Efficacy and safety of rectal chloral hydrate for pediatric procedural sedation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of rectal chloral hydrate (CH) in pediatric procedural sedation. METHODS: Seven electronic databases and 3 clinical trials registry platforms were searched, and the deadline was August 2022. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of rectal CH in pediatric procedural sedation were included by 2 reviewers. The extracted outcomes included the success rate of sedation, sedation latency, sedation duration, and adverse events. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The outcomes were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 software. RESULTS: Forty-four randomized controlled trials with 8007 children were included in the meta-analysis. The success rate of sedation in the rectal CH group was significantly higher than that in the placebo group (risk ratio [RR], 2.60 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.74-3.89]; P < .01; RR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.01-1.54]; P = .04), oral CH group (RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.09-1.14]; I2 = 36%; P < .001; number needed to treat [NNT] = 10), diazepam group (RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.10-1.33]; I2 = 0%; P < .001; NNT = 6), phenobarbital group (RR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.13-1.35]; I2 = 12%; P < .001; NNT = 6), and ketamine group (RR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.20-1.60]; I2 = 20%; P < .001; NNT = 5). There was no significant difference in the success rate of sedation between the rectal CH group and the midazolam group (RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.86-1.11]; I2 = 51%; P > .05). The sedation latency was significantly shorter in rectal CH group than that in the oral CH group (mean difference [MD], -6.36 [95% CI, -7.04 to -5.68]; I2 = 49%; P < .001) and the phenobarbital group (MD, -7.64 [95% CI, -9.12 to -6.16]; P < .00001). The sedation duration in the rectal CH group was significantly longer than in the oral CH group (MD, 6.43 [95% CI, 4.39-8.47]; I2 = 0%; P < .001). The overall incidence of adverse events was significantly lower with rectal CH than with oral CH (RR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.16-0.29]; I2 = 45%; P < .001) and ketamine (RR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.12-0.60]; I2 = 0%; P = .001). There was no significant difference in the overall incidence of adverse events with rectal CH compared with intramuscular midazolam (RR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.23-1.28]; P = .17) and intranasal midazolam (RR, 3.00 [95% CI, 0.66-13.69]; P = .16). CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests that rectal CH cloud be an effective and safe sedative agent for pediatric procedural sedation.

Safety of procedural sedation in emergency department settings among the adult population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) are a common practice in emergency departments (EDs), aiming to alleviate pain, anxiety, and discomfort during various medical procedures. We have undertaken a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of assessing the incidence of adverse events associated with PSA, including those related to individual drugs and various drug combinations. The study adhered to PRISMA guidelines for a systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse events in ED sedation. A comprehensive search strategy was employed across ten databases, supplemented by searches on clinicaltrials.gov and manual reviews of reference lists. Data extraction focused on medication administration and adverse events. The study considered four types of adverse events: cardiac, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and neurological. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on PSA administered to adult patients within the ED setting were included. The statistical analysis employed OpenMeta Analyst to conduct a one-arm meta-analysis, with findings presented alongside their corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals. Forest plots were constructed to combine and evaluate results, and sensitivity analyses were performed to identify sources of heterogeneity. From a literature search of 4246 records, 32 RCTs were deemed suitable for this meta-analysis. The analysis included 6377 procedural sedations. The most common adverse event was hypoxia, with an incidence rate of 78.5 per 1000 sedations (95% CI = 77.5-133.5). This was followed by apnea and hypotension, with incidence rates of 31 (95% CI = 19.5-41.8) and 28.1 (95% CI = 17.4-38.9) per 1,000 sedations, respectively. Agitation and vomiting each occurred in 15.6 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 8.7-22.6). Severe adverse events were rare, with bradycardia observed in 16.7 per 1,000 sedations, laryngospasm in 2.9 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = - 0.1 to 6), intubation in 10.8 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 4-17), and aspiration in 2.7 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = - 0.3 to 5.7). Ketamine is found to be the safest option in terms of respiratory adverse events, with the lowest rates of apnea and hypoxia, making it the least respiratory depressant among the evaluated drugs. Etomidate has the least occurrence of hypotension when used alone. Propofol has the highest incidence of hypotension when used alone and ranks second in hypoxia-related adverse events after midazolam. Using combinations of sedating agents, such as propofol and ketamine, has been found to offer several advantages over single drugs, especially in reducing adverse events like vomiting, intubation difficulty, hypotension, bradycardia, and laryngospasm. The combination significantly reduces the incidence of hypotension compared to using propofol or ketamine individually. Despite the regular use of procedural sedation, it can sometimes lead to serious adverse events. Respiratory issues like apnea and hypoxia, while not common, do occur more often than cardiovascular problems such as hypotension. However, the least frequent respiratory complications, which can also pose a threat to life, include laryngospasm, aspiration, and intubation. These incidents are extremely rare.

Comparing oxygen therapies for hypoxemia prevention during gastrointestinal endoscopy under procedural sedation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Hypoxemia is the most frequent adverse event observed during gastrointestinal endoscopy under procedural sedation. An optimum oxygen therapy has still not been conclusively determined. DESIGN: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. SETTING: Digestive Endoscopy Center. PATIENTS: Adults (≥18 years old and of both sexes) during gastrointestinal endoscopy under procedural sedation. INTERVENTIONS: Pubmed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov. were searched until June 30, 2023. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing any oxygen therapy with another oxygen therapy or with placebo (nasal cannula, NC) were included. MEASUREMENT: The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia, defined as the pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2). Random-effects network meta-analyses were performed. Data are reported as odds ratios (OR), prediction intervals (PrI) and 95% CI. Bias risk was evaluated following the guidelines outlined by the Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of evidence was evaluated through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 RCTs with a total of 7552 patients. Compared to the use of NC, non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) demonstrated superior efficacy in mitigating hypoxemia (NIPPV vs. NC, OR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.08-0.31, 95% PrI: 0.06-0.41), followed by Wei nasal jet tube (WNJT) (WNJT vs. NC, OR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.10-0.30, 95% PrI: 0.07-0.42). The efficacy for preventing hypoxemia was ranked as follows: NIPPV > WNJT > oropharynx/nasopharyngeal catheter > high-flow nasal oxygenation > nasal mask > NC. CONCLUSIONS: During gastrointestinal endoscopy under procedural sedation, all other advanced oxygen therapies were found to be more efficacious than nasal cannula. NIPPV and WNJT appear to be the most efficacious oxygen therapy for preventing hypoxemia. Additionally, clinicians should make a choice regarding the most suitable oxygen therapy based on the risk population, type of endoscopy and adverse events.

Continuous Capnography for Early Detection of Respiratory Compromise During Gastroenterological Procedural Sedation and Analgesia.

Gastroenterology nurses working across a variety of clinical settings are responsible for periprocedural monitoring during moderate to deep procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) to identify signs of respiratory compromise and intervene to prevent cardiorespiratory events. Pulse oximetry is the standard of care for respiratory monitoring, but it may delay or fail to detect abnormal ventilation during PSA. Continuous capnography, which measures end-tidal CO2 as a marker of alveolar ventilation, has been endorsed by a number of clinical guidelines. Large clinical trials have demonstrated that the addition of continuous capnography to pulse oximetry during PSA for various gastroenterological procedures reduces the incidence of hypoxemia, severe hypoxemia, and apnea. Studies have shown that the cost of adding continuous capnography is offset by the reduction in adverse events and hospital length of stay. In the postanesthesia care unit, continuous capnography is being evaluated for monitoring opioid-induced respiratory depression and to guide artificial airway removal. Studies are also examining the utility of continuous capnography to predict the risk of opioid-induced respiratory depression among patients receiving opioids for primary analgesia. Continuous capnography monitoring has become an essential tool to detect early signs of respiratory compromise in patients receiving PSA during gastroenterological procedures. When combined with pulse oximetry, it can help reduce cardiorespiratory adverse events, improve patient outcomes and safety, and reduce health care costs.

Effect of supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation on hypoxemia in patients undergoing endoscopic surgery with sedation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Nasal cannulas and face masks are common oxygenation tools used in conventional oxygen therapy for patients undergoing endoscopic surgery with sedation. However, as a novel supraglottic ventilation technique, the application of supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation (SJOV) in endoscopic surgery has not been well established. METHOD: We searched six electronic databases from inception to January 16, 2024, to assess the oxygenation/ventilation efficacy and side effects of the of SJOV in endoscopic surgery. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of respiratory depression and adverse effects (nasal bleeding, sore throat, and dry mouth). RESULTS: Nine trials involving 2017 patients were included. The results demonstrated that the incidence of hypoxemia was lower in the SJOV group compared with the conventional oxygen therapy (COT) group [9 trails; 2017 patients; risk ratio (RR) = 0.18; 95% confidence interval (CI), (0.11-0.28)]. Subgroup analyses showed that SJOV reduced the incidence of hypoxemia in the high-risk group but had no effect on the low-risk group. The incidence of respiratory depression is lower in SJOV than in COT, but has increased side effects such as dry mouth. There was no statistically significant difference in nose bleeding or sore throat between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with the COT, the SJOV decreased the incidence of hypoxemia in high-risk patients during endoscopic surgery with sedation. There was an increased risk of dry mouth, but not of nose bleeding or sore throat, during endoscopic surgery under sedation.

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.

Remimazolam versus propofol for endoscopy sedation in elderly patients: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Procedural sedation is crucial in gastrointestinal endoscopy, where propofol is commonly used but may lead to cardiovascular and respiratory side effects. Remimazolam, a new drug, offers advantages such as rapid onset and recovery. The sedation protocols for this population vary, requiring tailored titration of sedatives. The comparative safety of these drugs in elderly patients undergoing procedural sedation remains unclear, as previous studies primarily focus on the general population. We aimed to compare the safety profiles of remimazolam and propofol in this context. in elderly patients undergoing procedural sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing propofol with remimazolam in elderly patients undergoing procedural sedation. Our outcomes were the incidence of adverse effects. A trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted on all outcomes to assess the adequacy of the sample size in supporting our findings. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We selected seven RCTs including 1499 patients, of whom 764 (50.96%) were randomized to receive remimazolam. Remimazolam exhibited a significantly lower risk of adverse events, including hypoxemia, respiratory depression, hypotension, bradycardia, and injection pain, compared to propofol. Incidences of PONV, dizziness and headache, did not significantly differ between the groups. The findings of the TSA indicated that our sample size was sufficiently large to render further studies inconsequential for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that in elderly patients having gastrointestinal endoscopy, remimazolam could be safer than propofol. This population may benefit from remimazolam's lower risk of adverse events, notably hypoxemia and respiratory depression.

Semiautomated electronic medical record based system for monitoring delayed adverse events in pediatric endoscopy and sedation.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a semiautomated electronic medical record (EMR) system to track pediatric endoscopic procedural adverse event (AE) at a tertiary referral children's hospital. METHODS: We developed an automated EMR based query for postprocedure AEs. Main outcome measurements within 30 days of procedure: return to emergency department, return to surgery, unplanned admissions and admissions with longer than intended stays. Events were graded using a recently described classification system for postendoscopy events and tracked for a 36-month period, from January 2017 to December 2019. RESULTS: Development of a semi-automated system was successful in comprehensive identification of endoscopy and sedation related AE. A total of 193 AEs (2%) were identified in all three categories. Seventy cases (0.7%) were noted to be a direct result of an endoscopic procedure. Of these cases, 31 (44%) were noted to be Grade 3, 5 cases (7%) Grade 4, and no Grade 5 AE occured. Higher rates of AE were observed after therapeutic procedures versus diagnostic (2.6% vs. 0.3%, p = <0.00001). AEs related to sedation occurred in 0.5% of procedures with the majority (84%) reported in patients with American Society of Anesthesia classification of 3 or greater. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic endoscopy remains a safe procedure and risk of both endoscopy and sedation related AE are low. Therapeutic procedures carry a higher risk but are still overwhelmingly safe. Institutional investment in this EMR based system allowed for sustainability and comprehensive tracking of endoscopy related AE.

Sedation vs. general anesthesia in stone ureteroscopy: Comparison of efficacy and safety, a post COVID-19 report.

INTRODUCTION: Ureterorenoscopy (URS) for ureteral or renal stones is traditionally performed under general anesthesia (GA). Sedation is an alternative to GA, allowing control of the level of consciousness, spontaneous ventilation, and faster recovery. Our aim was to compare sedation and GA for patients undergoing ureterorenoscopy. Endpoints were stone-free rate (SFR) and complication rates. METHOD: Monocentric comparative retrospective study including all consecutive ureterorenoscopies for ureteral or renal stone. The inclusion period was dichotomized in two 6-months periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic: from January 1 to July 1, 2019 (URS under GA) and from January 1 to July 1, 2021 (URS under GA or sedation). Stone-free (SF) status was defined as the absence of stone or fragment>4mm after the first ureterorenoscopy. Complication rates were assessed according to the Satava (perioperative complications) and Clavien-Dindo (postoperative complications) classifications. Statistical analysis was performed by Chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 185 patients were included for a total of 206 ureterorenoscopies; 82 underwent ureterorenoscopy under GA and 103 under sedation. The median stone size was 10 [7-16] mm. In all, 150 (81%) patients had at least one intrarenal stone. The SFR was similar between the two groups (67% GA group, 69% sedation group, P=0.912). In the sedation group, the mean SFR in ureter was 83.7% vs. 92.5% in the GA group. In renal cavities, the mean SFR was 46.4% in the sedation group vs. 42.5% in the GA group. Satava grade I, IIa, and IIb complications were 5 (6%), 5 (6%), and 1 (1%) in the GA group and 6 (6%), 1 (1%), and 3 (3%) in the sedation group, respectively (P=0.214). The grade I, II, III, and IV Clavien complications were 6 (7%), 3 (4%), 0 (0%), and 2 (2%) in the GA group and 6 (6%), 4 (4%), 1 (1%), and 4 (4%) in the sedation group, respectively (P=0.928). CONCLUSION: Our post COVID-19 study showed no difference in efficacy and safety between ureterorenoscopy under sedation and GA for patients with renal stones. Our results confirm the interest of the sedation procedure, particularly in the context of outpatient surgery.

Single-Operator Left atrial appendage Occlusion utilizing Conscious sedation TEE, Lack of Outpatient pre-imaging, and Same-day Expedited discharge (SOLO-CLOSE): A comparison with conventional approach.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with WATCHMAN currently requires preprocedural imaging, general anesthesia, and inpatient overnight admission. We sought to facilitate simplification of LAAO. AIMS: We describe and compare SOLO-CLOSE (single-operator LAA occlusion utilizing conscious sedation TEE, lack of outpatient pre-imaging, and same-day expedited discharge) with the conventional approach (CA). METHODS: A single-center retrospective analysis of 163 patients undergoing LAAO between January 2017 and April 2022 was conducted. The SOLO-CLOSE protocol was enacted on December 1, 2020. Before this date, we utilized the CA. The primary efficacy endpoint was defined as successful LAAO with ≤5 mm peri-device leak at time of closure. The primary safety endpoint was the composite incidence of all-cause deaths, any cerebrovascular accident (CVA), device embolization, pericardial effusion, or major postprocedure bleeding within 7 days of the index procedure. Procedure times, 7-day readmission rates, and cost analytics were collected as well. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in both cohorts. Congestive heart failure (37.5% vs. 11.1%) and malignancy (28.8% vs. 12.5%) were higher in SOLO-CLOSE. Median CHA2D2SVASc score was 5 in both cohorts. The primary efficacy endpoint was met 100% in both cohorts. Primary safety endpoint was similar between cohorts (p = 0.078). Mean procedure time was 30 min shorter in SOLO-CLOSE (p < 0.01). Seven-day readmissions for SOLO-CLOSE was zero. After SOLO-CLOSE implementation, there was a 188% increase in positive contribution margin per case. CONCLUSIONS: The SOLO-CLOSE methodology offers similar efficacy and safety when compared to the CA, while improving clinical efficiency, reducing procedural times, and increasing economic benefit.

Value of integrated pulmonary index monitoring for the detection of adverse respiratory events in patients undergoing sedation for gastrointestinal system endoscopy.

Objectives: To determine if the integrated pulmonary index detects changes in ventilation status early in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy under sedation, and to determine the risk factors affecting hypoxia. METHODS: The retrospective study was conducted at the endoscopy unit of a tertiary university hospital in Turkey and comprised data between October 2018 and December 2019 related to patients of either gender aged >18 years who were assessed as American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade I-III and underwent elective lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Monitoring was done with capnography in addition to standard procedures. Data was analysed using SPSS 23. RESULTS: Of the 154 patients, 94(%) were females and 60(%) were males. The overall mean age was 50.88±11.8 years (range: 20-70 years). Mean time under anaesthesia was 23.58±4.91 minutes and mean endoscopy time was 21.73±5.06 minutes. During the procedure, hypoxia was observed in 42(27.3%) patients, severe hypoxia in 23(14.9%) and apnoea in 70(45.5%). Mean time between apnoea and hypoxia was 12.59±7.99 seconds, between apnoea and serious hypoxia 21.07±17.64 seconds, between integrated pulmonary index score 1 and hypoxia 12.91±8.17 sec, between integrated pulmonary index score 1 and serious hypoxia 21.59±14.13 seconds, between integrated pulmonary index score <7 and hypoxia 19.63±8.89 seconds, between integrated pulmonary index score <7 and serious hypoxia 28.39±12.66 seconds, between end-tidal carbon dioxide and hypoxia 12.95±8.33 seconds, and between end-tidal carbon dioxide and serious hypoxia 21.29±7.55 seconds. With integrated pulmonary index score 1, sensitivity value for predicting hypoxia and severe hypoxia was 88.1% and 95.7%, respectively, and specificity was 67% and 60.3%, respectively. With integrated pulmonary index score <7, the corresponding values were 100%, 100%, 42% and 64.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Capnographic monitoring, especially the follow-up integrated pulmonary index score, was found to be valuable and reliable in terms of finding both time and accuracy of the risk factor in the diagnosis of respiratory events.

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.

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.

Can the width of lower tongue base preoperative sonography measurements predict hypoxemia during esophagogastroduodenoscopy under sedation in ASA I-II patients?

AIM: The most common complication during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) under sedation is hypoxemia. There is a scarcity of indicators to predict the risk of hypoxemia during EGD under sedation accurately. The width of the lower tongue base measured by ultrasound (US) is considered to be a significant predictor of the presence and severity of obstructive sleepapnea syndrome (OSAS), which develops hypoxemia by a similar mechanism to EGD under sedation. This study aimed to observe its ability to predict hypoxemia during EGD under sedation.Material and methodsː Adult patients undergoing EGD under sedation at our hospital after assessment in the anesthesia clinic were enrolled in the study. The width of the lower tongue base was measured as the distance between the lingual arteries (DLA) on both sides of the inferior lateral margin of the tongue by US. The primary outcome was hypoxemia defined as the SpO2 <90% for longer than 10 seconds during EGD under sedation. ResultsːA total of 304 patients were successfully included, and hypoxemia was reported in 32 patients (10.5%). The DLA prediction criterion for hypoxemia was >31 mm. The DLA was correlated with hypoxemia (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.455; p<0.001) and owned the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.927; 99% CI, 0.891 to 0.953, compared with that of the other predictors, p< 0.001) with hypoxemia.Conclusionsː The width of the lower tongue base, measured as the DLA by US examination can be used to effectively predict the risk of hypoxemia during EGD under sedation.

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.

Randomized, Single-Blind, Comparative Study of Remimazolam Besylate vs Propofol for Facial Plastic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Use of local anesthesia and conscious sedation with a combination of a sedative and anesthetic drug during a surgical procedure is an approach designed to avoid intubation, which produces fewer adverse events compared to general anesthesia. In the present study, a comparison was made between the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate and propofol for facial plastic surgery. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to evaluate the clinical efficacy, comfort, and incidence of adverse events of remimazolam compared with propofol combined with alfentanil in outpatient facial plastic surgery. METHODS: In this randomized, single-blind, single-center, comparative study, facial plastic surgery patients were randomly divided into remimazolam-alfentanil (n = 50) and propofol-alfentanil (n = 50) groups for sedation and analgesia. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hypoxemia, while secondary endpoints included efficacy and safety evaluations. RESULTS: There were no significant differences regarding the surgical procedure, sedation and induction times, pain and comfort scores, muscle strength recovery, heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure, but the dosage of alfentanil administered to the remimazolam group (387.5 µg) was lower than that for the propofol group (600 µg). The incidence of hypoxemia (P = .046) and towing of the mandibular (P = .028), as well as wake-up (P = .027) and injection pain (P = .008), were significantly higher in the propofol group than the remimazolam group. CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam and propofol had similar efficacies for sedation and analgesia during facial plastic surgery, but especially the incidence of respiratory depression was significantly lower in patients given remimazolam.

Stubborn hypoxemia after mild to moderate sedation and analgesia: A case report.

INTRODUCTION: Atelectasis typically denotes the partial or complete collapse of lung segments, lobes, or lobules in individuals, leading to a compromised respiratory function. The prevalence of perioperative atelectasis may be significantly underestimated, particularly among patients subjected to general anesthesia. PATIENT CONCERNS: This article conducts a retrospective analysis of a case involving refractory hypoxemia in a patient with a liver tumor who was admitted to Yanbian University Affiliated Hospital (Yanbian Hospital) after undergoing mild-to-moderate sedation and analgesia outside the operating room. DIAGNOSIS: Based on the results of CT examination and present history, the patient was diagnosed with intraoperative atelectasis. INTERVENTION: After the surgery, the patient was transferred to the recovery ward, where nasal oxygen therapy and nebulized inhalation treatment were administered. Vital signs were closely monitored at the bedside, gradually returning to the preoperative baseline. OUTCOME: Postoperatively, the patient developed atelectasis, with the percentage of lung opacity shown in the image decreasing from 9.2% of the total thoracic cage area to 8.4%. CONCLUSION: During non-intubated intravenous anesthesia, patients with compromised pulmonary conditions are more susceptible to refractory hypoxemia. Therefore, a personalized approach should be adopted regarding oxygen concentration and the dosage and type of medication. Additionally, preparations for appropriate airway management measures are essential to safeguard patient safety in the event of respiratory issues.