Clinical application of the cardioprotective effects of volatile anaesthetics: PRO - get an extra benefit from a proven anaesthetic free of charge

Volatile anaesthetic agents have been used in millions of patients around the world and have proved to be both well tolerated and efficient. In recent years, cardioprotective properties of these drugs have been demonstrated unequivocally in numerous experimental investigations, but the beneficial effects of volatile anaesthetics in daily clinical practice are still under debate. In order to elucidate their cardioprotective properties in an unbiased way, the STAIR (Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable Preclinical Recommendation) criteria proposed as a framework for researchers in the field of neuroprotection can be applied to research conducted in the field of cardioprotection by volatile anaesthetics. All STAIR criteria have already been clearly fulfilled when all experimental and clinical studies are considered. Specifically, a dose-response pattern has been found with a minimal alveolar concentration value and a ceiling effect; volatile anaesthetics show two distinct therapeutic windows after application; important outcome measures such as hospital length of stay have been addressed; and multiple species have been studied by different independent groups of researchers who were largely able to reproduce their findings. Given the numerous confounding factors capable of attenuating or even abolishing the cardioprotective properties of volatile anaesthetics in laboratory investigations, the positive effects found in the majority of clinical trials point to the fact that the cardioprotective effects exerted by volatile anaesthetics are robust and triggered by interactions with several distinct cellular and subcellular targets, thereby providing multiplication and reiteration. The available evidence indicates that volatile anaesthetic agents should be used routinely in clinical practice in order to claim an extra benefit for our patients 'free of charge'. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 28: 620-622 Published online 15 July 2011