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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Randomized, Single-Blind, Comparative Study of Remimazolam Besylate vs Propofol for Facial Plastic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Use of local anesthesia and conscious sedation with a combination of a sedative and anesthetic drug during a surgical procedure is an approach designed to avoid intubation, which produces fewer adverse events compared to general anesthesia. In the present study, a comparison was made between the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate and propofol for facial plastic surgery. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to evaluate the clinical efficacy, comfort, and incidence of adverse events of remimazolam compared with propofol combined with alfentanil in outpatient facial plastic surgery. METHODS: In this randomized, single-blind, single-center, comparative study, facial plastic surgery patients were randomly divided into remimazolam-alfentanil (n = 50) and propofol-alfentanil (n = 50) groups for sedation and analgesia. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hypoxemia, while secondary endpoints included efficacy and safety evaluations. RESULTS: There were no significant differences regarding the surgical procedure, sedation and induction times, pain and comfort scores, muscle strength recovery, heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure, but the dosage of alfentanil administered to the remimazolam group (387.5 µg) was lower than that for the propofol group (600 µg). The incidence of hypoxemia (P = .046) and towing of the mandibular (P = .028), as well as wake-up (P = .027) and injection pain (P = .008), were significantly higher in the propofol group than the remimazolam group. CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam and propofol had similar efficacies for sedation and analgesia during facial plastic surgery, but especially the incidence of respiratory depression was significantly lower in patients given remimazolam.

Inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox) administration in dentistry as an alternative to nitrous oxide sedation: a review and feasibility study.

Methoxyflurane (MOF) as an agent for dental sedation has been used safely in Australasia for decades. The drug is now licensed for relief of pain associated with trauma and is being used during several medical outpatient procedures in the stead of traditional intravenous agents for sedation in the UK. Our aim was to analyse the safety and feasibility of the introduction of MOF as a drug for dental sedation in the UK community setting and assess its environmental impact. A literature review was conducted for available studies and a research audit of medical histories of patients that received nitrous oxide sedation in the previous year was carried out to assess suitability for MOF administration. The published literature shows MOF to be a safe drug for administration in the dental environment and local patients receiving nitrous oxide sedation are medically suitable for MOF administration. The advantages of considering MOF sedation are its environmental benefit and patient acceptability.

Pharmacological agents for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department and intensive care unit: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of various i.v. pharmacologic agents used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED) and ICU. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to enable direct and indirect comparisons between available medications. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed from inception to 2 March 2023 for RCTs comparing two or more procedural sedation and analgesia medications in all patients (adults and children >30 days of age) requiring emergent procedures in the ED or ICU. We focused on the outcomes of sedation recovery time, patient satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs). We performed frequentist random-effects model network meta-analysis and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate certainty in estimates. RESULTS: We included 82 RCTs (8105 patients, 78 conducted in the ED and four in the ICU) of which 52 studies included adults, 23 included children, and seven included both. Compared with midazolam-opioids, recovery time was shorter with propofol (mean difference 16.3 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.4-24.3 fewer minutes; high certainty), and patient satisfaction was better with ketamine-propofol (mean difference 1.5 points, 95% CI 0.3-2.6 points, high certainty). Regarding AEs, compared with midazolam-opioids, respiratory AEs were less frequent with ketamine (relative risk [RR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96; high certainty), gastrointestinal AEs were more common with ketamine-midazolam (RR 3.08, 95% CI 1.15-8.27; high certainty), and neurological AEs were more common with ketamine-propofol (RR 3.68, 95% CI 1.08-12.53; high certainty). CONCLUSION: When considering procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED and ICU, compared with midazolam-opioids, sedation recovery time is shorter with propofol, patient satisfaction is better with ketamine-propofol, and respiratory adverse events are less common with ketamine.

Endovascular treatment of brain aneurysms under conscious sedation: a systematic review of procedural feasibility and safety.

Over the last decades, minimally invasive techniques have revolutionized the endovascular treatment (EVT) of brain aneurysms. In parallel, the development of conscious sedation (CS), a potentially less harmful anesthetic protocol than general anesthesia (GA), has led to the course optimization of surgeries, patient outcomes, and healthcare costs. Nevertheless, the feasibility and safety of EVT of brain aneurysms under CS have yet to be assessed thoroughly. Herein, we systematically reviewed the medical literature about this procedure. In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library) were queried to identify articles describing the EVT of brain aneurysms under CS. Successful procedural completion, complete aneurysm occlusion outcomes, intraoperative complications, clinical outcomes, and mortality rates assessed the feasibility and safety. Our search strategy yielded 567 records, of which 11 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. These studies entailed a total of 1142 patients (40.7% females), 1183 intracranial aneurysms (78.4% in the anterior circulation and 60.9% unruptured at presentation), and 1391 endovascular procedures (91.9% performed under CS). EVT modalities under CS included coiling alone (63.2%), flow diversion (17.7%), stent-assisted coiling (10.6%), stenting alone (6.5%), onyx embolization alone (1.7%), onyx + stenting (0.2%), and onyx + coiling (0.2%). CS was achieved by combining two or more anesthetics, such as midazolam, fentanyl, and remifentanil. Selection criteria for CS were heterogenous and included patients' history of pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases, outweighing the benefits of CS versus GA, a Hunt and Hess score of I-II, a median score of 3 in the American Society of Anesthesiology scale, and patient's compliance with elective CS. Procedures were deemed successful or achieving complete aneurysm occlusion in 88.1% and 9.4% of reported cases, respectively. Good clinical outcomes were described in 90.4% of patients with available data at follow-up (mean time: 10.7 months). The procedural complication rate was 16%, and the mortality rate was 2.8%. No complications or mortality were explicitly attributed to CS. On the other hand, procedure abortion and conversion from CS to GA were deemed necessary in 5% and 1% of cases, respectively. The present study highlights the feasibility of performing EVT of brain aneurysms under CS as an alternative anesthetic protocol to GA. However, the limited nature of observational studies, methodological quality, the predominant absence of a comparative GA group, and clinical data during follow-up restrict a conclusive statement about the safety of EVT under CS. Accordingly, further research endeavors are warranted toward a higher level of evidence that can be translated into surgical practice.

Association of ketamine use during procedural sedation with oxygen desaturation and healthcare utilisation: a multicentre retrospective hospital registry study.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the effects of ketamine on desaturation and the risk of nursing home discharge in patients undergoing procedural sedation by anaesthetists. METHODS: We included adult patients who underwent procedures under monitored anaesthetic care between 2005 and 2021 at two academic healthcare networks in the USA. The primary outcome was intraprocedural oxygen desaturation, defined as oxygen saturation <90% for ≥2 consecutive minutes. The co-primary outcome was a nursing home discharge. RESULTS: Among 234,170 included patients undergoing procedural sedation, intraprocedural desaturation occurred in 5.6% of patients who received ketamine vs 5.2% of patients who did not receive ketamine (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.29, P<0.001; adjusted absolute risk difference [ARDadj] 1%, 95% CI 0.7-1.3%, P<0.001). The effect was magnified by age >65 yr, smoking, or preprocedural ICU admission (P-for-interaction <0.001, ORadj 1.35, 95% CI 1.25-1.45, P<0.001; ARDadj 2%, 95% CI 1.56-2.49%, P<0.001), procedural risk factors (upper endoscopy of longer than 2 h; P-for-interaction <0.001, ORadj 2.91, 95% CI 1.85-4.58, P<0.001; ARDadj 16.2%, 95% CI 9.8-22.5%, P<0.001), and high ketamine dose (P-for-trend <0.001, ORadj 1.61, 95% CI, 1.43-1.81 for ketamine >0.5 mg kg-1). Concomitant opioid administration mitigated the risk (P-for-interaction <0.001). Ketamine was associated with higher odds of nursing home discharge (ORadj 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.21, P=0.012; ARDadj 0.25%, 95% CI 0.05-0.46%, P=0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Ketamine use for procedural sedation was associated with an increased risk of oxygen desaturation and discharge to a nursing home. The effect was dose-dependent and magnified in subgroups of vulnerable patients.

General anesthesia vs. conscious sedation and local anesthesia for endovascular treatment in patients with posterior circulation acute ischemic stroke: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The best anesthetic choice for patients with acute posterior circulation stroke during endovascular treatment (EVT) remains uncertain. METHOD: We searched five databases to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. Our primary outcome measure was functional independence (FI). Secondary outcomes were 3-month mortality, any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), symptomatic ICH (sICH), successful reperfusion, and procedure- and ventilator-associated complications. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies were included in our meta-analysis. No significant differences were detected between the general anesthesia (GA) and conscious sedation and local anesthesia (CS/LA) groups in 3-month FI (nine studies; OR=0.69; 95% CI 0.45-1.06; P=0.083; I2=66%;), 3-month mortality (nine studies; OR=1.41; 95% CI 0.94-2.11; P=0.096; I2=61.2%;), any ICH (three studies; OR=0.75; 95% CI 0.44-1.25; P=0.269; I2=0%;), or sICH (six studies; OR=0.64; 95% CI 0.40-1.04; P=0.073; I2=0%;). No significant differences were observed for successful reperfusion (10 studies; OR=1.17; 95% CI 0.91-1.49; P=0.219; I2=0%;), procedure-related complications (four studies; OR=1.14; 95% CI 0.70-1.87; P=0.603; I2=7.9%;), or respiratory complications (four studies; OR=1.19; 95% CI 0.61-2.32; P=0.616; I2=64.9%;) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed no differences in 3-month FI, 3-month mortality, and successful reperfusion between patients treated with GA and those treated with CS/LA. Additionally, no increased risk of hemorrhagic transformation or pulmonary infection was observed in the CS/LA group. These results indicate that CS/LA may be an EVT option for acute posterior circulation stroke patients.