The Effects of Volatile Anesthetics on Early Clinical Outcomes in Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Insun Park; Eun-Ki Min; Jae Hyon Park; Ah-Young Oh; Jung-Hee Ryu

doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2024.09.003

The Effects of Volatile Anesthetics on Early Clinical Outcomes in Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Transplant Proc. 2024 Oct 28:S0041-1345(24)00516-5. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2024.09.003. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Insun Park¹, Eun-Ki Min², Jae Hyon Park³, Ah-Young Oh¹, Jung-Hee Ryu⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Gyeonggi, Republic of Korea; Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
² Department of General Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
³ Department of Radiology, The Armed Forces Daejeon Hospital, Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
⁴ Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Gyeonggi, Republic of Korea; Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: [email protected].

PMID: 39472225
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2024.09.003

Abstract

Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of volatile anesthesia (VA) on early clinical outcomes in liver transplantation.

Methods: We searched electronic databases to identify relevant studies comparing VA to non-VA in liver transplant recipients. The primary outcome assessed was early allograft dysfunction (EAD), and secondary outcomes were postoperative peak liver function tests (LFT) including aspartate transaminase (AST) and alanine transaminase (ALT) levels, and hospitalization time.

Results: Six relevant studies involving 919 patients were analyzed. In meta-analysis of prospective studies, VA was associated with fewer incidence of EAD than non-VA (RR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.25, 0.84; P = .012; I² = 0%; P_h = 0.334) but this association was not significant in meta-analysis of retrospective studies (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.58, 1.19; P = .310; I² = 0%; P_h = 0.624). No significant difference in peak AST (SMD: -0.14 U/L; 95% CI: -0.65, 0.37 U/L; P = .594; I² = 69.9%; P_h = 0.036) and ALT (SMD: -0.16 U/L; 95% CI: -0.65, 0.33 U/L; P = .529; I² = 67.0%; P_h = 0.048) were found between VA and non-VA. The hospitalization time also did not differ between the two groups (SMD: -0.09 days; 95% CI: -0.29, 0.10 days; P = .350; I² = 0%; P_h = 0.864).

Conclusions: While there is potential protective effect of VA against EAD in liver transplant recipients, certainty remains low, whereas VA was not associated with postoperative LFT or hospitalization time.