A comparative study of ketofol and fentafol for evacuation of retained products of conception (ERPC)

Background: Intravenous balanced anesthesia (IVA) is desirable during the evacuation of retained products of conception (ERPC) to avoid the use of inhalational anesthetics agents that may cause uterus relaxation, the possibility of bleeding, and the risk of uterus perforation. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ketofol (a mixture of propofol and ketamine) versus fentafol (a mixture of propofol and fentanyl) during the ERPC. Methods: A double-blind, randomized comparative study was conducted among a total of 60 women of childbearing age categorized as grades I and II according to the American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA), presented for ERPC. The patients were selected and randomized blindly into two groups (K group and F group), with 30 patients in each group. The K group was given ketofol (1ml containing 5mg of propofol and 5mg of ketamine) and F group was given fentafol (1ml containing 5mg propofol and 5mcg fentanyl). An intravenous loading dose of ketofol or fentafol was given slowly, with doses ranging from 1ml to 2ml/10kg, to reach level 5 or 6 of the Ramsay Scale of Sedation (RSS), followed by small incremental doses which were given when RSS dropped to 4. Hemodynamic parameters, success, and side effects were assessed throughout the procedures. Results: K group demonstrated a significant increase in heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP), compared to significant decreases in the F group. Decreases in oxygen saturation (SpO2) and respiratory rate (RR) were observed more in the F group. However, no patients developed hypertension, hypotension, apnea, hypoxemia or serious adverse effects. Ketofol showed less propofol consumption and a short recovery time. Conclusions: Both ketofol and fentafol offer optimum conditions for ERPC. Ketofol is characterized by more stable hemodynamic parameters, a smaller dosage and faster recovery

Induction of anaesthesia with propofol according to the adjusted ideal body mass in obese and non-obese patients: an observational study

Background: Obesity changes body composition including fat free mass (FFM), regarded as the "pharmacologically active mass". Scaling drug doses to obese patients by total body mass (TBM) results in overdose. We aimed to determine the success rate of inducing anaesthesia in normal, overweight and obese patients with propofol, using an adjusted body mass scalar (ABM), which embodies the increased FFM of obese patients. Methods: Ninety-six patients were divided into three groups according to body mass index (BMI): normal, overweight and obese. Propofol 2 mg/kg ABM was administered according to the equation: ABM = IBM + 0.4(TBM ­ IBM), where IBM = ideal body mass. Induction success was assessed clinically and by electroencephalographic spectral entropy. Results: The groups were similar regarding gender, age, height and IBM. One patient was morbidly obese (BMI = 44). State entropy (SE) decreased to < 60 in 33/33, 28/29 and 33/34 patients in the normal-weight, overweight and obese groups respectively, an overall success rate of 97.5% (95% confidence interval 92.7% to 99.4%). Median lowest achieved SE values and median times that SE remained < 60 did not differ between groups, however the individual values ranged widely in allthree groups. Induction failed in the two patients whose SE did not decrease to < 60 (one overweight and one obese). Conclusions: The ABM-based propofol induction dose has a high success rate in normal, overweight and obese patients. Further studies are required to determine the feasibility among morbidly obese patients

Comparison of dexmedetomidine versus propofol-based anaesthesia for controlled hypotension in functional endoscopic sinus surgery

Background: Increased intraoperative bleeding during functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) affects operative field visibility, which increases both duration of surgery and frequency of complications. Controlled hypotension is an anaesthetic technique in which there is deliberate reduction of systemic blood pressure during anaesthesia. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine against propofol infusion when used for controlled hypotension during FESS. Methods: A randomised, prospective, and single-blinded study was carried out, which included 80 patients of either sex of ASA grade І & ІІ who underwent elective FESS. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: Group A (dexmedetomidine), Group B (propofol). Intraoperative mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), surgical grade of bleeding (based on the Fromme­ Boezzart scale), and amount of bleeding were recorded. Results: Groups were well matched for their demographic data. There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between Group A and Group B in heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and mean total blood loss, with Group A being effectively in controlled on all three parameters during FESS. However, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in terms of surgical grade of bleeding between Group A and Group B. Conclusions: Both dexmedetomidine and propofol infusion are efficacious to facilitate controlled hypotension and haemodynamic stability intraoperatively

Accès d'euphorie au réveil d'une sédation avec le propofol

L'objectif de cette revue était de rapporter les effets hallucinatoires survenus chez un sujet de 30 ans, au réveil d'une sédation au propofol pour endoscopie digestive. Le propofol est un hypnotique intraveineux d'utilisation courante lors des anesthésies pour gestes de courte durée comme les procédures diagnostiques en radiologie et en endoscopie. Le réveil post-anesthésie est qualifié « de très bonne qualité », cependant des effets hallucinatoires et psychodysleptiques ont fait l'objet de quelques écrits dans la littérature. Nous rapportons un cas d'accès d'euphorie post-anesthésique après sédation au propofol pour une endoscopie digestive

A comparison of induction of anaesthesia using two different propofol preparations

ABSTRACT. Background: Investigators have reported inter-patient variability with regard to propofol dosage for induction of anesthesia,since early dose finding studies. With the arrival of generic formulations of propofol, questions have arisen regarding furthervariability in dose requirements. Various studies have confirmed that generic propofol preparations are pharmacokineticallyand pharmacodynamically equivalent to Diprivan®. Nevertheless a number of practitioners are under the impression thatcertain generic propofol preparations require greater doses for induction of anaesthesia than does Diprivan®.Methods: 20 female patients of ASA status I-II, between the ages of 18-55 years, scheduled for routine surgery were randomlyallocated to two groups to undergo induction of anaesthesia using two different propofol formulations; Diprivan® andPropofol 1% Fresenius®. Either preparation was administered using a target-controlled infusion of propofol (STEL-TCI)targeting the plasma (central) compartment at a concentration of 6 µg.ml-1, employing the pharmacokinetic parameters ofMarsh et al. A processed EEG (bispectral index) was continuously recorded. Loss of consciousness (LOC) was regarded asthe moment at which the patient could not keep her eyes open and was confirmed by the absence of an eyelash reflex.At this point propofol administration was discontinued and data were recorded for a further two minutes, before administeringan appropriate opioid and/or nitrous oxide/volatile agent and/or muscle relaxant to maintain anaesthesia. Time to LOCafter start of propofol administration, and the dose of propofol administered during induction were annotated.Results: There were no demographic differences between the groups. There were no differences between the groups withregard to the mean dose for LOC, time to LOC and to the mean BIS values obtained at the following stages: awake, at LOC,at 1 and 2 minutes after LOC as well as the lowest recorded value.Conclusions: Our results confirm that the two propofol formulations that we studied, are pharmacologically equivalent withregard to induction of anaesthesia. Other mechanisms can explain the variability in clinical response to bolus administrationof propofol. The most important is the recirculatory or "front-end" kinetics of propofol in which cardiac output plays a majorrole, as well as the rate of drug administration. Emulsion degradation can also influence dose-response and in this regardit should be noted that the addition of foreign substances such as lignocaine, can result in rapid deterioration of the soya-bean emulsion