Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35538421›Full record

ArticleBMC anesthesiology2022

Propofol total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia for acute postoperative pain in patients with morphine patient-controlled analgesia: a large-scale retrospective study with covariate adjustment.

Stanley Sau Ching Wong, Edward Kwok Yiu Choi, Wing Shing Chan, Chi Wai Cheung

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03875872 (Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Surgeries Anaesthetized With Propofol and Inhalational Anaesthetics With Regression Controls for Confounders), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03875872 completednot on this map

Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Surgeries Anaesthetized With Propofol and Inhalational Anaesthetics With Regression Controls for Confounders

TypeobservationalSponsorThe University of Hong KongRan2019 to 2019Enrolled3,922ConditionsAcute PainArmsPropofol, inhalation anaesthetics
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stanley Sau Ching WongLaboratory and Clinical Research Institute for Pain, Department of Anaesthesiology, The University of Hong Kong, HKSAR, Hong Kong, China. wongstan@hku.hk.
Edward Kwok Yiu ChoiDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, HKSAR, Hong Kong, China.
Wing Shing ChanDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, HKSAR, Hong Kong, China.
Chi Wai CheungLaboratory and Clinical Research Institute for Pain, Department of Anaesthesiology, The University of Hong Kong, HKSAR, Hong Kong, China.
University of Hong Kong · HK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compare the postoperative analgesic effect of propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) versus inhalational anaesthesia (GAS) in patients using morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).

methodsA retrospective cohort study was performed in a single tertiary university hospital. Adult patients who used PCA morphine after general anaesthesia across 15 types of surgeries were included. Patients who received propofol TIVA were compared to those who had inhalational anaesthesia. Primary outcomes assessed were postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores and postoperative opioid consumption.

resultsData from 4202 patients were analysed. The overall adjusted NRS pain scores were significantly lower in patients who received propofol TIVA at rest (GEE: β estimate of the mean on a 0 to 10 scale = -0.56, 95% CI = (-0.74 to -0.38), p < 0.001; GAS as reference group) and with movement (β estimate = -0.89, 95% CI = (-1.1 to -0.69), p < 0.001) from postoperative days (POD) 1-3. Propofol TIVA was associated with lower overall adjusted postoperative morphine consumption (β estimate = -3.45, 95% CI = (-4.46 to -2.44), p < 0.001). Patients with propofol TIVA had lower adjusted NRS pain scores with movement for hepatobiliary/pancreatic (p < 0.001), upper gastrointestinal (p < 0.001) and urological surgeries (p = 0.005); and less adjusted postoperative morphine consumption for hepatobiliary/pancreatic (p < 0.001), upper gastrointestinal (p = 0.006) and urological surgeries (p = 0.002). There were no differences for other types of surgeries.

conclusionPropofol TIVA was associated with statistically significant, but small reduction in pain scores and opioid consumption in patients using PCA morphine. Subgroup analysis suggests clinically meaningful analgesia possibly for hepatobiliary/pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal surgeries.

trial registrationThis study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03875872 ).

Indexed as

Anesthetics, InhalationPropofolAdultAnalgesia, Patient-ControlledAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthesia, GeneralAnesthesia, IntravenousAnesthetics, IntravenousHumansMorphinePostoperative PainRetrospective StudiesAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthetics, InhalationAnesthetics, IntravenousMorphinePropofolGeneral anaesthesiaOpioid consumptionPostoperative analgesiaPostoperative painPropofolTotal intravenous anaesthesia

Identifiers

PMID35538421
PMCPMC9088064
OpenAlexW4280533912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.