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.

GABAergic neurons of anterior thalamic reticular nucleus regulate states of consciousness in propofol- and isoflurane-mediated general anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: The thalamus system plays critical roles in the regulation of reversible unconsciousness induced by general anesthetics, especially the arousal stage of general anesthesia (GA). But the function of thalamus in GA-induced loss of consciousness (LOC) is little known. The thalamic reticular nucleus (TRN) is the only GABAergic neurons-composed nucleus in the thalamus, which is composed of parvalbumin (PV) and somatostatin (SST)-expressing GABAergic neurons. The anterior sector of TRN (aTRN) is indicated to participate in the induction of anesthesia, but the roles remain unclear. This study aimed to reveal the role of the aTRN in propofol and isoflurane anesthesia. METHODS: We first set up c-Fos straining to monitor the activity variation of aTRNPV and aTRNSST neurons during propofol and isoflurane anesthesia. Subsequently, optogenetic tools were utilized to activate aTRNPV and aTRNSST neurons to elucidate the roles of aTRNPV and aTRNSST neurons in propofol and isoflurane anesthesia. Electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings and behavioral tests were recorded and analyzed. Lastly, chemogenetic activation of the aTRNPV neurons was applied to confirm the function of the aTRN neurons in propofol and isoflurane anesthesia. RESULTS: c-Fos straining showed that both aTRNPV and aTRNSST neurons are activated during the LOC period of propofol and isoflurane anesthesia. Optogenetic activation of aTRNPV and aTRNSST neurons promoted isoflurane induction and delayed the recovery of consciousness (ROC) after propofol and isoflurane anesthesia, meanwhile chemogenetic activation of the aTRNPV neurons displayed the similar effects. Moreover, optogenetic and chemogenetic activation of the aTRN neurons resulted in the accumulated burst suppression ratio (BSR) during propofol and isoflurane GA, although they represented different effects on the power distribution of EEG frequency. CONCLUSION: Our findings reveal that the aTRN GABAergic neurons play a critical role in promoting the induction of propofol- and isoflurane-mediated GA.

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.

Effect of desflurane anesthesia on flash visual evoked potential monitoring in patients undergoing spine surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Flash visual evoked potentials (FVEPs) are a reliable method for protecting visual function during spine surgery in prone position. However, the popularization and application of FVEPs remain limited due to the unclear influence of various anesthetics on FVEPs. Exploring the effects of anesthetic drugs on FVEP and establishing appropriate anesthesia maintenance methods are particularly important for promoting and applying FVEP. According to the conventional concept, inhaled narcotic drugs significantly affect the success of FVEP monitoring, FVEP extraction, and interpretation. Nonetheless, our previous study demonstrated that sevoflurane-propofol balanced anesthesia was a practicable regimen for FVEPs. Desflurane is widely used in general anesthesia for its rapid recovery properties. As the effect of desflurane on FVEP remains unclear, this trial will investigate the effect of different inhaled concentrations of desflurane anesthesia on amplitude of FVEPs during spine surgery, aiming to identify more feasible anesthesia schemes for the clinical application of FVEP. METHODS/ DESIGN: A total of 70 patients undergoing elective spinal surgery will be enrolled in this prospective, randomized controlled, open-label, patient-assessor-blinded, superiority trial and randomly assigned to the low inhaled concentration of desflurane group (LD group) maintained with desflurane-propofolremifentanil-balanced anesthesia or high inhaled concentration of desflurane group (HD group) maintained with desflurane-remifentanil anesthesia maintenance group at a ratio of 1:1. All patients will be monitored for intraoperative FVEPs, and the baseline will be measured half an hour after induction under total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). After that, patients will receive 0.5 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of desflurane combined with propofol and remifentanil for anesthesia maintenance in the LD group, while 0.7-1.0 MAC of desflurane and remifentanil will be maintained in the HD group. The primary outcome is the N75-P100 amplitude 1 h after the induction of anesthesia. We intend to use the dual measure evaluation, dual data entry, and statistical analysis by double trained assessors to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the results. DISCUSSION: This randomized controlled trial aims to explore the superiority effect of low inhaled concentration of desflurane combined with propofolremifentanil-balanced anesthesia versus high inhaled concentration of desflurane combined with remifentanil anesthesia on amplitude of FVEPs. The study is meant to be published in a peer-reviewed journal and might guide the anesthetic regimen for FVEPs. The conclusion is expected to provide high-quality evidence for the effect of desflurane on FVEPs and aim to explore more feasible anesthesia schemes for the clinical application of FVEPs and visual function protection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov on July 15, 2022. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT05465330.

Influences of Propofol, Ciprofol and Remimazolam on Dreaming During Anesthesia for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Double-Blind Parallel-Design Trial.

Purpose: To compare the influences of propofol, ciprofol and remimazolam on dreaming during painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: This study was a single-center, prospective, parallel-design, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Between May 2023 and October 2023, patients undergoing elective painless gastrointestinal endoscopy were recruited and randomly allocated into one of the three groups. Demographic data, intraoperative information, incidence of dreaming, insufficient anesthesia and intraoperative awareness, type of dream, patient satisfaction score, adverse events, and improvement of sleep quality were collected. Results: The difference in incidence of dreaming among the three groups was not significant (33.33% vs 48.33% vs 41.67%, p=0.061). The number of patients with intraoperative hypotension in the propofol group was larger than that of the remimazolam group (32 vs 12, p=0.001). However, the cases of intraoperative hypotension between propofol group and ciprofol group or ciprofol group and remimazolam group were comparable (32 vs 22, p=0.122; 22 vs 12, p=0.064). The percentage of insufficient anesthesia between propofol group and remimazolam group was significant (13.33% vs 1.67%, p=0.001), while no statistical difference was detected between propofol group and remimazolam group or ciprofol group and remimazolam group (13.33% vs 5.00%, p=0.025; 5.00% vs 1.67%, p=0.150). The ability of propofol to improve sleep quality at 1st post-examination day was significantly better than that of remimazolam (86.21% vs 72.88%, p=0.015), while it was not significant between propofol group and ciprofol group or ciprofol group and remimazolam group (86.21% vs 80.36%, p=0.236; 72.88% vs. 72.88%, p=0.181). Incidence of intraoperative awareness, intraoperative hypoxia, type of dream, satisfaction score, adverse events during recovery, and sleep improvement on the 7th post-examination day was not significant among the groups. Conclusion: Anesthesia with propofol, ciprofol and remimazolam, respectively, for gastrointestinal endoscopy did not induce statistical difference in the incidence of dreaming, despite that all of them are more likely to induce pleasant dreams.

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.

Substance specific EEG patterns in mice undergoing slow anesthesia induction.

The exact mechanisms and the neural circuits involved in anesthesia induced unconsciousness are still not fully understood. To elucidate them valid animal models are necessary. Since the most commonly used species in neuroscience are mice, we established a murine model for commonly used anesthetics/sedatives and evaluated the epidural electroencephalographic (EEG) patterns during slow anesthesia induction and emergence. Forty-four mice underwent surgery in which we inserted a central venous catheter and implanted nine intracranial electrodes above the prefrontal, motor, sensory, and visual cortex. After at least one week of recovery, mice were anesthetized either by inhalational sevoflurane or intravenous propofol, ketamine, or dexmedetomidine. We evaluated the loss and return of righting reflex (LORR/RORR) and recorded the electrocorticogram. For spectral analysis we focused on the prefrontal and visual cortex. In addition to analyzing the power spectral density at specific time points we evaluated the changes in the spectral power distribution longitudinally. The median time to LORR after start anesthesia ranged from 1080 [1st quartile: 960; 3rd quartile: 1080]s under sevoflurane anesthesia to 1541 [1455; 1890]s with ketamine. Around LORR sevoflurane as well as propofol induced a decrease in the theta/alpha band and an increase in the beta/gamma band. Dexmedetomidine infusion resulted in a shift towards lower frequencies with an increase in the delta range. Ketamine induced stronger activity in the higher frequencies. Our results showed substance-specific changes in EEG patterns during slow anesthesia induction. These patterns were partially identical to previous observations in humans, but also included significant differences, especially in the low frequencies. Our study emphasizes strengths and limitations of murine models in neuroscience and provides an important basis for future studies investigating complex neurophysiological mechanisms.

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.

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.

Effect of esketamine on the ED50 of propofol for successful insertion of ureteroscope in elderly male patients: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is effective and used as a kind of routine anesthetics in procedure sedative anesthesia (PSA) for ureteroscopy. However, respiratory depression and unconscious physical activity always occur during propofol-based PSA, especially in elderly patients. Esketamine has sedative and analgesic effects but without risk of cardiorespiratory depression. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether esketamine can reduce the propofol median effective dose (ED50) for successful ureteroscope insertion in elderly male patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 49 elderly male patients undergoing elective rigid ureteroscopy were randomly divided into two groups: SK Group (0.25 mg/kg esketamine+propofol) and SF Group (0.1 µg/kg sufentanil+propofol). Patients in both two groups received propofol with initial bolus dose of 1.5 mg/kg after sufentanil or esketamine was administered intravenously. The effective dose of propofol was assessed by a modified Dixon's up-and-down method and then was adjusted with 0.1 mg/kg according to the previous patient response. Patients' response to ureteroscope insertion was classified as "movement" or "no movement". The primary outcome was the ED50 of propofol for successful ureteroscope insertion with esketamine or sufentanil. The secondary outcomes were the induction time, adverse events such as hemodynamic changes, hypoxemia and body movement were also measured. RESULT: 49 patients were enrolled and completed this study. The ED50 of propofol for successful ureteroscope insertion in SK Group was 1.356 ± 0.11 mg/kg, which was decreased compared with that in SF Group, 1.442 ± 0.08 mg/kg (P = 0.003). The induction time in SK Group was significantly shorter than in SF Group (P = 0.001). In SK Group, more stable hemodynamic variables were observed than in SF Group. The incidence of AEs between the two groups was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: The ED50 of propofol with esketamine administration for ureteroscope insertion in elderly male patients is 1.356 ± 0.11 mg/kg, significantly decreased in comparsion with sufentanil. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, No: ChiCTR2300077170. Registered on 1 November 2023. Prospective registration. http://www.chictr.org.cn .

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.

Impact of various anesthetic regimens on motor-evoked potentials in infants undergoing spinal surgery: A case series.

Motor-evoked potential (MEP) monitoring is commonly used in children. MEP monitoring in infants is difficult due to smaller signals requiring higher stimulation voltages. There is limited information on the effect of different anesthetics on MEP monitoring in this age group. This case series describes the effect of different anesthetic regimens on MEP monitoring in infants. Patients <1 year of age who underwent spinal surgery with MEP monitoring between February 2022 and July 2023 at a single tertiary care children hospital were reviewed. The motor-evoked potential amplitudes were classified into 4 levels based on the voltage in the upper and lower limbs (none, responded, acceptable, sufficient). "Acceptable" or "sufficient" levels were defined as successful monitoring. A total of 19 infants were identified, involving 3 anesthesia regimens: 4/19 (21.1%) cases were anesthetized with propofol/remifentanil total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), 3/19 (15.8%) with propofol/remifentanil/low-dose sevoflurane and another 12/19 (63.2%) cases who initially received propofol/remifentanil/sevoflurane and were converted to propofol/remifentanil anesthesia intraoperatively. The 4 cases with propofol/remifentanil showed 20/32 (62.5%) successful monitoring points. In contrast, 6/24 (25%) successful points were achieved with propofol/remifentanil intravenous anesthesia/0.5 age-adjusted minimum alveolar concentration sevoflurane. In 12 cases converted from propofol/remifentanil/low-dose inhalational anesthetics to TIVA alone, successful MEP monitoring points increased from 46/96 (47.9%) to 81/96 (84.4%). Adding low-dose inhalation anesthetic to propofol-based TIVA suppresses MEP amplitudes in infants. The optimal anesthetic regimen for infants requires further investigation.

50% efficacy dose of intravenous lidocaine in supressing sufentanil-induced cough in children: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioids such as sufentanil are used as anaesthetics due to their rapid action and superior analgesic effect. However, sufentanil induces a huge cough in paediatric patients. In contrast, intravenous (IV) lidocaine suppresses opioid-induced cough in children, but its use is limited due to anaesthetists' concern about its toxicity. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of dose-dependent IV lidocaine on sufentanil-induced cough (SIC) in paediatric patients. METHODS: A total of 188 patients aged 3-12 years scheduled for elective tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy were enrolled and divided into four groups depending on different dose of lidocaine: A (0 mg.kg-1), B (1 mg.kg-1), C (1.5 mg.kg-1), and D (2 mg.kg-1). The primary outcome was the SIC grade observed during the induction of general anaesthesia. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of SIC, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate at T0, T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5. RESULTS: The SIC grade was significantly different between groups A and D (P = 0.04) and between groups B and D (P = 0.03). Moreover, the incidence of SIC in groups A, B, C, and D was 81%, 87%, 68%, and 64%, respectively, and the difference between groups B and C (P = 0.03) and between groups B and D (P = 0.0083) was statistically significant. No statistical differences were observed in the hemodynamic parameters between the groups. The incidence of severe cough was statistically different between group D and group A (P < 0.0001), between group D and group B (P < 0.0001), and between group D and group C (P < 0.0001) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine suppresses SIC in a dose-dependent manner without severe adverse events. IV lidocaine can be used in paediatric patients safely and efficiently, and the median effective dose was 1.75 mg/kg. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Yichang Central People's Hospital (HEC-KYJJ-2020-038-02), The trial was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100053006).

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.

Application of propofol-remifentanil intravenous general anesthesia combined with regional block in pediatric ophthalmic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to observe the anesthetic effect and safety of intravenous anesthesia without muscle relaxant with propofol-remifentanil combined with regional block under laryngeal mask airway in pediatric ophthalmologic surgery. METHODS: A total of 90 undergoing ophthalmic surgery were anesthetized with general anesthesia using the laryngeal mask airway without muscle relaxant. They were randomly divided into two groups: 45 children who received propofol-remifentanil intravenous anesthesia combined with regional block (LG group), and 45 children who received total intravenous anesthesia (G group). The peri-operative circulatory indicators, awakening time after general anesthesia, postoperative analgesic effect and the incidence of anesthesia-related adverse events were respectively compared between the two groups. RESULTS: All the children successfully underwent the surgical procedure. The awakening time after general anesthesia and removal time of laryngeal mask were significantly shorter in the LG group than in the G group (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the heart rates in the perioperative period between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of intraoperative physical response, respiratory depression, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and emergence agitation (EA) between the two groups (P > 0.05). The pain score at the postoperative hour 2 was lower in the LG group than in the G group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Propofol-remifentanil intravenous anesthesia combined with long-acting local anesthetic regional block anesthesia, combined with laryngeal mask ventilation technology without muscle relaxants, can be safely used in pediatric eye surgery to achieve rapid and smooth recovery from general anesthesia and better postoperative analgesia. This anesthesia scheme can improve the comfort and safety of children in perioperative period, and has a certain clinical popularization value.

Dexmedetomidine Pretreatment Confers Myocardial Protection and Reduces Mechanical Ventilation Duration for Patients Undergoing Cardiac Valve Replacement under Cardiopulmonary Bypass.

PURPOSE: The study aims to assess the effects of dexmedetomidine (Dex) pretreatment on patients during cardiac valve replacement under cardiopulmonary bypass. METHODS: For patients in the Dex group (n = 52), 0.5 µg/kg Dex was given before anesthesia induction, followed by 0.5 µg/kg/h pumping injection before aortic occlusion. For patients in the control group (n = 52), 0.125 ml/kg normal saline was given instead of Dex. RESULTS: The patients in the Dex group had longer time to first dose of rescue propofol than the control group (P = 0.003). The Dex group required less total dosage of propofol than the control group (P = 0.0001). The levels of cardiac troponin I (cTnI), creatine kinase isoenzyme MB (CK-MB), malondialdehyde (MDA), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were lower in the Dex group than the control group at T4, 8 h after the operation (T5), and 24 h after the operation (T6) (P <0.01). The Dex group required less time for mechanical ventilation than the control group (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The study suggests that 0.50 µg/kg Dex pretreatment could reduce propofol use and the duration of mechanical ventilation, and confer myocardial protection without increased adverse events during cardiac valve replacement.

Maternal and neonatal effects of epidural levobupivacaine combined with fentanyl or sufentanil for elective cesarean-section in brachycephalic breeds.

The aim of this study was to compare the safety and clinical efficacy of epidural levobupivacaine combined with fentanyl or sufentanil for bitches undergoing elective cesarean-section and the impact of these anesthetic protocols on neonatal viability. The anesthetic protocol consisted of intramuscular morphine (0.2 mg/kg), followed by an intravenous bolus of propofol, in a dose sufficient to allowed the puncture of the lumbosacral space. The dogs were randomly allocated to receive 0.5 % levobupivacaine plus fentanyl (2.5 µg/kg; LF: n = 9) or sufentanil (1 µg/kg; LS; n = 11). Maternal cardiorespiratory parameters were monitored at specific time points during surgery. Intraoperative propofol supplementation was based on the presence of head and/or thoracic limb movements. Neonatal reflex responses and the Apgar score (range 0-10 points) were assessed at 5 and 60 minutes after birth. Puppy mortality rate was recorded until 24 hours after birth. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA, Tukey's test, Wilcoxon signed rank test, and Fisher's exact test (P < 0.05). Intraoperatively, maternal cardiorespiratory variables and propofol requirements were similar between groups, with no detection of anesthetic complications. The puppy reflex responses did not differ between groups at any time point. The medians (range) of Apgar scores were lower (P = 0.016) in the LF [5 (1-9)] at 5 minutes in comparison with LS [6 (2-9)], while no intergroup differences were recorded at 60 minutes [LF = 8 (2-10); LS = 9 (6-10]. The total mortality rate was 4.1 %. In the LS group, no puppies died, while in the LF 8 % of the puppies died in the first 24 hours after birth (P = 0.11). Epidural levobupivacaine combined with fentanyl or sufentanil provided minimal maternal and neonatal adverse effects, but neither protocol enabled the performance of a C-section in 100 % of the French and English bulldogs, without propofol supplementation.

Effect of converting from propofol to remimazolam with flumazenil reversal on recovery from anesthesia in outpatients with mental disabilities: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: General anesthesia is often necessary for dental treatment of outpatients with mental disabilities. Rapid recovery and effective management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are critical for outpatients. This study aimed to investigate the effect of transitioning from propofol to remimazolam with flumazenil reversal administered toward the end of surgery during propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) on recovery. METHODS: Adults with mental disabilities scheduled to undergo dental treatment were randomly assigned to receive either propofol-based TIVA (Group P) or propofol-remimazolam-based TIVA with flumazenil reversal (Group PR). Propofol was replaced with remimazolam 1 h before the end of surgery in Group PR; moreover, 0.5 mg of flumazenil was administered after the neuromuscular blockade reversal agent. The primary outcome was the duration of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). The secondary outcomes included time to eye-opening, time to extubation, occurrence of PONV, and quality of recovery. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were included in this study. The duration of stay in the PACU in Group PR was significantly shorter than that in Group P (mean difference, 8.7 min; confidence interval [95% CI], 3.3-14.2; P = 0.002). Group PR exhibited a shorter time to eye opening (mean difference, 5.4 min; 95% CI, 3.3-8.1; P < 0.001) and time to extubation (mean difference, 5.5 min; 95% CI, 3.6-7.9; P < 0.001) than Group P. Neither group required the administration of rescue analgesics, and the incidence of PONV was not reported. CONCLUSIONS: Transitioning from propofol to remimazolam 1 h before the end of surgery followed by flumazenil reversal reduced the duration of stay in the PACU and the time to eye opening and extubation without affecting the incidence of PONV and quality of recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical Research Information Service (KCT0007794), Clinical trial first registration date: 12/10/2022.

To Compare the Anesthetic Effect of Remimazolam and Propofol in Painless Hysteroscopic Minimally Invasive Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Hysteroscopic surgery will stimulate the autonomic nerves innervating the uterus, causing intense discomfort and pain in the examined person, and in severe cases, it will cause blood pressure drop, heart rate slowing, arrhythmia and even cardiac arrest, so most patients need anesthetic intervention. This study to retrospectively compare the anesthetic effect of remimazolam and propofol in minimally invasive painless hysteroscopic surgery and to explore the safety and efficacy of remimazolam. METHODS: The clinical data of 110 female patients who underwent painless hysteroscopic minimally invasive surgery in our hospital from January 2023 to June 2023 were collected. The patients were divided into the remimazolam group (group R, n = 55) and the propofol group (group P, n = 55) according to the main anesthetic drugs used during the operation. The changes in heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), and respiratory rate (RR) at the time of entry (T0), modified vigilance/sedation score (MOAA/S) 0 (T1), cervical dilation (T2), end of the operation (T3) and anesthesia recovery (T4) were compared between the two groups. Anesthesia induction time, operation time, and anesthesia recovery time were compared between the two groups, and the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative adverse reactions was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: HR, MAP, and SpO2 in group R were significantly higher than those in group P at T1, T2, T3, and T4 (p < 0.05), and there was no significant difference in RR between the two groups (p > 0.05). HR, MAP, and SpO2 at T1 and T2 were significantly lower than those at T0 in group R (p < 0.05), and RR at different time points in the group had no significant difference (p > 0.05). HR, MAP, and SpO2 at T1, T2, T3, and T4 were significantly lower than those at T0 in group P (p < 0.01), and RR at different time points in the same group had no significant difference (p > 0.05). The anesthesia induction time in group R was more prolonged than in group P, and the anesthesia recovery time in group R was shorter than in group P (p < 0.05). The incidences of hypotension, bradycardia, low oxygen saturation, respiratory depression, and injection pain in group R were significantly lower than those in group P (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Intravenous induction of remimazolam at 6 mg·kg-1·h-1 and maintenance of anesthesia at 1-2 mg·kg-1·h-1 have less effect on hemodynamics, faster recovery time and lower incidence of adverse reactions compared with propofol when used in minimally invasive hysteroscopic surgery. Remimazolam can be safely and effectively used in this kind of surgery.