肺外科手術における術後早期の高次脳機能および術中脳酸素需給バランスに対する麻酔薬の効果 : ランダム化比較試験

Abstract

PURPOSE: One-lung ventilation (OLV) may impair cerebral oxygen balance and induce postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD). It is unclear whether the type of anesthetic influences the incidence of POCD in patients undergoing OLV. This prospective study compared the incidence of POCD and intraoperative cerebral oxygen desaturation in OLV patients anesthetized with propofol vs sevoflurane during lung surgery. METHODS: There were 148 participants enrolled in this study and randomized equally to either the propofol or the sevoflurane group. Anesthesia was maintained with either propofol or sevoflurane combined in both groups with fentanyl and epidural anesthesia. Regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO2), jugular bulb venous oxygen saturation (SjO2), and the incidence of cerebral oxygen desaturation (rSO2 or SjO2 < 50% or rSO2 < 80% of baseline) were measured during anesthesia. Cognitive function was assessed using seven neurocognitive tests two days preoperatively, five days postoperatively (primary outcome), and three months postoperatively. Bivariable and multivariable regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with POCD. RESULTS: Rates of POCD did not differ statistically between groups five days postoperatively (propofol, 16/72 patients; sevoflurane, 24/72 patients; RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.15; P = 0.14) or three months postoperatively (propofol, 9/60 patients; sevoflurane, 12/58 patients; RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.59; P = 0.42). Only three subjects per group showed intraoperative cerebral oxygen desaturation. Multivariable regression analysis revealed older age as an independent predictor of POCD. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant difference in the incidence of POCD could be detected between the sevoflurane and propofol anesthesia groups. Postoperative cognitive dysfunction was relatively frequent following OLV in both groups. (REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN 000002826).博士（医学）・乙第1397号・平成29年3月15日© Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society 2016This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Canadian journal of anaesthesia. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12630-016-0700-4