Systematic review and meta-analysis of total intravenous anesthesia and endoscopic sinus surgery

Adam S. Deconde, Christopher F. Thompson, Edward C. Wu, Jeffrey D. Suh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) has been shown in some studies to impact visual field, blood loss, and cardiovascular parameters during endoscopic sinus surgery when compared to inhalational anesthesia (IA). These variables are critical in endoscopic sinus surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to discern the impact of TIVA vs IA in endoscopic sinus surgery. Methods: MEDLINE (1950 to October 20, 2012) was searched using a search strategy designed to include all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that discussed TIVA, IA, and endoscopic sinus surgery. An abstract search was then used to identify RCTs directly comparing TIVA and IA in endoscopic sinus surgery. All articles selected then underwent full-text review. Data on visual field scores, blood loss, and cardiovascular parameters was then extracted, compared, and analyzed. Results: There were 42 articles identified by the search strategy. Full-text review identified 9 articles that met eligibility criteria and contained extractable data. Although inconsistently reported, preoperative characteristics (Lund-Mackay scores and history of nasal polyps) were similar (p > 0.05) between the 2 groups. No difference was found between heart rate, mean arterial pressure, anesthesia time, operative time, or estimated blood loss. Only 7 studies reported a visibility score, but overall favored the TIVA group (p <0.001). Conclusion: Current evidence supporting TIVA is limited to a handful of inconsistently controlled and reported studies. Standardized grading of visibility scores and preoperative characteristics would better establish the role of TIVA in endoscopic sinus surgery.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)848-854
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Forum of Allergy and Rhinology
Volume3
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Intravenous Anesthesia
Meta-Analysis
Anesthesia
Visual Fields
Randomized Controlled Trials
Nasal Polyps
Operative Time
MEDLINE
Arterial Pressure
Heart Rate

Keywords

  • Chronic rhinosinusitis
  • Endoscopic sinus surgery
  • Inhalational anesthesia
  • Systematic review
  • Total intravenous anesthesia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology and Allergy
  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Systematic review and meta-analysis of total intravenous anesthesia and endoscopic sinus surgery. / Deconde, Adam S.; Thompson, Christopher F.; Wu, Edward C.; Suh, Jeffrey D.

In: International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology, Vol. 3, No. 10, 10.2013, p. 848-854.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Deconde, Adam S. ; Thompson, Christopher F. ; Wu, Edward C. ; Suh, Jeffrey D. / Systematic review and meta-analysis of total intravenous anesthesia and endoscopic sinus surgery. In: International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology. 2013 ; Vol. 3, No. 10. pp. 848-854.
@article{c72aee38ab654f47be27d86d4ba0dfce,
title = "Systematic review and meta-analysis of total intravenous anesthesia and endoscopic sinus surgery",
abstract = "Background: Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) has been shown in some studies to impact visual field, blood loss, and cardiovascular parameters during endoscopic sinus surgery when compared to inhalational anesthesia (IA). These variables are critical in endoscopic sinus surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to discern the impact of TIVA vs IA in endoscopic sinus surgery. Methods: MEDLINE (1950 to October 20, 2012) was searched using a search strategy designed to include all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that discussed TIVA, IA, and endoscopic sinus surgery. An abstract search was then used to identify RCTs directly comparing TIVA and IA in endoscopic sinus surgery. All articles selected then underwent full-text review. Data on visual field scores, blood loss, and cardiovascular parameters was then extracted, compared, and analyzed. Results: There were 42 articles identified by the search strategy. Full-text review identified 9 articles that met eligibility criteria and contained extractable data. Although inconsistently reported, preoperative characteristics (Lund-Mackay scores and history of nasal polyps) were similar (p > 0.05) between the 2 groups. No difference was found between heart rate, mean arterial pressure, anesthesia time, operative time, or estimated blood loss. Only 7 studies reported a visibility score, but overall favored the TIVA group (p <0.001). Conclusion: Current evidence supporting TIVA is limited to a handful of inconsistently controlled and reported studies. Standardized grading of visibility scores and preoperative characteristics would better establish the role of TIVA in endoscopic sinus surgery.",
keywords = "Chronic rhinosinusitis, Endoscopic sinus surgery, Inhalational anesthesia, Systematic review, Total intravenous anesthesia",
author = "Deconde, {Adam S.} and Thompson, {Christopher F.} and Wu, {Edward C.} and Suh, {Jeffrey D.}",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1002/alr.21196",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
pages = "848--854",
journal = "International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology",
issn = "2042-6976",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Systematic review and meta-analysis of total intravenous anesthesia and endoscopic sinus surgery

AU - Deconde, Adam S.

AU - Thompson, Christopher F.

AU - Wu, Edward C.

AU - Suh, Jeffrey D.

PY - 2013/10

Y1 - 2013/10

N2 - Background: Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) has been shown in some studies to impact visual field, blood loss, and cardiovascular parameters during endoscopic sinus surgery when compared to inhalational anesthesia (IA). These variables are critical in endoscopic sinus surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to discern the impact of TIVA vs IA in endoscopic sinus surgery. Methods: MEDLINE (1950 to October 20, 2012) was searched using a search strategy designed to include all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that discussed TIVA, IA, and endoscopic sinus surgery. An abstract search was then used to identify RCTs directly comparing TIVA and IA in endoscopic sinus surgery. All articles selected then underwent full-text review. Data on visual field scores, blood loss, and cardiovascular parameters was then extracted, compared, and analyzed. Results: There were 42 articles identified by the search strategy. Full-text review identified 9 articles that met eligibility criteria and contained extractable data. Although inconsistently reported, preoperative characteristics (Lund-Mackay scores and history of nasal polyps) were similar (p > 0.05) between the 2 groups. No difference was found between heart rate, mean arterial pressure, anesthesia time, operative time, or estimated blood loss. Only 7 studies reported a visibility score, but overall favored the TIVA group (p <0.001). Conclusion: Current evidence supporting TIVA is limited to a handful of inconsistently controlled and reported studies. Standardized grading of visibility scores and preoperative characteristics would better establish the role of TIVA in endoscopic sinus surgery.

AB - Background: Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) has been shown in some studies to impact visual field, blood loss, and cardiovascular parameters during endoscopic sinus surgery when compared to inhalational anesthesia (IA). These variables are critical in endoscopic sinus surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to discern the impact of TIVA vs IA in endoscopic sinus surgery. Methods: MEDLINE (1950 to October 20, 2012) was searched using a search strategy designed to include all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that discussed TIVA, IA, and endoscopic sinus surgery. An abstract search was then used to identify RCTs directly comparing TIVA and IA in endoscopic sinus surgery. All articles selected then underwent full-text review. Data on visual field scores, blood loss, and cardiovascular parameters was then extracted, compared, and analyzed. Results: There were 42 articles identified by the search strategy. Full-text review identified 9 articles that met eligibility criteria and contained extractable data. Although inconsistently reported, preoperative characteristics (Lund-Mackay scores and history of nasal polyps) were similar (p > 0.05) between the 2 groups. No difference was found between heart rate, mean arterial pressure, anesthesia time, operative time, or estimated blood loss. Only 7 studies reported a visibility score, but overall favored the TIVA group (p <0.001). Conclusion: Current evidence supporting TIVA is limited to a handful of inconsistently controlled and reported studies. Standardized grading of visibility scores and preoperative characteristics would better establish the role of TIVA in endoscopic sinus surgery.

KW - Chronic rhinosinusitis

KW - Endoscopic sinus surgery

KW - Inhalational anesthesia

KW - Systematic review

KW - Total intravenous anesthesia

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885847414&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84885847414&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/alr.21196

DO - 10.1002/alr.21196

M3 - Article

C2 - 23843351

AN - SCOPUS:84885847414

VL - 3

SP - 848

EP - 854

JO - International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology

JF - International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology

SN - 2042-6976

IS - 10

ER -