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.

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.

The EC50 of propofol with different doses of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the dose-response relationship between dexmedetomidine and propofol in sedating patients and to determine the optimal dosage of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: One hundred fifty patients were divided into 5 groups, each receiving a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 µg/kg) or saline, with propofol for sedation. The median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol was calculated using the modified Dixon up-and-down approach. Adverse effects, vital signs, procedure, and recovery times were recorded. RESULTS: The EC50 of propofol in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, D0.8, and D1.0 were 3.02, 2.44, 1.97, 1.85, and 1.83 µg/mL, respectively. Heart rate in the dexmedetomidine groups decreased more than the NS group (P < .001). The mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the NS group experienced a decline compared to groups D0.8 and D1.0 when the plasma concentration and effect-site concentration reached equilibrium. Additionally, the respiratory rate was found to be lower in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, and D0.8 (P < .05). Recovery time in groups D0.8 and D1.0 was longer than the NS group (P < .05). Bruggemann comfort scales score was higher in group D1.0 (P < .05). No significant difference was found in the incidences of hypotension and bradycardia, and the dose of ephedrine and atropine. Respiratory depression was significantly reduced in groups D0.8 and D1.0 compared to the NS group. CONCLUSION: A single dose of 0.6 to 0.8 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine should be recommended in combination with propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. And the EC50 of propofol is 1.97 to 1.85 µg/mL.

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.

Comparison of Remimazolam Tosilate and Propofol Sedation on the Early Postoperative Quality of Recovery in Patients Undergoing Day Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

Purpose: Remimazolam tosilate is a novel ultrafast-acting benzodiazepine that has a rapid emergence even after continuous infusion when using flumazenil. So far, relatively few articles are still focusing on the quality of recovery after general anesthesia with remimazolam, especially in day surgery. This study aimed to compare the early postoperative quality of recovery of remimazolam tosilate with flumazenil and propofol in patients undergoing day surgery. Patients and Methods: 137 patients scheduled for day surgery were randomly divided into the remimazolam tosilate or propofol group. The primary endpoint was the incidence of overall recovery assessed with the early postoperative quality of recovery scale (PostopQRS) on postoperative day 1 (POD 1). The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), extubation time, postoperative recovery profiles, and perioperative data were documented. Any adverse events were recorded. Results: The incidence of overall recovery on POD1 was 47.7% in the remimazolam tosilate group and 65.1% in the propofol group (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.06; P = 0.072). In general, the overall recovery of the PostopQRS increased over time, and its interaction between time and group was significant (P = 0.003). Among the five dimensions of PostopQRS, there exist statistical differences between groups including emotional state and cognitive recovery. Upon arrival at the PACU, the remimazolam group was more sedated and took longer to recover to a RASS score similar to propofol. The frequency of application of vasoactive drugs during anesthesia was similar in both groups (P = 0.119). Despite rapid emergence with remimazolam after flumazenil reversal, re-sedation (10.8%) or somnolence (60%) in the PACU was observed, and the length of PACU stay in patients treated with remimazolam tosilate was longer than that of the propofol (35 min vs 30 min, P<0.001). Conclusion: General anesthesia with remimazolam tosilate in conjunction with flumazenil reversal permits rapid recovery of consciousness in day surgery, but there was a notable occurrence of re-sedation or somnolence observed in PACU.

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.

Investigation into the application of remimazolamin conjunction with low-dose propofolfor pediatricfiberoptic bronchoscopy.

This study delves into the effectiveness of combining remimazolam with low-dose propofol in pediatric fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Ninety children scheduled for fiberoptic bronchoscopy in our hospital were enrolled as research participants. Based on the intraoperative anesthetic drug regimen, the children were divided into three groups: group R (remimazolam 0.2-0.4 mg/kg), group P (propofol 1-3 mg/kg), and group RP (remimazolam0.2 mg/kg, propofol 0.5 mg/kg). Immediately post-anesthesia, group P exhibited lower blood pressure and heart rate (HR) compared to both group R and group RP (P < 0.05). As bronchoscope approached the glottis and epiglottis, group P continued to display lower blood pressure and HR compared to group R and group RP (P < 0.05). During lavage, group P maintained lower blood pressure and HR compared to both the R and RP groups (P < 0.05). Immediately post-anesthesia, group P demonstrated lower SpO2 compared to the R and RP groups (P < 0.05).During lavage, group P maintained lower SpO2 than group R and group RP (P < 0.05). In comparison with group R and group PR, group P showed shortened induction and recovery times (P < 0.05). The one-time entry success rate into the microscope was higher in group R than in group P, with the RP group showing an intermediate decreased (P < 0.05). Moreover, the cough score in R group was higher than in the P and RP groups (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the satisfaction rates of the RP group exceeded those of the R and P groups (P < 0.05). Remimazolam combined with low-dose propofol effectively balances the strengths and weaknesses of remimazolam and propofol, ensuring more stable hemodynamics, a lower incidence of adverse reactions, and optimal surgical conditions in pediatric fiberoptic bronchoscopy.

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.

Procedural sedation by advanced practice providers in the emergency medical service in the Netherlands: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is a technique of administering sedatives to induce a state that allows the patient to tolerate painful procedures while maintaining cardiorespiratory function, a condition that is frequently desired prehospital. Non-physician prehospital clinicians often have a limited scope of practice when it comes to providing analgesia and sedation; sometimes resulting in a crew request for back-up from physician-staffed prehospital services.". This is also the case if sedation is desirable. Advanced practice providers (APPs), who are legally authorized and trained to carry out this procedure, may be a solution when the physician-staffed service is not available or will not be available in time. METHODS: The aim of this study is to gain insight in the circumstances in which an APP, working at the Dutch ambulance service "RAV Brabant MWN" from January 2019 to December 2022, uses propofol for PSA or to provide sedation. With this a retrospective observational document study we describe the characteristics of patients and ambulance runs and evaluates the interventions in terms of safety. RESULTS: During the study period, the APPs administered propofol 157 times for 135 PSA and in 22 cases for providing sedation. The most common indication was musculoskeletal trauma such as fracture care or the reduction of joint dislocation. In 91% of the situations where propofol was used, the predetermined goal e.g. alignment of fractured extremity, repositioning of luxated joint or providing sedation the goal was achieved. There were 12 cases in which one or more adverse events were documented and all were successfully resolved by the APP. There were no cases of laryngospam, airway obstruction, nor anaphylaxis. None of the adverse events led to unexpected hospitalization or death. CONCLUSION: During the study period, the APPs performed 135 PSAs and provided 22 sedations. The success rate of predetermined goals was higher than that stated in the literature. Although there were a number of side effects, their incidences were lower than those reported in the literature, and these were resolved by the APP during the episode of care. Applying a PSA by an APP at the EMS "RAV Brabant MWN" appears to be safe with a high success rate.

[Analysis of the application effect and safety of transnasal humidified rapid insufflation ventilatory exchange technique in hysteroscopic diagnostic and therapeutic surgery].

Objective: To investigate the effect and safety of transnasal humidified rapid insufflation ventilatory exchange (THRIVE) technique in hysteroscopic diagnostic and therapeutic surgery. Methods: This study was a randomized controlled trial. A total of 100 female patients undergoing hysteroscopy surgery at Beijing Tongren Hospital from September to December 2023 were selected and randomly divided into two groups by the random number table method: the THRIVE group and the mask oxygen group, with 50 patients in each group. Patients in both groups were given total intravenous anesthesia with propofol combined with remifentanil and preserved spontaneous respiration. The THRIVE group was given oxygen by the THRIVE device with an oxygen flow rate of 50 L/min, while the mask oxygen group was given oxygen by the mask with an oxygen flow rate of 5 L/min; the oxygen concentration of both groups was set at 100%. The general condition of the patients, vital signs during the operation, the amount of anesthesia drugs used and the operation time were recorded. The primary observation index was the incidence of hypoxic events in the two groups; the secondary observation indexes were the incidence and time of intraoperative apnea as well as the corresponding oxygenation interventions and the incidence of non-hypoxic adverse events. Results: The age of the THRIVE group was (42±14) years, and the age of the mask oxygen group was (43±15) years. The duration of surgery in the THRIVE group was (15.9±3.4) min, which was statistically lower than that of the mask oxygen group (16.3±4.5) min (P=0.041), and there were no differences observed in the duration of awakening time and anesthesia time (both P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the dosage of propofol, remifentanil, and intraoperative vasoactive drugs between the two groups (all P>0.05). The SpO2 of the patients in the THRIVE group at the end of the operation was (99.7±1.1) %, which was higher than that of the mask-oxygen group (99.1±1.1) % (P<0.05). There was no difference in SpO2 of the two groups at the other time points (all P>0.05). There were no differences in HR and MAP of two group patients at each time point (all P>0.05). The incidence of hypoxic events in the THRIVE group was 12.0% (6/50), which was lower than that of 28.0% (14/50) in the mask oxygen group (P=0.045). The difference in the incidence and duration of apnea between the two groups was not statistically significant (all P>0.05). There were no cases of temporary need for laryngeal mask or tracheal intubation during surgery in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of intraoperative body movement, dizziness, nausea and vomiting between the two groups (all P>0.05), and no cardiac, cerebral, renal or other important organ insufficiency occurred in the two weeks after surgery. Conclusion: THRIVE technology can provide effective oxygenation for patients undergoing hysteroscopic diagnosis and treatment, maintain patients' circulatory stability, and improve the safety and efficiency of surgery.

Comparison of the recovery time of remimazolam besylate and propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation in elderly patients.

Background: Recovery time is a crucial factor in ensuring the safety and effectiveness of both patients and endoscopy centers. Propofol is often preferred due to its fast onset and minimal side effects. Remimazolam is a new intravenous sedative agent, characterized by its rapid onset of action, quick recovery and organ-independent metabolism. Importantly, its effect can be specifically antagonized by flumazenil. The primary goal of this study is to compare the recovery time of remimazolam besylate and propofol anesthesia during endoscopic procedures in elderly patients. Methods: 60 patients aged 65-95 years who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly and equally assigned to two groups: the remimazolam group (Group R) and the propofol group (Group P). The primary measure was the recovery time, defined as the time from discontinuing remimazolam or propofol until reaching an Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation scale (OAA/S) score of 5 (responds readily to name spoken in normal tone). The time required to achieve an OAA/S score of 3 (responds after name spoken loudly or repeatedly along with glazed marked ptosis) was also recorded and compared. Results: The recovery time for Group R (2.6 ± 1.6 min) was significantly shorter than that for Group P (10.8 ± 3.0 min), with a 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.949-9.431 min, p <0.001. Similarly, the time to attain an OAA/S score of 3 was significantly less in Group R (1.6 ± 0.9 min) compared to Group P (9.6 ± 2.6 min), with a 95% CI: 6.930-8.957 min, p <0.001. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that remimazolam anesthesia combined with flumazenil antagonism causes a shorter recovery time for elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy compared to propofol. Remimazolam followed by flumazenil antagonism provides a promising alternative to propofol for geriatric patients, particularly during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

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 .

Lidocaine effects on neutrophil extracellular trapping and angiogenesis biomarkers in postoperative breast cancer patients with different anesthesia methods: a prospective, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia techniques and drug selection may influence tumor recurrence and metastasis. Neutrophil extracellular trapping (NETosis), an immunological process, has been linked to an increased susceptibility to metastasis in individuals with tumors. Furthermore, recurrence may be associated with vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A), a mediator of angiogenesis. This study investigates the impact of lidocaine (combined with sevoflurane or propofol anesthesia ) during breast cancer surgery inhibits the expression of biomarkers associated with metastasis and recurrence (specifically H3Cit, NE, MPO, MMP-9 and VEGF-A). METHODS: We randomly assigned 120 women undergoing primary or invasive breast tumor resection to receive one of four anesthetics: sevoflurane (S), sevoflurane plus i.v. lidocaine (SL), propofol (P), and propofol plus i.v. lidocaine (PL). Blood samples were collected before induction and 3 h after the operation. Biomarkers associated with NETosis (citrullinated histone H3 [H3Cit], myeloperoxidase [MPO], and neutrophil elastase [NE]) and angiogenesis were quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. RESULTS: Patient and breast tumor characteristics, along with perioperative management, did not differ between study groups. In intra-group comparisons, S and P groups demonstrated a statistically significant increase in post-operative MPO (S group: 10.39[6.89-17.22] vs. 14.31[8.55-20.87] ng ml-1, P = 0.032; P group: 9.45[6.73-17.37] vs. 14.34[9.87-19.75] ng ml-1, P = 0.035)and NE(S group: 182.70[85.66-285.85] vs. 226.20[91.85-391.65] ng ml-1, P = 0.045; P group: 154.22[97.31-325.30] vs. 308.66[132.36-483.57] ng ml-1, P = 0.037) concentrations compared to pre-operative measurements, whereas SL and PL groups did not display a similar increase. H3Cit, MMP-9, and VEGF-A concentrations were not significantly influenced by the anesthesia techniques and drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the specific technique employed for general anesthesia, there was no increase in the postoperative serum concentrations of MPO and NE after perioperative lidocaine infusion compared to preoperative serum concentrations. This supports the hypothesis that intravenous lidocaine during cancer surgery aimed at achieving a cure may potentially decrease the likelihood of recurrence. Further interpretation and discussion of clinical implications are warranted, emphasizing the significance of these findings in the context of cancer surgery and recurrence prevention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2300068563.

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.

Optimal flow of high-flow nasal cannula oxygenation to prevent desaturation during sedation for bronchoscopy: a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Although high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygenation is currently recommended to prevent desaturation during sedation for bronchoscopy, there is no consensus on an optimal flow rate. OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal oxygen flow rate for HFNC to effectively prevent desaturation during sedation for bronchoscopy. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, and controlled study. METHODS: Patients (n = 240) scheduled for bronchoscopy were randomized to receive HFNC with propofol sedation (fraction of inspired oxygen, 100%) at one of six flow rates of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 L/min, designated as groups 1-6, respectively. RESULTS: The incidence of desaturation significantly decreased by increasing the oxygen flow rate (42.5%, 17.5%, 15%, 10%, 2.5%, and 0% for groups 1-6, respectively, p < 0.0001). The optimal oxygen flow rate for HFNC determined by probit regression to effectively prevent desaturation in 95% of patients was 43.20 (95% confidence interval, 36.43-55.96) L/min. The requirement for airway intervention was significantly decreased by increasing the oxygen flow rate. CONCLUSION: An HFNC flow rate of 50-60 L/min is recommended to prevent desaturation during sedation for bronchoscopy. REGISTRATION: NCT05298319 at ClinicalTrials.gov.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygenation during bronchoscopyMany patients undergo a special test to check their airways for problems. Sometimes, doctors need to take out a small part of the area that's causing trouble to find out what's wrong. But during this test, some patients can struggle to get enough oxygen, which can even be life-threatening. To help with this, there's a device called a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). It gives patients adjustable amounts of oxygen, like a gentle breeze into their nose. But doctors weren't sure how much oxygen was best during this test. So, we studied 240 patients using HFNC at different oxygen levels­like slow, medium, and fast flows. We found that the higher the oxygen flow, the less likely patients were to have oxygen problems. For example, at the lowest flow (10 liters per minute), about 42.5% of patients had oxygen trouble, but at the highest flow (60 liters per minute), none did. And we figured out that a flow rate around 43.2 liters per minute would prevent 95% patients from having oxygen problems. So, we recommend using a flow rate between 50 and 60 liters per minute during this test to keep patients safe from oxygen issues.

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.

Association between Colonoscopy Sedation Type and Polyp Detection: A Registry-based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death. Adenomas and serrated polyps are precursors of colorectal cancer, with serrated polyps being more difficult to detect during colonoscopy. The relationship between propofol use and polyp detection remains unclear. The authors investigated the association of propofol-based versus mild-moderate sedation on adenoma and serrated polyp detection during colonoscopy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used observational data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Patients aged greater than 50 yr with screening or surveillance colonoscopies between January 1, 2015, and February 28, 2020, were included. Exclusions were diagnostic examinations, no sedation, missing pathology data, and poor bowel preparation. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate differences in polyp detection between propofol and moderate sedation in the full sample while adjusting for covariates. Propensity score adjustment and clustering at the endoscopist level were used in a restricted sample analysis that included endoscopists and facilities with between 5% and 95% propofol sedation use. RESULTS: A total of 54,063 colonoscopies were analyzed in the full sample and 18,998 in the restricted sample. Serrated polyp prevalence was significantly higher using propofol (9,957 of 29,312; 34.0% [95% CI, 33.4 to 34.5%]) versus moderate sedation (6,066 of 24,751; 24.5% [95% CI, 24.0 to 25.1%]) in the full sample and restricted samples (1,410 of 4,661; 30.3% [95% CI, 28.9 to 31.6%] vs. 3,690 of 14,337; 25.7% [95% CI, 25.0 to 26.5%]). In the full sample multivariate logistic regression, propofol was associated with higher neoplasm (adjusted odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.29]), adenoma (odds ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.11]), and serrated polyp detection (odds ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.46 to 1.57]). In the restricted sample using inverse probability of treatment weighted propensity score adjustment and clustering at the endoscopist level, an attenuated but statistically significant effect size was observed for serrated polyps (odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.19]), but not for adenomas (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.05]) or any neoplastic lesion (odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.98 to 1.08]). CONCLUSIONS: Propofol sedation during colonoscopy may be associated with improved detection of serrated polyps, but not adenomas.