Dexmedetomidine for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is a selective alpha-2 agonist with minimal impact on the haemodynamic profile. It is thought to be safer than morphine or stronger opioids, which are drugs currently used for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants. Dexmedetomidine is increasingly being used in children and infants despite not being licenced for analgesia in this group. OBJECTIVES: To determine the overall effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine for sedation and analgesia in newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation compared with other non-opioids, opioids, or placebo. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trial registries in September 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine compared with other non-opioids, opioids, or placebo for sedation and analgesia in neonates (aged under four weeks) requiring mechanical ventilation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were level of sedation and level of analgesia. Our secondary outcomes included days on mechanical ventilation, number of infants requiring additional medication for sedation or analgesia (or both), hypotension, neonatal mortality, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no eligible studies for inclusion. We identified four ongoing studies, two of which appear to be eligible for inclusion; they will compare dexmedetomidine with fentanyl in newborn infants requiring surgery. We listed the other two studies as awaiting classification pending assessment of full reports. One study will compare dexmedetomidine with morphine in asphyxiated newborns undergoing hypothermia, and the other (mixed population, age up to three years) will evaluate dexmedetomidine versus ketamine plus dexmedetomidine for echocardiography. The planned sample size of the four studies ranges from 40 to 200 neonates. Data from these studies may provide some evidence for dexmedetomidine efficacy and safety. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increasing use of dexmedetomidine, there is insufficient evidence supporting its routine use for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants on mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, data on dexmedetomidine safety are scarce, and there are no data available on its long-term effects. Future studies should address the efficacy, safety, and long-term effects of dexmedetomidine as a single drug therapy for sedation and analgesia in newborn infants.

Use of orally administered dexmedetomidine to induce emesis in cats.

CASE SERIES SUMMARY: This case series describes the use of orally administered dexmedetomidine at a dose of 20 µg/kg to induce emesis in six cats. Emesis was successfully induced in 5/6 cats, with each of the cats vomiting once. The reasons for inducing vomiting included known or suspected ingestion of lilies, onions, acetaminophen (paracetamol) or acetylsalicylic acid. Four of the five cats in which emesis induction was successful did not develop any clinical signs of toxicity associated with the toxin ingested; the fifth cat developed clinicopathological changes consistent with acetaminophen toxicity. All six cats exhibited moderate to profound sedation, as expected, but no other adverse effects were documented. RELEVANCE AND NOVEL INFORMATION: Induction of emesis in cats is notoriously difficult. This case series describes a novel route of administration of dexmedetomidine, a commonly available medication, with a high success rate observed for inducing emesis in this group of cats.

Cats are notoriously more difficult to elicit vomiting in than dogs. This case series describes the use of a novel way of giving cats a commonly available veterinary medication to cause vomiting. The medication, dexmedetomidine, was given by mouth to six cats, of which five vomited. All six cats had eaten toxins: lilies, acetaminophen (paracetamol), aspirin or onions. Four of the five cats that vomited did not develop any signs of toxicity. All six cats that received the medication became sedated, but no other side effects were noted.

Toxicity of benzodiazepines in the treatment of insomnia disorders in older adults: a systematic literature review.

AIM: To review the literature data on the prevalence of benzodiazepines abuse and poisoning in older adults; the prevalence of polypharmacy with benzodiazepines in this demographic; and determine whether benzodiazepine anxiolytics or hypnotics were more frequently implicated in the cases of abuse and poisoning. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Scopus for relevant studies published from January 1, 2013, to May 1, 2023. Twelve studies were included in the final selection. RESULTS: The review highlights the diverse prevalence rates of benzodiazepine abuse and poisoning in the older adult population. Benzodiazepine anxiolytics were more frequently associated with negative outcomes than benzodiazepine hypnotics. Concurrent use of benzodiazepines, benzodiazepine-related medications, and opioids was reported, although these medications were not the only ones commonly used by the elderly. CONCLUSION: It is essential to increase awareness about adhering to prescribed pharmacological therapies to mitigate issues related to drug abuse and poisoning among older adults.

Application of intranasal dexmedetomidine in magnetic resonance imaging of preterm infants: The ED50, efficacy and safety analysis.

BACKGROUND: Infants undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) often require pharmacological sedation. Dexmedetomidine serves as a novel sedative agent that induces a unique unconsciousness similar to natural sleep, and therefore has currently been used as the first choice for sedation in infants and young children. OBJECTIVE: To determine the 50% effective dose (ED50) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) of intranasal dexmedetomidine for MRI in preterm and term infants, and to observe the incidence of adverse events. To explore whether there were differences in ED50 and 95%CI, heart rate (HR) and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), the induction time and wake-up time and the incidence of adverse events between the 2 groups, so as to provide guidance for clinical safe medication for the meanwhile. METHODS: A total of 68 infants were prospectively recruited for MRI examination under drug sedation (1 week ≤ age ≤ 23 weeks or weight ≤ 5kg). The children were divided into 2 groups according to whether they had preterm birth experience (Preterm group, Atterm group). The Dixon up-and-down method was used to explore ED50. The basic vital signs of the 2 groups were recorded, and the heart rate and SpO2 were recorded every 5 minutes until the infants were discharged from the hospital. The induction time, wake-up time and adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: The ED50 (95%CI) of intranasal dexmedetomidine in the Preterm group and the Atterm group were 2.23 (2.03-2.66) µg/kg and 2.64 (2.49-2.83) µg/kg, respectively (P < .05). the wake-up time was longer in Preterm group (98.00min) than in Atterm group (81.00 min) (P < .05), the incidence of bradycardia in Preterm group was 3/33, which was higher than that in Atterm group (1/35). There was no difference in the induction time between the 2 groups (P > .05), and there was no significant difference in other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal dexmedetomidine can be safely used for sedation in preterm infants undergoing MRI. Compared with term infants, preterm infants have a lower dose of dexmedetomidine, a higher incidence of bradycardia, and a longer weak-up time.

Reducing the risks when using benzodiazepines to treat insomnia: A public health approach.

Benzodiazepines are widely used but can cause considerable harm, including sedation, addiction, falls, fractures, and cognitive impairment, especially with long-term use and in elderly patients. The authors propose a public health approach to reduce the potential for harm when using benzodiazepines to treat insomnia. Primary prevention involves judicious patient selection and patient education. Secondary prevention requires keeping the duration of use as short as possible according to guidelines. Tertiary prevention, for patients who have been taking a benzodiazepine for a long time, uses shared decision-making to introduce a gradual and carefully monitored taper.

Comparative evaluation of nebulized versus intravenous dexmedetomidine on intubating conditions during awake fiberoptic nasotracheal intubation.

BACKGROUND: There is a search for an ideal agent to facilitate awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI). Dexmedetomidine is a selective α2 agonist which can be administered through intravenous, intramuscular, buccal, intranasal & inhalational routes. It provides good intubation conditions without oxygen desaturation but may cause hypotension and bradycardia when administered intravenously. Hence, alternative routes of administering dexmedetomidine which may improve its safety profile are worth exploring. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, double-blind trial, 46 ASA I/II adult participants scheduled for elective ENT surgery were randomly allocated to Group ND (Nebulised Dexmedetomidine) (n = 23) to receive nebulisation with dexmedetomidine 1µg.kg-1 and Group ID (Intravenous Dexmedetomidine) (n = 23) to receive intravenous dexmedetomidine 1µg.kg-1 before AFOI. All the patients received injection midazolam 1 mg i.v. as premedication before anaesthesia was initiated. The primary outcome was the cough score. The secondary outcomes were the RSS, SAYGO boluses, post-intubation score, hemodynamic parameters, recall of the procedure, patient satisfaction score and any side effects. RESULTS: The cough score was significantly lower in nebulized group (2.43 ± 0.992 vs 3.52 ± 1.082) with p = 0.001. RSS(3.30 ± 0.926 vs 4.22 ± 1.126; p = 0.004), number of SAYGO boluses required (2.74 ± 0.864 vs 3.57 ± 1.161; p = 0.009) & the post intubation score (1.48 ± 0.593 vs 2.17 ± 0.778; p = 0.001) were also significantly lower in nebulized group. CONCLUSIONS: Nebulisation with dexmedetomidine results in desirable degree of sedation and better tolerance of the procedure with adequate attenuation of the haemodynamic responses to intubation.

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 profile of hypnotics or sedatives on community-dwelling older adults aged 75 or older in Japan: A retrospective propensity-matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study is to assess if daily use of hypnotics increases mortality, aspiration pneumonia and hip fracture among relatively healthy individuals aged 75 years or older who lead independent lives in the community. METHOD AND PATIENTS: Of the adults aged 75 years or older residing in Hokkaido prefecture of Japan (n = 705,538), those who did not meet several exclusion criteria were eligible for generating propensity score-matched cohorts (n = 214,723). Exclusion criteria included co-prescribed medications acting on the central nervous system, diagnoses of malignant neoplasm, dementia, depression, etc. We compared 33,095 participants who were prescribed hypnotics for daily use (hypnotic group) with a propensity score-matched cohort without a prescription (control group). Participants were followed for more than 42 months. RESULTS: During the 42-month follow-up period, the incidence of the three outcome measures in the hypnotics group was significantly higher than that in the control group (aspiration pneumonia p < 0.001, hip fracture p = 0.007, and all-cause mortality p < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses utilizing inverse probability weighting demonstrated hazard ratios of 1.083 [1.023-1.146] for mortality, 1.117 [1.014-1.230] for aspiration pneumonia, and 1.720 [1.559-1.897] for hip fracture. Meanwhile, the attribute risk differences were 2.7, 1.5, and 1.0 per 1000 patient-years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although daily use of hypnotics increased the risk of three events, their attribute risk differences were fewer than 3.0 per 1000 patient-years. The results will help provide guidance on whether it is reasonable to prescribe hypnotics to geriatric population aged 75 or older leading independent lives in the community. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR UMIN000048398.

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.

Comparison of sedation with dexmedetomidine administered subcutaneously at 2 different locations on the head in dogs.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the sedative effects of dexmedetomidine administered to dogs subcutaneously (SC) at the Governing Vessel 20 (GV20) acupuncture point and at another point on the head. Animals and procedure: Ten client-owned dogs were included. Dogs were sedated 2 times, 14 d apart, with 200 µg/m2 of dexmedetomidine, SC, at GV20 and at a point at the base of the ear (SC-head). The sedation was assessed with a sedation scale and a Dynamic and Interactive Visual Analogue Scale (DIVAS). The ease of performing radiographic studies, physiological parameters, and adverse events were recorded. Statistical linear mixed-effect models (ANOVA) were applied. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: The time to sedation and sedation scores were similar for both groups. The level of sedation achieved was adequate to perform orthopedic radiographs for 9/10 (90%) cases in the GV20 group and 8/10 (80%) cases in the SC-head group. Heart and respiratory rates decreased significantly over time in both groups (P < 0.001). Adverse events were infrequent and self-limiting. Conclusion: Our study provides evidence that SC administration of dexmedetomidine on the head, at the GV20 point or at the base of the ear, is easy and provides a sufficient level of sedation to obtain orthopedic radiographs in dogs.

Comparaison de la sédation avec de la dexmédétomidine administrée par voie sous-cutanée à deux sites différents sur la tête de chiens. Objectif: Cette étude a pour but de comparer les effets sédatifs de la dexmédétomidine administrée par voie sous-cutanée (SC) au point d'acupuncture VG20 et à un autre point sur la tête, non lié à la relaxation/sédation, chez le chien. Animaux et procédure: Dix chiens de clients ont été inclus dans cette étude clinique, prospective, croisée, randomisée et à l'aveugle. Les chiens ont été sédatés deux fois, à 14 jours d'intervalle, avec une injection de 200 µg/m2 de dexmédétomidine sous-cutanée au point d'acupuncture VG20 et à un autre point sur la tête, à la base de l'oreille (SC-tête). La durée et la qualité de la sédation ont été évaluées avec une échelle de sédation et une échelle analogue visuelle dynamique et interactive (DIVAS). La facilité de réaliser des études radiographiques, les paramètres physiologiques et les effets secondaires ont été enregistrés. Des modèles statistiques linéaires à effet mixte (ANOVA) ont été réalisés. Les résultats étaient considérés comme significatifs quand P < 0,05. Résultats: Le temps nécessaire pour atteindre un niveau de sédation adéquat et les scores de sédation étaient comparables entre les deux groupes. Le niveau de sédation était adéquat pour réaliser des radiographies orthopédiques chez 9/10 (90 %) des cas dans le groupe VG20 et 8/10 (80 %) des cas dans le groupe SC-tête. Les fréquences cardiaque et respiratoire diminuaient significativement dans le temps pour les 2 groupes (P < 0,001). Les effets indésirables étaient peu fréquents et auto-limitants. Conclusion: Notre étude suggère que l'administration sous-cutanée de dexmédétomidine sur la tête, que ce soit au point VG20 ou à la base de l'oreille, est facile et permet d'obtenir un niveau de sédation suffisant pour réaliser des radiographies orthopédiques chez des chiens sains.(Traduit par les auteurs).

Zolpidem Stimulant Effect and Dependence: A Case Report on Intranasal Use.

Zolpidem is a widely used hypnotic. Dependence on zolpidem due to the induction of euphoria is a rare condition, while intranasal misuse of zolpidem is a rather new phenomenon. We present the first case of a patient who developed zolpidem dependence, which was associated with the prompt onset of euphoria exclusively following intranasal use. Mr. A was a 51-year-old polydrug abuser with antisocial personality disorder and a physical dependence on zolpidem. Over several years, he consumed 500 mg of the drug daily, usually divided into 30 mg doses, exclusively via the nasal route because unlike the oral administration of the same dose of the drug, intranasal administration induced euphoria. Euphoric effects manifested 3-5 minutes after taking the drug, and pronounced withdrawal symptoms (i.e., profuse sweating, tremors, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and inability to drink and eat), present 7-8 hours after the use could disappear within 3-5 minutes upon drug re-administration. The dependence was managed through a slow tapering of the zolpidem use. Clinicians should be aware that intranasal use of zolpidem could be associated with euphoric effects and the development of addiction. The potential for misuse of zolpidem via the nasal route may be of interest for future research.

The Safety and Efficacy of Remimazolam Compared to Dexmedetomidine for Awake Tracheal Intubation by Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial.

Background: Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative that has the potential to be an alternative for procedural sedation due to its rapid sedation and recovery, no accumulation effect, stable hemodynamics, minimal respiratory depression, anterograde amnesia effect, and specific antagonist. Here, we aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of remimazolam with dexmedetomidine for awake tracheal intubation by flexible bronchoscopy (ATI-FB). Methods: Ninety patients scheduled for ATI-FB were randomly divided into three groups, each consisting of 30 cases: dexmedetomidine 0.6 µg/kg + sufentanil (group DS), remimazolam 0.073 mg/kg + sufentanil (group R1S), or remimazolam 0.093 mg/kg + sufentanil (group R2S). The primary outcome was the success rate of sedation. Secondary outcomes were MOAA/S scores, hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, intubation conditions, intubation time, tracheal intubation amnesia, and adverse events. Results: The success rates of sedation in groups R2S and DS were higher than that in group R1S (93.3%, 86.7%, respectively, vs 58.6%; P = 0.002), and intubation conditions were better than those in group R1S (P < 0.05). Group R2S had shorter intubation times than groups R1S and DS (P = 0.003), and a higher incidence of tracheal intubation amnesia than group DS (P = 0.006). No patient in the three groups developed hypoxemia or hypotension, and there were no significant differences in oligopnea, PetCO2, or bradycardia (P > 0.05). Conclusion: In conclusion, both DS and R2S had higher success rates of sedation, better intubation conditions, and minor respiratory depression, but R2S, with its shorter intubation time, higher incidence of anterograde amnesia, and ability to be antagonized by specific antagonists, may be a good alternative sedation regimen for patients undergoing ATI-FB.

Treatment Failure and Long-Term Prescription Risk for Guideline-Recommended Hypnotics in Japan.

Importance: Although insomnia guidelines recommend the use of several individual hypnotics, the most useful hypnotic for treating insomnia in a clinical setting remains unclear. Objective: To determine which guideline-recommended hypnotics have lower risks of monotherapy failure and which hypnotics have a higher risk of long-term prescription for insomnia treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective observational cohort study used data from the Japan Medical Data Center Claims Database from April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2021. Participants included adults whose first prescribed pharmaceutical treatment for insomnia was guideline-recommended hypnotic monotherapy. Data were analyzed from December 24, 2022, to September 26, 2023. Exposures: Suvorexant, ramelteon, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and triazolam monotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was monotherapy failure, defined as a change in hypnotic or having an additional hypnotic prescribed for insomnia within 6 months of the first prescription of a guideline-recommended hypnotic monotherapy. The secondary outcome was monotherapy discontinuation, defined as no prescription of any hypnotic for 2 consecutive months within 6 months after prescribing a guideline-recommended hypnotic in patients for whom monotherapy did not fail. Monotherapy failure and discontinuation were compared using Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models, respectively. Results: The study included 239 568 adults (median age, 45 [IQR, 34-55] years; 50.2% women) whose first prescription for insomnia was guideline-recommended hypnotic monotherapy. During the 6-month follow-up period, 24 778 patients (10.3%) experienced failure of monotherapy with a guideline-recommended hypnotic. In comparison with eszopiclone, there were more cases of monotherapy failure for ramelteon (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.23 [95% CI], 1.17-1.30; P < .001), fewer cases for zolpidem (AHR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.81-0.87]; P < .001) and triazolam (AHR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.78-0.87]; P < .001), and no significant difference between suvorexant and eszopiclone. Among those without monotherapy failure, monotherapy was discontinued in 84.6% of patients, with more discontinuations for ramelteon (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.31 [95% CI, 1.24-1.40]; P < .001) and suvorexant (AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.15-1.26]; P < .001) than for eszopiclone and no significant difference between zolpidem or triazolam and eszopiclone. Conclusions and Relevance: Due to uncontrolled confounding factors in this cohort study, no conclusions regarding the pharmacologic properties of guideline-recommended hypnotics can be drawn based on these results. Further studies accounting for confounding factors, including diagnoses of chronic vs acute insomnia disorder, insomnia and psychiatric symptom severity, and physician attitudes toward hypnotic prescription, are needed.

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.

Opioid versus Benzodiazepine-based Sedation for Mechanically Ventilated Patients in the Internal Medicine Ward.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-base sedation is considered the first line choice in ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICU). Few studies have examined sedation in ventilated patients outside the ICU. A pilot program was initiated in the internal medicine ward A at Meir Hospital in Kfar Saba, Israel. A new sedation protocol was implemented for opioid-based versus benzodiazepine-based sedation in ventilated patients. OBJECTIVES: To compare the rates and intensity of delirium between patients who received opioid-based sedation vs. benzodiazepine-based sedation. To compare parameters related to morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective before-after intervention study based on data collection. Patients who were admitted to the internal medicine ward A from January 2020 to January 2021 and required sedation and ventilation were included. Demographic data, medical history data, admission data, Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale scores, hemodynamic parameters, reports of falls and self-harm, and data regarding unplanned extubation were collected, as well as the need for additional sedative drugs. RESULTS: Chronic hypertension was more common in the opioid group. Delirium intensity tended to be higher in the benzodiazepine group. The number of ventilation days was significantly higher in the benzodiazepine group, as was the number of times adjuvant sedation was required. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid-based sedation outside the ICU was associated with shorter ventilation days, tendency toward lower intensity of delirium, and reduction in requirement of adjuvant sedative drugs compared to benzodiazepine-based sedation. Further studies are required to confirm the findings.

EFFICACY OF TOLAZOLINE AND VATINOXAN IN REDUCING ADVERSE EFFECTS OF BUTORPHANOL-AZAPERONE-MEDETOMIDINE IMMOBILIZATION IN ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK (CERVUS CANADENSIS).

A mixture of butorphanol, azaperone, and medetomidine (BAM) is frequently used for immobilization of North American hoofstock. Common adverse effects include respiratory depression, hypoxemia, and bradycardia. In this nonblinded crossover study the efficacy of two a-2 adrenergic antagonists, tolazoline and vatinoxan, were evaluated in alleviating adverse effects of BAM in Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis). Early administration of these antagonists was hypothesized to cause an increase in heart rate, respiratory rate, partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) and hemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO2), as well as reduction in mean arterial blood pressure without affecting sedation levels. Eight captive adult female elk were immobilized on three separate occasions at least 14 d apart with 0.15 mg/kg butorphanol, 0.05 mg/kg azaperone, and 0.06 mg/kg medetomidine. Tolazoline (2 mg/kg IM), vatinoxan (3 mg/mg medetomidine IV) or sterile saline (2 ml IM) were administered 20 min postinduction. The BAM caused hypoxemia, bradycardia, and moderate hypertension, and because of the severe hypoxemia observed, all animals received intratracheal oxygen throughout immobilization. Heart rate, respiratory rate, rectal temperature, SpO2, PaO2, and systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial blood pressure were monitored every 5 min throughout the immobilization. Intramuscular tolazoline caused a brief but significant drop in mean arterial pressure compared with controls and a brief but nonsignificant increase in heart rate. Vatinoxan caused a significant drop in blood pressure and a brief significant increase in heart rate. Changes in respiratory rates and PaO2 were not observed with either antagonist; however, all animals received oxygen, which may have influenced this result. The depth of sedation was unchanged after administration of either drug.

The Effect of Veteran Status and Chronic Pain on Past 30-Day Sedative Use Among Community-Dwelling Adult Males.

INTRODUCTION: Given the high sedative prescription rate, the sedative-associated morbidity, and mortality nationally (especially among veterans), we aimed to test the hypothesis that veteran status in the presence of chronic pain would be associated with greater sedative use when compared with nonveteran status. METHODS: The study participants were recruited by Community Health Workers (CHWs) through the ongoing community engagement program (HealthStreet) at the University of Florida. CHWs collected information on sociodemographic factors, health status, and past 30-day drug use patterns. RESULTS: The study sample comprised 4,732 male participants, of which 21% were veterans, 58% were Blacks and 8.4% had used prescription sedatives in the past 30 days. Veterans (vs nonveterans) were twice as likely to have used prescription sedatives in the past 30 days in the presence of chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans with chronic pain are a high-risk population for current prescription sedative use.

Efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol for curative endoscopic resection in colorectum: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Curative endoscopic resection is widely used to treat colonic polyps and early stage cancers. The anesthetic strategy commonly involves the use of propofol combined with a small dose of opioids for sedation. Adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events such as hypotension often occur when attempting to achieve the necessary level of sedation. Several studies have suggested its advantages owing to the anesthetic, analgesic, and sympathomimetic properties of esketamine. However, there are no reports on curative colorectal endoscopic resection. We designed this randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol for sedation in patients undergoing curative colorectal endoscopic resection. METHODS: A total of 166 patients who underwent curative colorectal endoscopic resection were randomly assigned to groups A (propofol + fentanyl) or E (propofol + esketamine). Ideal sedation was assessed using the MOAA/S scale and was achieved using TCI-propofol with different doses of fentanyl and esketamine. The propofol consumption and vasoactive drug dosages were recorded. Sedation-related times, adverse events, and satisfaction were recorded. RESULTS: Of the 160 patients, the total propofol consumption was significantly lower in group E (n = 81) (300 mg) than in group A (n = 79) (350 mg). Hypotension and bradycardia were significantly lower in Group E than in Group A. The groups showed no significant differences in other adverse events, induction time, recovery time, or patient or endoscopist satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Compared to fentanyl, esketamine helps decrease propofol consumption and increases cardiovascular stability during curative colorectal endoscopic resection in American Society of Anesthesiologists Class I-III patients without affecting anesthesia, patient and endoscopist satisfaction, or other adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( www.chictr.org.cn ; registration number: ChiCTR2300069014 on 03/03/2023).

Safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs. midazolam in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for complex digestive endoscopy procedures, with the goal of offering comprehensive clinical evidence. METHODS: Following predefined inclusion criteria, five databases were systematically searched, with a focus on identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam during complex digestive endoscopy procedures. The statistical software Stata 15.1 was employed for meticulous data analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs were encompassed, involving a total of 1218 patients. In comparison to the midazolam group, dexmedetomidine administration was associated with a reduced risk of respiratory depression (RR=0.25, 95 %CI: 0.11-0.56) and hypoxemia (RR=0.22, 95 %CI: 0.12-0.39). Additionally, the dexmedetomidine group exhibited lower incidence rates of choking (RR=0.27, 95 %CI: 0.16-0.47), physical movement (RR=0.16, 95 %CI: 0.09-0.27), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR=0.56,95 %CI: 0.34-0.92). Patients and endoscopists in the dexmedetomidine group reported higher levels of satisfaction (patient satisfaction: SMD=0.73, 95 %CI: 0.26-1.21; endoscopist satisfaction: SMD=0.84, 95 %CI: 0.24-1.44). The incidence of hypotension and anesthesia recovery time did not significantly differ between the two groups (hypotension: RR=1.73,95 %CI:0.94-3.20; anesthesia recovery time: SMD=0.02, 95 %Cl: 0.44-0.49). It is noteworthy that the administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant increase in the incidence of bradycardia in patients. CONCLUSION: Compared to midazolam, dexmedetomidine exhibits a favorable safety profile for use in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy by significantly reducing the risk of respiratory depression and hypoxemia. Despite this, dexmedetomidine is associated with a higher incidence of bradycardia. These findings underscore the need for further research through larger, multi-center studies to thoroughly investigate dexmedetomidine's safety and efficacy.

Residual effects of medications for sleep disorders on driving performance: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: NMA driving and hypnotics.

Sleep medications often carry residual effects potentially affecting driving safety, warranting network meta-analysis (NMA). PubMed/EMBASE/TRID/Clinicaltrials.gov/WHO-ICTRP/WebOfScience were inquired for randomized controlled trials of hypnotic driving studies in persons with insomnia and healthy subjects up to 05/28/2023, considering the vehicle's standard deviation of lateral position - SDLP (Standardized Mean Difference/SMD) and driving impairment rates on the first morning (co-primary outcomes) and endpoint. Risk-of-bias, global/local inconsistencies were measured, and CINeMA was used to assess the confidence in the evidence. Of 4,805 identified records, 26 cross-over RCTs were included in the systematic review, of which 22 entered the NMA, focusing on healthy subjects only. After a single administration, most molecules paralleled the placebo, outperforming zopiclone regarding SDLP. In contrast, ramelteon 8 mg, daridorexant 100 mg, zolpidem 10 mg bedtime, zolpidem middle-of-the-night 10 mg and 20 mg, mirtazapine 15-30 mg, and triazolam 0.5 mg performed significantly worse than placebo. Lemborexant 2.5-5 mg, suvorexant 15-20 mg, and zolpidem 3.5 mg middle-of-the-night associated with lower impairment than zopiclone. Repeated administration (maximum follow-up time of ten days) caused fewer residual effects than acute ones, except for flurazepam. Heterogeneity and inconsistency were negligible. Confidence in the evidence was low/very low. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the main analyses. Most FDA-approved hypnotics overlapped placebo at in-label doses, outperforming zopiclone. Repeated administration for 15 days or less reduced residual effects, warranting further research on the matter.