Total Intravenous Versus Inhalational Anesthesia in High-Grade Glioma Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

<i>Background and Objectives</i>: High-grade gliomas (HGGs) are aggressive primary brain tumors with a poor prognosis despite multimodal treatment. The anesthetic technique used during surgery may influence tumor progression and survival, but its role in HGGs remains unclear. This meta-analysis evaluated the effect of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) versus inhalational anesthesia (INHA) on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in HGG patients. <i>Materials and Methods</i>: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for studies assessing the impact of TIVA versus INHA on OS and PFS in HGG patients. Statistical analysis was performed using R version 4.3.1. Heterogeneity across studies was quantified using the Cochrane Q test alongside the I<sup>2</sup> statistic. A random-effects model was employed to derive the pooled hazard ratios (HRs). <i>Results</i>: A total of five studies involving 827 participants (mean age 58 years, mean females 38%) were included, of whom 406 (49%) received TIVA. No statistically significant differences were observed in OS (HR 0.77; 95% CI [0.58-1.02]; <i>p</i> = 0.07; I<sup>2</sup> = 67%) or PFS (HR 0.88; 95% CI [0.70-1.10]; <i>p</i> = 0.27; I<sup>2</sup> = 51%) between the groups. A subgroup analysis revealed that TIVA was associated with improved OS in patients with grade IV tumors (HR 0.70; 95% CI [0.51-0.96]; <i>p</i> = 0.03), while no significant effect was observed in the mixed grade III-IV subgroup. However, the test for subgroup differences was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.0669), and this finding should be interpreted with caution. No significant differences were observed in median OS or PFS, or in single-arm meta-analyses. <i>Conclusions</i>: This meta-analysis found no statistically significant differences in overall or progression-free survival between TIVA and INHA in patients undergoing surgery for HGGs. Although a subgroup analysis suggested a possible survival advantage of TIVA in grade IV tumors, the lack of a statistically significant subgroup difference test limits the strength of this finding. Further investigation is needed to determine whether anesthetic technique influences outcomes in this subgroup.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medicina
Published
2025-08-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61081463
Primary Topic
Cancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Total Intravenous Versus Inhalational Anesthesia in High-Grade Glioma Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

B Tablov, Nikolai Ramadanov, Petar-Preslav Svetlanov Petrov, Pavel Stanchev et al.
Medicina
Cancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
article

Total Intravenous Versus Inhalational Anesthesia in High-Grade Glioma Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

B Tablov, Nikolai Ramadanov, Petar-Preslav Svetlanov Petrov, Pavel Stanchev, Mariano Gallo Ruelas, E. Alonso, Lyubomir Gaydarski, D. Espinoza, Julian Dichev, Nikolay Yordanov, Пламен Пенчев, Daniela Milanova-Ilieva, Ivelina Lukanova, Ivana Korentova
article en

Abstract

<i>Background and Objectives</i>: High-grade gliomas (HGGs) are aggressive primary brain tumors with a poor prognosis despite multimodal treatment. The anesthetic technique used during surgery may influence tumor progression and survival, but its role in HGGs remains unclear. This meta-analysis evaluated the effect of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) versus inhalational anesthesia (INHA) on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in HGG patients. <i>Materials and Methods</i>: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for studies assessing the impact of TIVA versus INHA on OS and PFS in HGG patients. Statistical analysis was performed using R version 4.3.1. Heterogeneity across studies was quantified using the Cochrane Q test alongside the I<sup>2</sup> statistic. A random-effects model was employed to derive the pooled hazard ratios (HRs). <i>Results</i>: A total of five studies involving 827 participants (mean age 58 years, mean females 38%) were included, of whom 406 (49%) received TIVA. No statistically significant differences were observed in OS (HR 0.77; 95% CI [0.58-1.02]; <i>p</i> = 0.07; I<sup>2</sup> = 67%) or PFS (HR 0.88; 95% CI [0.70-1.10]; <i>p</i> = 0.27; I<sup>2</sup> = 51%) between the groups. A subgroup analysis revealed that TIVA was associated with improved OS in patients with grade IV tumors (HR 0.70; 95% CI [0.51-0.96]; <i>p</i> = 0.03), while no significant effect was observed in the mixed grade III-IV subgroup. However, the test for subgroup differences was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.0669), and this finding should be interpreted with caution. No significant differences were observed in median OS or PFS, or in single-arm meta-analyses. <i>Conclusions</i>: This meta-analysis found no statistically significant differences in overall or progression-free survival between TIVA and INHA in patients undergoing surgery for HGGs. Although a subgroup analysis suggested a possible survival advantage of TIVA in grade IV tumors, the lack of a statistically significant subgroup difference test limits the strength of this finding. Further investigation is needed to determine whether anesthetic technique influences outcomes in this subgroup.

MedicinaVol. 61(8)
Trakia University (BG), Medical University Plovdiv (BG), Medical University of Sofia (BG), Universidad Católica de Santiago de Guayaquil (EC), National Institute of Emergency Medicine "Pirogov" (BG), Multiprofile Hospital for Active Treatment in Neurology and Psychiatry St. Naum (BG), Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane (DE), Universitätsklinikum Brandenburg an der Havel (DE), Instituto de Investigación Nutricional (PE)
Inha University
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Cancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.