Tek Akciğer Ventilasyonu Uygulanan Hastalarda Sevofluran ve Propofolün Pulmoner Oksidatif Stres Üzerine Etkisi

Abstract

Objectives: Collapsing and re-expanding the operated lung during lung resection create the ideal condition for ischemia-reperfusion injury. Anesthetic agents used during these operations may be determinative on oxidative stress. In this study, we aimed to compare propofol with sevoflurane in terms of oxidative stress in patients undergoing lobectomy with single lung ventilation (SLV). Materials and Methods: Twenty-eight patients undergoing elective lobectomy for lung cancer were included in the study. Anesthesia was maintained with 5-10 mg kg-1 st-1 propofol and 0.1-0.2 μg kg-1 min-1 remifentanil infusion in group P (propofol), while 1-3% sevoflurane was used in group S (sevoflurane). Peripheral venous blood at baseline, pulmonary venous and peripheral venous blood before SLV lung ventilation was terminated and peripheral venous blood samples 20 minutes after SLV were obtained. Results: In both groups, plasma malondialdehyde levels increased compared to baseline (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of baseline and pulmonary vein malondialdehyde after SLV. Peripheral venous malondialdehyde level after SLV was significantly lower in group S p=0.008, whereas peripheral venous malondialdehyde value at 20 minutes after reoxygenation was lower in group P (p=0.021). Conclusion: Due to the anesthetic method, patients with lung cancer may be less affected by oxidative stress. Total intravenous anesthesia using propofol and remifentanil is as safe and effective as sevoflurane in thoracic surgery.

Keywords

• Ischemia Reperfusion Injury
• Oxidative Stress
• Malondialdehyde
• Propofol
• Sevoflurane

The Effect of Sevoflurane and Propofol on Pulmonary Oxidative Stress in Patients Undergoing Single Lung Ventilation

Abstract

References

1. 1. Benumof JL. Conventional and differential lung management of one-lung ventilation. Anesthesia for Thoracic Surgery. 1995;406-432.
2. 2. Kutlu CA, Williams EA, Evans TW, et al. Acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome after pulmonary resection. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;69:376-380.
3. 3. Zimmerman BJ, Granger DN. Reperfusion injury. Surg Clin North Am. 1992;72:65-83.
4. 4. Gothard J. Lung injury after thoracic surgery and one-lung ventilation. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2006;19:5-10.
5. 5. Allaouchiche B, Debon R, Goudable J, et al. Oxidative stress status during exposure to propofol, sevoflurane and desflurane. Anaesth Analg. 2001;93:981-985.
6. 6. Misthos P, Katsaragakis S, Milingos N, et al. Postresectional pulmonary oxidative stress in lung cancer patients. The role of one-lung ventilation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005;27:379-383.
7. 7. Lases EC, Duurkens VA, Gerritsen WB, et al. Oxidative stress after lung resection therapy: A pilot study. Chest. 2000;117:999-1003.
8. 8. Pittet JF, Mackersie RC, Martin TR, et al. Biological markers of acute lung injury: prognostic and pathogenetic significance. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;155:1187-1205.

9. 9. Quinlan GJ, Evans TW, Gutteridge JM. Oxidative damage to plasma proteins in adult respiratory distress syndrome. Free Radic Res. 1994;20:289-298.
10. 10. Gutteridge JM, Mumby S, Quinlan GJ, et al. Pro-oxidant iron is present in human pulmonary epithelial lining fluid: implications for oxidative stress in the lung. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1996;220:1024-1027.
11. 11. Cheng YJ, Chan KC, Chien CT, et al. Oxidative stress during 1-lung ventilation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;132:513-518.
12. 12. Huang CH, Wang YP, Wu PY, et al. Propofol infusion shortens and attenuates oxidative stress during one lung ventilation. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2008;46:160-165.
13. 13. Cochrane CG, Spragg R, Revak SD. Pathogenesis of the adult respiratory distress syndrome. Evidence of oxidant activity in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. J Clin Invest. 1983;71:754-761.
14. 14. Tsuchiya M, Asada A, Maeda K, et al. Propofol versus midazolam regarding their antioxidant activities. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;163:26-31