ReviewCureus2026
Sevoflurane Versus Propofol for Postoperative Sedation After Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optimal postoperative sedation after cardiac surgery remains debated. Sevoflurane delivered via anesthetic conserving devices has emerged as an alternative to intravenous (IV) propofol, but its comparative effectiveness and safety in the intensive care unit (ICU) remain uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of sevoflurane versus propofol for postoperative ICU sedation after cardiac surgery. We conducted the review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook. Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and CENTRAL were searched without date restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing inhaled sevoflurane with IV propofol in mechanically ventilated adult patients admitted to the ICU after cardiac surgery were included. Primary outcomes were time to extubation, ICU length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS. Secondary outcomes included acute renal failure (ARF), atrial fibrillation, mortality, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Eight RCTs involving 688 patients were included. Four studies reporting time to extubation showed no significant difference between groups overall (mean difference (MD) -62.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) -157.23 to 31.90; p = 0.2977), with high heterogeneity (I² = 91.7%). Sensitivity analysis excluding one study showed significantly shorter extubation time with sevoflurane (MD -72.51, 95% CI -135.83 to -9.20; p = 0.0388). No significant differences were observed for ICU LOS (MD -0.29, 95% CI -4.10 to 3.51) or hospital LOS (MD -0.40, 95% CI -2.67 to 1.63). Secondary outcomes, including mortality, ARF, atrial fibrillation, and PONV, were also comparable between groups. Sevoflurane appears comparable to propofol for postoperative sedation after cardiac surgery and may reduce time to extubation in selected analyses; however, the evidence remains limited by heterogeneity and possible publication bias.
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.