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.

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.

Comparison of different dosages of propofol combined with its equivalent alfentanil in outpatient abortion: a prospective, double-blinded, randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at determining the optimal dose combination of alfentanil and propofol for outpatient abortion anesthesia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was separated into two parts. In the first part, patients were to determine the median effective dose (ED50) and the 95% effective dose (ED95) of alfentanil in combination with 2.5 mg·kg-1 propofol to inhibit body movements during the abortion using the Dixon up-and-down sequential allocation method. In the second part, 170 patients were randomly divided into group C (2.0 mg·kg-1 propofol with alfentanil 12.16 µg·kg-1) and group E (2.5 mg·kg-1 propofol with its ED95) to compare the anesthetic effect. The primary outcome was the sedation level during general anesthesia. The secondary outcomes were circulation, respiratory complications, and postoperative recovery quality. RESULTS: The ED50 and the ED95 values of alfentanil were 3.37 µg·kg-1 (95% CI: 2.58-3.97 µg·kg-1) and 4.68 µg·kg-1 (95% CI: 4.04-9.32 µg·kg-1). The frequency of deep sedation in group E was significantly higher than in group C (76.5% vs. 60%). Patients in group C showed more wakefulness even during the surgery (14.3% vs. 4.4%). The results of our exploratory analyses did not reveal differences in respiratory depression, circulatory depression, postoperative side effects, or recovery outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of 2.5 mg·kg-1 propofol and 4.68 µg·kg-1 alfentanil produces a better sedative effect than the combination of 2.0 mg·kg-1 propofol and 12.16 µg·kg-1 alfentanil without increasing additional risks associated with anesthesia.

Comparison of ciprofol-alfentanil and propofol-alfentanil sedation during bidirectional endoscopy: A prospective, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although propofol is widely used for gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation, cardiopulmonary adverse events remain common. Ciprofol is a new intravenous anaesthetic agent demonstrating respiratory and hemodynamic stability. AIMS: This study aimed to clarify the benefits of ciprofol combined with alfentanil in bidirectional endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by colonoscopy) to reduce adverse events and improve post-endoscopic recovery. METHODS: A total of 185 patients scheduled to undergo bidirectional endoscopy were randomly divided into two groups: ciprofol combined with alfentanil or propofol combined with alfentanil. All patients received 7 µg/kg alfentanil intravenously before the study drugs were administered. The propofol group received a bolus of 1.2 mg/kg (0.12 ml/kg) propofol intravenously, whereas the ciprofol group received a bolus of 0.3 mg/kg (0.12 ml/kg) ciprofol intravenously. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with cardiopulmonary adverse events (i.e., any one of the airway obstruction, apnoea, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia or arrhythmias). RESULTS: Compared with propofol, ciprofol reduced cardiopulmonary adverse events by 43.51 % (34.4% vs. 60.9 %, P <0.001), mitigated respiratory adverse events by 54.74 % (17.2% vs. 38.0 %, P = 0.002) overall and by 59.05 % (12.9% vs. 31.5 %, P = 0.002) during the induction period. CONCLUSIONS: Ciprofol can significantly decrease respiratory depression events and provides a better sedative efficacy than propofol with higher recovery quality and satisfaction.

Cardiopulmonary Adverse Events of Remimazolam versus Propofol During Cervical Conization: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the cardiopulmonary safety of remimazolam and propofol in patients undergoing cervical conization. Methods: This was a single-blind, parallel, randomized controlled study. A total of 204 patients scheduled for day surgery of cold knife cervical conization received either remimazolam-alfentanil anesthesia (remimazolam group) or propofol-alfentanil anesthesia (propofol group). The primary outcome was the incidence of intraoperative cardiopulmonary adverse events (a composite outcome of hypotension, bradycardia and hypoxemia). The occurrence of hypotension, bradycardia, hypoxemia and the degree of body movement were secondary outcomes, as well as the moment at which consciousness was lost, the interval between the end of anesthesia and the operating room's release of the patient, and the overall dosage of alfentanil administered during the procedure. Results: The incidence of intraoperative cardiopulmonary adverse events was 45 (44.1%) in the remimazolam group and 72 (70.6%) in the propofol group (absolute risk difference [95% CI], -26.47% [-39.55% to -13.39%]; odds ratio (OR) [95% CI], 0.43 [0.28 to 0.65]; P < 0.001). The remimazolam group showed lower incidences of hypotension and hypoxemia compared to the propofol group (P = 0.01 for both). No significant differences were observed in the overall alfentanil dosages administered, bradycardia, bodily movement, or time to losing consciousness between the two groups. Conclusion: In patients who underwent cold knife cervical conization, remimazolam-alfentanil anesthesia was associated with a reduced incidence of intraoperative cardiopulmonary adverse events compared with propofol-alfentanil anesthesia.

Use of Remimazolam Combined With Alfentanil for Plastic Surgery Anesthesia Cases: A Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to observe the safety and effectiveness of remimazolam benzenesulfonate combined with alfentanil for painless and comfort anesthesia in plastic surgery. METHODS: Two hundred patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II for elective facial autologous lipofilling + autologous liposuction (thigh or abdomen) plastic surgery in our hospital were selected. One hundred patients received comfort anesthesia (observation group) on odd-numbered day of surgery, and other 100 patients received painless anesthesia (control group) on even-numbered day. Patients in both groups were given slow injection of remimazolam benzenesulfonate 0.1 mg/kg and alfentanil 5 µg/kg to induce sleep before local anesthesia. Depending on body action reaction to surgical stimulation, patients in the observation group were received with remimazolam 0.05 mg/kg and alfentanil 2.5 µg/kg for maintenance until the end of surgery after local anesthesia, and patients in the control group received with remimazolam 0.25 to 0.5 mg/kg/h and alfentanil 25 to 50 µg/kg/h in continuous pumps. Time to fall asleep, sedation score, time to end of medication, time to open eyes, recovery score, and the presence of body movement, glossoptosis, arousal or jaw support during hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia, operation time, total amount of remimazolam and alfentanil used, and the presence of postoperative complications such as pruritus, dizziness, nausea, and vomiting were recorded in both 2 groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the preoperative vital sign parameters as mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation between 2 groups ( P > 0.05). Intraoperative mean arterial pressure and heart rate were significantly lower in both groups compared with preoperative ( P < 0.05), but there was no statistically significant between the 2 groups ( P > 0.05). There was no significant decrease in oxygen saturation in both groups under the condition of intraoperative oxygen inhalation ( P > 0.05). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the incidence of adverse reactions, such as intraoperative body movement induced by skin cutting, glossoptosis requiring jaw thrust, postoperative pruritus, dizziness, nausea, and vomiting ( P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in time to fall asleep, sedation score during local anesthesia, time to open eyes after stopping anesthetics, and recovery score between the 2 groups ( P > 0.05). Meanwhile, the total amount of remimazolam and alfentanil use was significantly reduced in patients in the observation group compared with the control group ( P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam benzenesulfonate combined with alfentanil can be used as a comfort anesthesia and painless anesthesia protocol in plastic surgery, which has the advantages of rapid onset of action, safety and comfort for patients, rapid recovery, and good cooperation. Furthermore, the protocol of remimazolam benzenesulfonate combined with alfentanil used in the observation group can significantly reduce the total amount of remimazolam and alfentanil used.

A randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing remimazolam to propofol when combined with alfentanil for sedation during ERCP procedures.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In many countries, the combination of propofol and opioid is used as the preferred sedative regime during ERCP. However, the most serious risks of propofol sedation are oxygen deficiency and hypotension. Compared to midazolam, remimazolam has a faster onset and offset of hypnotic effect, as well as cardiorespiratory stability, and to achieve widespread acceptance for procedural sedation, remimazolam must replace propofol which is the most commonly used for procedural sedation. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy profiles of the remimazolam and propofol when combined with alfentanil for sedation during ERCP procedures. DESIGN: A randomized, controlled, single-center trial. SETTING: The Endoscopic Centre of Tianjin Nankai Hospital, China. PATIENTS: 518 patients undergoing elective ERCP under deep sedation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly assigned to be sedated with either a combination of remimazolam-alfentanil or propofol-alfentanil. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the prevalence of hypoxia, which was defined as SpO2 < 90% for >10 s. Other outcomes were the need for airway maneuver, procedure, and sedation-related outcomes and side effects (e.g., nausea, vomiting, and cardiovascular adverse events). MAIN RESULTS: A total of 518 patients underwent randomization. Of these, 250 were assigned to the remimazolam group and 255 to the propofol group. During ERCP, 9.6% of patients in the remimazolam group showed hypoxia, while in the propofol group, 15.7% showed hypoxia (p = 0.04). The need for airway maneuvering due to hypoxia was significantly greater in the propofol group (p = 0.04). Furthermore, patients sedated with remimazolam had a lower percentage of hypotension than patients sedated with propofol (p < 0.001). Patients receiving remimazolam sedation expressed higher satisfaction scores and were recommended the same sedation for the next ERCP. The procedure time in the remimazolam group was much longer than in the propofol group due to the complexity of the patient's disease, which resulted in a longer sedation time. CONCLUSION: During elective ERCP, patients administered with remimazolam showed fewer respiratory depression events under deep sedation with hemodynamic advantages over propofol when administered in combination with alfentanil.

A comparative study on the efficacy and safety of propofol combined with different doses of alfentanil in gastroscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Propofol can be used alone or in combination with opioids during gastroscopy. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous propofol and different doses of alfentanil in patients undergoing gastroscopy. METHODS: A total of 300 patients undergoing sedative gastroscopy were randomly divided into four groups, and 0.9% saline (group A), 2 µg/kg alfentanil (group B), 3 µg/kg alfentanil (group C) or 4 µg/kg alfentanil (group D) were injected intravenously 1 min before the intravenous injection of 1.5 mg/kg propofol. If body movement and coughing occurred during the procedure, 0.5 mg/kg propofol would be administered intravenously. The primary outcome (awakening time) and secondary outcomes were recorded and analyzed, including hemodynamic changes, the incidences of body movement, coughing, hypoxemia, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, nausea and vomiting, drowsiness and dizziness. RESULTS: Patients in group C (7.0 [5.0 to 8.0] min) and group D (6.0 [5.0 to 7.0] min) woke up significantly earlier than those in group A (8.0 [6.0 to 10.0] min) (P < 0.001). Patients in group A experienced more body movement (P = 0.001) and coughing (P < 0.001) than the other groups. With the increasing dose of alfentanil, the morbidity of hypotension and bradycardia increased significantly (P = 0.001), while the incidence of dizziness decreased significantly (P = 0.037). The incidences of hypoxemia, tachycardia, drowsiness, nausea and vomiting were similar among the four groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous 1.5 mg/kg propofol combined with 3 µg/kg alfentanil is more suitable for patients undergoing gastroscopy, and the dose of alfentanil can be reduced according to the patient's actual physical condition.

Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Besylate Combined with Alfentanil in Painless Gastroscopy: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Parallel Controlled Study.

Background: The efficacy and adverse reactions of remimazolam besylate (RB) in combination with alfentanil in patients with painless gastroscopy remain unclear. Objective: The aim of the study is to observe the efficacy and adverse reactions of RB in combination with alfentanil in patients with painless gastroscopy RB. Methods: All patients were randomly divided into two groups: RB combined with the alfentanil group (research group) and propofol combined with the alfentanil group (control group). After full oxygen inhalation and electrocardiographic monitoring, the research group was given 10 µg/Kg alfentanil + RB 0.2 mg/kg intravenously, and the control group was given 10 µg/Kg alfentanil + propofol 1.5 mg/kg. If there is a clinical need, the research group was given 2.5 mg/additional RB, whereas the control group was treated with an additional 0.5 mg/kg propofol. Main outcome measures were as follows: The vital endpoints including diachronic changes in heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), respiratory rate (RR), blood oxygen saturation (SPO2), end-expiratory carbon dioxide (etCO2), IPI, modified observer's assessment of alert/sedation (MOAA/S), time-related endpoints, perioperative adverse events, endoscopy, and anesthesiologist satisfaction, and 24-hour follow-up of adverse reactions, IPI scores, and satisfaction were recorded. Results: The HR and BP of the patients in the research group and the control group decreased, with a greater decrease in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The values of RR, PETCO2, and IPI in the research group and the control group decreased to the lowest at 2-3 min but the decrease in the control group was more significant. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the time from the completion of administration to 4 minutes of IPI and the total examination time, but the awakening time in the research group was slightly longer than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The incidences of respiratory depression and hypotension during the operation were shown to be markedly smaller in the investigation relative to the control team, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05), whereas the occurrence of cough, movements, and singultus was more common in the investigations, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The results of the 24-hour follow-up showed that the adverse reactions such as nausea, dizziness, fatigue, abdominal pain, and abdominal distension were much less frequent in the study team, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05), and the patient satisfaction was higher than in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The regression results showed that age, sedative, and total dose of analgesia had significant effects on the results, and the covariance coefficient of sedative was 1.57 of IPI score in the research group higher than that of the control group. Conclusions: RB combined with alfentanil can provide safe and effective sedation for patients undergoing painless gastroscopy. Compared with propofol, RB and alfentanil for injection can avoid large hemodynamic fluctuations and deep sedation, and have fewer adverse reactions. However, the cases involved in this study are all from a single-center data, which requires further multicenter research and conformation.

The Effect of Alfentanil on Emergence Delirium Following General Anesthesia in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Emergence delirium can occur after general anesthesia in children. An intravenous infusion of alfentanil may reduce the incidence or severity of emergence delirium after sevoflurane anesthesia. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to investigate the effects of alfentanil intravenous infusion on emergence delirium and other perioperative complications. METHOD: This was a single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. A total of 172 children undergoing ambulatory dental treatment were randomized into three groups. Alfentanil group Alf2 received 0.2 µg/kg/min of alfentanil for continuous infusion, alfentanil group Alf4 received 0.4 µg/kg/min alfentanil, and the saline group (group Sal) received a continuous infusion of normal saline, with the same volume as the two other groups, as a placebo. The incidence of emergence delirium (assessed by the Paediatric Anaesthesia Emergence Delirium [PAED] scale), hemodynamic parameters, and recovery characteristics were recorded during the recovery period. The Aono scale was also used to assess for emergence delirium. A WeChat applet was designed to facilitate a caregiver teleconsultation and to provide feedback on postoperative nausea and vomiting and any other complications after discharge. RESULTS: The incidence of emergence delirium in group Alf2 (22.9%) and group Alf4 (21.1%) was significantly lower than that observed in the Sal group (48.3%). The PAED scores in group Alf2 (6.4 ± 3.5) and group Alf4 (5.8 ± 3.8) were significantly lower than those for group Sal (9.6 ± 5.1) (p < 0.01). Ten children in the Alf4 group needed manual ventilatory assistance to maintain end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) < 55 mm; children in group Alf2 did not. There was no significant difference between the discharge time of groups Alf2 and Sal (31.2 ± 4.64 vs 30.5 ± 2.82 min; 0.659 [95% confidence interval {CI} -1.052 to 2.369], p = 0.643); the time to discharge of group Alf4 (35.16 ± 3.97 min) was significantly longer than that of groups Alf2 and Sal (p < 0.01). The incidence of nausea and vomiting was similar in the three groups. No other clinically relevant adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous infusion of 0.2 µg/kg/min and 0.4 µg/kg/min alfentanil decreased the incidence of emergence delirium in the post-anesthesia care unit. The 0.2 µg/kg/min dose of alfentanil resulted in less respiratory depression and discharge delay than the 0.4 µg/kg/min alfentanil dose. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100043320).

Efficacy and safety of remifentanil for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: a single center retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Remifentanil is a rapid onset and rapid recovery opioid. The combination of remifentanil and propofol for deep sedation decreases the incidents of movement, cough, and hiccup. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of remifentanil during endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients in whom endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition was performed for solid mass lesions of the upper gastrointestinal tract and adjacent organs. All patients were premedicated with midazolam (2 mg), and target-controlled infusion of propofol, opioid, and Bispectral Index (BIS) monitoring were administered as necessary to maintain moderate-to-deep sedation. The opioids used were a bolus of alfentanil or remifentanil infusion. The discharge time, consumption of propofol and opioid, adverse events, diagnostic accuracy, and sensitivity and specificity for malignancy, were compared. RESULTS: Tissue acquisition was achieved in 123 patients (alfentanil group, n = 64; remifentanil group, n = 59). The discharge time of the remifentanil group (16.5 ± 3.2 min) was significantly shorter than that of the alfentanil group (19.0 ± 4.9 min, P = 0.001). The consumption of propofol, adverse events, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for malignancy in the alfentanil group were not significantly different from those in the remifentanil group. CONCLUSIONS: Use of alfentanil or remifentanil for target-controlled infusion of propofol-BIS monitoring can provide good sedative and diagnostic quality for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. However, remifentanil resulted in faster recovery than alfentanil.

Efficacy and Safety of the Remimazolam-Alfentanil Combination for Sedation During Gastroscopy: A Randomized, Double-blind, Single-center Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Propofol infusion is a popular single drug of choice for sedation in the gastrointestinal endoscopy suite. Drug combinations are more beneficial than single-drug regimens in gastroscopy sedation. However, the cardiopulmonary complications of propofol sedation raise concern. Remimazolam is a novel, ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative, and alfentanil is a weak opioid. During endoscopic procedures, remimazolam is an effective and safe sedative procedure. No synergistic effect has been reported when remimazolam was combined with alfentanil in gastroscopy sedation. Here, we evaluated the effective dose, sedative efficacy, and safety of the remimazolam-alfentanil combination in gastroscopy sedation and compared the results with those of the propofol-alfentanil combination. METHODS: This study was conducted in two parts. In Part 1, Dixon's up-and-down method (sequential distribution) was adopted for determining the 95% effective dose (ED95) (95% CI) and 95% CI of remimazolam combined with 5 µg/kg alfentanil. In Part 2, after obtaining the predictive remimazolam ED95, 161 patients were randomized into the remimazolam group (remimazolam-alfentanil) and the propofol group (propofol-alfentanil). The effectiveness of the drug combinations was measured according to successful sedation parameters. Changes in vital signs and the appearance of adverse events were used to assess the safety of drug combinations. Evaluation of patient and physician satisfaction was included as quality indicators of treatment. RESULTS: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between the 2 parts of the study. The ED95 of remimazolam in inhibiting a positive response to gastroscopy placement into the pharyngeal cavity was 0.33 mg/kg (95% CI, 0.289 to 1.023). The procedure success rate was 97.53% in the remimazolam group and 97.50% in the propofol group. The difference in the success rate of the procedure between the remimazolam and propofol groups was 0.03% (95% CI, -2.5 to 2.4). However, the incidence of injection pain, hypotension, respiratory depression, and dizziness was lower in the remimazolam group compared with the propofol group (P < 0.05). Furthermore, patients from the propofol group were more likely to be drowsy, and their work efficiency was reduced the day after leaving the hospital, whereas patients in the remimazolam group were less affected (P < 0.05). IMPLICATIONS: The ED95 of remimazolam was 0.33 mg/kg when it was combined with alfentanil (5 µg/kg) for gastroscopy sedation. The sedation strategy of remimazolam-alfentanil has noninferior efficacy, fewer adverse effects, and a better postoperative recovery process than propofol-alfentanil for patients undergoing gastroscopy. Chinese Clinical Trials Registry identifier: ChiCTR2100051565.

Women require routine opioids to prevent painful colonoscopies: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women are at high risk for painful colonoscopy. Pain, but also sedation, are barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation. In a randomised controlled trial, we compared on-demand with pre-colonoscopy opioid administration to control pain in women at CRC screening age. METHODS: Women, aged 55-79 years, attending colonoscopy at two Norwegian endoscopy units were randomised 1:1:1 to (1) fentanyl on-demand, (2) fentanyl prior to colonoscopy, or (3) alfentanil on-demand. The primary endpoint was procedural pain reported by the patients on a validated four-point Likert scale and further dichotomized for the study into painful (moderate or severe pain) and non-painful (slight or no pain) colonoscopy. Secondary endpoints were: willingness to repeat colonoscopy, adverse events, cecal intubation time and rate, and post-procedure recovery time. RESULTS: Between June 2017 and May 2020, 183 patients were included in intention-to-treat analyses in the fentanyl on-demand group, 177 in the fentanyl prior to colonoscopy group, and 179 in the alfentanil on-demand group. Fewer women receiving fentanyl prior to colonoscopy reported a painful colonoscopy compared to those who were given fentanyl on-demand (25.2% vs. 44.1%, p < .001). There was no difference in the proportion of painful colonoscopies between fentanyl on-demand and alfentanil on-demand (44.1% vs. 39.5%, p = .40). No differences were observed for adverse events or any of the other secondary endpoints between the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Fentanyl prior to colonoscopy provided better pain control than fentanyl or alfentanil on-demand. Fentanyl before colonoscopy should be recommended to all women at screening age. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550). Norwegian Medicines Agency (16/16266-13). EU Clinical Trials Register (EUDRACTNR. 2016-005090-13).

Oxycodone versus other opioid analgesics after laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous opioids are administered for the management of visceral pain after laparoscopic surgery. Whether oxycodone has advantages over other opioids in the treatment of visceral pain is not yet clear. METHODS: In this study, the analgesic efficiency and adverse events of oxycodone and other opioids, including alfentanil, sufentanil, fentanyl, and morphine, in treating post-laparoscopic surgery visceral pain were evaluated. This review was conducted according to the methodological standards described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched in December 2019. RESULTS: Ten studies were included in this review. The sample size was 695 participants. The results showed that compared with morphine and fentanyl, oxycodone had a more potent analgesic efficacy on the first day after laparoscopic surgery, especially during the first 0.5 h. There was no significant difference in sedation between the two groups. Compared to morphine and fentanyl, oxycodone was more likely to lead to dizziness and drowsiness. Overall, patient satisfaction did not differ significantly between oxycodone and other opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Oxycodone is superior to other analgesics within 24 h after laparoscopic surgery, but its adverse effects should be carefully considered.

Complications and discomfort after research bronchoscopy in the MicroCOPD study.

BACKGROUND: Data on discomfort and complications from research bronchoscopy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma is limited. We present complications and discomfort occurring within a week after bronchoscopy, and investigate personal and procedural risk factors. METHODS: 239 subjects with COPD, asthma or without lung disease underwent research bronchoscopies as part of a microbiome study of the lower airways (the MicroCOPD study). Bronchoscopy was done in the supine position with oral scope insertion with the option of light conscious alfentanil sedation. Sampling consisted of protected specimen brushes, bronchoalveolar lavage, small volume lavage and for some, endobronchial biopsies. Bleeding, desaturation, cough, haemodynamic changes, dyspnoea and other events that required an unplanned intervention or early termination of bronchoscopy were prospectively recorded. Follow-up consisted of a telephone interview where subjects rated discomfort and answered questions about fever sensation and respiratory symptoms in the week following bronchoscopy. RESULTS: An unplanned intervention or early termination of bronchoscopy was required in 25.9% of bronchoscopies. Three subjects (1.3%) experienced potentially severe complications, of which all recovered without sequelae. COPD subjects experienced more dyspnoea than controls. Sedation and lower age was associated with less unplanned intervention or premature termination. About half of the subjects (47.7%) reported fever. Discomfort was associated with postprocedural fever, dread of bronchoscopy, higher score on the COPD Assessment Test and never-smoking. In subjects undergoing more than one bronchoscopy, the first bronchoscopy was often predictive for complications and postprocedural fever in the repeated bronchoscopy. CONCLUSION: Research bronchoscopies were not associated with more complications or discomfort in COPD subjects. 47.7% experienced postbronchoscopy fever sensation, which was associated with discomfort.

The Influence of Hemorrhagic Shock on the Disposition and Effects of Intravenous Anesthetics: A Narrative Review.

The need to reduce the dose of intravenous anesthetic in the setting of hemorrhagic shock is a well-established clinical dogma. Considered collectively,; the body of information concerning the behavior of intravenous anesthetics during hemorrhagic shock, drawn from animal and human data, confirms that clinical dogma and informs the rational selection and administration of intravenous anesthetics in the setting of hemorrhagic shock. The physiologic changes during hemorrhagic shock can alter pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intravenous anesthetics. Decreased size of the central compartment and central clearance caused by shock physiology lead to an altered dose-concentration relationship. For most agents and adjuncts, shock leads to substantially higher concentrations and increased effect. The notable exception is etomidate, which has relatively unchanged pharmacokinetics during shock. Increased concentrations lead to increased primary effect as well as increased side effects, notably cardiovascular effects. Pharmacokinetic changes are essentially reversed for all agents by fluid resuscitation. Propofol is unique among agents in that, in addition to the pharmacokinetic changes, it exhibits increased potency during shock. The pharmacodynamic changes of propofol persist despite fluid resuscitation. The persistence of these pharmacodynamic changes during shock is unlikely to be due to increased endogenous opiates, but is most likely due to increased fraction of unbound propofol. The stage of shock also appears to influence the pharmacologic changes. The changes are more rapid and pronounced as shock physiology progresses to the uncompensated stage. Although scant, human data corroborate the findings of animal studies. Both the animal and human data inform the rational selection and administration of intravenous anesthetics in the setting of hemorrhagic shock. The well-entrenched clinical dogma that etomidate is a preferred induction agent in patients experiencing hemorrhagic shock is firmly supported by the evidence. Propofol is a poor choice for induction or maintenance of anesthesia in severely bleeding patients, even with resuscitation; this can include emergent trauma cases or scheduled cases that routinely have mild or moderate blood loss.

Opioid-induced hyperalgesia from alfentanil.

There remains uncertainty regarding the existence, mechanism and frequency of opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH). Literature to date has been dominated by the phenanthrene opioids, fentanyl and remifentanil. This case draws attention to alfentanil as an additional contributor. In this report, suspected OIH and subsequent reduction in opioid dose led to a dramatic diminution of pain. Omission of such a differential may have led to detrimental consequences. Underlying dementia heightened his vulnerability and illustrates the necessity of clinical expertise in the diagnosis and management of OIH, particularly when diagnostic criteria are lacking. The case demonstrates the need to include OIH as a plausible differential diagnosis in escalating pain where opioid tolerance, disease progression and non-opioid sensitive pain are excluded.

The effectiveness of a low-dose esketamine versus an alfentanil adjunct to propofol sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A randomised controlled multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is one of the most complex gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Currently, it is still unclear which sedation regimen best facilitates an ERCP. The N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist esketamine has anaesthetic, analgesic and sympathomimetic properties and is known to cause less cardiorespiratory depression than other sedatives. It could therefore be an ideal adjunct to propofol for deep sedation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of esketamine versus alfentanil as an adjunct to propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) for deep sedation during ambulant ERCP. DESIGN: A randomised controlled multicentre study. SETTING: Endoscopic intervention suite at an academic and general hospital in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Adult, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I to III patients scheduled to undergo ERCP. INTERVENTION: Consecutive patients were randomly assigned to receive sedation for an ERCP with propofol TCI and alfentanil (group A) or with propofol TCI and esketamine (group E). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was effectiveness of the sedation regimen expressed as the total dose of propofol - as a surrogate parameter - necessary to perform ERCP in a satisfactory manner for endoscopist and patients. Secondary outcomes were recovery time, patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction with sedation, side effects (e.g. psychotomimetic effects, nausea and vomiting) and the number of respiratory and cardiovascular adverse events. RESULTS: Data from 162 patients were analysed. The total dose of propofol required was significantly lower in group E (n=83) (8.3 mg kg h) than in group A (n=79) (10.5 mg kg h) (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in recovery time, patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction, side effects, psychotomimetic effects and the number of sedation-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: Low-dose esketamine reduces the total amount of propofol necessary for sedation during ERCP in American Society of Anesthesiologists I and II patients without affecting recovery time, satisfaction of patients and endoscopists, side effects and respiratory or cardiovascular adverse events, when compared with alfentanil. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR5486).

Adaptation of non-linear mixed amount with zero amount response surface model for analysis of concentration-dependent synergism and safety with midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol sedation.

BACKGROUND: The non-linear mixed amount with zero amounts response surface model can be used to describe drug interactions and predict loss of response to noxious stimuli and respiratory depression. We aimed to determine whether this response surface model could be used to model sedation with the triple drug combination of midazolam, alfentanil and propofol. METHODS: Sedation was monitored in 56 patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy (modelling group) using modified alertness/sedation scores. A total of 227 combinations of effect-site concentrations were derived from pharmacokinetic models. Accuracy and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were calculated. Accuracy was defined as an absolute difference <0.5 between the binary patient responses and the predicted probability of loss of responsiveness. Validation was performed with a separate group (validation group) of 47 patients. RESULTS: Effect-site concentration ranged from 0 to 108 ng ml-1 for midazolam, 0-156 ng ml-1 for alfentanil, and 0-2.6 µg ml-1 for propofol in both groups. Synergy was strongest with midazolam and alfentanil (24.3% decrease in U50, concentration for half maximal drug effect). Adding propofol, a third drug, offered little additional synergy (25.8% decrease in U50). Two patients (3%) experienced respiratory depression. Model accuracy was 83% and 76%, area under the curve was 0.87 and 0.80 for the modelling and validation group, respectively. CONCLUSION: The non-linear mixed amount with zero amounts triple interaction response surface model predicts patient sedation responses during endoscopy with combinations of midazolam, alfentanil, or propofol that fall within clinical use. Our model also suggests a safety margin of alfentanil fraction <0.12 that avoids respiratory depression after loss of responsiveness.