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.

Impact of general anesthesia on postoperative complications in orthognathic surgery: a retrospective comparison of total intravenous anesthesia versus volatile anesthesia.

Orthognathic surgery has a high incidence of postoperative nausea (PON) and vomiting (POV), delaying mobility initiation and postoperative recovery. Bleeding is another risk associated with this surgical procedure. We aimed to compare total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and volatile anesthesia in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery in terms of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) incidence and hemodynamic changes. This retrospective study included 82 patients who underwent bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomies at Saga University Hospital between April 2016 and April 2021. We compared the effects of TIVA and volatile anesthesia on PONV onset after surgery, acute postoperative hemodynamic changes (blood pressure and heart rate), and factors contributing to PONV. PON was significantly lower in the TIVA group than in the volatile anesthesia group. The total dose of fentanyl contributed to the onset of POV, while the onset of PON was associated with low volumes of fluid infusion and urine in the TIVA and volatile anesthesia groups, respectively. Furthermore, post-extubation hemodynamic change was significantly smaller in the TIVA group than in the volatile anesthesia group. Therefore, TIVA could have a reduced risk of PONV and hemodynamic changes in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery. Employing TIVA could mitigate perioperative complications and enhance patient safety.

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.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Versus Etomidate for Induction of General Anesthesia: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postinduction hypotension (PIHO) is a hemodynamic abnormality commonly observed during the induction of general anesthesia. Etomidate is considered a safer drug for the induction of anesthesia because it has only minor adverse effects on the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems. Recent evidence indicates that the novel benzodiazepine remimazolam has minimal inhibitory effects on the circulation and respiration. However, the efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus etomidate in the induction of anesthesia are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To further understand the potential of remimazolam in anesthesia induction, it is necessary to design a meta-analysis to compare its effects versus the classic safe anesthetic etomidate. The aim of this study is to determine which drug has more stable hemodynamics and a lower incidence of PIHO. Our study will also yield data on sedation efficiency, time to loss of consciousness, time to awakening, incidence of injection pain, and postoperative nausea and vomiting with the two drugs. METHODS: We plan to search the Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases from the date of their creation until March 31, 2025. The language is limited to English and Chinese. The search terms are "randomized controlled trials," "etomidate," and "remimazolam." The incidence of PIHO is the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes include depth of anesthesia after induction, sedation success rate, time to loss of consciousness, hemodynamic profiles, recovery time, incidence of injection pain, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Reviews, meta-analyses, case studies, abstracts from conferences, and commentaries will not be included. The heterogeneity of the results will be evaluated by sensitivity and subgroup analyses. RevMan software and Stata software will be used for data analysis. We will evaluate the quality of included studies using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The confidence of the evidence will be assessed through the Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Developments, and Evaluations system. RESULTS: The protocol was registered in the international PROSPERO (Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) registry in November 2023. As of June 2024, we have performed a preliminary article search and retrieval for further review. The review and analyses are expected to be completed in March 2025. We expect to submit manuscripts for peer review by the end of June 2025. CONCLUSIONS: By synthesizing the available evidence and comparing remimazolam and etomidate, we hope to provide valuable insights into the selection of anesthesia-inducing drugs to reduce the incidence of PIHO and improve patient prognosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023463120; https://tinyurl.com/333jb8bm. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/55948.

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).

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.

Avoiding pain during propofol injection in pediatric anesthesia: Hypnoanalgesia of the hand versus intravenous lidocaine.

INTRODUCTION: Pain related to injection of propofol during induction of anesthesia decreases from 66.8% without prevention, to 22-31% of cases when lidocaine is associated. Hypnoanalgesia of the hand is currently used for painful procedures in children but has never been evaluated in this indication. The primary aim of this prospective randomized single-blind study was to evaluate the efficacy of hypnoanalgesia of the hand for the prevention of moderate to severe pain during intravenous injection of propofol alone in comparison to lidocaine admixture. The secondary aim was to compare the global satisfaction of children in both methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred patients aged 7-14 years, ASA 1-2, admitted for scheduled surgery under general anesthesia were randomized into two groups. Group L received a mixture of 1% propofol (3 mg/kg) and 1% Lidocaine (0.3 mg/kg). Group H received 1% propofol (3 mg/kg) after hypnoanalgesia of the hand realized by a single experimented operator. A video was made in order to evaluate the pain related to propofol injection by a blinded observer using the 4-point score of Cameron (painful ≥ 2). The global satisfaction of children was evaluated in postanesthesia care unit and documented if visual analog score was <7/10. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were analyzed. The rate of painful patients did not differ significantly between groups (8.5% in group H [n = 47] vs 6.1% in group L [n = 49], OR= 0.70; 95% CI [0.13-3.35], p = 0.65), nor did the rate of nonsatisfied patients (10.6 in group H vs. 12.2% in group L, OR = 0.85; 95% CI [0.19-3.65], p = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that hypnoanalgesia of the hand alone is effective to prevent the pain related to propofol injection in children. No significant difference was found in comparison with lidocaine admixture nor for pain or 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.

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 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.

Hypotension after general anaesthesia induction using remimazolam or propofol in geriatric patients undergoing sevoflurane anaesthesia with remifentanil: a single-centre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The occurrence of hypotension after induction of general anaesthesia is common in geriatric patients, and should be prevented to minimise perioperative complications. Compared with propofol, remimazolam potentially has a lower incidence of hypotension. This study aimed to compare the incidence of hypotension after general anaesthesia induction with remimazolam or propofol in geriatric patients. METHODS: This single-centre, double-blind, randomised trial enrolled 90 patients aged ≥80 yr who received general anaesthesia for scheduled surgery. Patients were randomised to receive remimazolam (12 mg kg-1 h-1) or propofol (0.025 mg kg-1 s-1) for anaesthesia induction, with remifentanil and sevoflurane. The presence or absence of hypertension on the ward served as the stratification factor. The incidence of hypotension after the induction of general anaesthesia, defined as a noninvasive mean arterial pressure of <65 mm Hg measured every minute from initiation of drug administration to 3 min after tracheal intubation, was the primary outcome. Subgroup analysis was performed for the primary outcome using preoperative ward hypertension, clinical frailty scale, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and age. RESULTS: Three subjects were excluded before drug administration, and 87 subjects were included in the analysis. The incidence of hypotension was 72.1% (31/43) and 72.7% (32/44) with remimazolam or propofol, respectively. No statistically significant differences (adjusted odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-2.46; P=0.93) were observed between groups. Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with propofol, remimazolam did not reduce the incidence of hypotension after general anaesthesia induction in patients aged ≥80 yr. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000042587.

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.

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.

Comparison of arterial hypotension incidence during general anesthesia induction - target-controlled infusion vs. bolus injection of propofol: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of arterial hypotension during induction of general anesthesia is influenced by the method of propofol administration, but there is a dearth of randomized clinical trials comparing bolus injection and target-controlled infusion in relation to arterial hypotension. This study seeks to compare the incidence of arterial hypotension between these two methods of propofol administration. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, single-center, non-blinded study included 60 patients (aged 35 to 55 years), classified as ASA physical status I or II, who were undergoing non-cardiac surgeries. They were randomly allocated using a computer to two groups based on the method of propofol administration during the induction of general anesthesia: the Target Group, receiving target-controlled infusion at 4 µg.mL-1, and the Bolus Group, receiving a bolus infusion of 2 mg.kg-1. Both groups also received midazolam 2 mg, fentanyl 3 µg.kg-1, and rocuronium 0.6 mg.kg-1. Over the first 10 minutes of anesthesia induction, Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), Heart Rate (HR), level of Consciousness (qCON), and Suppression Rate (SR) were recorded every 2 minutes. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients remained in the TCI group, while 28 were in the Bolus group. Repeated measure analysis using mixed-effects models could not reject the null hypothesis for the effect of group-time interactions in MAP (p = 0.85), HR (p = 0.49), SR (p = 0.44), or qCON (p = 0.72). The difference in means for qCON (60.2 for TCI, 50.5 for bolus, p < 0.001), MAP (90.3 for TCI, 86.2 for bolus, p < 0.006), HR (76.2 for TCI, 76.9 for bolus, p = 0.93), and SR (0.01 for TCI, 5.5 for bolus, p < 0.001), irrespective of time (whole period means), revealed some significant differences. CONCLUSION: Patients who received propofol bolus injection exhibited a lower mean arterial pressure, a greater variation in the level of consciousness, and a higher suppression rate compared to those who received it as a target-controlled infusion. However, the interaction effect between groups and time remains inconclusive.

Comparison of postoperative pain in children after maintenance anaesthesia with propofol or sevoflurane: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Propofol and sevoflurane are two of the most commonly used anaesthetics for paediatric surgery. Data from some clinical trials suggest that postoperative pain incidence is lower when propofol is used for maintenance of anaesthesia compared with sevoflurane, although this is not clear. METHODS: This meta-analysis compared postoperative pain following maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol or sevoflurane in paediatric surgeries. PubMed Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared postoperative pain between sevoflurane and propofol anaesthesia in children. After quality assessment, a meta-analysis was carried out using bias-adjusted inverse heterogeneity methods, heterogeneity using I2 and publication bias using Doi plots. RESULTS: In total, 13 RCTs with 1174 children were included. The overall synthesis suggested nearly two-fold higher odds of overall postoperative pain in the sevoflurane group compared with the propofol group (odds ratio [OR] 1.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-3.15, I2=58.2%). Further, children in the sevoflurane group had higher odds of having higher pain scores (OR 3.18, 95% CI 1.83-5.53, I2=20.9%), and a 60% increase in the odds of requiring postoperative rescue analgesia compared with propofol (OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.89-2.88, I2=58.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Children maintained on inhalational sevoflurane had higher odds of postoperative pain compared with those maintained on propofol. The results also suggest that sevoflurane is associated with higher odds of needing postoperative rescue analgesia compared with propofol. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with registration ID CRD42023445913.