Negative drift of sedation depth in critically ill patients receiving constant minimum alveolar concentration of isoflurane, sevoflurane, or desflurane: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) physicians have extended the minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) to deliver and monitor long-term volatile sedation in critically ill patients. There is limited evidence of MAC's reliability in controlling sedation depth in this setting. We hypothesized that sedation depth, measured by the electroencephalography (EEG)-derived Narcotrend-Index (burst-suppression N_Index 0-awake N_Index 100), might drift downward over time despite constant MAC values. METHODS: This prospective single-centre randomized clinical study was conducted at a University Hospital Surgical Intensive Care Unit and included consecutive, postoperative ICU patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Patients were randomly assigned to receive uninterrupted inhalational sedation with isoflurane, sevoflurane, or desflurane. The end-expiratory concentration of the anaesthetics and the EEG-derived index were measured continuously in time-stamped pairs. Sedation depth was also monitored using Richmond-Agitation-Sedation-Scale (RASS). The paired t-test and linear models (bootstrapped or multilevel) have been employed to analyze MAC, N_Index and RASS across the three groups. RESULTS: Thirty patients were recruited (female/male: 10/20, age 64 ± 11, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II 30 ± 10). In the first 24 h, 21.208 pairs of data points (N_Index and MAC) were recorded. The median MAC of 0.58 ± 0.06 remained stable over the sedation time in all three groups. The t-test indicated in the isoflurane and sevoflurane groups a significant drop in RASS and EEG-derived N_Index in the first versus last two sedation hours. We applied a multilevel linear model on the entire longitudinal data, nested per patient, which produced the formula N_Index = 43 - 0.7·h (R2 = 0.76), showing a strong negative correlation between sedation's duration and the N_Index. Bootstrapped linear models applied for each sedation group produced: N_Index of 43-0.9, 45-0.8, and 43-0.4·h for isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane, respectively. The regression coefficient for desflurane was almost half of those for isoflurane and sevoflurane, indicating a less pronounced time-effect in this group. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining constant MAC does not guarantee stable sedation depth. Thus, the patients necessitate frequent clinical assessments or, when unfeasible, continuous EEG monitoring. The differences across different volatile anaesthetics regarding their time-dependent negative drift requires further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03860129.

Desflurane protects against liver ischemia/reperfusion injury via regulating miR-135b-5p.

BACKGROUND: A number of anesthetics have protective effect against ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury, including desflurane. But the function and molecular mechanism of desflurane in liver I/R injury have not been fully understood. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of desflurane on liver I/R injury and further investigated the molecular mechanisms involving in miR-135b-5p. METHODS: The models of liver I/R injury in rats were established, and received desflurane treatment throughout the injury. Serum alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) were measured and compared between groups. H/R-induced cell model in L02 was established, and were treated with desflurane before hypoxia. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction was performed to determine the expression of miR-135b-5p in different groups. The cell apoptosis was detected using flow cytometry assay. Western blot was used for the measurement of protein levels. RESULTS: I/R significantly increased serum levels of ALT and AST in rats, which were reversed by desflurane treatment. Desflurane also significantly attenuated the increase of cell apoptosis induced by I/R in both vivo and vitro. MiR-135b-5p significantly reversed the protective effect of desflurane against liver I/R injury. Additionally, Janus protein tyrosine kinase (JAK)2 was shown to be a target gene of miR-135b-5p, and miR-135b-5p overexpression significantly decreased the protein levels of p-JAK2, JAK2, p-STAT3. CONCLUSION: Desflurane attenuated liver I/R injury through regulating miR-135b-5p, and JAK2 was the target gene of mIR-135b-5p. These findings provide references for further development of therapeutic strategies in liver injury.

Are high fresh gas flow rates necessary during the wash-in period in low-flow anesthesia?

In low-flow anesthesia (LFA), there is a wash-in period in which usually high fresh gas flow (FGF) rates are used to achieve the required initial concentration of anesthetic agent in the alveoli. The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency, safety and the consumption of desflurane in LFA using constant FGF (1 L/min) and conventional LFA using high FGF (4 L/min) during the wash-in period. Eighty patients, who were scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation, were enrolled in the study. Wash-in was accomplished with 1 L/min FGF (50% O2, 50% air) and 18% desflurane in group 1; and by 4 L/min FGF (50% O2, 50% air) and 6% desflurane in group 2. Throughout the surgery, the vaporizer was adjusted to maintain 0.6 to 0.8 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC). The time required to reach 0.7 MAC was shorter in group 1 (160 seconds [135-181] vs 288 seconds [240-500], P < .001). In 6 patients in group 1 and 13 in group 2, vaporizer settings were adjusted to maintain 0.6 to 0.8 MAC (P = .048). Desflurane consumption in the first hour and total desflurane consumption were higher in group 2 (P < .001 and P = .012, respectively). The efficiency of anesthesia in both the first hour and in total was higher in group 1 (P < .001). It is safe, more efficient, and economical to use 1 L/min FGF during the wash-in period in LFA.

Comparison between total intravenous anesthesia and balanced anesthesia on postoperative opioid consumption in patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy.

Remifentanil is the most frequently prescribed opioid for total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) or balanced anesthesia (BA), due to its favorable pharmacological properties. However, several studies have reported opioid-induced hyperalgesia and/or acute tolerance after intraoperatively using remifentanil. In addition, it is imperative to control postoperative pain with lower doses of opioid anesthetic agents. Therefore, we compared the amount of opioid consumption between TIVA with propofol-remifentanil and BA with desflurane-remifentanil, to control postoperative pain in patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with gastroduodenostomy.We retrospectively evaluated demographic variables (age, gender, height, weight, and smoking habits), the duration of general anesthesia (GA), and intraoperatively administered remifentanil consumption through the electronic medical records of patients who underwent LADG with gastroduodenostomy due to early stomach cancer. The primary outcome was postoperative opioid consumption during postoperative day (POD) 2. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of any rescue opioid analgesics administered, numeric rating scale, and various adverse effects during POD 2. We categorized the data in 2 patient groups to compare TIVA with propofol-remifentanil (TIVA group) to BA with desflurane-remifentanil (BA group) on the postoperative opioid analgesic consumption.We divided 114 patients into the TIVA (46 patients) and BA (68 patients) groups. Opioid consumption as a primary outcome was significantly higher in the BA group than in the TIVA group during POD 2 except in the post-anesthesia care unit. The cumulative opioid consumption was significantly higher in the BA than in the TIVA group. The incidence of rescue analgesic at POD 2 was higher in the BA than in the TIVA group. In the TIVA group, remifentanil consumption was higher, and the duration of GA was shorter than that in the BA group. No statistically significant differences were observed when comparing other variables.Our results indicated that the maintenance of GA with TIVA (propofol-remifentanil) reduces opioid consumption for postoperative pain control compared to BA (desflurane-remifentanil) in patients undergoing LADG with gastroduodenostomy.

Propofol-based intravenous anesthesia is associated with better survival than desflurane anesthesia in pancreatic cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Previous researches have shown that anesthetic techniques can influence the patient outcomes of cancer surgery. Here, we studied the relationship between type of anesthetic and patient outcomes following elective, open pancreatic cancer surgery. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who received elective, open pancreatic cancer surgery between January 2005 and July 2018. Patients were grouped according to the anesthesia they received, namely desflurane or propofol. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted, and survival curves were presented from the date of surgery to death. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare hazard ratios for death after propensity matching. Subgroup analyses were performed for all-cause mortality, cancer-specific mortality, and disease progression. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients (56 deaths, 82.0%) under desflurane anesthesia, and 72 patients (43 deaths, 60.0%) under propofol anesthesia were included. Fifty-eight patients remained in each group after propensity matching. The propofol anesthesia was associated with improved survival (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.99; P = 0.047) in the matched analysis. Subgroup analyses showed significantly better cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.97; P = 0.037) in the propofol group. Additionally, patients under propofol had less postoperative recurrence, but not fewer postoperative metastases formation, than those under desflurane (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.90; P = 0.028) in the matched analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In a limited sample size, we observed that propofol anesthesia was associated with improved survival in open pancreatic cancer surgery compared with desflurane anesthesia. Further investigations are needed to inspect the influences of propofol anesthesia on patient outcomes of pancreatic cancer surgery.

Desflurane anesthesia compared with total intravenous anesthesia on anesthesia-controlled operating room time in ambulatory surgery following strabotomy: a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Ophthalmic ambulatory surgery is preferred to be performed under general anesthesia either by total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) or by inhalational anesthesia to increase the patient comfort. However, anesthesia-controlled time (ACT) can cause increased non-operative operating room (OR) time which may adversely affect the ORs efficiency. This study was aimed to compare the ACT of desflurane with that of propofol-remifentanil in strabismus ambulatory surgery. METHODS: From November 2016 to December 2017, a total of 200 strabismus patients (aged 18-60 years old, and scheduled for elective ambulatory surgery at Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center) were randomly assigned to receive either propofol-based TIVA (group TIVA) or desflurane anesthesia (group DES) for maintenance of anesthesia. The primary outcome was the extubation time. Secondary outcomes included surgical time, anesthetic time, OR exit time, and Phase I and II recovery time. The intraoperative incidences of hypotension, bradycardia and oculocardiac reflex (OCR), and the incidences of any post-operative complications were recorded. Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square or Fisher exact tests were used to compare the two groups. RESULTS: We found that the extubation time (5.5 [3.9-7.0] vs. 9.7 [8.5-11.4] min, P < 0.001) and the incidence of prolonged time to extubation (0 vs. 6%, P = 0.029) in the DES group were significantly decreased compared with those in the TIVA group. The patients in the DES group displayed shorter OR exit time as compared with that in the TIVA group (7.3 [5.5-8.7] vs. 10.8 [9.3-12.3] min, P < 0.001). The patients using desflurane exhibited more stable hemodynamics during surgery than the patients using propofol-based TIVA, as demonstrated by lower incidences of hypotension (1% vs. 22%, P < 0.001), bradycardia (2% vs. 13%, P = 0.002), and OCR (17% vs. 44%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: DES enhanced the ophthalmic OR efficiency by reducing the extubation time and OR exit time, and provided more stable hemodynamics intra-operatively than TIVA in patients undergoing strabismus ambulatory surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, No. NCT02922660; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02922660?id=NCT02922660&draw=2&rank=1.

Propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia did not improve survival compared to desflurane anesthesia in breast cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and several perioperative factors may account for tumor recurrence and metastasis. The anesthetic agents employed during cancer surgery might play a crucial role in cancer cell survival and patient outcomes. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to investigate the relationship between the type of anesthesia and overall survival in patients who underwent breast cancer surgery performed by one experienced surgeon. METHODS: All patients who underwent breast cancer surgery by an experienced surgeon between January 2006 and December 2010 were included in this study. Patients were separated into two groups according to the use of desflurane or propofol anesthesia during surgery. Locoregional recurrence and overall survival rates were assessed for the two groups (desflurane or propofol anesthesia). Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models and propensity score matching analyses were used to compare the hazard ratios for death and adjust for potential confounders (age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, TNM stage, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Charlson Comorbidity Index, anesthesiologists, and functional status). RESULTS: Of the 976 breast cancer patients, 632 patients underwent breast cancer surgery with desflurane anesthesia, while 344 received propofol anesthesia. After propensity scoring, 592 patients remained in the desflurane group and 296 patients in the propofol group. The mortality rate was similar in the desflurane (38 deaths, 4%) and propofol (22 deaths, 4%; p = 0.812) groups in 5-year follow-up. The crude hazard ratio (HR) for all patients was 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.92, p = 0.646). No significant difference in the locoregional recurrence or overall 5-year survival rates were found after breast surgery using desflurane or propofol anesthesia (p = 0.454). Propensity score-matched analyses demonstrated similar outcomes in both groups. Patients who received propofol anesthesia had a higher mortality rate than those who received desflurane anesthesia in the matched groups (7% vs 6%, respectively) without significant difference (p = 0.561). In the propensity score-matched analyses, univariable analysis showed an insignificant finding (HR = 1.23, 95% CI 0.72-2.11, p = 0.449). After adjustment for the time since the earliest included patient, the HR remained insignificant (HR = 1.23, 95% CI 0.70-2.16, p = 0.475). CONCLUSION: In our non-randomized retrospective analysis, neither propofol nor desflurane anesthesia for breast cancer surgery by an experienced surgeon can affect patient prognosis and survival. The influence of propofol anesthesia on breast cancer outcome requires further investigation.

Comparison of the effect of propofol and desflurane on S-100ß and GFAP levels during controlled hypotension for functional endoscopic sinus surgery: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although surgical field visualization is important in functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS), the complications associated with controlled hypotension for surgery should be considered. Intraoperative hypotension is associated with postoperative stroke, leading to subsequent hypoxia with potential neurologic injury. We investigated the effect of propofol and desflurane anesthesia on S-100ß and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) levels which are early biomarkers for cerebral ischemic change during controlled hypotension for FESS. METHODS: For controlled hypotension during FESS, anesthesia was maintained with propofol/remifentanil in propofol group (n = 30) and with desflurane/remifentanil in desflurane group (n = 30). For S-100ß and GFAP assay, blood samples were taken at base, 20 and 60 minutes after achieving the target range of mean arterial pressure, and at 60 minutes after surgery. RESULTS: The base levels of S-100ß were 98.04 ±â€Š78.57 and 112.61 ±â€Š66.38 pg/mL in the propofol and desflurane groups, respectively. The base levels of GFAP were 0.997 ±â€Š0.486 and 0.898 ±â€Š0.472 ng/mL in the propofol and desflurane groups, respectively. The S-100ß and GFAP levels were significantly increased in the study period compared to the base levels in both groups (P ≤ .001). There was no significant difference at each time point between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: On comparing the effects of propofol and desflurane anesthesia for controlled hypotension on the levels of S-100ß and GFAP, we noted that there was no significant difference in S-100ß and GFAP levels between the 2 study groups. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Available at: http://cris.nih.go.kr, KCT0002698.

A randomized trial of desflurane or sevoflurane on postoperative quality of recovery after knee arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Studies have described different recovery profiles of sevoflurane and desflurane typically early after surgery. METHODS: We conducted a randomized superiority trial to determine whether Overall Recovery 3 days after knee arthroscopy would be superior with desflurane. Adult participants undergoing knee arthroscopic surgery with general anesthesia were randomized to either desflurane or sevoflurane general anesthesia. Intraoperative and postoperative drugs and analgesics were administered at the discretion of the anesthesiologist. Postoperative quality of recovery was assessed using the "Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale". The primary outcome was Overall Recovery 3 days after surgery and secondary outcomes were individual recovery domains at 15 minutes, 40 minutes, 1 day, 3 days, 1 month, and 3 months. Patients and researchers were blinded. RESULTS: 300 patients were randomized to sevoflurane or desflurane (age 51.7±14.1 vs. 47.3±13.5 years; duration of anesthesia 24.9±11.1 vs. 23.3±8.3 minutes). The proportion achieving baseline or better scores in all domains increased over the follow-up period in both groups but was not different at day 3 (sevoflurane 43% vs. desflurane 37%, p = 0.314). Similarly, rates of recovery increased over time in the five subdomains, with no differences between groups for physiological, p = 0.222; nociceptive, p = 0.391; emotive, p = 0.30; Activities-of-daily-living, p = 0.593; and cognitive recovery, p = 0.877. CONCLUSION: No significant difference in the quality of recovery scale could be shown using sevoflurane or desflurane general anesthesia after knee arthroscopy in adult participants.

Pain and nausea after bariatric surgery with total intravenous anesthesia versus desflurane anesthesia: a double blind, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence-based knowledge regarding optimal anesthesia in obese patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate optimal anesthetic approach for patients undergoing bariatric surgery by determining and comparing peri- and postoperative outcomes in patients receiving intravenous anesthesia with propofol versus desflurane anesthesia. SETTING: Nonacademic primary referral center. METHODS: Patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass between 2016 and 2017 were randomized into 1 of the following 2 types of anesthesia: intravenous anesthesia with propofol, or desflurane. Perioperative outcomes were registered by the operation staff. A form based on visual analog scale estimating the patient's intensity of pain and nausea was completed postoperatively at the postoperative unit, surgical ward, and 24 to 48 hours postsurgery. The primary outcome was postoperative nausea and vomiting or postoperative pain between treatment groups. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the "time of awakening," peritoneal stretch, and use of perioperative muscle relaxants. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-three patients were randomized to receive intravenous anesthesia (n = 90) or desflurane anesthesia (n = 93). Mean time ± standard deviation of surgery for both procedures was 41 ± 17 minutes, whereas mean time of awakening was 2 ± 2 minutes for both the intravenous anesthesia and desflurane group. There was no significant difference in visual analog scale for pain or for nausea and vomiting postoperatively, nor in the number of patients receiving muscle relaxants for peritoneal stretch between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant differences between the 2 anesthetic regimens regarding postoperative nausea and pain, awakening time, peritoneal stretch, or the use of perioperative muscle relaxants.

Quality of recovery in patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery after general anesthesia: total intravenous anesthesia vs desflurane anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: For sinus surgery, some centers favor total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) over inhalation anesthesia. However, whether TIVA affects the patient's perceived quality of recovery remains unclear. This study used the Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire (QoR-40) to compare patient recovery between surgical patients who received TIVA and those who received desflurane (DES) anesthesia. METHODS: Eighty patients (20 to 65 years old) undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery were prospectively enrolled and randomized to either the TIVA (propofol and remifentanil infusion) or DES (desflurane inhalation and remifentanil infusion) group. The QoR-40 was administered before surgery, at 6 hours after surgery, and on postoperative day 1 (POD1). Incidence of nausea and vomiting, remifentanil consumption, blood loss, and pain treatment were recorded. The influence of lesion extent (indexed as Lund-Mackay [LM] score) on recovery quality was also assessed. RESULTS: Forty patients were randomized into the TIVA group, and 40 patients were randomized into the DES group. The QoR-40 score at 6 hours after surgery was significantly higher in the TIVA group compared with the DES group (188.2 vs 182.6, respectively; p = 0.049), indicating a better quality of recovery in the TIVA group. TIVA resulted in less blood loss (p < 0.0001). A high LM score (≥12) was associated with lower QoR-40 scores at 6 hours after surgery (180.2 vs 187.2, p = 0.028) and on POD1 (181.5 vs 190.3, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: This study shows that the quality of recovery for endoscopic sinus surgery patients was better with TIVA than with desflurane anesthesia. A high LM score was related to poorer recovery quality.

Early postoperative recovery in operating room after desflurane anesthesia combined with Bispectral index (BIS) monitoring and warming in lengthy abdominal surgery: a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine whether the use of desflurane (DES) anesthesia combined with bispectral index (BIS) monitoring and warming is effective in reducing anesthesia-controlled operating room time (ACT) in patients undergoing lengthy abdominal surgery. METHODS: Seventy patients, 40 years of age or older, undergoing abdominal surgery expected to last three to five hours were randomly assigned to the DES group (n = 35) or the control group (n = 35). Patients in the DES group were maintained with desflurane anesthesia and received BIS monitoring and warming. Patients in the control group were given non-desflurane anesthesia for maintenance, and the usage of BIS monitoring and warming were not mandatory and determined by anesthesia care providers. Early postoperative recovery times were recorded. RESULTS: The times to extubation (8.8 ± 8.5 vs 14.7 ± 13.7 min, P = 0.035), eye opening (8.4 ± 8.6 vs 14.4 ± 13.4 min, P = 0.028), responds on command (8.2 ± 8.5 vs 14.4 ± 13.0 min, P = 0.022), and the ACT (23.8 ± 11.4 vs 32.7 ± 15.4 min, P = 0.009) were significantly less in the DES group than that in the control group. The postanesthesia care unit (PACU) length of stay, incidence of prolonged extubation, and surgeon and anesthesiologist satisfaction were similar in two groups. Also, the result of multivariable linear regressions showed that patients who were younger, female, lower BMI and non-DES anesthesia regimen resulted in prolonged extubation. CONCLUSIONS: Desflurane anesthesia combined with BIS monitoring and warming is associated with early postoperative recovery in lengthy abdominal surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR-INR-17013333 . Date of registration: November 11, 2017.

Propofol Attenuates the Myocardial Protection Properties of Desflurane by Modulating Mitochondrial Permeability Transition.

BACKGROUND: Desflurane and propofol are cardioprotective, but relative efficacy is unclear. The aim was to compare myocardial protection of single, simultaneous, and serial administration of desflurane and propofol. METHODS: Sixty New Zealand White rabbits and 65 isolated Sprague Dawley rat hearts randomly received desflurane, propofol, simultaneous desflurane and propofol, or sequential desflurane then propofol. Rabbits were subdivided to receive either ischemia-reperfusion with temporary occlusion of the left anterior descending artery or a time-matched, nonischemic perfusion protocol, whereas rat hearts were perfused in a Langendorff model with global ischemia-reperfusion. End points were hemodynamic, functional recovery, and mitochondrial uptake of H-2-deoxy-D-glucose as an indicator of mitochondrial permeability transition. RESULTS: In rabbits, there were minimal increases in preload-recruitable stroke-work with propofol (P < .001), desflurane (P < .001), and desflurane-and-propofol (P < .001) groups, but no evidence of increases with pentobarbitone (P = .576) and desflurane-then-propofol (P = .374). In terms of end-diastolic pressure-volume relationship, there was no evidence of increase compared to nonischemic controls with desflurane-then-propofol (P = .364), a small but significant increase with desflurane (P < .001), and larger increases with pentobarbitone (P < .001), propofol (P < .001), and desflurane-and-propofol (P < .001).In rat hearts, there was no statistically significant difference in mitochondrial H-activity between propofol and desflurane-and-propofol (165 ± 51 × 10 vs 154 ± 51 × 10 g·mL·min/µmol; P = .998). Desflurane had lower uptake than propofol (65 ± 21 × 10 vs 165 ± 51 × 10 g·mL·min/µmol; P = .039), but there was no statistically significant difference between desflurane and desflurane-then-propofol (65 ± 21 × 10 vs 59 ± 11 × 10 g·mL·min/µmol; P = .999). CONCLUSIONS: Propofol and desflurane are cardioprotective, but desflurane is more effective than propofol. The added benefit of desflurane is lost when used simultaneously with propofol.

Safety aspects of desflurane anesthesia and laryngeal mask airway.

Laryngeal mask (LM) and inhaled anesthesia combination is often deemed unsuitable. Actually the evolution of surgical procedures towards minimal invasiveness, the search of improved productivity, and the contemporary need for patient safety and faster recovery, push the anesthetists to get interested in their use in the daily practice. An Expert Panel composed by anesthetists coming from university and tertiary hospitals undertook to write an experts' opinion on the correct management of LM and desflurane in adult patients, with a view to issuing a simple operative protocol for their combined intraoperative usage. Main operative steps have been defined, which, if appropriately implemented, would successfully achieve safety objectives. Two aspects are considered crucial, first the educational role of Universities and Medical Schools to structure a systematic approach to the theoretical and practical teaching of the use of LM with desflurane; second an appropriate training for improving the skills in the use of LM also for more complicated patients.