"Liver toxicity is rare with the use of diclofenac, and the short term use of diclofenac does not cause kidney toxicity . However, amoxicillin is known to cause liver and kidney failure, albeit infrequently [22,23]. In the present study, as there were no cases of significant liver or kidney failure, we hypothesized that the drugs (anesthetics and antibiotics) used during anesthesia had no effect on liver or kidney function. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Inhalation anesthetics are an important factor for postoperative hepatic and renal dysfunction. In this regard, TIVA can reduce the risk of hepatic and renal dysfunction inherited to inhalation anesthetics. The present study was conducted to determine whether hepatic and renal functions differ after anesthesia with sevoflurane and propofol.
Two hundred patients, ASA physical status class I, II, scheduled for an elective thyroidectomy were randomly divided into two groups. Anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane 1-2% and remifentanil in the sevoflurane group (Group S) and propofol 2-5 ug/ml and remifentanil 2-5 ng/ml at the effect site, using a target controlled infusion (TCI) pump in the TIVA group (Group T) to maintain BIS of 40-60. To evaluate the hepatic and renal function, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine were tested at preoperation (baseline), postoperative 1 day and 3 days.
AST was increased at postoperative 1 day and 3 days, compared with that of the preoperation in Group S, and postoperative 1 day in Group T, but the values were within its normal limit. ALT was not changed after anesthesia in both groups. BUN was increased at postoperative 1 day, compared with that of the preoperation in Group S, but the value was within its normal limit. Creatinine was not changed after anesthesia in both groups.
The changes of hepatic and renal function after inhalation anesthesia with sevoflurane and TIVA with propofol and remifentanil for thyroidectomy were clinically insignificant, and there was no difference between the two methods.
Korean journal of anesthesiology 02/2013; 64(2):112-6. DOI:10.4097/kjae.2013.64.2.112
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.