• Julia Dubowitz, Bernhard Riedel, Celia Blaas, Jonathan Hiller, and Sabine Braat.
• Department of Anaesthesia, Perioperative Medicine, and Pain Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Critical Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Electronic address: julia.dubowitz@petermac.org.
• Br J Anaesth. 2024 Jan 1; 132 (1): 595-9.

AbstractTwo methods for administering general anaesthesia are widely used: propofol-based total intravenous anaesthesia (propofol-TIVA) and inhalation volatile agent-based anaesthesia. Both modalities, which have been standards of care for several decades, boast a robust safety profile. Nevertheless, the potential differential effects of these anaesthetic techniques on immediate, intermediate, and extended postoperative outcomes remain a subject of inquiry. We discuss a recently published longitudinal analysis stemming from a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing sevoflurane-based inhalation anaesthesia with propofol-TIVA in older patients with cancer, which showed a reduced incidence of emergence and postoperative delirium, comparable postoperative complication rates within 30 days after surgery, and comparable long-term survival rates. We undertake an assessment of the trial's methodological strengths and limitations, contextualise its results within the broader scientific evidence, and explore avenues for resolving the extant controversies in anaesthetic choice for cancer surgery. We aim to pave the way for the incorporation of precision medicine paradigms into the evolving landscape of perioperative care for patients with cancer.Copyright © 2023 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

20 keywords...

hide…