Comparison of 2 effect-site concentrations of remifentanil with midazolam during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy under procedural analgesia and sedation: A randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Until now, target-controlled infusion of remifentanil with midazolam for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy has not been described. Here, we investigate 2 effect-site concentrations of remifentanil with intermittent bolus midazolam for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy under procedural analgesia and sedation. METHODS: A prospective, randomized controlled trial including patients who received a transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy between February 2019 and January 2021 was conducted. Group 1 and Group 2 were respectively administered an initial effect-site concentration of remifentanil of 1.0 ng/mL and 2.0 ng/mL by a target-controlled infusion pump with Minto model. In both groups, maintenance of the effect-site concentration of remifentanil was adjusted upward and downward by 0.5 ng/mL to keep patient comfort with acceptable pain (remaining moveless), and mean arterial pressure and heart rate within baseline levels ±â€…30%, and using intermittent bolus midazolam to keep the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale between 2 and 4. The primary outcome was to determine which effect-site concentration of remifentanil provide adequate patient comfort with acceptable pain (remaining moveless) during the procedure. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients in Group 1 and 40 patients in Group 2 were eligible for analysis. Most parameters were insignificantly different between Group 1 and Group 2, except Group 1 having higher peripheral oxygen saturation while probe insertion compared with Group 2. Group 2 patients had less intraoperative movements affecting the procedure (2 vs 18; P < .001), and less total times of target-controlled infusion pump adjustment (0 [0-1] vs 1 [0-3], P < .001) compared with group 1. However, group 1 patients had less apnea with desaturation (peripheral oxygen saturation < 90%; 0 vs 9, P = .002) and less remifentanil consumption (94.9 ±â€…25.5 µg vs 106.2 ±â€…21.2 µg, P = .034) compared to Group 2. CONCLUSION: In transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, target-controlled infusion with remifentanil Minto model target 2.0 ng/mL with 3 to 4 mg midazolam use provided sufficient analgesia and sedation, and appropriate hemodynamic and respiratory conditions.

Comparison of 2 effect-site concentrations of remifentanil with midazolam during percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty under monitored anesthesia care: A randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Until now, target-controlled infusion of remifentanil with midazolam in percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty for dysfunctional hemodialysis fistulas has not been described. Here, we investigate 2 effect-site concentrations of remifentanil with intermittent bolus midazolam for percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty under monitored anesthesia care. METHODS: A prospective, randomized controlled trial including patients who received a percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty between March 2019 and March 2021 was conducted. Group 1 and Group 2 were, respectively, administered an initial effect-site concentration of remifentanil of 1.0 and 2.0 ng/mL by a target-controlled infusion pump with Minto model. In both groups, maintenance of the effect-site concentration of remifentanil was adjusted upward and downward by 0.5 ng/mL with intermittent bolus midazolam to keep the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale between 2 and 4, mean arterial pressure and heart rate at baseline levels ±â€Š30%, and patient comfort (remaining moveless). The primary outcome was to determine the appropriate effect-site concentration of remifentanil for the procedure in terms of patient comfort (remaining moveless), hemodynamic conditions, and adverse events. Secondary endpoints included the total dosage of anesthetics and total times of target-controlled infusion pump adjustments. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients in Group 1 and 40 patients in Group 2 were eligible for analysis. Most parameters were insignificantly different between 2 groups, except Group 1 having higher peripheral oxygen saturation, while local anesthetic injection compared with Group 2. In addition, Group 1 patients had less apnea with desaturation (peripheral oxygen saturation < 90%; 0 vs 6, P = .034), less remifentanil consumption (189.65 ±â€Š69.7 vs 243.8 ±â€Š76.1 µg, P = .001), but more intraoperative movements affecting the procedure (14 vs 4; P = .016), total times of target-controlled infusion pump adjustment [2 (1-4) vs 1 (1-2), P < .001] compared with Group 2. CONCLUSION: In percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty for dysfunctional hemodialysis fistulas, target-controlled infusion with remifentanil Minto model target 2.0 ng/mL with 3 to 4 mg midazolam use provided appropriate hemodynamic conditions, sufficient sedation and analgesia, and acceptable apnea with desaturation.

Efficacy of sevoflurane as an adjuvant to propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia for attenuating secretions in ocular surgery.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of nasal secretions into the operative field is as high as 5% in ophthalmic surgery under general anesthesia. It may induce postoperative endophthalmitis. Secretions under propofol-based total intravanous anesthesia (TIVA) are greater than sevoflurane anesthesia during surgery. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after inhalational anesthesia is higher than TIVA and may increase intraocluar pressure. We investigated the effect of sevoflurane combination with propofol-based TIVA on nasopharyngeal secretions and PONV in ocular surgery. METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing ocular operations were randomly assigned for propofol-based TIVA or propofol/sevoflurane anesthesia. In the TIVA group (n = 25), anesthesia was induced and maintained with propofol and fentanyl; in the propofol/sevoflurane group (n = 25), 1% sevoflurane anesthesia was added. RESULTS: Nasopharyngeal excretion volume was significantly higher in the propofol-based TIVA group than in the propofol/sevoflurane group (31.0 ±â€Š18.1 vs 13.7 ±â€Š12.6 ml; P < .001). No significant difference in extubation time was noted (propofol-based TIVA: 6.4 ±â€Š3.6 vs propofol/sevoflurane: 7.4 ±â€Š3.0 minutes; P = .34). No postoperative endophthalmitis or PONV in both groups was observed. CONCLUSION: Sevoflurane attenuated secretions under propofol-based TIVA and did not increase the incidence of PONV or prolonged extubation in ocular surgery.

Relationship between anesthesia and postoperative endophthalmitis: A retrospective study.

Previous study showed that patients under general anesthesia (GA) had nasopharyngeal secretions on the face at the end of ocular surgery, especially in propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), it might induce postoperative endophthalmitis. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective study to compare the incidence of endophthalmitis after ocular surgery under topical, inhalation anesthesia, and propofol-based TIVA in our medical center from 2011 to 2015.A total of 21,032 patients were included, and we evaluated epidemiologic factors, systemic diseases, other ocular pathologic characteristics, complications during the surgery, technique of ocular surgery, method of antibiotic prophylaxis, vitreous culture, and vision outcome in these patients.Fifteen endophthalmitis cases among 21,032 operations reported, equaling an incidence of 0.071%. The incidence rates under topical, inhalation anesthesia, and propofol-based TIVA were 0.083%, 0.039%, and 0%, respectively (P = 0.39). Moreover, the risk of endophthalmitis under GA (0.024%) was significantly lower than topical anesthesia (0.083%) (P < 0.001). We also found that elder was the risk factor for endophthalmitis following ocular surgery.In conclusion, propofol-based TIVA or inhalation anesthesia did not increase the risk of endophthalmitis after ocular surgery. Thus, GA was not a risk factor for postoperative endophthalmitis. By contrast, elder was the risk factor for postoperative endophthalmitis.

Removal of Laryngeal Mask Airway in Adults Under Target-Controlled, Propofol-Fentanyl Infusion Anesthesia: Awake or Deep Anesthesia?

After emergence from anesthesia, the incidence and severity of adverse airway effects caused by the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) can vary, depending on when the device was removed; nonetheless, reports differ regarding the exact optimal timing of LMA removal. The purpose of this study was to compare the rate of adverse events between 2 groups: those whose LMA was removed under general anesthesia ("deep" group) or under target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol ("awake" group).Institutional Review Board approval and written informed consent were obtained; 124 patients were then randomly allocated into either the "awake" group or the "deep" group. Anesthesia was induced and maintained using TCI of propofol, as well as intravenous fentanyl. In the "deep" group, the LMA was removed after surgery while the patients were deeply anesthetized using a target effect-site propofol concentration of 2 µg/mL, whereas in the "awake" group, the device was removed while the patients followed verbal instructions. The incidence of the following adverse events was recorded: coughing, straining, bronchospasm, laryngospasm, clenching, breath holding, gross purposeful movement, airway obstruction, retching, vomiting, and oxygen desaturation. If any such event occurred, the LMA removal was considered a failure. Airway hyperreactivity was recorded and graded - based on the severity of cough, breath holding, and oxygen desaturation.The failure rate was higher in the "awake" group (15/61; 24.6%) than in the "deep" group (5/60; 8.3%). Airway hyperreactivity was mild (score, <3) in both groups.Removal of the LMA under deep anesthesia using a target-controlled, effect-site propofol concentration of 2 µg/mL may be safer and more successful than removal when patients are fully awake after surgery.