Efficacy and safety of remifentanil and sulfentanyl in painless gastroscopic examination: a prospective study.

We aim to assess efficacy and safety of remifentanil or sulfentanyl combined with propofol during painless gastroscopic examination in patients. In this study, 270 patients were randomly divided into 3 groups: propofol was given only in group P; propofol and remifentanil in group PR; propofol and sulfentanyl in group PS during the gastroscopic examination. Efficiency of group P was significantly higher than that of group PR and PS (P<0.01) [corrected]. Efficiency of group PR was lower than that of group PS (P<0.05). Incidence of chest wall rigidity and oxygen desaturation in group PR were higher than group P and PS (P<0.05), whereas there was no difference between groups P and PS (P>0.05). Propofol combined with remifentanil could provide satisfying anesthesia and more respiratory depression, whereas sulfentanyl at equivalent dose combined with propofol could also provide with satisfying anesthesia and less respiratory depression. Combined sufentanyl with propofol would be an effective anesthesia technique in the daytime procedure.

Lateral position could provide more excellent hemodynamic parameters during video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for cancer.

BACKGROUND: Thoracoscopic esophagectomy is a feasible technique that has been shown to be safe for the treatment of esophageal cancer. There continues to be controversy about the optimal position during thoracoscopic esophagectomy. In this study, we compared the intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, clinical pathological characteristics, as well as postoperative complications in patients who underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position (PP) or left-lateral decubitus position (LDP). METHODS: Between January 2011 and June 2011, 23 patients underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomies for cancer of the esophagus in LDP (group A). Since February 2011, we have performed thoracoscopic esophagectomies for cancer of the esophagus in PP for 21 patients (group B). The demographics and clinicopathologic factors, as well as the intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, of the two groups were analyzed. RESULTS: No postoperative death occurred in these 44 patients. Overall morbidity was similar in the two groups. No significant difference in the length of operation or number of retrieved mediastinal nodes between the two groups was observed, but the intraoperative blood loss in group A was significantly higher than in group B (P = 0.0228). There was no significant difference of the intraoperative mean arterial pressure, central venous pressure, heart rate, and stroke volume variation between the two groups and various positions. In group A, the cardiac output (CO), cardiac index (CI), as well as stroke volume index (SVI) did not exhibit significant difference after altering patients' position from LDP to SP. However, patients who underwent thorascopic esophagectomy in PP had lower CO, CI, and SVI than in LDP during the thoracoscopic stage. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the PP, the LDP could provide more excellent hemodynamic parameters during thoracoscopic esophagectomy. However, the various hemodynamic statuses did not exert significant influence on the occurrence of postoperative complications.