Skip to main content

Total Intravenous vs Volatile Inhalational Anesthesia for Major Noncardiac Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

In brief

Total intravenous anesthesia does not boost days alive at home after surgery

In a pragmatic trial of 2,508 patients aged 50 or older undergoing major non-cardiac operations, propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia yielded the same average of about 22.5 days alive and at home at 30 days as volatile inhalational agents. While TIVA reduced thirst, hoarseness and nausea, it did not improve mortality, delirium, or major complications, leaving its routine use unproven.

Journal
JAMA (Q1)
Published
12 August 2026
Study design
Randomized controlled trial
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
Authors
Shaman Jhanji, Katie Booth, Louise Hiller, John Braun, Janet Dunn, Lucy Eggleston, et al.
PMID
42584898
DOI
10.1001/jama.2026.11065

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine (top studies of the week, 16 August 2026): TIVA vs inhalational anesthesia trial, but primary outcome not anaesthetic
  • Picked for Surgery (top studies of the week, 16 August 2026): Anesthesia technique trial, not surgeon‑focused

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Older adults undergoing major noncardiac surgery experience substantial postoperative morbidity and health care use. The comparative effectiveness of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) vs volatile-based inhalational anesthesia on recovery and safety remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether TIVA improves days alive and at home at 30 days compared with inhalational anesthesia and to evaluate differences in patient-centered outcomes and recovery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Pragmatic, multicenter, open-label randomized clinical trial conducted in 49 UK National Health Service hospitals from January 2022 to April 2024 (final follow-up, October 2024) among patients aged 50 years or older scheduled for elective major noncardiac surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive maintenance of general anesthesia with either TIVA (propofol infusion) (n = 1254) or volatile-based inhalational agents (n = 1254). All other perioperative care was at clinician discretion. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was days alive and at home at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included days alive and at home at 90 days; mortality at 30 days, 90 days, and 6 months; Quality of Recovery-15 score at day 3; patient satisfaction (Bauer Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire) at day 1; delirium (4 As Test [4AT]) at day 3; unintentional awareness under anesthesia; and major postoperative complications within 30 days. RESULTS: Among the 2508 randomized participants, the mean age was 67 (SD, 8.9) years, and 55% were male. Characteristics were balanced across randomized groups. Days alive and at home at 30 days were similar between groups (mean, 22.5 [SD, 6.8] days vs 22.4 [SD, 6.6] days for TIVA vs inhalational anesthesia, respectively; incidence rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.02; adjusted P = .68). There were no differences in days alive and at home at 90 days; mortality at 30 days, 90 days, or 6 months; or Quality of Recovery-15 score at day 3. Lower rates of thirst, hoarseness, and nausea and vomiting were reported in the TIVA group. Levels of delirium were similar between groups, with the majority (87.6%) having no delirium at day 3. Major complications occurred in 12.4% of patients overall, with no significant between-group differences. Two cases of certain or probable unintentional awareness under anesthesia were reported, both in the TIVA group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among older adults undergoing major noncardiac surgery, TIVA did not improve days alive and at home at 30 days compared with inhalational anesthesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.org Identifier: ISRCTN62903453.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.