Comparison of Ciprofol-Based and Propofol-Based Total Intravenous Anesthesia on Microvascular Decompression of Facial Nerve with Neurophysiological Monitoring: A Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial.

Purpose: Ciprofol is a recently developed short-acting gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor agonist with a higher potency than that of propofol. As a new sedative drug, there are few clinical studies on ciprofol. We sought to examine the safety and efficacy of ciprofol use for general anesthesia in neurosurgical individuals undergoing neurosurgical surgery with intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM). Patients and Methods: This single-center, non-inferiority, single-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted from September 13, 2022 to September 22, 2023. 120 patients undergoing elective microvascular decompression surgery (MVD) with IONM were randomly assigned to receive either ciprofol or propofol. The primary outcome of this study was the amplitude of intraoperative compound muscle action potential decline, and the secondary outcome included the indexes related to neurophysiological monitoring and anesthesia outcomes. Results: The mean values of the primary outcome in the ciprofol group and the propofol group were 64.7±44.1 and 53.4±35.4, respectively. Furthermore, the 95% confidence interval of the difference was -25.78 to 3.12, with the upper limit of the difference being lower than the non-inferiority boundary of 6.6. Ciprofol could achieve non-inferior effectiveness in comparison with propofol in IONM of MVD. The result during anesthesia induction showed that the magnitude of the blood pressure drop and the incidence of injection pain in the ciprofol group were significantly lower than those in the propofol group (P<0.05). The sedative drug and norepinephrine consumption in the ciprofol group was significantly lower than that in the propofol group (P<0.05). Conclusion: Ciprofol is not inferior to propofol in the effectiveness and safety of IONM and the surgical outcome. Concurrently, ciprofol is more conducive to reducing injection pain and improving hemodynamic stability, which may be more suitable for IONM-related surgery, and has a broad application prospect.

Remimazolam: its clinical pharmacology and evolving role in anesthesia and sedation practice.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Remimazolam is a novel benzodiazepine anesthetic/sedative, designed as a rapidly metabolized carboxylic acid. Since its recent launch, the role of remimazolam in modern anesthesia and sedation practice is still evolving. This review aims to outline the clinical pharmacology and clinical utility of remimazolam to elucidate its potential advantages and limitations. RECENT FINDINGS: Remimazolam is "short-acting" but not ultra-short-acting compared with propofol based on context-sensitive decrement times. But compared to propofol, the availability of the benzodiazepine antagonist, flumazenil, is considered an advantage, particularly in certain emergency situations such as in patients with difficult airways. However, because flumazenil is shorter acting than remimazolam when remimazolam accumulates or is present in a high concentration, the reappearance of remimazolam sedation may occur after the initial reversal of anesthesia/sedation from flumazenil administration. Although it is beneficial that remimazolam causes less respiratory depression and hypotension than propofol, serious respiratory depression and hypotension can still occur. Remimazolam administration causes minimal or no pain on injection. Remimazolam is associated with less postoperative nausea and vomiting than inhaled anesthetics, but propofol is clearly superior in this regard. The anesthetic/sedative effects may be prolonged by severe hepatic impairment; remimazolam tolerance can occur in long-term benzodiazepine users. SUMMARY: Remimazolam may be beneficial to use in procedural sedation and general anesthesia for patients with difficult airways or hemodynamic instability. Further clinical studies with remimazolam are warranted to identify the potential benefits in other settings and patient populations.

Remifentanil-induced hyperalgesia: the current state of affairs.

Remifentanil-induced hyperalgesia (RIH) is a part of a general opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH) syndrome, seemingly resulting from abrupt cessation of continuous remifentanil infusion at rates equal or exceeding 0.3 mcg/kg/min. The intricate mechanisms of its development are still not completely understood. However, hyperactivation of the N -methyl d -aspartate receptor system, descending spinal facilitation and increased concentration of dynorphin (a κ-opioid ligand) are commonly proposed as possible mechanisms. Several ways of prevention and management have been suggested, such as slow withdrawal of remifentanil infusion, the addition of propofol, pretreatment with or concomitant administration of ketamine, buprenorphine, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (NSAIDs), methadone, dexmedetomidine. In clinical and animal studies, these strategies exhibited varying success, and many are still being investigated.

Is target-controlled infusion better than manual controlled infusion during TIVA for elective neurosurgery? Results of a single-centre pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Maintaining optimal systemic circulatory parameters is essential to ensure adequate cerebral perfusion (CPP) during neurosurgery, especially when autoregulation is impaired. AIM OF STUDY: To compare two types of total intravenous anaesthesia i.e. target controlled infusion (TCI) and manually controlled infusion (MCI) with propofol and remifentanil in terms of their control of cardiovascular parameters during neurosurgical resection of intracranial pathology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with supratentorial intracranial pathology were selected for the study. Patients in ASA grades III and IV and those with diseases of the circulatory system were excluded. Patients were randomly divided into two equal groups according to the method of general anaesthesia used i.e. TCI or MCI. During the neurosurgery, the values of mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), bispectral index (BIS) and central venous pressure were monitored and recorded at the designated 14 relevant (i.e. critical from the anaesthetist's and neurosurgeon's points of view) measurement points. RESULTS: Fifty patients (25 TCI and 25 MCI) were enrolled in the study. The groups did not differ with respect to sex, age and BMI, operation time or volume of removed lesions. TCI-anaesthetised patients had better MAP stability at the respective time points. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the greater stability of MAP, which has a direct effect on CPP, TCI appears to be the method of choice in anaesthesia for intracranial surgery.

Influences of Propofol, Ciprofol and Remimazolam on Dreaming During Anesthesia for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Double-Blind Parallel-Design Trial.

Purpose: To compare the influences of propofol, ciprofol and remimazolam on dreaming during painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: This study was a single-center, prospective, parallel-design, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Between May 2023 and October 2023, patients undergoing elective painless gastrointestinal endoscopy were recruited and randomly allocated into one of the three groups. Demographic data, intraoperative information, incidence of dreaming, insufficient anesthesia and intraoperative awareness, type of dream, patient satisfaction score, adverse events, and improvement of sleep quality were collected. Results: The difference in incidence of dreaming among the three groups was not significant (33.33% vs 48.33% vs 41.67%, p=0.061). The number of patients with intraoperative hypotension in the propofol group was larger than that of the remimazolam group (32 vs 12, p=0.001). However, the cases of intraoperative hypotension between propofol group and ciprofol group or ciprofol group and remimazolam group were comparable (32 vs 22, p=0.122; 22 vs 12, p=0.064). The percentage of insufficient anesthesia between propofol group and remimazolam group was significant (13.33% vs 1.67%, p=0.001), while no statistical difference was detected between propofol group and remimazolam group or ciprofol group and remimazolam group (13.33% vs 5.00%, p=0.025; 5.00% vs 1.67%, p=0.150). The ability of propofol to improve sleep quality at 1st post-examination day was significantly better than that of remimazolam (86.21% vs 72.88%, p=0.015), while it was not significant between propofol group and ciprofol group or ciprofol group and remimazolam group (86.21% vs 80.36%, p=0.236; 72.88% vs. 72.88%, p=0.181). Incidence of intraoperative awareness, intraoperative hypoxia, type of dream, satisfaction score, adverse events during recovery, and sleep improvement on the 7th post-examination day was not significant among the groups. Conclusion: Anesthesia with propofol, ciprofol and remimazolam, respectively, for gastrointestinal endoscopy did not induce statistical difference in the incidence of dreaming, despite that all of them are more likely to induce pleasant dreams.

Comparative analysis of dexmedetomidine, midazolam, and propofol impact on epilepsy-related mortality in the ICU: insights from the MIMIC-IV database.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine (Dex), midazolam, and propofol are three distinct sedatives characterized by varying pharmacological properties. Previous literature has indicated the positive impact of each of these sedatives on ICU patients. However, there is a scarcity of clinical evidence comparing the efficacy of Dex, midazolam, and propofol in reducing mortality among people with epilepsy (PWE). This study aimed to assess the impact of Dex, midazolam, and propofol on the survival of PWE. METHODS: The data were retrospectively retrieved from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV database (version 2.0). PWE were categorized into Dex, midazolam, and propofol groups based on the intravenously administered sedatives. PWE without standard drug therapy were included in the control group. Comparative analyses were performed on the data among the groups. RESULTS: The Dex group exhibited a significantly lower proportion of in-hospital deaths and a markedly higher in-hospital survival time compared to the midazolam and propofol groups (p < 0.01) after propensity score matching. Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated a significant improvement in survival rates for the Dex group compared to the control group (p = 0.025). Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed no significant differences in survival rates among the Dex, midazolam, and propofol groups (F = 1.949, p = 0.143). The nomogram indicated that compared to midazolam and propofol groups, Dex was more effective in improving the survival rate of PWE. CONCLUSION: Dex might improve the survival rate of PWE in the ICU compared to no standard drug intervention. However, Dex did not exhibit superiority in improving survival rates compared to midazolam and propofol.

The EC50 of propofol with different doses of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the dose-response relationship between dexmedetomidine and propofol in sedating patients and to determine the optimal dosage of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: One hundred fifty patients were divided into 5 groups, each receiving a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 µg/kg) or saline, with propofol for sedation. The median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol was calculated using the modified Dixon up-and-down approach. Adverse effects, vital signs, procedure, and recovery times were recorded. RESULTS: The EC50 of propofol in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, D0.8, and D1.0 were 3.02, 2.44, 1.97, 1.85, and 1.83 µg/mL, respectively. Heart rate in the dexmedetomidine groups decreased more than the NS group (P < .001). The mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the NS group experienced a decline compared to groups D0.8 and D1.0 when the plasma concentration and effect-site concentration reached equilibrium. Additionally, the respiratory rate was found to be lower in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, and D0.8 (P < .05). Recovery time in groups D0.8 and D1.0 was longer than the NS group (P < .05). Bruggemann comfort scales score was higher in group D1.0 (P < .05). No significant difference was found in the incidences of hypotension and bradycardia, and the dose of ephedrine and atropine. Respiratory depression was significantly reduced in groups D0.8 and D1.0 compared to the NS group. CONCLUSION: A single dose of 0.6 to 0.8 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine should be recommended in combination with propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. And the EC50 of propofol is 1.97 to 1.85 µg/mL.

Comparison of Fentanyl, Ketamine, and Lidocaine Combined with Propofol Anesthesia in Patients with Crohn Disease Undergoing Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND Colonoscopy is the predominant invasive procedure for Crohn disease (CD) patients. Opioids and propofol carry risks of respiratory and cardiovascular complications. This study aimed to evaluate whether substituting fentanyl with ketamine or lidocaine could diminish propofol usage and minimize adverse events. MATERIAL AND METHODS In total, 146 patients with CD scheduled for elective colonoscopy were assigned to anesthesia with fentanyl (n=47), ketamine (n=47), or lidocaine (n=55). Propofol was administered to achieve sufficient anesthesia. Measured outcomes in each group included propofol consumption, hypotension and desaturation incidents, adverse event types, consciousness recovery time, abdominal pain intensity, Aldrete scale, and Post Anaesthetic Discharge Scoring System (PADSS). RESULTS Patients administered fentanyl needed significantly more propofol (P=0.017) than those on ketamine, with lidocaine showing no notable difference (P=0.28). Desaturation was significantly less common in the ketamine and lidocaine groups than fentanyl group (P<0.001). The ketamine group experienced milder reductions in mean arterial (P=0.018) and systolic blood pressure (P<0.001). Recovery metrics (Aldrete and PADSS scores) were lower for fentanyl (P<0.001), although satisfaction and pain levels were consistent across all groups (P=0.797). Dizziness occurred less frequently with lidocaine than fentanyl (17.2%, P=0.018) and ketamine (15.1%, P=0.019), while metallic taste incidents were more prevalent in the lidocaine group (13.5%, P=0.04) than fentanyl group. CONCLUSIONS Using ketamine or lidocaine instead of fentanyl in anesthesia for colonoscopy in patients with CD significantly lowers propofol use, reduces desaturation events, maintains blood pressure more effectively, without increasing hypotension risk, and accelerates recovery, without negatively impacting adverse events or patient satisfaction.

Remimazolam-flumazenil provides fast recovery from general anesthesia compared to propofol during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation.

The optimal anesthetic agent for radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) and its impact on the recovery profiles remain uncertain. We compared the recovery and hemodynamic parameters between the remimazolam-flumazenil and propofol groups during RFCA. Patients were randomized into the remimazolam-flumazenil and propofol groups. The primary outcome measure was the time to eye opening following the discontinuation of anesthetic agents. Secondary outcomes included time to extubation, time to discharge from the operating room, intraprocedural hemodynamic variables and postoperative quality outcomes. Fifty-three patients were included in the final analysis (n = 26 in the remimazolam-flumazenil and n = 27 in the propofol group). The time to eye opening was significantly shorter in the remimazolam-flumazenil group compared to the propofol group (median [interquartile range]: 174 [157-216] vs. 353 [230-483] s, P < 0.001). The mean blood pressure and bispectral index were significantly higher in the remimazolam-flumazenil group compared to the propofol group (mean difference [95% CI], 7.2 [1.7-12.7] mmHg and 6 [3-8]; P = 0.011 and < 0.001, respectively), which were within target ranges in both groups. Other secondary outcomes were comparable between the groups. Consequently, remimazolam emerges as a promising anesthetic agent, characterized by rapid recovery and stable hemodynamics, during RFCA of AF.Trial registration: NCT05397886.

Effect of desflurane anesthesia on flash visual evoked potential monitoring in patients undergoing spine surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Flash visual evoked potentials (FVEPs) are a reliable method for protecting visual function during spine surgery in prone position. However, the popularization and application of FVEPs remain limited due to the unclear influence of various anesthetics on FVEPs. Exploring the effects of anesthetic drugs on FVEP and establishing appropriate anesthesia maintenance methods are particularly important for promoting and applying FVEP. According to the conventional concept, inhaled narcotic drugs significantly affect the success of FVEP monitoring, FVEP extraction, and interpretation. Nonetheless, our previous study demonstrated that sevoflurane-propofol balanced anesthesia was a practicable regimen for FVEPs. Desflurane is widely used in general anesthesia for its rapid recovery properties. As the effect of desflurane on FVEP remains unclear, this trial will investigate the effect of different inhaled concentrations of desflurane anesthesia on amplitude of FVEPs during spine surgery, aiming to identify more feasible anesthesia schemes for the clinical application of FVEP. METHODS/ DESIGN: A total of 70 patients undergoing elective spinal surgery will be enrolled in this prospective, randomized controlled, open-label, patient-assessor-blinded, superiority trial and randomly assigned to the low inhaled concentration of desflurane group (LD group) maintained with desflurane-propofolremifentanil-balanced anesthesia or high inhaled concentration of desflurane group (HD group) maintained with desflurane-remifentanil anesthesia maintenance group at a ratio of 1:1. All patients will be monitored for intraoperative FVEPs, and the baseline will be measured half an hour after induction under total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). After that, patients will receive 0.5 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of desflurane combined with propofol and remifentanil for anesthesia maintenance in the LD group, while 0.7-1.0 MAC of desflurane and remifentanil will be maintained in the HD group. The primary outcome is the N75-P100 amplitude 1 h after the induction of anesthesia. We intend to use the dual measure evaluation, dual data entry, and statistical analysis by double trained assessors to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the results. DISCUSSION: This randomized controlled trial aims to explore the superiority effect of low inhaled concentration of desflurane combined with propofolremifentanil-balanced anesthesia versus high inhaled concentration of desflurane combined with remifentanil anesthesia on amplitude of FVEPs. The study is meant to be published in a peer-reviewed journal and might guide the anesthetic regimen for FVEPs. The conclusion is expected to provide high-quality evidence for the effect of desflurane on FVEPs and aim to explore more feasible anesthesia schemes for the clinical application of FVEPs and visual function protection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov on July 15, 2022. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT05465330.

EVALUATION OF IMMERSION IN EMULSIFIED ISOFLURANE OR PROPOFOL AS PART OF A TWO-STEP EUTHANASIA PROTOCOL IN MARBLED CRAYFISH (PROCAMBARUS VIRGINALIS).

The marbled crayfish (Procambarus virginalis) is a parthenogenetic invasive species across much of the world, and when found, euthanasia is often recommended to reduce spread to naïve ecosystems. Euthanasia recommendations in crustaceans includes a two-step method: first to produce nonresponsiveness and then to destroy central nervous tissue. Minimal data exist on adequate anesthetic or immobilization methods for crayfish. A population of 90 marbled crayfish was scheduled for euthanasia due to invasive species concerns. The population was divided into six treatment groups to evaluate whether immersion in emulsified isoflurane or propofol solutions could produce nonresponsiveness. Each group was exposed to one of six treatments for 1 h: isoflurane emulsified at 0.1%, 0.5%, 2%, 5%, and 15% or propofol at 10 mg/L and then increased to 100 mg/L. Crayfish from all treatment groups were moved to nonmedicated water after completion of 1 h and observed for an additional 4 h. All crayfish treated with isoflurane showed lack of a righting reflex at 5 min and loss of movement after 30 min. By 240 min (4 h), none of the crayfish from the isoflurane treatment groups regained movement. None of the crayfish in the propofol treatment achieved loss of reflexes or responsiveness, and all remained normal upon return to nonmedicated water. Isoflurane emulsified in water produces nonresponsiveness that is appropriate for the first step of euthanasia, while propofol was insufficient at these treatment doses.

Comparison of hypotension incidence between remimazolam and propofol in patients with hypertension undergoing neurosurgery: prospective, randomized, single-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Remimazolam, a newer benzodiazepine that targets the GABAA receptor, is thought to allow more stable blood pressure management during anesthesia induction. In contrast, propofol is associated with vasodilatory effects and an increased risk of hypotension, particularly in patients with comorbidities. This study aimed to identify medications that can maintain stable vital signs throughout the induction phase. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, two-group, randomized controlled trial to investigate and compare the incidence of hypotension between remimazolam- and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). We selected patients aged between 19 and 75 years scheduled for neurosurgery under general anesthesia, who were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I-III and had a history of hypertension. RESULTS: We included 94 patients in the final analysis. The incidence of hypotension was higher in the propofol group (91.3%) than in the remimazolam group (85.4%; P = 0.057). There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypotension among the various antihypertensive medications despite the majority of patients being on multiple medications. In comparison with the propofol group, the remimazolam group demonstrated a higher heart rate immediately after intubation. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicated that the hypotension incidence of remimazolam-based TIVA was comparable to that of propofol-based TIVA throughout the induction phase of EEG-guided anesthesia. Both remimazolam and propofol may be equally suitable for general anesthesia in patients undergoing neurosurgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05164146).

Serotonin Syndrome After Prolonged Remifentanil and Propofol Infusion for Craniotomy: A Case Report.

Serotonin syndrome (SS) is a life-threatening condition caused by serotonergic medications. We describe a unique case of SS likely caused by prolonged exposure to propofol and remifentanil alone. A young male presented for vestibular schwannoma resection. Several hours into the case, the patient demonstrated hyperthermia and hemodynamic instability, followed by clonus, rigidity, shivering, and tachycardia after emergence. SS was diagnosed using Hunter's criteria and improved with supportive measures. While the patient endorsed a history of methamphetamine use, his urine drug screen was negative. The possibility of SS should be considered when administering propofol and remifentanil, particularly with prolonged infusions.

Total intravenous anesthesia with Ketofol in rabbits: a comparison of the effects of constant rate infusion of midazolam, fentanyl or dexmedetomidine.

BACKGROUND: When inhalant anesthetic equipment is not available or during upper airway surgery, intravenous infusion of one or more drugs are commonly used to induce and/or maintain general anesthesia. Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) does not require endotracheal intubation, which may be more difficult to achieve in rabbits. A range of different injectable drug combinations have been used as continuous infusion rate in animals. Recently, a combination of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) has been used for TIVA in both human patients and animals. The purpose of this prospective, blinded, randomized, crossover study was to evaluate anesthetic and cardiopulmonary effects of ketofol total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) in combination with constant rate infusion (CRI) of midazolam, fentanyl or dexmedetomidine in eight New Zealand White rabbits. Following IV induction with ketofol and endotracheal intubation, anesthesia was maintained with ketofol infusion in combination with CRIs of midazolam (loading dose [LD]: 0.3 mg/kg; CRI: 0.3 mg/kg/hr; KPM), fentanyl (LD: 6 µg/kg; CRI: 6 µg/kg/hr; KPF) or dexmedetomidine (LD: 3 µg/kg; CRI: 3 µg/kg/hr; KPD). Rabbits in the control treatment (KPS) were administered the same volume of saline for LD and CRI. Ketofol infusion rate (initially 0.6 mg kg- 1 minute- 1 [0.3 mg kg- 1 minute- 1 of each drug]) was adjusted to suppress the pedal withdrawal reflex. Ketofol dose and physiologic variables were recorded every 5 min. RESULTS: Ketofol induction doses were 14.9 ± 1.8 (KPM), 15.0 ± 1.9 (KPF), 15.5 ± 2.4 (KPD) and 14.7 ± 3.4 (KPS) mg kg- 1 and did not differ among treatments (p > 0.05). Ketofol infusion rate decreased significantly in rabbits in treatments KPM and KPD as compared with saline. Ketofol maintenance dose in rabbits in treatments KPM (1.0 ± 0.1 mg/kg/min) and KPD (1.0 ± 0.1 mg/kg/min) was significantly lower as compared to KPS (1.3 ± 0.1 mg/kg/min) treatment (p < 0.05). Ketofol maintenance dose did not differ significantly between treatments KPF (1.1 ± 0.3 mg/kg/min) and KPS (1.3 ± 0.1 mg/kg/min). Cardiovascular variables remained at clinically acceptable values but ketofol infusion in combination with fentanyl CRI was associated with severe respiratory depression. CONCLUSIONS: At the studied doses, CRIs of midazolam and dexmedetomidine, but not fentanyl, produced ketofol-sparing effect in rabbits. Mechanical ventilation should be considered during ketofol anesthesia, particularly when fentanyl CRI is used.

Dynamical changes of interaction across functional brain communities during propofol-induced sedation.

It is crucial to understand how anesthetics disrupt information transmission within the whole-brain network and its hub structure to gain insight into the network-level mechanisms underlying propofol-induced sedation. However, the influence of propofol on functional integration, segregation, and community structure of whole-brain networks were still unclear. We recruited 12 healthy subjects and acquired resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging data during 5 different propofol-induced effect-site concentrations (CEs): 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 µg/ml. We constructed whole-brain functional networks for each subject under different conditions and identify community structures. Subsequently, we calculated the global and local topological properties of whole-brain network to investigate the alterations in functional integration and segregation with deepening propofol sedation. Additionally, we assessed the alteration of key nodes within the whole-brain community structure at each effect-site concentrations level. We found that global participation was significantly increased at high effect-site concentrations, which was mediated by bilateral postcentral gyrus. Meanwhile, connector hubs appeared and were located in posterior cingulate cortex and precentral gyrus at high effect-site concentrations. Finally, nodal participation coefficients of connector hubs were closely associated to the level of sedation. These findings provide valuable insights into the relationship between increasing propofol dosage and enhanced functional interaction within the whole-brain networks.

Comparison of the effects of remimazolam tosylate and propofol on immune function and hemodynamics in patients undergoing laparoscopic partial hepatectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy inevitably decrease patient immune function. Propofol has been shown to have immunomodulatory effects but is associated with hemodynamic side effects. Despite studies showing a negligible impact of remimazolam tosylate on hemodynamics, it has not been reported for partial hepatectomy patients. Its influence on immune function also remains unexplored. This study sought to investigate the differences in immune function and intraoperative hemodynamics between patients who underwent laparoscopic partial hepatectomy with remimazolam tosylate and those who underwent laparoscopic partial hepatectomy with propofol. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized controlled trial involving 70 patients, who underwent elective laparoscopic partial hepatectomy. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: the remimazolam group (group R) and the propofol group (group P). In this study, the primary outcomes assessed included the patient's immune function and hemodynamic parameters, and the secondary outcomes encompassed the patient's liver function and adverse events. RESULTS: Data from 64 patients (group R, n = 31; group P, n = 33) were analyzed. The differences in the percentages of CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, and NK cells and the CD4+/CD8+ ratio between the two groups were not statistically significant at 1 day or 3 days after surgery. Compared with those in group P, the MAP and HR at T2 and the MAP at T1 in group R were significantly increased(P < 0.05). The differences in HR and MAP at T0, T3, T4, T5, T6, and T7 and HR at T1 between the two groups were not statistically significant. There were no differences in liver function or adverse effects between the two groups, suggesting that remimazolam tosylate is a safe sedative drug(P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The effects of remimazolam tosylate on the immune function of patients after partial hepatectomy are comparable to those of propofol. Additionally, its minimal effect on hemodynamics significantly decreases the incidence of hypotension during anesthesia induction, thereby enhancing overall perioperative safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on May 9, 2022 in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, registration number ChiCTR2200059715 (09/05/2022).

Recommended dosages of analgesic and sedative drugs in intensive care result in a low incidence of potentially toxic blood concentrations.

Background: Standard dosages of analgesic and sedative drugs are given to intensive care patients. The resulting range of blood concentrations and corresponding clinical responses need to be better examined. The purpose of this study was to describe daily dosages, measured blood concentrations, and clinical responses in critically ill patients. The purpose was also to contribute to establishing whole blood concentration reference values of the drugs investigated. Methods: A descriptive study of prospectively collected data from 302 admissions to a general intensive care unit (ICU) at a university hospital. Ten drugs (clonidine, fentanyl, morphine, dexmedetomidine, ketamine, ketobemidone, midazolam, paracetamol, propofol, and thiopental) were investigated, and daily dosages recorded. Blood samples were collected twice daily, and drug concentrations were measured. Clinical responses were registered using Richmond agitation-sedation scale (RASS) and Numeric rating scale (NRS). Results: Drug dosages were within recommended dose ranges. Blood concentrations for all 10 drugs showed a wide variation within the cohort, but only 3% were above therapeutic interval where clonidine (57 of 122) and midazolam (38 of 122) dominated. RASS and NRS were not correlated to drug concentrations. Conclusion: Using recommended dose intervals for analgesic and sedative drugs in the ICU setting combined with regular monitoring of clinical responses such as RASS and NRS leads to 97% of concentrations being below the upper limit in the therapeutic interval. This study contributes to whole blood drug concentration reference values regarding these 10 drugs.