Comparison of Fentanyl, Ketamine, and Lidocaine Combined with Propofol Anesthesia in Patients with Crohn Disease Undergoing Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND Colonoscopy is the predominant invasive procedure for Crohn disease (CD) patients. Opioids and propofol carry risks of respiratory and cardiovascular complications. This study aimed to evaluate whether substituting fentanyl with ketamine or lidocaine could diminish propofol usage and minimize adverse events. MATERIAL AND METHODS In total, 146 patients with CD scheduled for elective colonoscopy were assigned to anesthesia with fentanyl (n=47), ketamine (n=47), or lidocaine (n=55). Propofol was administered to achieve sufficient anesthesia. Measured outcomes in each group included propofol consumption, hypotension and desaturation incidents, adverse event types, consciousness recovery time, abdominal pain intensity, Aldrete scale, and Post Anaesthetic Discharge Scoring System (PADSS). RESULTS Patients administered fentanyl needed significantly more propofol (P=0.017) than those on ketamine, with lidocaine showing no notable difference (P=0.28). Desaturation was significantly less common in the ketamine and lidocaine groups than fentanyl group (P<0.001). The ketamine group experienced milder reductions in mean arterial (P=0.018) and systolic blood pressure (P<0.001). Recovery metrics (Aldrete and PADSS scores) were lower for fentanyl (P<0.001), although satisfaction and pain levels were consistent across all groups (P=0.797). Dizziness occurred less frequently with lidocaine than fentanyl (17.2%, P=0.018) and ketamine (15.1%, P=0.019), while metallic taste incidents were more prevalent in the lidocaine group (13.5%, P=0.04) than fentanyl group. CONCLUSIONS Using ketamine or lidocaine instead of fentanyl in anesthesia for colonoscopy in patients with CD significantly lowers propofol use, reduces desaturation events, maintains blood pressure more effectively, without increasing hypotension risk, and accelerates recovery, without negatively impacting adverse events or patient satisfaction.

Perioperative anaphylactic shock caused by propofol.

Perioperative anaphylaxis is rare and the diagnosis is difficult to distinguish from normal side effects from anaesthesia. Anaesthetists should be able to diagnose anaphylaxis and treat promptly with adrenaline and fluids. Allergy investigation should be performed subsequently. This is a case report of perioperative anaphylaxis to propofol. Propofol contains refined soya oil and egg lecithin, but no connection between allergy to soy, egg or peanut and allergy to propofol has been proven, and international guidelines recommend that propofol can be used in patients with these food allergies.

Postoperative liver injury after sevoflurane or propofol anesthesia in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a retrospective cohort study.

Although sevoflurane is generally considered safe, reports suggest that sevoflurane may cause postoperative liver injury more frequently than previously believed. Therefore, we aimed to compare the incidence of clinically significant postoperative liver injury following non-cardiac surgery between patients who underwent sevoflurane anesthesia and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia. We retrospectively reviewed adult surgical patients from January 2010 to September 2022 who underwent general anesthesia in our center using sevoflurane or propofol over 3 h. After 1:1 propensity score matching, the incidence of postoperative liver injury was compared between the two groups. Out of 58,300 patients reviewed, 44,345 patients were included in the analysis. After propensity score matching, 7767 patients were included in each group. The incidence of postoperative liver injury was 1.4% in the sevoflurane group, which was similar to that in the propofol group (1.6%; p = 0.432). Comparison of the severity of postoperative alanine aminotransferase elevation showed that the incidence of borderline and mild elevation was higher in the sevoflurane group, but there was no difference in the incidence of moderate and severe elevation. In conclusion, sevoflurane anesthesia over 3 h was not associated with a higher incidence of clinically significant postoperative liver injury compared to propofol anesthesia.

Effects of propofol, ketamine-propofol mixture in pediatric dental patients undergoing intravenous sedation: a clinical study.

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effects, complications (peri- and postoperative), depth of sedation, recovery times, and changes in anxiety levels in paediatric dental patients receiving intravenous sedation with propofol and ketamine-propofol mixtures. This prospective clinical study included 69 healthy children (ASA 1) aged 3-7 years. The patients were assigned randomly to propofol group (n = 23), which received propofol; 1:3 ketofol group (n = 23), which received 1:3 ketofol; or 1:4 ketofol group (n = 23), which received 1:4 ketofol. The bispectral index (BIS) and Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score were recorded at intervals of 5 min to measure the depth of sedation, and vital signs were evaluated. Peri- and postoperative complications and recovery times were recorded. Anxiety levels were also evaluated using the Facial Image Scale (FIS) and changes in saliva cortisol levels (SCLs) before and after the intravenous sedation procedure. The Kruskal‒Wallis test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to determine pre- and posttreatment parameters. Dunn's test for post hoc analysis was used to determine the differences among groups. Children's pre- and posttreatment anxiety levels did not differ significantly according to FIS scores, and increases in SCLs were detected in 1:3 ketofol and 1:4 ketofol groups after dental treatment was completed. Compared with those in the other groups, the BIS values of the patients in 1:4 ketofol indicated a slightly lower depth of sedation. The recovery time of the patients in 1:3 ketofol was longer than that of patients in propofol and 1:4 ketofol. The incidence of postoperative complications (agitation, hypersalivation, nausea/vomiting, and diplopia) did not differ among the groups. Ketamine-propofol combinations provided effective sedation similar to that of propofol infusion without any serious complications during dental treatment performed under intravenous sedation. The ketofol infusion increased the anxiety level of paediatric dental patients to a greater extent than the propofol infusion.

Comparison of the genotoxicity of propofol and desflurane using the comet assay in the lymphocytes of patients who underwent lumbar discectomy: A randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the genotoxic effects of desflurane and propofol using comet assay in patients undergoing elective discectomy surgery. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled study. Patients who underwent elective lumbar discectomy under general anesthesia with propofol or desflurane were included in the study. Venous blood samples were obtained at 4 different time points: 5 minutes before anesthesia induction (T1), 2 hours after the start of anesthesia (T2), the first day after surgery (T3), and the fifth day following surgery (T4). Deoxyribonucleic acid damage in lymphocytes was assessed via the comet assay. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients, 15 in each group, were included in the analysis. The groups were similar in terms of age and gender distribution. There were no significant differences in demographics, duration of surgery, total remifentanil consumption, and total rocuronium bromide consumption. The comet assay revealed that head length, head intensity, tail intensity, tail moment at T1 were similar in the desflurane and propofol groups. Head length, tail length and tail moment measured in the desflurane group at T4 were significantly higher compared to the propofol group. Tail lengths of the desflurane group at T1, T2 and T3 were significantly higher than the corresponding values in the propofol group. CONCLUSION: Propofol and desflurane do not appear to induce DNA damage in lymphocytes. However, when the quantitative data were compared, it was determined that propofol had relatively lower genotoxic potential than desflurane.ClinicalTrials.gov Reg. No.: NCT05185167.

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

BACKGROUND: Balanced propofol sedation is extensively used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) are common. In various clinical settings, the combination of dexmedetomidine with opioids and benzodiazepines has provided effective sedation with increased safety. The aim of this investigation was to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during ERCP. METHODS: Forty-one patients were randomly divided into two groups: the dexmedetomidine (DEX) group and the propofol (PRO) group. Patients in the DEX group received an additional bolus of 0.6 µg kg-1 dexmedetomidine followed by a dexmedetomidine infusion at 1.2 µg kg-1 h-1, whereas the PRO group received 1-2 mg kg-1 of propofol bolus followed by a propofol infusion at 2-3 mg kg-1 h-1. During ERCP, the primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90% for > 10 s). Other intraoperative adverse events were also recorded as secondary outcomes, including respiratory depression (respiratory rate of < 10 bpm min-1), hypotension (MAP < 65 mmHg), and bradycardia (HR < 45 beats min-1). RESULTS: The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly reduced in the DEX group compared to the PRO group (0% versus 28.6%, respectively; P = 0.032). Patients in the PRO group exhibited respiratory depression more frequently than patients in the DEX group (35% versus 81%, respectively; P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in terms of hypotension and bradycardia episodes between groups. During the procedures, the satisfaction scores of endoscopists and patients, as well as the pain and procedure memory scores of patients were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: In comparison with propofol, dexmedetomidine provided adequate sedation safety with no adverse effects on sedation efficacy during ERCP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200061468, 25/06/2022.

Characteristics that increase the risk for pain on propofol injection.

BACKGROUND: Propofol for anesthesia has become increasingly popular for endoscopic procedures. However, pain on propofol injection (POPI) remains an issue with administration. The primary endpoint of this study was to identify patient characteristics and factors, such as IV site and gauge, that could predict the occurrence of POPI. METHODS: This was a prospective chart review study of 291 patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. The patient's demographics, intravenous (IV) site, and gauge were extrapolated. POPI was scored 0-3: 0 for no pain, 1 for minimal discomfort or awareness of sensation, 2 for discomfort but manageable/tolerable, and 3 for severe discomfort with writhing. RESULTS: 291 patient charts were reviewed. One patient was excluded for a lower extremity IV site. 225 (77.6%) had no pain, 48 (16.6%) grade 1 pain, 16 (5.5%) grade 2 pain, and 1 (0.3%) grade 3 pain. 137, 13, and 140 patients respectively had antecubital (AC), forearm, and hand IVs. Zero patients with an AC IV experienced a score greater than 1. Compared to AC, forearm IVs with pain of 2-3 had a univariate odds ratio (OR) of 11.3 (0.66,1.92; p-value < 0.001), and hand IVs had a univariate OR of 18.8 (2.46,143.3; p-value < 0.001) with a multivariable OR 15.2 (1.93,118.9; p-value 0.004). Patients with anxiety/depression and pain had a univariate OR 2.31 (1.09, 7.27; p-value 0.031) with a multivariable OR 2.85 (1.06, 7.74; p-value 0.039). SSRI/SNRI use had a univariate OR 1.56 (0.57,4.28; p-value 0.38). Alcohol use had a univariate OR 1.24 (0.39,3.91; p-value 0.71). Narcotic use had a Univariate OR 6.18 (1.49,25.6; p-value 0.012). Diabetic patients had a univariate OR of 1.42 (0.45,4.48; p-value 0.55). Chronic pain had a univariate OR of 3.11 (1.04,9.28; p-value 0.042). Females had a univariate OR 0.98 (0.37,2.63; p-value 0.95). CONCLUSION: This study identified potential characteristics for having POPI. The incidence of POPI was statistically significant in patients with hand and forearm IVs compared to AC IV sites, larger IV gauges, history of depression/anxiety, history of chronic narcotic use, fibromyalgia, and chronic pain syndromes. This shows the potential of premedicating with analgesics or using AC sites on these select patients to help reduce the risk of POPI.

Comparison between propofol and total inhalational anaesthesia on cardiovascular outcomes following on-pump cardiac surgery in higher-risk patients: a randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: Myocardial revascularisation and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) can cause ischaemia-reperfusion injury, leading to myocardial and other end-organ damage. Volatile anaesthetics protect the myocardium in experimental studies. However, there is uncertainty about whether this translates into clinical benefits because of the coadministration of propofol and its detrimental effects, restricting myocardial protective processes. METHODS: In this single-blinded, parallel-group randomised controlled feasibility trial, higher-risk patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery with an additive European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation ≥5 were randomised to receive either propofol or total inhalational anaesthesia as single agents for maintenance of anaesthesia. The primary outcome was the feasibility of recruiting and randomising 50 patients across two cardiac surgical centres, and secondary outcomes included the feasibility of collecting the planned perioperative data, clinically relevant outcomes and assessments of effective patient identification, screening and recruitment. RESULTS: All 50 patients were recruited within 11 months in two centres, allowing for a 13-month hiatus in recruitment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 50/108 (46%) of eligible patients were recruited. One patient withdrew before surgery and one patient did not undergo surgery. All but one completed in-hospital and 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to recruit and randomise higher-risk patients undergoing CABG surgery to a study comparing total inhalational and propofol anaesthesia in a timely manner and with high acceptance and completion rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04039854.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of equivalent doses of remimazolam versus propofol for gastroscopy anesthesia in elderly patients.

Remimazolam, a novel intravenous anesthetic, has been proven to be safe and efficacious in the gastroscopy setting among the elderly. However, reports comparing the effectiveness and safety of using equivalent doses of remimazolam with propofol have not been seen. The aim of this study was to compare the sedation efficacy and safety of the 95% effective doses (ED95) of remimazolam versus propofol combined with sufentanil in the gastroscopy setting among the elderly. In the first step of this two-step study, a modified up-and-down method was used to calculate the ED95 of remimazolam and propofol when combined with 0.1 µg/kg sufentanil in inhibiting body movement of elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy. In the second step, ED95 of both agents calculated in the first step were administered, endpoints of efficacy, safety, and incidence of adverse events were compared. A total of 46 individuals completed the first step. The ED95 of remimazolam was 0.163 mg/kg (95% CI 0.160-0.170 mg/kg), and that of propofol was 1.042 mg/kg (95% CI 1.007-1.112 mg/kg). In the second step, 240 patients completed the trial. The anesthetic effective rates of the remimazolam group and the propofol group were 78% and 83%, respectively, with no statistical difference (P = 0.312). Patients in the remimazolam group had more stable circulatory functions (P < 0.0001) and a lower incidence of pain on injection (3.3% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.0001). The incidence of hypotension was low in the remimazolam versus propofol group (15.6% vs. 39.0%, P < 0.0001). Overall adverse event was low in the remimazolam versus propofol group (21.3% vs. 62.7%, P < 0.0001).In this study, we found that when anesthesia was administered to elderly gastroscopy patients based on 95% effective doses of remimazolam and propofol, remimazolam was as effective as propofol, but was safer with a lower incidence of adverse events.Study registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000034234. Registered 29/06/2020, https://www.chictr.org.cn .

Optimal flow of high-flow nasal cannula oxygenation to prevent desaturation during sedation for bronchoscopy: a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Although high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygenation is currently recommended to prevent desaturation during sedation for bronchoscopy, there is no consensus on an optimal flow rate. OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal oxygen flow rate for HFNC to effectively prevent desaturation during sedation for bronchoscopy. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, and controlled study. METHODS: Patients (n = 240) scheduled for bronchoscopy were randomized to receive HFNC with propofol sedation (fraction of inspired oxygen, 100%) at one of six flow rates of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 L/min, designated as groups 1-6, respectively. RESULTS: The incidence of desaturation significantly decreased by increasing the oxygen flow rate (42.5%, 17.5%, 15%, 10%, 2.5%, and 0% for groups 1-6, respectively, p < 0.0001). The optimal oxygen flow rate for HFNC determined by probit regression to effectively prevent desaturation in 95% of patients was 43.20 (95% confidence interval, 36.43-55.96) L/min. The requirement for airway intervention was significantly decreased by increasing the oxygen flow rate. CONCLUSION: An HFNC flow rate of 50-60 L/min is recommended to prevent desaturation during sedation for bronchoscopy. REGISTRATION: NCT05298319 at ClinicalTrials.gov.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygenation during bronchoscopyMany patients undergo a special test to check their airways for problems. Sometimes, doctors need to take out a small part of the area that's causing trouble to find out what's wrong. But during this test, some patients can struggle to get enough oxygen, which can even be life-threatening. To help with this, there's a device called a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). It gives patients adjustable amounts of oxygen, like a gentle breeze into their nose. But doctors weren't sure how much oxygen was best during this test. So, we studied 240 patients using HFNC at different oxygen levels­like slow, medium, and fast flows. We found that the higher the oxygen flow, the less likely patients were to have oxygen problems. For example, at the lowest flow (10 liters per minute), about 42.5% of patients had oxygen trouble, but at the highest flow (60 liters per minute), none did. And we figured out that a flow rate around 43.2 liters per minute would prevent 95% patients from having oxygen problems. So, we recommend using a flow rate between 50 and 60 liters per minute during this test to keep patients safe from oxygen issues.

The efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in patients undergoing colonoscopy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Propofol is a commonly utilized anesthetic for painless colonoscopy, but its usage is occasionally limited due to its potential side effects, including cardiopulmonary suppression and injection pain. To address this limitation, the novel compound ciprofol has been proposed as a possible alternative for propofol. This study sought to determine whether there are any differences in the safety and efficacy of propofol and ciprofol for painless colonoscopy. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Single-centre, class A tertiary hospital, November 2021 to November 2022. PATIENTS: Adult, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I to II and body mass index of 18 to 30 kg m-2 patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Consecutive patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive sedation for colonoscopy with ciprofol (group C) or propofol (group P). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the success rate of colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes were onset time of sedation, operation time, recovery time and discharge time, patients and endoscopists satisfaction, side effects (e.g. injection pain, myoclonus, drowsiness, dizziness, procedure recall, nausea and vomiting) and incidence rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the success rate of colonoscopy between the two groups (ciprofol 96.3% vs. propofol 97.6%; mean difference - 1.2%, 95% CI: -6.5% to 4.0%, P = 0.650). However, group C showed prolonged sedation (63.4 vs. 54.8 s, P < 0.001) and fully alert times (9 vs 8 min, P = 0.013), as well as reduced incidences of injection pain (0 vs. 40.2%, P < 0.001), respiratory depression (2.4% vs. 13.4%, P = 0.021) and hypotension (65.9% vs. 80.5%, P = 0.034). Patients satisfaction was also higher in Group C (10 vs 9, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ciprofol can be used independently for colonoscopy. When comparing the sedation efficacy of ciprofol and propofol, a 0.4 mg kg-1 dose of ciprofol proved to be equal to a 2.0 mg kg-1 dose of propofol, with fewer side effects and greater patient satisfaction during the procedure.

Dexmedetomidine Pretreatment Confers Myocardial Protection and Reduces Mechanical Ventilation Duration for Patients Undergoing Cardiac Valve Replacement under Cardiopulmonary Bypass.

PURPOSE: The study aims to assess the effects of dexmedetomidine (Dex) pretreatment on patients during cardiac valve replacement under cardiopulmonary bypass. METHODS: For patients in the Dex group (n = 52), 0.5 µg/kg Dex was given before anesthesia induction, followed by 0.5 µg/kg/h pumping injection before aortic occlusion. For patients in the control group (n = 52), 0.125 ml/kg normal saline was given instead of Dex. RESULTS: The patients in the Dex group had longer time to first dose of rescue propofol than the control group (P = 0.003). The Dex group required less total dosage of propofol than the control group (P = 0.0001). The levels of cardiac troponin I (cTnI), creatine kinase isoenzyme MB (CK-MB), malondialdehyde (MDA), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were lower in the Dex group than the control group at T4, 8 h after the operation (T5), and 24 h after the operation (T6) (P <0.01). The Dex group required less time for mechanical ventilation than the control group (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The study suggests that 0.50 µg/kg Dex pretreatment could reduce propofol use and the duration of mechanical ventilation, and confer myocardial protection without increased adverse events during cardiac valve replacement.

Dexmedetomidine for Preventing Sleep Disturbance after Ambulatory Anesthesia: A Case Report.

Propofol anesthesia may impact a patient's sleep quality in the immediate postprocedure timeframe. We describe a 24-year-old man presenting for gastrostomy-jejunostomy tube replacement who reported debilitating sleep-onset disturbances after 3 previous anesthetic exposures for the same procedure. Review of the patient's records revealed the recurring use of propofol infusion. We proposed using dexmedetomidine infusion to potentially avoid another extended sleep disturbance. Following a dexmedetomidine-centered plan, the patient reported experiencing his usual sleep pattern without side-effects for 5 consecutive days postprocedure. This case highlights the potential for propofol-induced sleep disturbance in the ambulatory setting, which may be avoided with dexmedetomidine administration.

Safety and efficacy of a low-dose combination of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol for deep sedation of elderly patients undergoing ERCP.

BACKGROUND: Proper sedation of patients, particularly elderly individuals, who are more susceptible to sedation-related complications, is of significant importance in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of a low-dose combination of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol for deep sedation in elderly patients undergoing ERCP, compared to a group of middle-aged patients. METHODS: The medical records of 610 patients with common bile duct stones who underwent elective ERCP under deep sedation with a three-drug regimen, including midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol at Shandong Provincial Third Hospital from January 2023 to September 2023 were retrospectively reviewed in this study. Patients were categorized into three groups: middle-aged (50-64 years, n = 202), elderly (65-79 years, n = 216), and very elderly (≥ 80 years, n = 192). Intraoperative vital signs and complications were compared among these groups. RESULTS: The three groups showed no significant difference in terms of intraoperative variation of systolic blood pressure (P = 0.291), diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.737), heart rate (P = 0.107), peripheral oxygen saturation (P = 0.188), bispectral index (P = 0.158), and the occurrence of sedation-related adverse events including hypotension (P = 0.170) and hypoxemia (P = 0.423). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that a low-dose three-drug regimen consisting of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol seems safe and effective for deep sedation of elderly and very elderly patients undergoing ERCP procedures. However, further studies are required to verify these findings and clarify the benefits and risks of this method.

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for anesthesia induction in adult patients received elective surgeries: a meta­analysis.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is use widely used in anesthesia, known for its effectiveness, may lead to cardiopulmonary issues in some patients. Ciprofol has emerged as a possible alternative to propofol because it can achieve comparable effects to propofol while causing fewer adverse events at lower doses. However, no definitive conclusion has been reached yet. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol in adult patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anesthesia. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) to identify potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing ciprofol with propofol in general anesthesia until September 30, 2023. The efficacy outcomes encompassed induction success rate, time to onset of successful induction, time to disappearance of eyelash reflex, and overall estimate means in Bispectral Index (BIS). Safety outcomes were assessed through time to full alertness, incidence of hypotension, incidence of arrhythmia, and incidence of injection-site pain. Continuous variables were expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), and dichotomous variables were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 and STATA 14.0. The quality of the evidence was rated through the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS: A total of 712 patients from 6 RCTs were analyzed. Meta-analysis suggested that ciprofol was equivalent to propofol in terms of successful induction rate, time to onset of successful induction, time to disappearance of eyelash reflex, time to full alertness, and incidence of arrhythmia, while ciprofol was better than propofol in overall estimated mean in BIS (MD: -3.79, 95% CI: -4.57 to -3.01, p < 0.001), incidence of hypotension (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.94, p = 0.02), and incidence of injection-site pain (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.47, p < 0.001). All results were supported by moderate to high evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Ciprofol may be a promising alternative to propofol because it facilitates achieving a satisfactory anesthesia depth and results in fewer hypotension and injection-site pain. However, we still recommend conducting more studies with large-scale studies to validate our findings because only limited data were accumulated in this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023479767.

Effect of Remimazolam- versus Propofol-Based Total Intravenous General Anesthesia on Intraoperative Hemodynamic Stability for Major Spine Surgery in the Prone Position: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background and Objectives: Remimazolam offers advantages over propofol in terms of hemodynamic stability. However, it remains unclear whether remimazolam-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) can reduce intraoperative hypotension compared to propofol-based TIVA, especially after prone positioning. In this study, we compared the effects of remimazolam- and propofol-based TIVA on intraoperative hemodynamic stability in patients undergoing surgery in the prone position. Materials and Methods: This study randomly assigned patients undergoing major spinal surgery in the prone position to the propofol or remimazolam group. Target-controlled infusion (2-3.5 µg/mL for induction and 2-3 µg/mL for maintenance) was used in the propofol group and continuous infusion (6 mg/kg/h for induction and 1-2 mg/kg/h for maintenance) was used in the remimazolam group; target-controlled infusion (3-5 ng/mL) of remifentanil was performed in both groups. The primary outcomes were the incidence of hypotensive episodes during the first hour after prone positioning. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of severe hypotension and the total amount of inotropic or vasopressor medication. Systolic and mean arterial pressure, heart rate, cardiac index and output, stroke volume, stroke volume variation, and pleth variability index were also evaluated. These variables were recorded per minute for the first 10 min after prone positioning, and every 10 min thereafter. Results: The study enrolled 94 patients (47 patients in each group). The incidence of hypotension or severe hypotension did not differ significantly between the two groups during the first hour after prone positioning. The total amount of ephedrine administered during the first hour after prone positioning was lesser (p = 0.020) and the mean arterial pressure during the initial 10 min after prone positioning was higher in the remimazolam group (p = 0.003). Conclusions: Our study uncovered no significant differences in the incidence of hypotension between remimazolam- and propofol-based TIVA in patients undergoing major spine surgery in prone position.

Adverse Drug Events Observed with the Newly Approved Remimazolam in Comparison to Propofol for General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Surgery: A Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Developments in anesthetic pharmacology have been aiming at minimizing physiological disturbance in addition to maintaining and improving titrateability, recovery profile, and patient experience. Remimazolam, a GABAAlpha receptor agonist, is a new intravenous anesthetic agent which has recently been approved for use. This analysis aimed to systematically compare the adverse drug events reported with the newly approved remimazolam in comparison to propofol for general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing surgery. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from 15 May to 20 December 2023 for relevant publications which compared the outcomes reported with the newly approved remimazolam versus propofol in patients undergoing surgery. Relevant reported adverse drug events were the endpoints of this study. The statistical analysis was carried out using the latest version of the RevMan software. Data analysis was represented by risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Sixteen studies with a total number of 1897 participants were included in this analysis; 1104 participants received remimazolam and 793 participants received propofol. The risks for hypotension (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.43-0.58; P = 0.00001), hypoxemia (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-0.99; P = 0.05), bradycardia (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36-0.78; P = 0.001), pain at injection site (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.56; P = 0.01), and total adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24-0.47; P = 0.00001) were significantly lower with remimazolam. However, no significant differences were observed in terms of postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66-1.46; P = 0.93), dizziness (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11-1.57; P = 0.20), psychiatric symptoms (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.45-2.67; P = 0.85), and respiratory depression (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.24-2.76; P = 0.74). CONCLUSION: Our current analysis showed that the newly approved remimazolam was apparently associated with significantly fewer adverse drug events in comparison to propofol for GA in patients undergoing surgery. Therefore, this new drug should be further studied and more research with larger population sizes should be carried out to confirm this hypothesis.

Fospropofol disodium versus propofol for long-term sedation during invasive mechanical ventilation: A pilot randomized clinical trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Fospropofol disodium is a propofol prodrug that is water-soluble and has a reduced risk of bacterial contamination and hypertriglyceridemia compared with propofol. Prior to implementing a large randomized trial, we investigated the feasibility, initial efficacy, and safety of fospropofol disodium compared with propofol in long-term mild-to-moderate sedation in intensive care units (ICUs). DESIGN: Single-centered, prospective, unblind, randomized, parallel-group clinical trial. SETTING: The general ICU of university-affiliated teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Adult patients (n = 60) expected to have mechanical ventilation for >24 h were enrolled and randomly assigned to the fospropofol or propofol group. INTERVENTIONS: The fospropofol group received continuous fospropofol disodium infusions and the propofol group received continuous propofol infusions. The sedation goal was a score of -3 to 0 on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the percentage of time spent in the target sedation range without rescue sedation. Safety outcomes were based on adverse events. Blood samples were collected to measure formate concentration in plasma. MAIN RESULTS: The median dose was 4.33 (IQR, 3.08-4.94) mg/kg/h in the fospropofol group and 1.96 (IQR, 1.44-2.94) mg/kg/h in the propofol group. The median percentage of time spent in the target RASS range without rescue sedation was identical in both groups, with 83.33% (IQR, 74.43%-100.00%) in the fospropofol group and 83.33% (IQR, 77.45%-100.00%) in the propofol group (p = 0.887). At least one adverse event was identifed in 23 (76.7%) fospropofol patients and 27 (90.0%) propofol patients. The most common adverse events were tachycardia and hypotension. No paresthesia, catheter-related bloodstream infection or propofol infusion syndrome in both groups was reported. Three patients in the fospropofol group had mild hypertriglyceridemia, and nine patients in propofol group had hypertriglyceridemia (mild in eight patients and moderate in one patient) (10% versus 30%, p = 0.104). The formate concentration in plasma was very low, and no significant difference was identified at any time point between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Fospropofol disodium appears to be a feasible, effective and safe sedative for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation with long-term sedation.

Neuropsychological follow-up of isoflurane sedated intensive care patients: a substudy of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled sedation of intensive care unit (ICU) patients ventilated >24 hours may have long term effects. We hypothesized that isoflurane has a better neuropsychological outcome in a one-year follow-up compared to propofol sedation. METHODS: All 66 patients included by the coordinating center of the ISOCONDA study (EudraCT#: 2016-004551-67) took part in this substudy (DRKS00020240). A delirium test (CAM-ICU) was performed 24 hours after end of sedation. Sedation-, ventilator-, ICU- and delirium-free days within 30 days were calculated. Patients were sent five questionnaires one, three and twelve months after ICU discharge: ICU-Memory-tool (ICU-MT), Short-Form-36-Health-survey (SF-36), Posttraumatic-Stress-Scale-14 (PTSS-14), WHO-Five-Well-Being-Index (WHO-5) and Hospital-Anxiety-Depression-Scale (HADS). RESULTS: CAM-ICU was positive in 17% of patients, however 68% showed signs of delirium during the ICU stay (no group differences). Mortality was lower after isoflurane (30-days: 1/33 versus 7/33, P=0.024; One-year: 9/33 versus 14/33, P=0.156). Isoflurane led to significantly more sedation- (median [IQR]: 28[25-29] versus 24[21-29], P=0.016), ventilator- (28[24-29] versus 22[4-28], P=0.011), ICU- (23[13-26] versus 11[0-25], P=0.044) and delirium-free days (25[21-29] versus 20[12-28], P=0.031). Return rate of questionnaires was high (87/128). In the ICU-MT, isoflurane patients recalled significantly more factual memories after one year. Generally, the psychological tests suggested a poor quality of life (SF-36), high rates of post-traumatic-stress-disorder (PTSS-14: 38%) and depression (WHO-5: 54%, HADS: 43%), without significant group differences. CONCLUSIONS: Isoflurane sedation leads to more delirium free days during the ICU treatment and more factual memories of the ICU stay one year after the ICU stay. However long-term outcome of ventilated ICU patients is poor, and there were no differences between isoflurane and propofol sedation.