Trial reportPloS one2020
Volatile versus total intravenous anesthesia for 30-day mortality following non-cardiac surgery in patients with preoperative myocardial injury.
Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of anesthetic technique with mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing surgery with one-lung ventilation under general anaesthesia.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Anesthetic-mediated cardioprotection: from molecular mechanisms to clinical translation challenges.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Review
- Myocardial injury before noncardiac surgery.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated whether volatile anesthetics can improve the postoperative outcomes of non-cardiac surgery in patients with preoperative myocardial injury defined by the cardiac troponin elevation. From January 2010 to June 2018, 1254 adult patients with preoperative myocardial injury underwent non-cardiac surgery under general anesthesia and were enrolled in this study. Patients were stratified into following two groups according to anesthetic agents; 115 (9.2%) patients whose anesthesia was induced and maintained with continuous infusion of propofol and remifentanil (TIVA group) and 1139 (90.8%) patients whose anesthesia was maintainted with volatile anesthetics (VOLATILE group). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. To diminish the remifentanil effect, a further analysis was conducted after excluding the patients who received only volatile anesthetics without remifentanil infusion. In a propensity-score matched analysis, 30-day mortality was higher in the TIVA group than the VOLATILE group (17.0% vs. 9.1%; hazard ratio [HR] 2.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-5.93; p = 0.02). In addition, the TIVA group showed higher 30-day mortality than the VOLATILE group, even after eliminating the effect of remifentanil infusion (15.8% vs. 8.3%; HR 4.62; 95% CI, 1.82-11.74; p = 0.001). In our study, the use of volatile anesthetics showed the significant survival improvement after non-cardiac surgery in patients with preoperative myocardial injury, which appears to be irrelevant to the remifentanil use. Further studies are needed to confirm this beneficial effect of volatile anesthetics. Clinical trial number and registry URL: KCT0004349 (www.cris.nih.go.kr).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.