ABSTRACT
Introducción: Los procedimientos anestésicos fuera de quirófano se han incrementado. Ahora se añade el reto del manejo del paciente con COVID-19, dentro de estos esta la colonoscopia que debe realizarse bajo sedoanalgesia, no se cuenta con un fármaco ideal por lo que se realizan combinaciones para la seguridad del paciente y personal de salud. Objetivo: Comparar la seguridad de sedoanalgesia con propofol-fentanilo vs propofol-ketamina en pacientes con COVID-19 sometidos a colonoscopia. Material y métodos: Se realizó un estudio experimental, transversal, comparativo con 60 pacientes sometidos a colonoscopia, estos fueron seleccionados por sucesión en 2 grupos: grupo A (propofol-fentanil) y grupo B (propofol-ketamina). Grupo A: fentanil 1 ug/kg y posteriormente propofol a 0,5 a 1,5 mg/kg, y mantenimiento con bolos de propofol a 0,5 mg/kg. Grupo B: se preparó mezcla de propofol-ketamina a proporción de 4:1, en la inducción se utilizó propofol (1mg/kg) y ketamina (0,25mg/kg), mantenimiento propofol (5 mg/kg/h) y ketamina (1,25 mg/kg/h). La información fue recolectada de fuentes primarias, se empleó el programa estadístico SPSS versión 22.0. Resultados: El grupo A tuvo tendencia a la bradicardia e hipotensión, además de mayor depresión respiratoria con una frecuencia de 4 (13,3%) en relación a 1 (3,3%) en el grupo ketofol. Conclusión: el ketofol demostró ser más seguro en comparación a propofol- fentanil para la sedoanalgesia en colonoscopia de pacientes COVID-19.
Introduction: Anesthetic procedures outside the operating room have increased. Now the challenge of managing patients with COVID-19 is included, within these is the colonoscopy that must be performed under sedo-analgesia, there is no an ideal drug so combinations are made for the safety of the patient and the health staff. Objective: To compare the safety of sedo-analgesia with propofol-fentanyl vs propofol-ketamine in patients with COVID-19 undergoing colonoscopy. Material and methods: An experimental, cross-sectional, comparative study was carried out in 60 patients submitted to colonoscopy, these were selected by succession into 2 groups: group A (propofol-fentanyl) and group B (propofol- ketamine). Group A: fentanyl 1 ug/kg and later propofol at 0.5 to 1.5 mg/kg, and maintenance with propofol boluses at 0.5 mg/kg. Group B: a mixture of propofol- ketamine was prepared at a ratio of 4:1, in induction propofol (1 mg/kg) and ketamine (0.25 mg/kg) were used, propofol maintenance (5 mg/kg/h) and ketamine (1.25 mg/ kg/h). The information was collected from primary sources, the statistical program SPSS version 22.0 was used. Results: Group A had a tendency to bradycardia and hypotension, as well as greater respiratory depression with a frequency of 4 (13.3%) in relation to 1 (3.3%) in the ketofol group. Conclusion: Ketofol has shown to be safer compared to propofol-fentanyl for colonoscopy sedo-analgesia in COVID-19 patients.
ABSTRACT
Background: Moderate sedation is required for out-patient transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Our objective was to compare the effect of Ketofol and dexmedetomidine for outpatient procedural sedation in diagnostic TEE with a hypothesis that Ketofol would be as effective as dexmedetomidine. Patients and Methods: Fifty adult patients of age group 18-60 years with atrial septal defect, rheumatic valvular heart disease undergoing diagnostic TEE in the outpatient echocardiography laboratory were randomized into two groups, group D and group KF. GROUP D: Dexmedetomidine infusion -200 μg in 20 ml normal saline. GROUP KF: Ketofol infusion: (ketamine: propofol, 1mg: 3 mg in 20 ml syringe). Loading dose of drug at 1ml/kg/hour IV till Ramsay sedation score (RSS) ≥ 3 achieved followed by maintenance infusion at 0.05 ml/kg/hour till end of procedure. Results: The primary outcome - time to achieve Ramsay sedation score ≥ 3 was significantly lesser with Ketofol as compared to Dexmedetomidine 260[69] seconds vs 460 [137], (p value<0.05).Conclusion: In out-patient setting, ketofol is favourable over dexmedetomidine for sedation regimen for diagnostic TEE as lesser time is taken to achieve optimal sedation with lesser hemodynamic perturbations, post procedure complications and better cardiologist satisfaction.
ABSTRACT
Introducción: La colonoscopia se practica con frecuencia y la sedación consciente es útil para realizarla. Objetivos: Comparar propofol-fentanil en bolo con ketofol en infusión continua para colonoscopia. Método: Se realizó un estudio cuasiexperimental en 150 pacientes divididos en dos grupos. En el grupo propofol-fentanil se realizó inducción con fentanil 1,5-3 µg/kg más propofol 0,5-1,5 mg/kg y mantenimiento con bolos de propofol 0,4-0,5 mg/kg. En el grupo Ketofol se empleó una solución que se obtuvo al asociar 50 mL de propofol (1 por ciento) y 0,5 mL de ketamina (5 por ciento); dosis de carga de 1,1 mg/kg y mantenimiento con infusión continua manual. Se estudiaron variables hemodinámicas y respiratorias, nivel de sedación, satisfacción del paciente y del colonoscopista, tiempo de recuperación y eventos adversos. Resultados: La presión arterial media y la SpO2 mostraron diferencias entre los grupos y en los diferentes momentos, con cifras más bajas en el grupo propofol-fentanil. La frecuencia cardiaca no varió entre los grupos. La satisfacción de pacientes y los técnicos en endoscopias fue alta en ambas estrategias. Los pacientes del grupo propofol-fentanil tuvieron tiempo de recuperación superior (27 min). Menos de la mitad de los pacientes presentaron eventos adversos. El dolor, la insatisfacción y la depresión respiratoria fueron los más frecuentes. Conclusiones: Ketofol resultó superior a la asociación propofol-fentanil con mejor estabilidad hemodinámica y respiratoria, niveles de sedación más estables, satisfacción de pacientes y gastroenterólogos, tiempos de recuperación más breves, eventos adversos escasos y leves(AU)
Introduction: Colonoscopy is performed frequently, for which conscious sedation is useful. Objectives: To compare propofol-fentanyl bolus with ketofol continuous infusion for colonoscopy. Methods: A quasi-experimental study was performed in 150 patients divided into two groups. In the propofol-fentanyl group, induction was performed with fentanyl at doses 1.5-3 µg/kg plus propofol at doses 0.5-1.5 mg/kg and maintenance with propofol boluses at doses 0.4-0.5 mg/kg. In the ketofol group, a solution was used as obtained by associating 50 mL of propofol (1 percent) and 0.5 mL of ketamine (5 percent); loading dose of 1.1 mg/kg and maintenance with manual continuous infusion. Hemodynamic and respiratory variables were studied, together with sedation level, patient and colonoscopy technician satisfaction, recovery time and adverse events. Results: Mean arterial pressure and SpO2 showed differences between groups and at different times, with lower figures in the propofol-fentanyl group. The heart rate did not vary between the groups. Patients and endoscopy technician satisfaction was high in both strategies. Patients in the propofol-fentanyl group had longer recovery time (27 min.). Less than half of the patients presented adverse events. Pain, dissatisfaction and respiratory depression were the most frequent. Conclusions: Ketofol was higher to the propofol-fentanyl association with better hemodynamic and respiratory stability, more stable sedation levels, patient and gastroenterologist satisfaction, shorter recovery times, limited and mild adverse events(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Aged , Propofol/administration & dosage , Fentanyl/administration & dosage , Ketamine/administration & dosage , Colonoscopy/methodsABSTRACT
Background: This prospective study was conducted at Soba and Khartoum hospitals for assessment and evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of the combination of ketamine and propofol in a small doses "ketofol” in the same syringe for deep sedation\ analgesia in minor elective and emergency operations. Methods: Ninety ASA class І & ІІ patients with age ranging from 1 month up to 75 years who underwent minor operations, elective or planned emergency (non-life threatening conditions) were selected. They received ketofol in a dose ranging from 0.5 mg to 0.8 mg per kg per dose given intravenously. Incremental doses were given according to the duration of operation, using Ramsay Scale of Sedation (RSS). Success and side effects were assessed throughout the procedures. Results: Ketofolis a very effective as a sole agent for painful procedures with low incidence of side effects as emergence phenomena, hypoxia and transient apnea. Haemodynamic stability was reported. There was no nausea or vomiting was reported. Supplemental analgesia for increased pain was not required.The procedures included evacuation and curettage (D & C), abscess drainage, debridement, excisional biopsy of breast fibroadenoma, vaginal polypectomy, dressing, reduction & immobilization of fractures. Duration of operation ranged from 15 to 60 minutes. Conclusion: Ketofol is a good and safe option for deep sedation/analgesia for painful minor operations with minimal side effects.
ABSTRACT
EXPERIÊNCIA E OBJETIVOS: Cetamina e propofol são os anestésicos gerais que também exibem efeitos antimicrobianos e promotores do crescimento microbiano, respectivamente. Embora esses agentes sejam frequentemente aplicados em combinação durante o uso clínico, não há dados sobre seu efeito total no crescimento microbiano na administração combinada. Nesse estudo, investigamos o crescimento de alguns microrganismos em uma mistura de cetamina e propofol. MÉTODO: Nesse estudo, utilizamos cepas padronizadas: Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa e Candida albicans. Realizamos uma análise de tempo-crescimento para avaliar as taxas de crescimento microbiano em propofol 1%. A atividade antimicrobiana de cetamina, isoladamente e em propofol, foi estudada pelo método de microdiluição. RESULTADOS: Em propofol, as cepas estudadas cresceram de concentrações de 10³-10(4) ufc/mL para > 10(5) ufc/mL, dentro de 8-16 horas, dependendo do tipo de microrganismo. Foram determinadas a concentração inibitória mínima (CIM) e a concentração bactericida mínima (CBM) (para Candida, concentração fungicida mínima) de cetamina, como se segue (CIM, CBM): E. coli 312,5, 312,5 µg/mL; S.aureus 19,5, 156 µg/mL; P. aeruginosa 312,5, 625 µg/mL; e C. albicans 156, 156 µg/mL. Na mistura cetamina + propofol, cetamina exibiu atividade antimicrobiana para E. coli, P. aeruginosa e C. albicans em CBMs a 1250, 625 e 625 µg/mL, respectivamente. O crescimento de S. aureus não foi inibido nessa mistura (concentração de cetamina = 1250 µg/mL). CONCLUSÃO: Cetamina preservou sua atividade antimicrobiana de maneira dose-dependente contra alguns microrganismos em propofol, que é robusta solução promotora de crescimento microbiano. O uso combinado de cetamina e propofol na aplicação clínica de rotina pode diminuir o risco de infecção causada por contaminação acidental. Entretanto, deve-se ter em mente que cetamina não pode reduzir todas as ameaças patogênicas na mistura com propofol.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ketamine and propofol are the general anesthetics that also have antimicrobial and microbial growth-promoting effects, respectively. Although these agents are frequently applied together during clinical use, there is no data about their total effect on microbial growth when combined. In this study, we investigated some organisms' growth in a ketamine and propofol mixture. METHOD: We used standard strains including Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Candida albicans in this study. Time-growth analysis was performed to assess microbial growth rates in 1% propofol. Antimicrobial activity of ketamine, alone and in propofol was studied with microdilution method. RESULTS: In propofol, studied strains grew from 10³-10(4) cfu/mL to >10(5) cfu/mL concentrations within 8-16 hours depending on the type of organism. Minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) (for candida, minimal fungicidal concentration) of ketamine were determined as follows (MIC, MBC): E.coli 312.5, 312.5 µg/mL; S.aureus 19.5, 156 µg/mL; P.aeruginosa 312.5, 625 µg/mL; and C.albicans 156, 156 µg/ml. In ketamine+propofol mixture, ketamine exhibited antimicrobial activity to E.coli, P.aeruginosa and C.albicans as MBCs at 1250, 625 and 625 µg/mL, respectively. Growth of S. aureus was not inhibited in this mixture (ketamine concentration=1250 µg/mL). CONCLUSION: Ketamine has sustained its antimicrobial activity in a dose-dependent manner against some organisms in propofol, which is a strong microbial growth-promoting solution. Combined use of ketamine and propofol in routine clinical application may reduce the risk of infection caused by accidental contamination. However, one must keep in mind that ketamine cannot reduce all pathogenic threats in propofol mixture.
EXPERIENCIA Y OBJETIVOS: La Cetamina y el propofol son los anestésicos generales que también tienen efectos antimicrobianos y son los promotores del crecimiento microbiano, respectivamente. Aunque esos agentes sean frecuentemente aplicados en combinación durante el uso clínico, no hay datos sobre su efecto total en el crecimiento microbiano en la administración combinada. En ese estudio, investigamos el crecimiento de algunos microrganismos en una mezcla de cetamina y propofol. MÉTODO: En este estudio, utilizamos cepas estandarizadas: Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa y Candida albicans. Realizamos un análisis de tiempo-crecimiento para evaluar las tasas de crecimiento microbiano en el propofol al 1%. La actividad antimicrobiana de cetamina, aisladamente y en propofol, fue estudiada por el método de microdilución. RESULTADOS: En el propofol, las cepas estudiadas crecieron de concentraciones de 10³-10(4) ufc/mL para #> 10(5) ufc/mL, dentro de 8-16 horas, dependiendo del tipo de microrganismo. Fueron determinadas la concentración inhibitoria mínima (CIM) y la concentración bactericida mínima (CBM) (para Candida, concentración fungicida mínima) de cetamina, como vemos (CIM, CBM): E. coli 312,5, 312,5 µg/mL; S.aureus 19,5, 156 µg/mL; P. aeruginosa 312,5, 625 µg/mL; y C. albicans 156, 156 µg/ml. En la mezcla cetamina + propofol, la cetamina mostró una actividad antimicrobiana para E. coli, P. aeruginosa y C. albicans en CBMs a 1250, 625 y 625 µg/mL, respectivamente. El crecimiento de S. aureus no se inhibió en esa mezcla (concentración de cetamina = 1250 µg/mL). CONCLUSIONES: La cetamina preservó su actividad antimicrobiana de manera dosis-dependiente contra algunos microrganismos en propofol, que es una robusta solución que promueve el crecimiento microbiano. El uso combinado de cetamina y propofol en la aplicación clínica de rutina puede disminuir el riesgo de infección causada por la contaminación accidental. Sin embargo, debemos tener presente que la cetamina no puede reducir todas las amenazas patógenas en la mezcla con el propofol.