Inhaled methoxyflurane - an explorable alternative to nitrous oxide?

Nitrous oxide is a widely used and well-established form of inhalation sedation in dentistry. Its properties have a wide margin of safety and allow for anxious, paediatric and adult patients to receive dental treatment with minimal impact upon discharge. Nitrous oxide has drawbacks, however, including its environmental impact and need for specialist equipment. Methoxyflurane is another drug which could prove to be an alternative to nitrous oxide. Methoxyflurane's use has proved popular within emergency medicine in Australia and New Zealand for its potent analgesic effects and recognition of its anxiolytic effect. As a result, its use in invasive outpatient procedures has now become popular. Unfortunately, there is very limited evidence of its use within dentistry as a form of inhalation sedation and analgesic. A wider evidence base should be established, as methoxyflurane could prove to be an effective and environmentally friendly alternative to nitrous oxide.

Value of integrated pulmonary index monitoring for the detection of adverse respiratory events in patients undergoing sedation for gastrointestinal system endoscopy.

Objectives: To determine if the integrated pulmonary index detects changes in ventilation status early in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy under sedation, and to determine the risk factors affecting hypoxia. METHODS: The retrospective study was conducted at the endoscopy unit of a tertiary university hospital in Turkey and comprised data between October 2018 and December 2019 related to patients of either gender aged >18 years who were assessed as American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade I-III and underwent elective lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Monitoring was done with capnography in addition to standard procedures. Data was analysed using SPSS 23. RESULTS: Of the 154 patients, 94(%) were females and 60(%) were males. The overall mean age was 50.88±11.8 years (range: 20-70 years). Mean time under anaesthesia was 23.58±4.91 minutes and mean endoscopy time was 21.73±5.06 minutes. During the procedure, hypoxia was observed in 42(27.3%) patients, severe hypoxia in 23(14.9%) and apnoea in 70(45.5%). Mean time between apnoea and hypoxia was 12.59±7.99 seconds, between apnoea and serious hypoxia 21.07±17.64 seconds, between integrated pulmonary index score 1 and hypoxia 12.91±8.17 sec, between integrated pulmonary index score 1 and serious hypoxia 21.59±14.13 seconds, between integrated pulmonary index score <7 and hypoxia 19.63±8.89 seconds, between integrated pulmonary index score <7 and serious hypoxia 28.39±12.66 seconds, between end-tidal carbon dioxide and hypoxia 12.95±8.33 seconds, and between end-tidal carbon dioxide and serious hypoxia 21.29±7.55 seconds. With integrated pulmonary index score 1, sensitivity value for predicting hypoxia and severe hypoxia was 88.1% and 95.7%, respectively, and specificity was 67% and 60.3%, respectively. With integrated pulmonary index score <7, the corresponding values were 100%, 100%, 42% and 64.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Capnographic monitoring, especially the follow-up integrated pulmonary index score, was found to be valuable and reliable in terms of finding both time and accuracy of the risk factor in the diagnosis of respiratory events.

A prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA: REST trial design.

BACKGROUND: Remimazolam is safe and effective for moderate sedation during flexible bronchoscopy, but its safety and efficacy during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) remains undetermined. The REST trial (NCT06275594) will be a prospective randomized study of remimazolam in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA with conscious sedation. The primary aim is to evaluate whether remimazolam is safe and effective for moderate sedation during EBUS-TBNA compared to real-world midazolam and on-label midazolam. METHODS: The REST trial will recruit 330 patients from four university hospitals with mediastinal lesions suspected of being lung cancer who are eligible for EBUS-TBNA under moderate sedation. The participants will be randomized into groups using remimazolam, real-world midazolam, and on-label midazolam (US prescribing information dosage) to perform EBUS-TBNA for procedural sedation. The primary endpoint will be procedural success using composite measures. DISCUSSION: The REST trial will prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam during EBUS-TBNA under moderate sedation. It will provide information for optimizing sedation modalities and contribute to practical benefits in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06275594). Prospectively registered on 15 February 2024.

Effects of propofol, ketamine-propofol mixture in pediatric dental patients undergoing intravenous sedation: a clinical study.

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effects, complications (peri- and postoperative), depth of sedation, recovery times, and changes in anxiety levels in paediatric dental patients receiving intravenous sedation with propofol and ketamine-propofol mixtures. This prospective clinical study included 69 healthy children (ASA 1) aged 3-7 years. The patients were assigned randomly to propofol group (n = 23), which received propofol; 1:3 ketofol group (n = 23), which received 1:3 ketofol; or 1:4 ketofol group (n = 23), which received 1:4 ketofol. The bispectral index (BIS) and Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score were recorded at intervals of 5 min to measure the depth of sedation, and vital signs were evaluated. Peri- and postoperative complications and recovery times were recorded. Anxiety levels were also evaluated using the Facial Image Scale (FIS) and changes in saliva cortisol levels (SCLs) before and after the intravenous sedation procedure. The Kruskal‒Wallis test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to determine pre- and posttreatment parameters. Dunn's test for post hoc analysis was used to determine the differences among groups. Children's pre- and posttreatment anxiety levels did not differ significantly according to FIS scores, and increases in SCLs were detected in 1:3 ketofol and 1:4 ketofol groups after dental treatment was completed. Compared with those in the other groups, the BIS values of the patients in 1:4 ketofol indicated a slightly lower depth of sedation. The recovery time of the patients in 1:3 ketofol was longer than that of patients in propofol and 1:4 ketofol. The incidence of postoperative complications (agitation, hypersalivation, nausea/vomiting, and diplopia) did not differ among the groups. Ketamine-propofol combinations provided effective sedation similar to that of propofol infusion without any serious complications during dental treatment performed under intravenous sedation. The ketofol infusion increased the anxiety level of paediatric dental patients to a greater extent than the propofol infusion.

Nontraditional approaches to sedation for anterior segment surgery: a narrative review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Surgical and anesthetic technological advancement have made both cataract and noncataract anterior segment surgery significantly less invasive and time-intensive, facilitating the transition of some of these procedures from the operating room under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) to the office-based setting without MAC. This transition has been aided by the popularization of nonintravenous approaches to achieving patient sedation for these procedures. In this review, we discuss the literature surrounding traditional and nontraditional methods of achieving patient sedation for anterior segment surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Our survey of the literature suggests that nonintravenous (IV) approaches to sedation for these procedures may be just as safe, effective, and satisfactory to patients as traditional IV approaches. SUMMARY: As anterior segment surgery becomes less invasive and less time-intensive, providers considering transitioning their cataract and anterior segment surgery out of the operating room and into the office-based setting without MAC anesthesia should consider the non-IV sedation options outlined in this review to achieve adequate patient sedation and comfort.

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

BACKGROUND: Balanced propofol sedation is extensively used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) are common. In various clinical settings, the combination of dexmedetomidine with opioids and benzodiazepines has provided effective sedation with increased safety. The aim of this investigation was to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during ERCP. METHODS: Forty-one patients were randomly divided into two groups: the dexmedetomidine (DEX) group and the propofol (PRO) group. Patients in the DEX group received an additional bolus of 0.6 µg kg-1 dexmedetomidine followed by a dexmedetomidine infusion at 1.2 µg kg-1 h-1, whereas the PRO group received 1-2 mg kg-1 of propofol bolus followed by a propofol infusion at 2-3 mg kg-1 h-1. During ERCP, the primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90% for > 10 s). Other intraoperative adverse events were also recorded as secondary outcomes, including respiratory depression (respiratory rate of < 10 bpm min-1), hypotension (MAP < 65 mmHg), and bradycardia (HR < 45 beats min-1). RESULTS: The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly reduced in the DEX group compared to the PRO group (0% versus 28.6%, respectively; P = 0.032). Patients in the PRO group exhibited respiratory depression more frequently than patients in the DEX group (35% versus 81%, respectively; P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in terms of hypotension and bradycardia episodes between groups. During the procedures, the satisfaction scores of endoscopists and patients, as well as the pain and procedure memory scores of patients were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: In comparison with propofol, dexmedetomidine provided adequate sedation safety with no adverse effects on sedation efficacy during ERCP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200061468, 25/06/2022.

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.

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.

Optimizing patient outcomes: a comprehensive evaluation of protocolized sedation in intensive care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Amidst the routine utilization of protocolized sedation in ventilated ICU patients, existing management guidelines exhibit a lack of unanimous recommendations for its widespread adoption. This study endeavors to comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of protocolized sedation in critically ill ventilated patients. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to systematically review and conduct a meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing protocolized sedation with standard management in critically ill ventilated patients. Key outcomes under scrutiny include ICU and hospital mortality, ventilation days, duration of ICU stay, and incidents of self-extubation. The evaluation incorporates the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool to assess the quality of included studies. Data analysis utilizes a random-effects model for relative risk (RR) and mean differences. Subgroup analysis categorizes sedation protocols into algorithmic or daily interruption, addressing potential heterogeneity. Additionally, a GRADE evaluation is performed to ascertain the overall certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: From an initial pool of 1504 records, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Protocolized sedation demonstrated a reduced RR for mortality (RR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.93, p < 0.01, I2 = 0%) and a decrease in ventilation days (mean difference: - 1.12, 95% CI - 2.11 to - 0.14, p = 0.03, I2 = 84%). Furthermore, there was a notable reduction in ICU stay (mean difference: - 2.24, 95% CI - 3.59 to - 0.89, p < 0.01, I2 = 81%). However, incidents of self-extubation did not exhibit a significant difference (RR: 1.20, 95% CI 0.49-2.94, p = 0.69, I2 = 35%). Subgroup analyses effectively eliminated heterogeneity (I2 = 0%), and the GRADE evaluation yielded moderate results for mortality, ventilation days, and ICU duration. CONCLUSION: Protocolized sedation, whether implemented algorithmically or through daily interruption, emerges as a safe and effective approach when compared to standard management in ventilated ICU patients. The findings from this study contribute valuable insights to inform evidence-based practices in sedation management for this critical patient population.

Clinical usefulness of nebulized dexmedetomidine for conscious sedation in daycare flexible bronchoscopy in Southern India.

BACKGROUND: Sedative agents used in bronchoscopy require trained personnel to administer and monitor the patient. This increases the procedure cost, duration, and inpatient stay. Inhalational administration of sedative agents can be a practical solution to the issue. Dexmedetomidine in the inhalational form could give results similar to the intravenous form without significant adverse events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study is prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study. Patients needing bronchoscopy were randomized to receive the nebulized form of either dexmedetomidine or saline (0.9%) before bronchoscopy. The study parameters are assessed and recorded before, during, and after bronchoscopy. Data collected are analyzed using the SPSS software. DISCUSSION: The side effects limit using commonly administered sedation agents in bronchoscopy, such as midazolam, fentanyl, and dexmedetomidine. The nebulized dexmedetomidine is safe with proven efficacy when compared to the placebo. Proceduralist-administered conscious sedation reduces the overall cost and shortens inpatient stays. Attenuation of hemodynamic parameters by dexmedetomidine could be an advantage for the physician in reducing an untoward cardiac event. CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine in the nebulized form improves the comfort of patients during the procedure. It blunts the pressure response during bronchoscopy and could be a safer and cost-effective agent in its nebulized form for conscious sedation in bronchoscopy. The study is approved by the institutional ethics committee (IEC KMC MLR 10-2021-310).

Letter to editor : Local anesthesia with sedation and general anesthesia for the treatment of chronic subdural hematoma: a systematic review and meta­analysis of published cases.

This critique evaluates the systematic review and meta-analysis titled "Local anesthesia with sedation and general anesthesia for the treatment of chronic subdural hematoma." The study provides valuable insights into anesthesia techniques' effectiveness in managing this condition but has limitations, including selection bias, heterogeneity among cases, lack of standardized protocols, and retrospective design. Despite these limitations, the review contributes to understanding chronic subdural hematoma management but underscores the need for future research to address these shortcomings.

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.

The Effect of Temperament on Outcomes of Opioid and Non-Opioid Pediatric Dental Sedation.

Purpose: To assess oral sedation success using midazolam and hydroxyzine with and without meperidine, and to assess the relationship between child temperament and sedation outcomes. Methods: This study recruited children between the ages of 36 and 95 months who were randomly assigned to receive dental treatment with an oral sedation regimen of midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and hydroxyzine (1.0 mg/kg) with or without meperidine (1.5 mg/kg). Data were collected from the treatment log and electronic health records. Parents completed the Child Behavior Questionnaire Short Form (CBQ-SF) to assess temperament. Results: The study included 37 participants. The overall treatment success rate was 54 percent. There were no significant differences in sedation outcome with age, sex, insurance status, sedation regimen, isolation method or duration of procedure. Children with high pre-operative Frankl behavioral ratings were more likely to have a successful sedation outcome (P <0.01). Children who displayed high soothability experienced higher rates of success (P =0.04), which was more pronounced in the non-opioid group (P <0.01). Conclusion: The study showed low rates of success for a relatively small sample size. There was no difference in sedation success between the opioid group and non-opioid group. However, pre-procedure behavior and temperament characteristic of sooth- ability may warrant more exploration as predictors of sedation success.

Safety and efficacy of a low-dose combination of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol for deep sedation of elderly patients undergoing ERCP.

BACKGROUND: Proper sedation of patients, particularly elderly individuals, who are more susceptible to sedation-related complications, is of significant importance in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of a low-dose combination of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol for deep sedation in elderly patients undergoing ERCP, compared to a group of middle-aged patients. METHODS: The medical records of 610 patients with common bile duct stones who underwent elective ERCP under deep sedation with a three-drug regimen, including midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol at Shandong Provincial Third Hospital from January 2023 to September 2023 were retrospectively reviewed in this study. Patients were categorized into three groups: middle-aged (50-64 years, n = 202), elderly (65-79 years, n = 216), and very elderly (≥ 80 years, n = 192). Intraoperative vital signs and complications were compared among these groups. RESULTS: The three groups showed no significant difference in terms of intraoperative variation of systolic blood pressure (P = 0.291), diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.737), heart rate (P = 0.107), peripheral oxygen saturation (P = 0.188), bispectral index (P = 0.158), and the occurrence of sedation-related adverse events including hypotension (P = 0.170) and hypoxemia (P = 0.423). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that a low-dose three-drug regimen consisting of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol seems safe and effective for deep sedation of elderly and very elderly patients undergoing ERCP procedures. However, further studies are required to verify these findings and clarify the benefits and risks of this method.

Effect of anesthesia mode during endovascular treatment on neurological functional outcomes in patients with acute posterior circulation stroke. / éº»é†‰æ–¹å¼å¯¹æ€¥æ€§åŽå¾ªçŽ¯è„‘å’ä¸­è¡€ç®¡å† æ²»ç–—æ‚£è€ ç¥žç»åŠŸèƒ½ç»“å±€çš„å½±å“.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of anesthesia mode on the neurological functional outcomes in patients undergoing endovascular treatment for acute posterior circulation ischemic stroke. METHODS: Clinical data of 656 patients undergoing intravascular therapy for acute posterior circulation ischemic stroke registered in online Acute Stroke Patients for Stroke Management Quality Evaluation Database from January 2017 to December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The data included 163 cases with conscious sedation and 493 cases with general anesthesia during the procedure. After propensity score matching, 428 patients were included in the analysis, including 155 cases in the conscious sedation group and 273 cases in the general anesthesia group. The differences of operation mode, etiology type, vascular recanalization, hemorrhagic transformation at 24 h, modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months and mortality within 3 months were compared between the two groups. Binary logistic regression was used to explore the effect of different anesthesia mode on neurological functional outcomes. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in operation mode between the two groups (P<0.01), while there were no significant differences in etiology type, vascular recanalization, hemorrhagic transformation at 24 h, mRS score at 3 months or mortality within 3 months (all P>0.05). Binary logistic regression analysis revealed that anesthesia modes were not significantly associated with functional outcomes of patients (OR=1.151, 95%CI: 0.751-1.765, P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesia mode (conscious sedation or general anesthesia) will not affect the neurological functional outcomes in patients with acute posterior circulation ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular treatment.

Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine for gastroscopy: a double-blinded, randomized cross-over study in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: The benefits of topical pharyngeal anesthesia for gastroscopy remain under debate. Articaine, a local anesthetic with fast onset and offset of action as well as low systemic toxicity, could be a promising choice for topical anesthesia. The objective of this study was to assess whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine is beneficial in sedated gastroscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized double-blinded cross-over study included nine volunteers who underwent two gastroscopies under conscious sedation. One was performed with topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine and the other with placebo. Hemodynamic parameters including autonomic nervous system state were recorded prior to and during the endoscopic procedure. The endoscopist and the volunteer assessed the endoscopy after the examination. RESULTS: Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine resulted in less discomfort during esophageal intubation and higher patient satisfaction with the procedure. Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine did not increase satisfaction or facilitate the procedure as rated by the endoscopist. There were no clinically relevant differences in hemodynamic parameters. CONCLUSION: The use of articaine for topical pharyngeal anesthesia results in less intubation-related discomfort and better satisfaction.

Fospropofol disodium versus propofol for long-term sedation during invasive mechanical ventilation: A pilot randomized clinical trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Fospropofol disodium is a propofol prodrug that is water-soluble and has a reduced risk of bacterial contamination and hypertriglyceridemia compared with propofol. Prior to implementing a large randomized trial, we investigated the feasibility, initial efficacy, and safety of fospropofol disodium compared with propofol in long-term mild-to-moderate sedation in intensive care units (ICUs). DESIGN: Single-centered, prospective, unblind, randomized, parallel-group clinical trial. SETTING: The general ICU of university-affiliated teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Adult patients (n = 60) expected to have mechanical ventilation for >24 h were enrolled and randomly assigned to the fospropofol or propofol group. INTERVENTIONS: The fospropofol group received continuous fospropofol disodium infusions and the propofol group received continuous propofol infusions. The sedation goal was a score of -3 to 0 on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the percentage of time spent in the target sedation range without rescue sedation. Safety outcomes were based on adverse events. Blood samples were collected to measure formate concentration in plasma. MAIN RESULTS: The median dose was 4.33 (IQR, 3.08-4.94) mg/kg/h in the fospropofol group and 1.96 (IQR, 1.44-2.94) mg/kg/h in the propofol group. The median percentage of time spent in the target RASS range without rescue sedation was identical in both groups, with 83.33% (IQR, 74.43%-100.00%) in the fospropofol group and 83.33% (IQR, 77.45%-100.00%) in the propofol group (p = 0.887). At least one adverse event was identifed in 23 (76.7%) fospropofol patients and 27 (90.0%) propofol patients. The most common adverse events were tachycardia and hypotension. No paresthesia, catheter-related bloodstream infection or propofol infusion syndrome in both groups was reported. Three patients in the fospropofol group had mild hypertriglyceridemia, and nine patients in propofol group had hypertriglyceridemia (mild in eight patients and moderate in one patient) (10% versus 30%, p = 0.104). The formate concentration in plasma was very low, and no significant difference was identified at any time point between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Fospropofol disodium appears to be a feasible, effective and safe sedative for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation with long-term sedation.

A randomized, double-blind, dose-controlled study of the use of dexmedetomidine alone for procedural sedation of children and adolescents undergoing MRI scans.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is a selective α2-adrenergic agonist originally approved for sedation of adults in the intensive care unit and subsequently approved for procedural sedation in adults undergoing medical procedures. Dexmedetomidine is widely used off-label for procedural sedation in children. AIMS: To evaluate efficacy and safety of monotherapy dexmedetomidine for magnetic resonance imaging procedural sedation of children ≥1month-<17years across three ascending doses. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging study of procedural sedation recruited patients at USA and Japanese sites from February 2020 to November 2021. Patients were stratified into Cohort A (≥1month-<2years) or Cohort B (≥2-<17years). Cohort A loading doses/maintenance infusions: 0.5 mcg/kg/0.5 mcg/kg/h, 1.0 mcg/kg/1.0 mcg/kg/h, and 1.5 mcg/kg/1.5 mcg/kg/h. Cohort B loading doses/maintenance infusions: 0.5 mcg/kg/0.5 mcg/kg/h, 1.2 mcg/kg/1.0 mcg/kg/h, and 2.0 mcg/kg/1.5 mcg/kg/h. Primary endpoint was percentage of overall patients completing MRI without rescue propofol at the high versus low dose. Key secondary endpoint was percentage in each age cohort who did not require propofol at the high versus low dose. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two patients received high- (n = 38), middle- (n = 42), or low-dose (n = 42) dexmedetomidine. A greater percentage completed MRI without propofol rescue, while receiving high- versus low-dose dexmedetomidine (24/38 [63.2%] vs. 6/42 [14.3%]) (odds ratio: 10.29, 95% confidence interval: 3.47-30.50, p < .001). Similar results were seen in both age cohorts. The most common adverse events were bradypnea, bradycardia, hypertension, and hypotension, and the majority were of mild-to-moderate severity. CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine was well tolerated. The high dose was associated with meaningfully greater efficacy compared with lower doses. Based on these results, the recommended starting dose for procedural sedation in children ≥1month-<2years is loading dose 1.5 mcg/kg/maintenance infusion 1.5 mcg/kg/h; children ≥2-<17years is loading dose 2.0 mcg/kg/maintenance infusion 1.5 mcg/kg/h.

Patient-Reported Quality of Recovery after Sedation for Endoscopy in the Elderly.

INTRODUCTION: Although sedation is critical in minimizing discomforts in patients, conflicting data regarding the safety of sedation among the elderly population exist. This prospective study aimed to compare the quality of recovery (QoR) from gastrointestinal endoscopy performed under sedation between elderly and younger patients. METHODS: We included 177 patients aged 40-64 (group 1, n = 66), 65-79 (group 2, n = 76), and ≥80 (group 3, n = 35) years. QoR was assessed 1 day after the procedure using the quality of recovery 15 (QoR-15) questionnaire, which is a 15-item questionnaire with scores ranging from 0 to 150. Patient demographic, procedural, and sedation data were collected, and neurocognitive function was assessed before and a day after sedation. RESULTS: Groups 1 and 3 differed according to the Mini-Cog test and 3-word memory test performed before the procedure (p < 0.001). QoR-15 scores between groups were not different (139 ± 19 group 1, 141 ± 17 group 2, and 147 ± 26 group 3; p > 0.05). Patients in groups 3 and 2 were administered lower doses of propofol and midazolam than those in group 1. The incidence of oxygen desaturation (SaO2 <90% for >30 s) was lower in groups 1 and 2 than in group 3 (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: As indicated by the QoR-15 questionnaire, the QoR from sedation was not significantly different between the study groups.