What topics does this cannabis study cover?

This study covers research on: THC.

Where was this research published?

Published in British journal of anaesthesia on September 29, 2026.

Retrospective study links cannabis use to modestly higher anaesthetic doses

Cannabis use and anaesthetic agent dosing in patients undergoing surgery or interventional procedures: a single-centre retrospective cohort study.

British journal of anaesthesia • September 29, 2026 • Highly Relevant

🤖

AI Summary

This single-centre retrospective cohort study asked whether cannabis use was associated with anaesthetic dosing in 341,199 adults undergoing surgery or interventional procedures from 2008 to 2024. It compared patients identified as non-medical cannabis users or certified medical-cannabinoid users with other patients receiving propofol sedation or volatile-based general anaesthesia.

In adjusted analyses, both cannabis-use groups were associated with higher doses of propofol and volatile anaesthetics; the increases were described as modest and smaller than previously reported. The estimated differences were largest among daily recreational users. At comparable propofol induction doses, non-medical cannabis users also had a slightly greater heart-rate increase after intubation. These are observational associations, not proof that cannabis caused the differences or that they are clinically important. This abstract-based summary cannot establish causation or clinical consequences; the study’s single-centre retrospective design is an important limitation.

💡 Key Findings

In adjusted analyses, non-medical and medical cannabis use were associated with higher propofol doses during monitored anaesthesia care.

Good

70%

Both cannabis-use groups were associated with slightly higher volatile anaesthetic doses during general anaesthesia; the authors characterized the overall dose increases as modest.

Good

70%

Estimated dose differences were strongest among daily recreational users, although the abstract does not establish that cannabis use caused the differences.

Good

65%

At comparable propofol induction doses, non-medical cannabis users had a greater heart-rate increase after tracheal intubation.

Good

65%

📄 Original Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence that habitual cannabis consumption increases anaesthetic requirements. We hypothesised that cannabis use affects anaesthetic dosing among patients undergoing surgery or interventional procedures. METHODS: A total of 341 199 adult patients undergoing propofol sedation or volatile-based general anaesthesia at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, USA, between 2008 and 2024 were included. The primary exposure was cannabis use, differentiated into medical or non-medical use (recreational use or cannabis use disorder). Primary outcomes were propofol dose (μg kg-1 min-1) for monitored anaesthesia care and mean end tidal age-adjusted minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) values for general anaesthesia. In multivariable analyses, we estimated the adjusted difference in mean primary anaesthetic agent dosing. RESULTS: A total of 23 896 patients (7.0%) were identified as non-medical cannabis users, and 3193 (0.9%) held a certification for medical cannabinoids. In adjusted analyses, both non-medical and medical cannabis use were associated with increased propofol doses (non-medical, +6.85 μg kg-1 min-1, 95% CI 6.07-7.63, P<0.001; medical, +2.87 μg kg-1 min-1, 95% CI 0.88-4.86, P=0.005) and doses of volatile anaesthetics (non-medical, +0.01 MAC, 95% CI 0.01-0.02, P<0.001; medical, +0.02 MAC, 95% CI 0.01-0.03, P=0.002). Estimated effects were strongest among frequent users (daily recreational users, +8.41 μg kg-1 min-1 propofol, 95% CI 7.00-9.81, P<0.001). At comparable propofol induction doses, non-medical cannabis users experienced greater heart rate increase after tracheal intubation (+1.45 beats min-1, 95% CI 1.10-1.79, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis use was associated with modestly higher propofol and volatile anaesthetic doses. However, effect sizes were smaller than previously reported, and future studies should investigate the clinical relevance.

Paper Type

📄 Research

Publication

Journal: British journal of anaesthesia
Published: September 29, 2026
PMID: 42810868
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2026.09.001

Authors (15)

Nikolai Ratajczak Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Center for Anesthesia Research Excellence (CARE), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Elena Ahrens Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Center for Anesthesia Research Excellence (CARE), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Luca J Wachtendorf Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Center for Anesthesia Research Excellence (CARE), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Ricardo Munoz-Acuna Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Center for Anesthesia Research Excellence (CARE), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Simone Redaelli Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Center for Anesthesia Research Excellence (CARE), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
+10 more authors