n.1 20222022-02-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2352-22912022000100077en10.1016/j.bjane.2021.05.012
institution SCIELO
collection OJS
country Brasil
countrycode BR
component Revista
access En linea
databasecode rev-scielo-br
tag revista
region America del Sur
libraryname SciELO
language English
format Digital
author Taş,Berna Ayanoğlu
Şanlı Karip,Ceren
Abitağaoğlu,Süheyla
Celal Öztürk,Mehmet
Arı,Dilek Erdoğan
spellingShingle Taş,Berna Ayanoğlu
Şanlı Karip,Ceren
Abitağaoğlu,Süheyla
Celal Öztürk,Mehmet
Arı,Dilek Erdoğan
Comparison of minimal-flow sevoflurane versus desflurane anesthesia: randomized clinical trial
author_facet Taş,Berna Ayanoğlu
Şanlı Karip,Ceren
Abitağaoğlu,Süheyla
Celal Öztürk,Mehmet
Arı,Dilek Erdoğan
author_sort Taş,Berna Ayanoğlu
title Comparison of minimal-flow sevoflurane versus desflurane anesthesia: randomized clinical trial
title_short Comparison of minimal-flow sevoflurane versus desflurane anesthesia: randomized clinical trial
title_full Comparison of minimal-flow sevoflurane versus desflurane anesthesia: randomized clinical trial
title_fullStr Comparison of minimal-flow sevoflurane versus desflurane anesthesia: randomized clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of minimal-flow sevoflurane versus desflurane anesthesia: randomized clinical trial
title_sort comparison of minimal-flow sevoflurane versus desflurane anesthesia: randomized clinical trial
description Abstract Background and objectives: Minimal-flow anesthesia provides various advantages, such as reduced environmental pollution, proper humidification and warming of anesthetic gases, and reduced costs. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of minimal-flow sevoflurane and desflurane anesthesia and their effects on hemodynamics, postoperative recovery, respiratory parameters, and liver and kidney functions. Methods: A total of 60 ASA I-II patients aged 18-70 years who underwent posterior spinal instrumentation were included in the study. The patients were divided into Group S (sevoflurane) and Group D (desflurane). After anesthesia induction, the gas flow was initiated at a rate of 4 L.min-1 using a concentration of 8% in Group D and 3.5% in Group S, and the time to reach 0.8 MAC was recorded. The gas flow was then switched to minimal flow. Patient hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, body temperatures and arterial blood gas levels were recorded. The integrated pulmonary index (IPI) was monitored postoperatively. Biochemical findings were recorded 12 hours after the operation. The amount of bleeding and blood transfused, and the costs involved were calculated. Results: The patients’ demographic characteristics, duration of surgery, hemodynamic parameters, IPI values, body temperatures, and arterial blood gas levels were similar at all time points. Biochemical findings, amount of bleeding and amount of blood transfused were similar between the two groups. The mean cost was lower in Group S than in Group D (p = 0.007). Conclusion: The study found no significant difference in terms of reliability between minimalflow sevoflurane and desflurane anesthesia. Furthermore, the procedure was found to be more cost-effective for Group S than for Group D.
publisher Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
publishDate 2022
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2352-22912022000100077
work_keys_str_mv AT tasbernaayanoglu comparisonofminimalflowsevofluraneversusdesfluraneanesthesiarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT sanlıkaripceren comparisonofminimalflowsevofluraneversusdesfluraneanesthesiarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT abitagaoglusuheyla comparisonofminimalflowsevofluraneversusdesfluraneanesthesiarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT celalozturkmehmet comparisonofminimalflowsevofluraneversusdesfluraneanesthesiarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT arıdilekerdogan comparisonofminimalflowsevofluraneversusdesfluraneanesthesiarandomizedclinicaltrial
_version_ 1756441230864023552