Impact of anesthetic agents on the amount of bleeding during dilatation and evacuation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose
Patients undergo dilatation and evacuation for abortion or miscarriage. However, bleeding is sometimes problematic. Despite reports on the association between volatile anesthetics and increased bleeding during the procedure, firm evidence is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects of volatile anesthetics and propofol on the amount of bleeding in patients undergoing dilatation and evacuation.

Methods
We conducted a systematic search of four databases, namely PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), from their respective inception to April 2021. Moreover, we searched two trial registration sites. The inclusion criterion was randomized controlled trials of patients who underwent dilatation and evacuation under general anesthesia using volatile anesthetics or propofol. The primary outcome was the amount of perioperative bleeding. The mean difference of the bleeding was combined using a random-effects model. The I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. We assessed risk of bias with Cochrane domains. We controlled type I and II errors due to sparse data and repetitive testing with Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.

Results
Five studies were included in the systematic review. The amount of bleeding was compared in four studies and was higher in the volatile anesthetic group, with a mean difference of 164.7 ml (95% confidence interval, 43.6 to 285.7; p = 0.04). Heterogeneity was considerable, with an I2 value of 97%. Two studies evaluated the incidence of significant bleeding, which was significantly higher in the volatile anesthetic group (RR, 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.04–5.63; p = 0.04).

Conclusion
Choosing propofol over volatile anesthetics during dilatation and evacuation might reduce bleeding and the incidence of excessive bleeding. However, the quality of the evidence was very low. This necessitates further trials with a low risk of bias.