EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE: What We Know about This Topic: IV anesthesia may impair anticancer immunity less than volatile anesthesia and therefore reduce recurrence risk What This Article Tells Us That Is New: In a large propensity-matched retrospective cohort analysis, the authors compared total IV and volatile anesthesia for breast cancer surgery Recurrence hazard was similar with each approach Selection of IV or volatile anesthesia should be based on factors other than cancer recurrence Background: The association between type of anesthesia used and recurrence of cancer remains controversial. This retrospective cohort study compared the influence of total IV anesthesia and inhalation anesthesia on the primary outcome of recurrence-free survival after breast cancer surgery. Methods: The authors reviewed the electronic medical records of patients who had breast cancer surgery at a tertiary care teaching hospital between January 2005 and December 2013. The patients were grouped according to whether IV or inhalation anesthesia was used for surgery. Propensity score matching was used to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were constructed to evaluate the influence of type of anesthesia on recurrence-free survival and overall survival. The risks of cancer recurrence and all-cause mortality were compared between each type of anesthesia. Results: Of 7,678 patients who had breast cancer surgery during the study period, data for 5,331 patients were available for analysis (IV group, n = 3,085; inhalation group, n = 2,246). After propensity score matching, 1,766 patients remained in each group. Kaplan–Meier survival curves showed that there was no significant difference in recurrence-free survival or overall survival between the two groups, with 5-yr recurrence-free survival rates of 93.2% (95% CI, 91.9 to 94.5) in the IV group and 93.8% (95% CI, 92.6 to 95.1) in the inhalation group. Inhalation anesthesia had no significant impact on recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.32; P = 0.782) or overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.33, P = 0.805) when compared with total IV anesthesia. Conclusions: The authors found no association between type of anesthesia used and the long-term prognosis of breast cancer. The results of this retrospective cohort study do not suggest specific selection of IV or inhalation anesthesia for breast cancer surgery.

Previous studies have reported that deep neuromuscular block (posttetanic-count 1 to 2 twitches) improves surgical conditions during laparoscopy compared with moderate block (train-of-four count: 1 to 2 twitches). However, comparisons of surgical conditions were made using different scales and assessment intervals with variable results. To explore the heterogeneity of previous comparisons between deep and moderate neuromuscular block. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to October 2017. Our meta-analysis included RCTs comparing the effects of deep with moderate neuromuscular block on surgical field conditions during laparoscopic surgery. The frequency of excellent or good operating conditions on a surgical rating scale was compared. Heterogeneity was assessed by subgroup analyses. Eleven RCTs involving 844 patients were included. On the surgical rating scale, the frequency of excellent or good operating conditions was higher with deep block compared with a moderate block (odds ratio 2.83, 95% confidence interval 1.34 to 5.99, P = 0.007, I2 = 59%). We analysed surgical rating according to the number of assessments made. There was a significant difference in surgical rating with multiple assessments, but no difference when the assessment was made on only one occasion. A significant difference in rating was noted with variable abdominal pressures; there was no significant difference with the same fixed abdominal pressure. Trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the cumulative z-curve crossed the O′Brien–Fleming significance boundary. However, required information size was not achieved. Deep block was associated with excellent or good surgical rating more frequently than moderate block. However, this finding was not consistent on subgroup analyses based on frequencies of assessment of surgical conditions and abdominal pressure. Further studies are required to address the heterogeneity and power shortage demonstrated by the trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Glucose control can be difficult in the intraoperative and immediate postoperative period of liver transplantation. Hyperglycemia and glucose variability have been associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill patients. We performed a retrospective study to test the hypothesis that perioperative glucose levels represented by time-weighted average glucose levels and glucose variability are independently associated with the incidence of postoperative AKI in patients undergoing liver transplantation. METHODS: On the basis of blood glucose levels during liver transplantation and the initial 48 hours postoperatively, adult liver transplant recipients were classified into 4 groups according to their time-weighted average glucose: normoglycemia (80–200 mg/dL), mild hyperglycemia (200–250 mg/dL), moderate hyperglycemia (250–300 mg/dL), and severe hyperglycemia (>300 mg/dL) group. Patients were also classified into quartiles depending on their glucose variability, defined as the standard deviation of glucose measurements. The primary outcome was postoperative AKI. RESULTS: AKI after liver transplantation was more common in the patients with greater perioperative glucose variability (first versus third quartile; OR, 2.47 [95%CI, 1.22–5.00], P = .012; first versus fourth quartile; OR, 2.16 [95% CI, 1.05–4.42], P = .035). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that increased perioperative glucose variability, but not hyperglycemia, is independently associated with increased risk of postoperative AKI in liver transplantation recipients.

Background.: The relationship between institutional case volume and clinical outcomes after living donor liver transplantation is not clarified. Methods.: We conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study using the database of Korean National Healthcare Insurance Service. Between January 2007 and December 2016, 7073 adult living donor liver transplantations were performed at 50 centers in Korea. Centers were categorized according to the average annual number of liver transplantations: >50, 10 to 50, and <10. Results.: In-hospital mortality rates in the high-, medium-, and low-volume centers were 2.8%, 4.1%, and 6.7%, respectively. After adjustment, in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in low-volume centers (adjusted odds ratio, 2.287; 95% confidence interval, 1.471-3.557; P < 0.001) and medium-volume centers (adjusted odds ratio, 1.676; 95% confidence interval, 1.089-2.578; P = 0.019) compared with high-volume centers. Long-term survival for up to 9 years was better, and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay were shorter in high-volume centers. Conclusions.: Centers with higher case volume (>50 liver transplantations/year) had better outcomes after living donor liver transplantation, including in-hospital mortality and long-term mortality compared with centers with lower case volume (≤50 liver transplantations/year).

Background Dexmedetomidine sedation has advantages, such as low incidence of respiratory depression and prolonged block duration, but also significant disadvantages, such as slow onset, high rate of sedation failure, and a long context-sensitive half-life. Remimazolam provides rapid sedation and recovery, high sedation efficacy and has minimal hemodynamic effects. We hypothesized that patients who received remimazolam would require less rescue midazolam than dexmedetomidine. Methods Patients (n=103) scheduled for surgery under spinal anesthesia were randomized to receive dexmedetomidine (DEX group) or remimazolam (RMZ group) targeting a Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score of 3 or 4. Rescue midazolam was administered if the patient failed to be sedated after the initial loading dose or despite infusion rate adjustment. Results Rescue midazolam administration was significantly higher in the DEX group (0% vs 39.2%; p<0.001). Patients in the RMZ group reached the target sedation level more rapidly. The incidences of bradycardia (0% vs 25.5%; p<0.001) and hypertension (0% vs 21.6%; p<0.001) were higher in the DEX group. Respiratory depression occurred at a higher rate in the RMZ group (21.2% vs 2.0%; p=0.002), but no patients required manual ventilation. Patients in the RMZ group recovered faster, had a shorter PACU stay and higher satisfaction scores. Hypotensive episodes in the PACU were more frequent in the DEX group (1.9% vs 29.4%; p<0.001). Conclusions Remimazolam showed excellent sedation efficacy, minimal hemodynamic effects, and fewer adverse events in the PACU than dexmedetomidine. However, it is important to note that respiratory depression was more frequent with the use of remimazolam. Trial registration number NCT05447507.