Etomidate Combined with Propofol versus Remimazolam for Sedation in Elderly Patients During Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial.

Purpose: Remimazolam is a novel short-acting benzodiazepine used for sedation and general anesthesia. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate in elderly patients who underwent diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients and Methods: A total of 120 patients aged 60-75 years were randomly allocated to one of two groups. Remifentanil 0.3µg/kg was used for analgesia. Patients were administered remimazolam besylate 7 mg (R group) or etomidate 0.1 mg/kg combined with 1% propofol 0.5 mg/kg (EP group) for induction, supplemental repeated doses were given as needed. Some time metrics, vital signs, adverse events were evaluated. Patients' Mini-cog score and recovery questionnaires were compared. Results: Compared to the EP group, the induction time was slightly longer in the R group (1.50 VS 1.15 minutes) (P<0.05), the time spent in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) was shorter (15.17 VS 17.40 minutes) (P<0.05). Compare with EP group, SBP was lower in R group at T15 and T25 time point, but heart rate was higher in T2, T3, T5 (P< 0.05). The Mini-Cog score was higher after the procedure (2.83 VS 2.58) (P<0.05). The incidence of respiratory adverse events was higher in the EP group than R group (18.3% VS 5.0%, P < 0.05). The most common adverse event in R group was hiccups. The sedation satisfaction rate and degree of amnesia were higher in the R group (66.7% VS 11.7%) (P < 0.05), and the effect on patient's life within 24 hours was lower (12.0% VS 30.5%) (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The safety and efficacy of remimazolam besylate are not inferior to those of etomidate combined with propofol, rendering it a safe option for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy in ASA I-II elderly patients, but care should be taken to monitor the occurrence of hiccups.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in sedating patients in the operating room and outside the operating room: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: As a new type of intravenous anesthetic, ciprofol has the advantages of fast onset of action, fast recovery and high clearance rate. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of ciprofol versus traditional propofol for anesthesia and sedation in and out of the operating room. METHODS: We searched the literature in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases from January 2021 to December 2023. All clinical studies comparing the sedative effects of propofol and ciprofol, both inside and outside the operating room, were included in our trial. The main outcome measures were induction time and incidence of injection-site pain. Data are merged using risk ratio and standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval. Subgroup analysis, meta-regression, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were performed. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023447747). RESULTS: A total of 15 randomized, controlled trials involving 2002 patients were included in this study. Compared with propofol, ciprofol has a longer induction time in the operating room but a shorter induction time in non-operating room settings. Ciprofol can effectively reduce the risk of injection-site pain and respiratory depression both inside and outside the operating room. In addition, the risk of drug-related hypotension induced with ciprofol in the operating room is lower, but the awakening time is also longer. Meta-regression analysis showed that neither age nor BMI were potential sources of heterogeneity. Funnel plot, egger and begg tests showed no significant publication bias. Sensitivity analyzes indicate that our results are robust and reliable. CONCLUSION: Ciprofol has absolute advantages in reducing the risk of injection-site pain and respiratory depression, both in and outside operating room. Intraoperative use of ciprofol reduces the risk of drug-related hypotension and may also reduce the risk of intraoperative physical movements. However, ciprofol may have longer induction and awakening time than propofol.

Safety of propofol-assisted deep extubation in the dental treatment of children-a retrospective, observational study.

PURPOSE: Awake extubation and deep extubation are commonly used anesthesia techniques. In this study, the safety of propofol-assisted deep extubation in the dental treatment of children was assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Children with severe caries who received dental treatment under general anesthesia and deep extubation between January 2017 and June 2023 were included in this study. Data were collected on the following variables: details and time of anesthesia, perioperative vital signs, and incidence of postoperative complications. The incidence of laryngeal spasm (LS) was considered to be the primary observation indicator. RESULTS: The perioperative data obtained from 195 children undergoing dental treatment was reviewed. The median age was 4.2 years (range: 2.3 to 9.6 years), and the average duration of anesthesia was 2.56 h (range 1 to 4.5 h). During intubation with a videoscope, purulent mucus was found in the pharyngeal cavity of seven children (3.6%); LS occurred in five of them (2.6%), and one child developed a fever (T = 37.8 °C) after discharge. Five children (2.6%) experienced emergence agitation (EA) in the recovery room. Also, 13 children (6.7%) experienced epistaxis; 10 had a mild experience and three had a moderate experience. No cases of airway obstruction (AO) and hypoxemia were recorded. The time to open eyes (TOE) was 16.3 ± 7.2 min. The incidence rate of complications was 23/195 (11.8%). Emergency tracheal reintubation was not required. Patients with mild upper respiratory tract infections showed a significantly higher incidence of complications (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Propofol-assisted deep extubation is a suitable technique that can be used for pediatric patients who exhibited non-cooperation in the outpatient setting. Epistaxis represents the most frequently encountered complication. Preoperative upper respiratory tract infection significantly increases the risk of complications. The occurrence of EA was notably lower than reported in other studies.

Study on the preventive effect of dexmedetomidine on anesthetic associated sleep disturbance in young to middle-aged female patients undergoing hysteroscopy: a study protocol for a crossover randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative sleep disturbance has a potentially detrimental effect on postoperative recovery. Perioperative patients are affected by several factors. General anesthesia induces a non-physiological state that does not resemble natural sleep. Exposure to propofol/sevoflurane can lead to desynchronization of the circadian rhythm, which may result in postoperative sleep disturbance characterized by mid-cycle advancement of sleep and daytime sleepiness. Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective α2-adrenoceptor agonist with a unique sedative effect that facilitates the transition from sleep to wakefulness. Basic research has shown that dexmedetomidine induces deep sedation, similar to physical sleep, and helps maintain forebrain connectivity, which is likely to reduce delirium after surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of exposure to the mono-anesthetic propofol on the development of postoperative sleep disturbance in young and middle-aged female patients undergoing hysteroscopy and whether prophylactic administration of dexmedetomidine influences reducing postoperative sleep disturbance. METHODS: This prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) will include 150 patients undergoing hysteroscopy at the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University. Participants will be randomly assigned to three groups in a 1:1:1 ratio. The dexmedetomidine group will have two subgroups and will receive a nasal spray of 0.2 µg/kg or 0.5 µg/kg 25 min before surgery, while the control group will receive a saline nasal spray. Three groups will undergo hysteroscopy with propofol-based TIVA according to the same scheme. Sleep quality will be measured using a wearable device and double-blind sleep assessments will be performed before surgery and 1, 3, and 7 days after surgery. SPSS 2.0 is used for statistical analysis. A χ2 test is used to compare groups, and t-test is used to determine statistical the significance of continuous variables. DISCUSSION: The purpose of this study is to investigate the incidence of propofol-associated sleep disorders and to test a combination of dexmedetomidine anesthesia regimen for the prevention of postoperative sleep disorders. This study will help to improve patients' postoperative satisfaction and provide a new strategy for comfortable perioperative medical treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06281561. Registered on February 24, 2024.

Comparing different postoperative sedation strategies for patients in the intensive care unit after cardiac surgery: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Various postoperative sedation protocols with different anaesthetics lead to profound effects on the outcomes for post-cardiac surgery patients. However, a comprehensive analysis of optimal postoperative sedation strategies for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) after cardiac surgery is lacking. METHODS: We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in databases including PubMed and Embase. The primary outcome measured the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) in the ICU, and the secondary outcome encompassed the length of stay (LOS) in the ICU and hospital and the monitoring adverse events. RESULTS: The literature included 18 RCTs (1652 patients) with 13 sedation regimens. Dexmedetomidine plus ketamine and sevoflurane were associated with a significantly reduced duration of MV when compared with propofol. Our results also suggested that dexmedetomidine plus ketamine may associated with a shorter LOS in ICU, and sevoflurane associated with a shorter LOS in the hospital, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine seems to be a better option for adult patients needing sedation after cardiac surgery, and the incidence of side effects is lower with dexmedetomidine. These findings have potential implications for medication management in the perioperative pharmacotherapy of cardiac surgery patients.

Effects of different anesthetic regimens on postoperative cognitive function of elderly patients undergoing thoracic surgery: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a serious surgical complication. We assessed the different POCD incidences between anesthesia using sevoflurane and sevoflurane combined with dexmedetomidine, with propofol-based sedation in elderly patients who underwent a thoracic surgical procedure. METHODS: A total of 90 patients aged 65 to 80 years old who underwent a thoracic surgical procedure at our hospital and 15 nonsurgical participants as controls, were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided in a randomized 1:1:1 ratio into 3 groups. All participants were randomized into a trial with three anesthesia groups (P, PS, PSD) or a control group (C) of healthy matches. All trial groups received distinct anesthetic combinations during surgery, while controls mirrored patient criteria.Group P (propofol and remifentanil were maintained during the surgery), Group PS (propofol, remifentanil, and sevoflurane were maintained during the surgery), and Group PSD (propofol, remifentanil, sevoflurane, and dexmedetomidine were maintained during the surgery).All participants were rated using a series of cognitive assessment scales before and three days after surgery. All participants were interviewed over the telephone, 7 days, 30 days, and 90 days postoperatively. RESULTS: POCD incidences in the PSD (combined anesthetization with propofol, sevoflurane, and dexmedetomidine) group was significantly lower than that in the PS (combined anesthetization with propofol and sevoflurane) group, 1 day post-surgery (10.0% vs. 40.0%, P = 0.008), and the results were consistent at 3 days post-surgery. When the patients were assessed 7 days, 30 days, and 90 days postoperatively, there was no significant difference in POCD incidence among the three groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of POCD one day after surgery showed that education level was negatively correlated with incidence of POCD (P = 0.018) and single lung ventilation time was positively correlated with incidence of POCD (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: For elderly patients who underwent a thoracic surgical procedure, dexmedetomidine sedation shows an obvious advantage on improving short-term POCD incidence, which is caused by sevoflurane.

Comparison of hypotension incidence between remimazolam and propofol in patients with hypertension undergoing neurosurgery: prospective, randomized, single-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Remimazolam, a newer benzodiazepine that targets the GABAA receptor, is thought to allow more stable blood pressure management during anesthesia induction. In contrast, propofol is associated with vasodilatory effects and an increased risk of hypotension, particularly in patients with comorbidities. This study aimed to identify medications that can maintain stable vital signs throughout the induction phase. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, two-group, randomized controlled trial to investigate and compare the incidence of hypotension between remimazolam- and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). We selected patients aged between 19 and 75 years scheduled for neurosurgery under general anesthesia, who were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I-III and had a history of hypertension. RESULTS: We included 94 patients in the final analysis. The incidence of hypotension was higher in the propofol group (91.3%) than in the remimazolam group (85.4%; P = 0.057). There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypotension among the various antihypertensive medications despite the majority of patients being on multiple medications. In comparison with the propofol group, the remimazolam group demonstrated a higher heart rate immediately after intubation. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicated that the hypotension incidence of remimazolam-based TIVA was comparable to that of propofol-based TIVA throughout the induction phase of EEG-guided anesthesia. Both remimazolam and propofol may be equally suitable for general anesthesia in patients undergoing neurosurgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05164146).

Effect of volatile versus propofol anaesthesia on major complications and mortality after cardiac surgery: a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of volatile anaesthesia and total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) in terms of patient outcomes after cardiac surgery remains a topic of debate. METHODS: Multicentre randomised trial in 16 tertiary hospitals in China. Adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive volatile anaesthesia (sevoflurane or desflurane) or propofol-based TIVA. The primary outcome was a composite of predefined major complications during hospitalisation and mortality 30 days after surgery. RESULTS: Of the 3123 randomised patients, 3083 (98.7%; mean age 55 yr; 1419 [46.0%] women) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The composite primary outcome was met by a similar number of patients in both groups (volatile group: 517 of 1531 (33.8%) patients vs TIVA group: 515 of 1552 (33.2%) patients; relative risk 1.02 [0.92-1.12]; P=0.76; adjusted odds ratio 1.05 [0.90-1.22]; P=0.57). Secondary outcomes including 6-month and 1-yr mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU and hospital stay, and healthcare costs, were also similar for the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults undergoing cardiac surgery, we found no difference in the clinical effectiveness of volatile anaesthesia and propofol-based TIVA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-IOR-17013578).

Remimazolam: its clinical pharmacology and evolving role in anesthesia and sedation practice.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Remimazolam is a novel benzodiazepine anesthetic/sedative, designed as a rapidly metabolized carboxylic acid. Since its recent launch, the role of remimazolam in modern anesthesia and sedation practice is still evolving. This review aims to outline the clinical pharmacology and clinical utility of remimazolam to elucidate its potential advantages and limitations. RECENT FINDINGS: Remimazolam is "short-acting" but not ultra-short-acting compared with propofol based on context-sensitive decrement times. But compared to propofol, the availability of the benzodiazepine antagonist, flumazenil, is considered an advantage, particularly in certain emergency situations such as in patients with difficult airways. However, because flumazenil is shorter acting than remimazolam when remimazolam accumulates or is present in a high concentration, the reappearance of remimazolam sedation may occur after the initial reversal of anesthesia/sedation from flumazenil administration. Although it is beneficial that remimazolam causes less respiratory depression and hypotension than propofol, serious respiratory depression and hypotension can still occur. Remimazolam administration causes minimal or no pain on injection. Remimazolam is associated with less postoperative nausea and vomiting than inhaled anesthetics, but propofol is clearly superior in this regard. The anesthetic/sedative effects may be prolonged by severe hepatic impairment; remimazolam tolerance can occur in long-term benzodiazepine users. SUMMARY: Remimazolam may be beneficial to use in procedural sedation and general anesthesia for patients with difficult airways or hemodynamic instability. Further clinical studies with remimazolam are warranted to identify the potential benefits in other settings and patient populations.

Why sedative hypnotics often fail in development.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Drug development to support anaesthesia and sedation has been slow with few candidates emerging from preclinical discovery and limited innovation beyond attempted reformulation of existing compounds. RECENT FINDINGS: The market is well supported by low-cost generic products and development compounds have not been shown to improve patient outcomes or possess other distinctive characteristics to justify the cost of development. SUMMARY: To make progress in a large-volume, low margin and highly competitive environment requires meaningful advances in relevant basic science. Opportunities exist, but probably require bolder initiatives than further attempts at reformulation or fiddling with the structure of propofol. Extending development ambitions to include nonanaesthesiologist providers challenges professional boundaries but may facilitate cost-effective changes in patterns of care.

Remifentanil-induced hyperalgesia: the current state of affairs.

Remifentanil-induced hyperalgesia (RIH) is a part of a general opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH) syndrome, seemingly resulting from abrupt cessation of continuous remifentanil infusion at rates equal or exceeding 0.3 mcg/kg/min. The intricate mechanisms of its development are still not completely understood. However, hyperactivation of the N -methyl d -aspartate receptor system, descending spinal facilitation and increased concentration of dynorphin (a κ-opioid ligand) are commonly proposed as possible mechanisms. Several ways of prevention and management have been suggested, such as slow withdrawal of remifentanil infusion, the addition of propofol, pretreatment with or concomitant administration of ketamine, buprenorphine, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (NSAIDs), methadone, dexmedetomidine. In clinical and animal studies, these strategies exhibited varying success, and many are still being investigated.

Prospective Pilot Study: Tolerability of Outpatient Penile Plication Under Nursing-Administered Conscious Sedation vs Anesthesiologist-Administered Deep Sedation.

INTRODUCTION: Penile plication is commonly performed for Peyronie's disease under general or spinal anesthesia. Conscious sedation (CS) offers decreased anesthetic risks, cost-effectiveness, and the ability to perform the procedure in outpatient settings with shorter wait times. We sought to compare tolerability of penile plication under deep intravenous sedation (DIS) administered by anesthesiologists and nursing-administered CS (NACS). METHODS: Tolerability for penile plication was prospectively evaluated, excluding revision surgeries and those with hourglass or hinge deformities. DIS included midazolam and ketamine with infusion of propofol and remifentanil. NACS consisted of midazolam and fentanyl. Baseline characteristics, procedural information, and patient- and surgeon-reported pain assessments were collected. Patients were administered a standardized tolerability questionnaire on follow-up. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled (23 DIS; 17 NACS) with similar baseline characteristics. Median curvature of the DIS cohort was 55° (interquartile range = 43.75-76.25) and 45° (interquartile range = 45-60) in NACS. There was a 100% success rate with no procedure abortion or conversion to general anesthetic. On follow-up, all patients had functional curvature (<20°), and 100% of patients in the DIS and NACS cohorts reported that they would recommend CS to others. Over 93% of patients in both cohorts would choose CS over general anesthetic in the future, with no differences in perioperative and postoperative pain between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Penile plication with CS, whether administered by an anesthesiologist or nursing, is well tolerated with no differences in pain or complications. This indicates that outpatient penile plication with trained nursing staff administering CS can safely reduce costs, risks, and wait times.

Serotonin Syndrome After Prolonged Remifentanil and Propofol Infusion for Craniotomy: A Case Report.

Serotonin syndrome (SS) is a life-threatening condition caused by serotonergic medications. We describe a unique case of SS likely caused by prolonged exposure to propofol and remifentanil alone. A young male presented for vestibular schwannoma resection. Several hours into the case, the patient demonstrated hyperthermia and hemodynamic instability, followed by clonus, rigidity, shivering, and tachycardia after emergence. SS was diagnosed using Hunter's criteria and improved with supportive measures. While the patient endorsed a history of methamphetamine use, his urine drug screen was negative. The possibility of SS should be considered when administering propofol and remifentanil, particularly with prolonged infusions.

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.

The EC50 of propofol with different doses of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the dose-response relationship between dexmedetomidine and propofol in sedating patients and to determine the optimal dosage of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: One hundred fifty patients were divided into 5 groups, each receiving a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 µg/kg) or saline, with propofol for sedation. The median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol was calculated using the modified Dixon up-and-down approach. Adverse effects, vital signs, procedure, and recovery times were recorded. RESULTS: The EC50 of propofol in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, D0.8, and D1.0 were 3.02, 2.44, 1.97, 1.85, and 1.83 µg/mL, respectively. Heart rate in the dexmedetomidine groups decreased more than the NS group (P < .001). The mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the NS group experienced a decline compared to groups D0.8 and D1.0 when the plasma concentration and effect-site concentration reached equilibrium. Additionally, the respiratory rate was found to be lower in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, and D0.8 (P < .05). Recovery time in groups D0.8 and D1.0 was longer than the NS group (P < .05). Bruggemann comfort scales score was higher in group D1.0 (P < .05). No significant difference was found in the incidences of hypotension and bradycardia, and the dose of ephedrine and atropine. Respiratory depression was significantly reduced in groups D0.8 and D1.0 compared to the NS group. CONCLUSION: A single dose of 0.6 to 0.8 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine should be recommended in combination with propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. And the EC50 of propofol is 1.97 to 1.85 µg/mL.

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.

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.

The periprocedural respiratory safety of propofol sedation in patients with a motor neuron disease undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion.

Motor neuron diseases (MND), such as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and Primary Lateral Sclerosis (PLS), may cause swallowing and respiratory problems, due to muscle weakness. Chronic enteral feeding via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is often indicated in these patients. PEG insertion is normally performed with sedation. Some guidelines withhold sedation in MND patients, due to the risk of respiratory complications. These guidelines seem to be defensive however and evidence is lacking. Our aim was to examine periprocedural respiratory complications occurring in MND patients undergoing PEG insertion with propofol sedation. A retrospective monocentre study was conducted in a referral hospital with an experienced PEG team. Patients with MND who underwent PEG insertion with propofol sedation between January 1. 2016 to January 1. 2023 were analysed to identify periprocedural respiratory complications. 46 patients were included. In five patients (10.9%) respiratory adverse events (AE) occurred, of which two serious (4.3%) and four AE (8.7%). Serious AE (SAE) were fatal in both cases: aspiration pneumonia (2.2%) and hypercapnia (2.2%) a few days after insertion. Sedation may have influenced the first case. Respiratory AE consisted of desaturation in two (4.3%), mild aspiration pneumonia in one (2.2%), and apnea in one patient (2.2%). Compared to previous studies respiratory complications and mortality had comparable prevalences.

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.