Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Clin Anesth ; 95: 111474, 2024 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38608531

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Colonoscopia , Propofol , Humanos , Propofol/administração & dosagem , Propofol/efeitos adversos , Colonoscopia/efeitos adversos , Colonoscopia/métodos , Método Duplo-Cego , Masculino , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adulto , Satisfação do Paciente , Idoso , Anestésicos Intravenosos/administração & dosagem , Anestésicos Intravenosos/efeitos adversos , Período de Recuperação da Anestesia , Sedação Consciente/métodos , Sedação Consciente/efeitos adversos , Resultado do Tratamento , Duração da Cirurgia , Hipnóticos e Sedativos/administração & dosagem , Hipnóticos e Sedativos/efeitos adversos
2.
J Anesth ; 37(2): 201-209, 2023 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36482231

RESUMO

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


Assuntos
Hipotensão , Propofol , Humanos , Alfentanil/efeitos adversos , Anestésicos Intravenosos/efeitos adversos , Gastroscopia/métodos , Bradicardia , Tontura/induzido quimicamente , Tontura/epidemiologia , Tontura/tratamento farmacológico , Náusea/induzido quimicamente , Náusea/tratamento farmacológico , Vômito/induzido quimicamente , Hipóxia , Hipotensão/induzido quimicamente
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA