Effect of intraperitoneally administered propentofylline in a rat model of postoperative pain.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we sought to evaluate whether systemic propentofylline (PPF) has antiallodynic effects in a rat model of postoperative pain, and to assess the mechanism involved. METHODS: After plantar incision, rats were intraperitoneally injected with various doses of PPF to evaluate its antiallodynic effect. To investigate the involved mechanism, rats were intraperitoneally injected with yohimbine, dexmedetomidine, prazosin, naloxone, atropine or mecamylamine, following the incision of the rat hind paws, and then PPF was administered intraperitoneally. The mechanical withdrawal threshold (MWT) was evaluated using von Frey filaments at various time points and serum levels of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1ß, and IL-6 were measured to determine the inflammatory response level. RESULTS: MWT was significantly increased after intraperitoneal injection of 30 mg/kg of PPF when compared with the control group. Injection of PPF and yohimbine, atropine or mecamylamine showed significant decreases in the MWT, while injection of PPF and dexmedetomidine showed a significant increase. Systemic administration of PPF inhibited the post-incisional increase in serum level of TNF-α and IL-1ß. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic administration of PPF following surgery presented antiallodynic effects in a rat model of postoperative pain. The antiallodynic effects against mechanical allodynia could be mediated by α-adrenergic and cholinergic receptors.

Comparison of procedural sequence in same-day bidirectional endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of procedural sequence in same-day bidirectional endoscopy. METHODS: We searched OVID-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the procedural sequences in same-day bidirectional endoscopy, including esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. The sedative and analgesic doses required, discomfort and satisfaction scores, procedure time, recovery time, adenoma detection rate, and failed cecal intubation were evaluated. Adverse effects, including respiratory and cardiovascular complications, were also assessed. RESULTS: We included six studies, with 1,848 patients in total. The requirement for sedative treatment was significantly lesser in the EGD-colonoscopy sequence than in the colonoscopy-EGD sequence (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.54 to -0.24; p = 0.12; I2 = 49%). Discomfort, scored by patients during the EGD procedure, was significantly lesser in the EGD-colonoscopy sequence than in the colonoscopy-EGD sequence (SMD, -0.45; 95% CI, -0.80 to -0.09; p = 0.02; I2 = 73%), while it was comparable during colonoscopy between the two sequences. Recovery time was significantly shorter in the EGD-colonoscopy sequence than in the colonoscopy-EGD sequence (SMD, -0.47; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.30; p = 0.28; I2 = 21%). Total procedure duration, EGD, colonoscopy, cecal intubation time and incidence, incidences of pathologic findings, and adenoma detection were comparable between the two sequences. There was no significant difference in the incidences of desaturation, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, and tachycardia between the two sequences. CONCLUSION: When conducting same-day bidirectional endoscopy, EGD followed by colonoscopy is the most beneficial sequence to be used because patients require lower sedative doses, recover faster, and report lesser discomfort.

Etomidate versus propofol sedation for electrical external cardioversion: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of etomidate vs propofol sedation for electrical cardioversion. METHODS: The authors searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Koreamed, and KMBASE databases to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared etomidate and propofol sedation for cardioversion in adult patients. Induction and recovery time, success rate, number of shocks, and cumulative energy were evaluated. Adverse effects, including respiratory and cardiovascular complications, myoclonus, and nausea and vomiting, were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of nine studies, involving a total of 430 patients, were included. Induction and recovery time, success rate, number of shocks, and cumulative energy were similar. The incidences of hypotension and respiratory depression were significantly higher in the propofol group than in the etomidate group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.02-0.74, I2 = 0%; RR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.32-0.77, I2 = 47%, respectively). The incidences of myoclonus and nausea or vomiting were significantly higher in the etomidate group than in the propofol group (RR = 8.89, 95% CI = 4.59-17.23, I2 = 9%; RR = 5.13, 95% CI = 1.72-15.31, I2 = 31%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Issues affecting efficacy, including induction and recovery time, success rate, number of shocks, and cumulative energy, were comparable between etomidate and propofol sedation. Regarding safety issues, propofol sedation resulted in hypotension and respiratory depression more frequently; however, initiation of positive pressure ventilation was comparable. Etomidate sedation caused myoclonus and nausea or vomiting more frequently.

Rubus occidentalis analgesic effect in a rat model of incisional pain.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the analgesic effect of Rubus occidentalis extract (ROE) in a rat model of incisional pain. The involved mechanisms and proinflammatory cytokine response were also examined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To investigate the analgesic effect, rats were intraperitoneally administered with normal saline or various doses of ROE before or after a plantar incision. To evaluate the involved mechanism, rats were intraperitoneally administered yohimbine, dexmedetomidine, prazosin, naloxone, atropine, or mecamylamine after a plantar incision; ROE was then administered intraperitoneally. The mechanical withdrawal threshold (MWT) was tested with von Frey filaments at various time points. To determine the inflammatory response, serum levels of interleukin (IL)-1ß or IL-6 were measured. RESULTS: The MWTs significantly increased at 15 min after postincisional administration of 300 mg/kg ROE when compared with those in the control group. This elevation was observed for up to 45 min. Overall, MWTs increased in proportion to ROE dosage; however, ROEs administered before the incision produced no significant change in the MWT. The analgesic effect of ROE was significantly antagonized by mecamylamine, naloxone, and yohimbine, and agonized by dexmedetomidine. Administration of ROE inhibited the postincisional increase in serum IL-1ß and IL-6. CONCLUSIONS: Intraperitoneal administration of ROE after surgery induces antinociceptive effects in a rat model of postoperative pain, and its effects on mechanical hyperalgesia may be associated with α2-adrenergic, nicotinic cholinergic, and opioid receptors.