Open Access


Read more
image01

Online Manuscript Submission


Read more
image01

Submitted Manuscript Trail


Read more
image01

Online Payment


Read more
image01

Online Subscription


Read more
image01

Email Alert



Read more
image01

Original Research Article | OPEN ACCESS

Comparative effect of propofol and sevoflurane on chronic postsurgical pain and cognitive function after cardiac surgery in Chinese elderly patients: A preliminary clinical study

Shuqin Wang , Shanshan Huang, Lianying Zhao

Department of Anaesthesiology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Lixia District, Jinan, Shandong, China;

For correspondence:-  Shuqin Wang   Email: YvesAndreaaArQh@yahoo.com   Tel:+8653182169114

Accepted: 21 May 2021        Published: 30 June 2021

Citation: Wang S, Huang S, Zhao L. Comparative effect of propofol and sevoflurane on chronic postsurgical pain and cognitive function after cardiac surgery in Chinese elderly patients: A preliminary clinical study. Trop J Pharm Res 2021; 20(6):1261-1266 doi: 10.4314/tjpr.v20i6.23

© 2021 The authors.
This is an Open Access article that uses a funding model which does not charge readers or their institutions for access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read), which permit unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited..

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the effects of propofol and sevoflurane on chronic post-surgical pain and cognitive function after cardiac surgery in Chinese elderly patients.
Methods: A total of 200 Chinese patients (aged > 65 years) with confirmed diagnosis of severe chronic artery disease who underwent cardiac surgery were given either propofol or sevoflurane. The following efficacy variables were assessed in both treatment groups: pain using an 11-point NRS after surgery; cognitive function, using Severe Impairment Battery (SIB), Clinician Interview-Based Impression of Change (CIBIC), Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) scale; as well as psychological well-being and disability, using K10 Psychological Distress Scale K-10 and WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) scale. Incidence of complications and duration of hospital stay were also compared.
Results: Pain severity score was significantly lower in patients treated with propofol than in those who received sevoflurane (6.1 vs 8.4; p < 0.05). Psychological well-being measured using K-10 score was similar in both groups (p >0.05). Similarly, there were no meaningful differences in disability score between the two treatment groups (p > 0.05). The severity of signs and symptoms of dementia were similar at baseline visit (p >0.05). Propofol-treated patients had numerically greater relief in signs and symptoms of dementia/cognitive impairment, when compared to the Sevoflurane-treated patients (p >0.05). However, incidence of complications (including adverse events) was comparable in both groups (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: Propofol produced significantly greater improvement in post-surgical pain and cognitive functions than sevoflurane after cardiac surgery in Chinese elderly patients.

Keywords: Propofol; Sevoflurane; Cardiac surgery; Chronic postsurgical pain; Cognitive functions

Impact Factor
Thompson Reuters (ISI): 0.523 (2021)
H-5 index (Google Scholar): 39 (2021)

Article Tools

Share this article with



Article status: Free
Fulltext in PDF
Similar articles in Google
Similar article in this Journal:

Archives

2024; 23: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2023; 22: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2022; 21: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2021; 20: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2020; 19: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2019; 18: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2018; 17: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2017; 16: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2016; 15: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2015; 14: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2014; 13: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2013; 12: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2012; 11: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2011; 10: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2010; 9: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2009; 8: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2008; 7: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2007; 6: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2006; 5: 
1,   2
2005; 4: 
1,   2
2004; 3: 
1
2003; 2: 
1,   2
2002; 1: 
1,   2

News Updates