Effect of anesthetic choice on ST-segment-defined myocardial ischemia and early postoperative course in monopolar TURP
Abstract
Objective: This historical cohort, originally collected as a prospective, randomized study was re-analyzed to compare propofol–remifentanil–based intravenous anesthesia (P‑RIA) and sevoflurane‑based balanced anesthesia (BA) regarding ST‑segment–defined myocardial ischemia and hemodynamic stability in elderly ASA II–III patients with cardiovascular comorbidities undergoing monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). As troponin measurements were unavailable, myocardial injury after non‑cardiac surgery (MINS) was considered only as a conceptual framework rather than a predefined endpoint.
Methods: Sixty‑six patients scheduled for elective monopolar TURP (n = 33 per group) were randomized in a single‑center, outcome‑assessor‑blinded design to receive P‑RIA or BA. Continuous ST‑segment monitoring (leads DII, V5, aVL) was performed from 15 minutes before induction to 15 minutes postoperatively. ECGs were read by a blinded cardiologist, and hemodynamics, electrolytes, and CK‑MB/CK were recorded serially.
Results: Baseline demographic and surgical characteristics, as well as overall ischemia incidence and duration, were similar between groups. Blood pressure and heart rate were lower and more stable with P‑RIA. At 15 minutes postoperatively, ischemia was less frequent in the P‑RIA group than in the BA group (15.2% vs 36.4%; p = 0.045), an exploratory finding. CK‑MB levels, CK‑MB/CK ratios, electrolyte values, and postoperative complications did not differ significantly.
Conclusion: In this elderly, comorbid TURP cohort, P‑RIA was associated with a more stable hemodynamic profile and a transiently lower early postoperative ischemia rate, without reducing total perioperative ischemic burden or CK‑MB–based myocardial injury. The data are hypothesis‑generating and require confirmation in larger troponin‑based MINS studies.Keywords
References
Mehmood Z, Abdullah MA, Sanan M, Fayyaz H, Ahmad U, Iftikhar A, et al. Outcomes of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in high-risk cardiac patients under spinal anesthesia. Cureus. 2025;17(8):e90137. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.90137
Geremew LM, Gelaw SA, Beyene AD. Assessing the complications of monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (M-TURP) using Clavien-Dindo complications grading system. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2022;32(3):605-12. https://doi.org/10.4314/ejhs.v32i3.17
Sharma AY, Tiwari B, Ekka S, Kumar A, Jangir M, Peswani M, et al. Postoperative clinical outcomes of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) combined with Otis urethrotomy in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease (post-angioplasty): insights from a prospective observational cohort. Cureus. 2025;17(9):e91439. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.91439
de Lucia C, Femminella GD, Rengo G, Ruffo A, Parisi V, Pagano G, et al. Risk of acute myocardial infarction after transurethral resection of prostate in elderly. BMC Surg. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S35. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-13-S2-S35
Chen F, Chen Y, Zou Y, Wang Y, Wu X, Chen M. Comparison of holmium laser enucleation and transurethral resection of prostate in benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int Med Res. 2023;51(8):3000605231190763. https://doi.org/10.1177/03000605231190763
Kanchi VBR, Galeti EH, Begum SG. A comparative study between HoLEP and bipolar TURP in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Journal of Clinical Medicine of Kazakhstan. 2023;20(2):15-9. https://doi.org/10.23950/jcmk/13129
Fuschi A, Asimakopoulos AD, Scalzo S, Martoccia A, Al Salhi Y, Suraci PP, et al. B-TURP versus HoLEP: peri-operative outcomes and complications in frail elderly (>75 y.o.) patients: a prospective randomized study. Biomedicines. 2022;10(12):3212. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10123212
Writing Committee for the VISION Study Investigators; Devereaux PJ, Biccard BM, Sigamani A, Xavier D, Chan MTV, Srinathan SK, et al. Association of postoperative high-sensitivity troponin levels with myocardial injury and 30-day mortality among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. JAMA. 2017;317(16):1642-51. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.4360
Chew MS, Puelacher C, Patel A, Hammarskjöld F, Lyckner S, Kollind M, et al. Identification of myocardial injury using perioperative troponin surveillance in major noncardiac surgery and net benefit over the Revised Cardiac Risk Index. Br J Anaesth. 2022;128(1):26-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2021.10.006
Brooker J, Turan A. Perioperative myocardial injury. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2023;51(1):3-9. https://doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2023.22839
Chen Z, Zhang Y, Zeng W, Ye L, Yu C, Shi F. Myocardial injury before noncardiac surgery. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023;10:1207124. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1207124
Demirel I, Ozer AB, Bayar MK, Erhan OL. TURP syndrome and severe hyponatremia under general anaesthesia. BMJ Case Rep. 2012;2012:bcr-2012-006899. https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2012-006899
Yao YT, Li LH. Sevoflurane versus propofol for myocardial protection in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Chin Med Sci J. 2009;24(3):133-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1001-9294(09)60077-8
Dai Z, Lin M, Li Y, Gao W, Wang P, Lin J, et al. Sevoflurane-remifentanil versus propofol-remifentanil anesthesia during noncardiac surgery for patients with coronary artery disease - a prospective study between 2016 and 2017 at a single center. Med Sci Monit. 2021;27:e929835. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.929835
Hahn RG. Fluid absorption in endoscopic surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2006;96(1):8-20. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aei279
Zhou Z, Ying M, Zhao R. Efficacy and safety of sevoflurane vs propofol in combination with remifentanil for anesthesia maintenance during craniotomy: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021;100(51):e28400. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000028400
Kashlan B, Kinno M, Syed M. Perioperative myocardial injury and infarction after noncardiac surgery: a review of pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024;11:1323425. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1323425
Hughes C, Ackland G, Shelley B. Perioperative myocardial injury. BJA Educ. 2024;24(10):352-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjae.2024.06.001
Pyrgidis N, Schulz GB, Weinhold P, Atzler M, Stadelmeier LF, Papadopoulos I, et al. Perioperative outcomes of HoLEP, ThuLEP, and TURP in patients with prostate cancer: results from the GRAND study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2026;29(1):138-43. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-025-00980-x
Puelacher C, Gualandro DM, Glarner N, Lurati Buse G, Lampart A, Bolliger D, et al. Long-term outcomes of perioperative myocardial infarction/injury after non-cardiac surgery. Eur Heart J. 2023;44(19):1690-701. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac798
Zhang Y, Lin W, Shen S, Wang H, Feng X, Sun J. Randomized comparison of sevoflurane versus propofol-remifentanil on the cardioprotective effects in elderly patients with coronary heart disease. BMC Anesthesiol. 2017;17(1):104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0397-0
An R, Pang QY, Chen B, Liu HL. Effect of anesthesia methods on postoperative major adverse cardiac events and mortality after non-cardiac surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Minerva Anestesiol. 2017;83(7):749-61. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.17.11869-9
Shu Z, Lin T, Xu D, Zheng S. Comparison of sevoflurane and propofol in combination with remifentanil on the quality of postoperative recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Front Med (Lausanne). 2024;11:1382724. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1382724
