Yusuf ÜNAL, Hatice Zerrin ÖZKÖSE, Recep Şahin YARDIM, Berrin IŞIK, Hasan Kutluk PAMPAL

Hemodynamic effects of chest-knee position: comparison of perioperative propofol and sevoflurane anesthesia

Background/aim: There are limited data in the literature investigating the effects of anesthetic agents on cardiac output used in the chest-knee position. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of inhalation and total intravenous anesthesia on cardiac output in patients undergoing lumbar discectomy in the chest-knee position. Materials and methods: Forty patients undergoing discectomy in the chest-knee position were allocated to 2 groups. The first group (GrS, n = 20) received sevoflurane after thiopental induction, while the second group (GrP, n = 20) received propofol induction and infusion. Heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), peripheral oxygen saturation, cardiac output (CO), and cardiac index (CI) were recorded. Results: Groups were comparable in terms of HR and MAP. The differences related to anesthetic technique and position were statistically significant within each group. Cardiac output and CI were similar between the groups. Cardiac output and CI of GrP were found to be decreased in the chest-knee position and significantly elevated in the supine position after surgery (P < 0.05). There were significant decreases in the mean CO and CI values recorded after the chest-knee position in GrP. Conclusion: Sevoflurane is found to be superior when compared to propofol in patients undergoing surgery in the chest-knee position in terms of perioperative hemodynamic stability. Therefore, sevoflurane may be the anesthetic of choice, especially in patients operated on in the chest-knee position with suspected hemodynamic instability.

PDF

___

1. Laakso E, Ahovuo J, Rosenberg PH. Blood flow in the lower limbs in the knee-chest position: ultrasonographic study in unanaesthetised volunteers. Anaesthesia 1996; 51: 113116.
2. Sudheer PS, Logan SW, Ateleanu B, Hall JE. Haemodynamic effects of the prone position: a comparison of propofol total intravenous and inhalation anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2006; 61: 138141.
3. Konstantopoulos K, Makris A, Moustaka A, Karmaniolou I, Konstantopoulos G, Mela A. Sevoflurane versus propofol anesthesia in patients undergoing lumbar spondylodesis: a randomized trial. J Surg Res 2013; 179: 7277.
4. Young BP, Low LL. Noninvasive monitoring cardiac output using partial CO2 rebreathing. Crit Care Clin 2010; 26: 383 392.
5. Grounds RM, Twigley AJ, Carli F, Whitwam JG, Morgan M. The haemodynamic effects of intravenous induction. Anaesthesia 1985; 40: 735740.
6. Mulier JP, Wouters PF, van Aken H, Vermaut G, Vandermeersch E. Cardiodynamic effects of propofol in comparison with thiopental assessment with a transesophageal echocardiographic approach. Anesth Analg 1991; 72: 2835.
7. Saarnivaara L, Hiller A, Oikkonen M. QT interval, heart rate and arterial pressure using propofol, thiopentone or methohexitone for induction of anaesthesia in children. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1993; 37: 419423.
8. Koçak ZÖ, Altunkan AA, Atıcı Ş, Cinel İ, Oral U. Comparison of remifentanil-propofol and sevoflurane for preventing cardiovascular response and quality of recovery in paediatric otolaryngologic surgery. Turk J Med Sci 2001; 31: 559564.
9. Sızlan A, Göktaş U, Özhan C, Özhan MÖ, Orhan ME, Kurt E. Comparison of remifentanil, alfentanil, and fentanil coadministration with propofol to facilitate laryngeal mask insertion. Turk J Med Sci 2010; 40: 6370.
10. Bilotta F, Fiorani L, La Rosa I, Spinelli F, Rosa G. Cardiovascular effects of intravenous propofol administered at two infusion rates: a transthoracic echocardiographic study. Anaesthesia 2001; 56: 266271.
11. Edgcombe H, Carter K, Yarrow S. Anaesthesia in the prone position. Br J Anaesth 2008; 100: 165183.
12. Galimberti G, Berlot G, Muchada R, Gullo A. Haemodynamic changes during surgery in the knee-elbow position: a transoesophagial echo-Doppler study. Anaesthesia 1998; 53 (Suppl. 2): 1214.
13. Pittet JF, Ramadan A, Morel DR, Forster A. Effect of the kneechest position on cerebral blood flow in patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1989; 52: 12771280.
14. Dharmavaram S, Jellish WS, Nockels RP, Shea J, Mehmood R, Ghanayem A, Kleinman B, Jacobs W. Effect of prone position systems on hemodynamic and cardiac function during lumbar spine surgery: an echocardiographic study. Spine 2006; 12: 13881393.
15. Yokoyama M, Ueda W, Hirakawa M, Yamamoto H. Hemodynamic effect of the prone position during anesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1991; 35: 741744.
16. Eger EI 2nd. New inhaled anesthetics. Anesthesiology 1994; 80: 906922.
17. Gravel NR, Searle NR, Taillefer J, Carrier M, Roy M, Gagnon L. Comparison of the hemodynamic effects of sevoflurane anesthesia induction and maintenance vs TIVA in CABG surgery. Can J Anesth 1999; 46: 240246.
18. Watson KR, Shah MV. Clinical comparison of single agent anaesthesia with sevoflurane versus target controlled infusion of propofol. Br J Anaesth 2000; 85: 541546.
19. Coonan TJ, Hope C. Cardio-respiratory effects of change of body position. Can Anaesth Soc J 1983; 30: 424437.
20. Lepage JY, Pinaud ML, Hélias JH, Juge CM, Cozian AY, Farinotti R, Souron RJ. Left ventricular function during propofol and fentanyl anesthesia in patients with coronary artery disease: assessment with a radionuclide approach. Anesth Analg 1988; 67: 949955.
21. Rouby JJ, Andreev A, Léger P, Arthaud M, Landault C, Vicaut E, Maistre G, Eurin J, Ganjbakch I, Viars P. Peripheral vascular effects of thiopental and propofol in humans with artificial hearts. Anesthesiology 1991; 75: 3242.
22. Husedzinovic I, Tonkovic D, Barisin N, S, Bradić N, Gasparović S. Hemodynamic differences in sevoflurane versus propofol anesthesia. Coll Antropol 2003; 27: 205212.