Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2023 Apr 17;13(4):e070096.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070096.

Feasibility pilot trial for the Trajectories of Recovery after Intravenous propofol versus inhaled VolatilE anesthesia (THRIVE) pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Collaborators, Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Feasibility pilot trial for the Trajectories of Recovery after Intravenous propofol versus inhaled VolatilE anesthesia (THRIVE) pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Bethany R Tellor Pennington et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Introduction: Millions of patients receive general anaesthesia for surgery annually. Crucial gaps in evidence exist regarding which technique, propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) or inhaled volatile anaesthesia (INVA), yields superior patient experience, safety and outcomes. The aim of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a large comparative effectiveness trial assessing patient experiences and outcomes after receiving propofol TIVA or INVA.

Methods and analysis: This protocol was cocreated by a diverse team, including patient partners with personal experience of TIVA or INVA. The design is a 300-patient, two-centre, randomised, feasibility pilot trial. Patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery requiring general anaesthesia with a tracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway will be eligible. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to propofol TIVA or INVA, stratified by centre and procedural complexity. The feasibility endpoints include: (1) proportion of patients approached who agree to participate; (2) proportion of patients who receive their assigned randomised treatment; (3) completeness of outcomes data collection and (4) feasibility of data management procedures. Proportions and 95% CIs will be calculated to assess whether prespecified thresholds are met for the feasibility parameters. If the lower bounds of the 95% CI are above the thresholds of 10% for the proportion of patients agreeing to participate among those approached and 80% for compliance with treatment allocation for each randomised treatment group, this will suggest that our planned pragmatic 12 500-patient comparative effectiveness trial can likely be conducted successfully. Other feasibility outcomes and adverse events will be described.

Ethics and dissemination: This study is approved by the ethics board at Washington University (IRB# 202205053), serving as the single Institutional Review Board for both participating sites. Recruitment began in September 2022. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, internet-based educational materials and mass media.

Trial registration number: NCT05346588.

Keywords: general anesthesia; inhaled volatile anesthesia; total intravenous anesthesia.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Diagrammatic representation of patient flow through study. DOS, day of surgery; EHR, electronic health record; IV, intravenous; MPOG, Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group; MQUARK, MPOG Quality and Research Kit; other adverse events, propofol-related infusion syndrome, malignant hyperthermia, unplanned admission after outpatient surgery; POD, postoperative day; PRO, patient-reported outcome completed by the patient or during research coordinator interview; TIVA, total intravenous anaesthesia.

References

    1. Meara JG, Leather AJM, Hagander L, et al. . Global surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Lancet 2015;386:569–624. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60160-X - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schraag S, Pradelli L, Alsaleh AJO, et al. . Propofol vs. inhalational agents to maintain general anaesthesia in ambulatory and in-patient surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Anesthesiol 2018;18:162. 10.1186/s12871-018-0632-3 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McIsaac DI, Wijeysundera DN, Bryson GL, et al. . Hospital-, anesthesiologist-, and patient-level variation in primary anesthesia type for hip fracture surgery: a population-based cross-sectional analysis. Anesthesiology 2018;129:1121–31. 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002453 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Elbakry A-E, Sultan W-E, Ibrahim E. A comparison between inhalational (desflurane) and total intravenous anaesthesia (propofol and dexmedetomidine) in improving postoperative recovery for morbidly obese patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a double-blinded randomised controlled trial. J Clin Anesth 2018;45:6–11. 10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.12.001 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Herling SF, Dreijer B, Wrist Lam G, et al. . Total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia for adults undergoing transabdominal robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;4:CD011387. 10.1002/14651858.CD011387.pub2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data