Type of anaesthesia and patient quality of recovery: a randomized trial comparing propofol-remifentanil total i.v. anaesthesia with desflurane anaesthesia

Abstract

Background: Two common general anaesthetic methods are total i.v. anaesthesia (TIVA) and inhalation anaesthesia, but it is unclear whether this affects the patient's perception of their quality of recovery. The Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire (QoR-40) is a valid and reliable method to evaluate the extent of functional recovery after surgery with general anaesthesia. This study therefore compared patient recovery using the QoR-40 in surgical patients who received TIVA with those who received desflurane anaesthesia.

Methods: Eighty females (20-65 years old) undergoing thyroid surgery were prospectively recruited and randomized to either the TIVA (effect-site target controlled infusion using propofol and remifentanil) or DES (desflurane inhalation with manual infusion of remifentanil) groups. The QoR-40 was administered by an investigator blind to group allocation before surgery, and postoperative days 1 and 2 (POD1 and POD2). Additional data including the incidence of nausea or vomiting, the consumption of antiemetic and analgesic agents in the post-anaesthesia care unit, and the duration of the hospital stay, were collected in all cases.

Results: The QoR-40 score on POD1 was significantly higher in the TIVA group compared with the DES group (174 vs 161, respectively; P=0.004), indicating a better quality of recovery in the TIVA group. Among the five dimensions of the QoR-40, physical comfort and physical independence were significantly better on POD1 and POD2 in the TIVA group.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the quality of recovery for female thyroid surgery patients is significantly better with TIVA compared with desflurane anaesthesia.

Clinical trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.org; ref.: NCT01760018.

Keywords: anaesthetics i.v., propofol; anaesthetics volatile, desflurane; recovery, postoperative.

© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.