Comparison of the recovery profile of sufentanil and remifentanil in total intravenous anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Remifentanil is a short-acting opioid and can be administered during surgery without the risk of delayed postoperative recovery but concerns about hyperalgesia and the shortages of remifentanil lead anesthetists to consider long-acting opioids for Total Intravenous Anesthesia (TIVA). Sufentanil is a more potent opioid with a longer context-sensitive half-life but can promote good postoperative analgesia due to its residual effect. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the recovery profile of remifentanil and sufentanil for TIVA. METHODS: The search strategy was performed in PubMed, CENTRAL, and Web of Science for RCTs comparing sufentanil and remifentanil as part of TIVA in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery. Risk of bias and the quality of evidence were performed using RoB2 and GRADEpro, respectively. The primary outcome was time to tracheal extubation. Secondary analyses included postoperative analgesia, respiratory depression, and Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV). RESULTS: Sufentanil increases the time to extubate, MD = 4.29 min; 95% CI: 2.33 to 6.26; p = 0.001. It also reduces the need for postoperative rescue analgesia, logOR = -1.07; 95% CI: -1.62 to -0.52; p = 0.005. There were no significant differences between both opioids for PONV, logOR = 0.50; 95% CI: -0.10 to 1.10; p = 0.10 and respiratory depression, logOR = 1.21; 95% CI: -0.42 to 2.84; p = 0.15. CONCLUSION: Sufentanil delays the time to tracheal extubation compared with remifentanil but is associated with a reduced need for postoperative rescue analgesia. No significant differences were observed between the two opioids in terms of postoperative respiratory depression or PONV.

Safety and efficacy of target-controlled infusion versus intermittent bolus administration of propofol for sedation in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background: Our objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of Target-Controlled Infusion (TCI) versus intermittent bolus of propofol for colonoscopy sedation. Methods: We conducted a randomized (1:1), single-blind, parallel-group superiority trial with fifty ASA I or II patients, both sexes, aged 18 to 65 years, Body Mass Index ≤ 30 kg.mr-2, undergoing colonoscopy, allocated to receive propofol by TCI (effect-site, 2 μg.mL-1 plus 0.5 μg.mL-1 until unconsciousness and as necessary for agitation) or intermittent bolus (1 mg.kg-1 plus 0.5 mg.kg-1 every 5 minutes or as above). The primary safety outcome was the need for airway maneuvers and the primary efficacy outcome was the need for interventions to adjust the level of sedation. Secondary outcomes included incidence of agitation, propofol dose, and time to recovery. Results: The median (IQR) number of airway maneuvers and interventions needed to adjust sedation was 0 (0-0) vs. 0 (0-0) (p = 0.239) and 1 (0-1) vs. 3 (1-4) (p < 0.001) in the TCI and control groups, respectively. Agitation was more common in the intermittent bolus group - 2 (0-2) vs. 1 (0-1), p < 0.001. The mean ± SD time to recovery was 4.9 ± 1.4 minutes in the TCI group vs. 2.3 ± 1.6 minutes in the control group (p < 0.001). The total propofol dose was higher in the TCI group (234 ± 46 μg.kg-1.min-1 vs. 195 ± 44 μg.kg-1.min-1 (p = 0.040)). Conclusions: During colonoscopy, TCI is as safe as intermittent bolus of propofol while reducing the incidence of agitation and the need for dose adjustments. However, intermittent bolus administration was associated with lower total propofol dose and earlier recovery.

Safety and efficacy of target-controlled infusion versus intermittent bolus administration of propofol for sedation in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of Target-Controlled Infusion (TCI) versus intermittent bolus of propofol for colonoscopy sedation. METHODS: We conducted a randomized (1:1), single-blind, parallel-group superiority trial with fifty ASA I or II patients, both sexes, aged 18 to 65 years, Body Mass Index ≤ 30 kg.m-2, undergoing colonoscopy, allocated to receive propofol by TCI (effect-site, 2 µg.mL-1 plus 0.5 µg.mL-1 until unconsciousness and as necessary for agitation) or intermittent bolus (1 mg.kg-1 plus 0.5 mg.kg-1 every 5 minutes or as above). The primary safety outcome was the need for airway maneuvers and the primary efficacy outcome was the need for interventions to adjust the level of sedation. Secondary outcomes included incidence of agitation, propofol dose, and time to recovery. RESULTS: The median (IQR) number of airway maneuvers and interventions needed to adjust sedation was 0 (0‒0) vs. 0 (0‒0) (p = 0.239) and 1 (0‒1) vs. 3 (1‒4) (p < 0.001) in the TCI and control groups, respectively. Agitation was more common in the intermittent bolus group ‒ 2 (0‒2) vs. 1 (0‒1), p < 0.001. The mean ± SD time to recovery was 4.9 ± 1.4 minutes in the TCI group vs. 2.3 ± 1.6 minutes in the control group (p < 0.001). The total propofol dose was higher in the TCI group (234 ± 46 µg.kg-1.min-1 vs. 195 ± 44 µg.kg-1.min-1 (p = 0.040)). CONCLUSIONS: During colonoscopy, TCI is as safe as intermittent bolus of propofol while reducing the incidence of agitation and the need for dose adjustments. However, intermittent bolus administration was associated with lower total propofol dose and earlier recovery.