Social network analysis for medical narcotics in South Korea: focusing on patients and healthcare organizations.

BACKGROUND: Medical narcotics must be administered under medical supervision because of their potential for misuse and abuse, leading to more dangerous and addictive substances. The control of medical narcotics requires close monitoring to ensure that they remain safe and effective. This study proposes a methodology that can effectively identify the overprescription of medical narcotics in hospitals and patients. METHODS: Social network analysis (SNA) was applied to prescription networks for medical narcotics. Prescription data were obtained from the Narcotics Information Management System in South Korea, which contains all data on narcotic usage nationwide. Two-mode networks comprising hospitals and patients were constructed based on prescription data from 2019 to 2021 for the three most significant narcotics: appetite suppressants, zolpidem, and propofol. Two-mode networks were then converted into one-mode networks for hospitals. Network structures and characteristics were analyzed to identify hospitals suspected of overprescribing. RESULTS: The SNA identified hospitals that overprescribed medical narcotics. Patients suspected of experiencing narcotic addiction seek treatment in such hospitals. The structure of the network was different for the three narcotics. While appetite suppressants and propofol networks had a more centralized structure, zolpidem networks showed a less centralized but more fragmented structure. During the analysis, two types of hospitals caught our attention: one with a high degree, meaning that potential abusers have frequently visited the hospital, and the other with a high weighted degree, meaning that the hospital may overprescribe. For appetite suppressants, these two types of hospitals matched 84.6%, compared with 30.0% for propofol. In all three narcotics, clinics accounted for the largest share of the network. Patients using appetite suppressants were most likely to visit multiple locations, whereas those using zolpidem and propofol tended to form communities around their neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: The significance of this study lies in its analysis of nationwide narcotic use reports and the differences observed across different types of narcotics. The social network structure between hospitals and patients varies depending on the composition of the medical narcotics. Therefore, these characteristics should be considered when controlling medication with narcotics. The results of this study provide guidelines for controlling narcotic use in other countries.

Restrictive use of Restraints and Delirium Duration in the Intensive Care Unit (R2D2-ICU): protocol for a French multicentre parallel-group open-label randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Physical restraint (PR) is prescribed in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) to avoid unplanned removal of medical devices. However, it is associated with an increased risk of delirium. We hypothesise that a restrictive use of PR, as compared with a systematic use, could reduce the duration of delirium in ICU patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Restrictive use of Restraints and Delirium Duration in ICU (R2D2-ICU) study is a national multicentric, parallel-group, randomised (1:1) open-label, controlled, superiority trial, which will be conducted in 10 ICUs. A total of 422 adult patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for an expected duration of at least 48 hours and eligible for prescription of PR will be randomly allocated within 6 hours from intubation to either the restrictive PR use group or the systematic PR use group, until day 14, ICU discharge or death, whichever comes first. In both groups, PR will consist of the use of wrist straps. The primary endpoint will be delirium or coma-free days, defined as the number of days spent alive in the ICU without coma or delirium within the first 14 days after randomisation. Delirium will be assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU twice daily. Key secondary endpoints will encompass agitation episodes, opioid, propofol, benzodiazepine and antipsychotic drug exposure during the 14-day intervention period, along with a core outcome set of measures evaluated 90 days postrandomisation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The R2D2-ICU study has been approved by the Comité de Protection des Personnes (CPP) ILE DE FRANCE III-PARIS (CPP19.09.06.37521) on June 10th, 2019). Participant recruitment started on 25 January 2021. Results will be published in international peer-reviewed medical journals and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04273360.

Volatile versus propofol sedation after cardiac valve surgery: a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal intensive care of patients undergoing valve surgery is a complex balancing act between sedation for monitoring and timely postoperative awakening. It remains unclear, if these requirements can be fulfilled by volatile sedations in intensive care medicine in an efficient manner. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the time to extubation and secondary the workload required. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized single-center trial at a tertiary university hospital to evaluate the postoperative management of open valve surgery patients. The study was randomized with regard to the use of volatile sedation compared to propofol sedation. Sedation was discontinued 60 min after admission for critical postoperative monitoring. RESULTS: We observed a significantly earlier extubation (91 ± 39 min vs. 167 ± 77 min; p < 0.001), eye-opening (86 ± 28 min vs. 151 ± 71 min; p < 0.001) and command compliance (93 ± 38 min vs. 164 ± 75 min; p < 0.001) using volatile sedation, which in turn was associated with a significantly increased workload of a median of 9:56 min (± 4:16 min) set-up time. We did not observe any differences in complications. Cardiopulmonary bypass time did not differ between the groups 101 (IQR 81; 113) versus 112 (IQR 79; 136) minutes p = 0.36. CONCLUSIONS: Using volatile sedation is associated with few minutes additional workload in assembling and enables a significantly accelerated evaluation of vulnerable patient groups. Volatile sedation has considerable advantages and emerges as a safe sedation technique in our vulnerable study population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials registration (NCT04958668) was completed on 1 July 2021.

Application of propofol-remifentanil intravenous general anesthesia combined with regional block in pediatric ophthalmic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to observe the anesthetic effect and safety of intravenous anesthesia without muscle relaxant with propofol-remifentanil combined with regional block under laryngeal mask airway in pediatric ophthalmologic surgery. METHODS: A total of 90 undergoing ophthalmic surgery were anesthetized with general anesthesia using the laryngeal mask airway without muscle relaxant. They were randomly divided into two groups: 45 children who received propofol-remifentanil intravenous anesthesia combined with regional block (LG group), and 45 children who received total intravenous anesthesia (G group). The peri-operative circulatory indicators, awakening time after general anesthesia, postoperative analgesic effect and the incidence of anesthesia-related adverse events were respectively compared between the two groups. RESULTS: All the children successfully underwent the surgical procedure. The awakening time after general anesthesia and removal time of laryngeal mask were significantly shorter in the LG group than in the G group (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the heart rates in the perioperative period between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of intraoperative physical response, respiratory depression, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and emergence agitation (EA) between the two groups (P > 0.05). The pain score at the postoperative hour 2 was lower in the LG group than in the G group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Propofol-remifentanil intravenous anesthesia combined with long-acting local anesthetic regional block anesthesia, combined with laryngeal mask ventilation technology without muscle relaxants, can be safely used in pediatric eye surgery to achieve rapid and smooth recovery from general anesthesia and better postoperative analgesia. This anesthesia scheme can improve the comfort and safety of children in perioperative period, and has a certain clinical popularization value.

Construction of preclinical evidence for propofol in the treatment of reperfusion injury after acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Propofol, a commonly used intravenous anesthetic, has demonstrated potential in protecting against myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury (MIRI) based on preclinical animal studies. However, the clinical benefits of propofol in this context are subject to debate. We conducted a systematic search across eight databases to identify all relevant animal studies investigating the preventive effects of propofol on MIRI until October 30, 2023. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using SYRCLE's bias risk tool. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 15.1. The primary outcome measures analyzed in this study were myocardial infarct size (IS) and myocardial injury biomarkers. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of 48 relevant animal studies investigating propofol's preventive effects on MIRI. Propofol administration demonstrated a reduction in myocardial IS and decreased levels of myocardial injury biomarkers (CK-MB, LDH, cTnI). Moreover, propofol improved myocardial function parameters (+dp/dtmax, -dP/dtmax, LVEF, LVFS), exhibited favorable effects on inflammatory markers (IL-6, TNF-α) and oxidative stress markers (SOD, MDA), and reduced myocardial cell apoptotic index (AI). These findings suggest propofol exerts cardioprotective effects by reducing myocardial injury, decreasing infarct size, and improving heart function. However, the absence of animal models that accurately represent comorbidities such as aging and hypertension, as well as inconsistent administration methods that align with clinical practice, may hinder its clinical translation. Further robust investigations are required to validate these findings, elucidate the underlying mechanisms of propofol, and facilitate its potential translation into clinical practice.

Propofol improves survival in a murine model of sepsis via inhibiting Rab5a-mediated intracellular trafficking of TLR4.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is a widely used anesthetic and sedative, which has been reported to exert an anti-inflammatory effect. TLR4 plays a critical role in coordinating the immuno-inflammatory response during sepsis. Whether propofol can act as an immunomodulator through regulating TLR4 is still unclear. Given its potential as a sepsis therapy, we investigated the mechanisms underlying the immunomodulatory activity of propofol. METHODS: The effects of propofol on TLR4 and Rab5a (a master regulator involved in intracellular trafficking of immune factors) were investigated in macrophage (from Rab5a-/- and WT mice) following treatment with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) or cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) in vitro and in vivo, and peripheral blood monocyte from sepsis patients and healthy volunteers. RESULTS: We showed that propofol reduced membrane TLR4 expression on macrophages in vitro and in vivo. Rab5a participated in TLR4 intracellular trafficking and both Rab5a expression and the interaction between Rab5a and TLR4 were inhibited by propofol. We also showed Rab5a upregulation in peripheral blood monocytes of septic patients, accompanied by increased TLR4 expression on the cell surface. Propofol downregulated the expression of Rab5a and TLR4 in these cells. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that Rab5a regulates intracellular trafficking of TLR4 and that propofol reduces membrane TLR4 expression on macrophages by targeting Rab5a. Our study not only reveals a novel mechanism for the immunomodulatory effect of propofol but also indicates that Rab5a may be a potential therapeutic target against sepsis.

Clinical efficacy of adjunctive esketamine anesthesia in electroconvulsive therapy for major depressive disorders: A pragmatic, randomized, controlled trial.

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective treatment for depression, and esketamine has been shown to have antidepressant effects. However, it is currently unclear whether adjunctive esketamine can enhance the clinical efficacy of ECT in real-world clinical practice. In this pragmatic clinical trial, patients with major depression were randomly assigned into two groups: patients received 0.25 mg/kg esketamine plus propofol (esketamine group) or the same volume of saline (control group) plus propofol. Results indicated that there was no difference in response and remission rates between the two groups. However, patients receiving esketamine had a higher remission rate of SI and lower psychotic scores. Patients receiving esketamine also required a lower electric dose, but the seizure duration and cognitive function were comparable between the two groups. Diastolic blood pressure increased after esketamine injection, but there was no increased risk of hypertension. Furthermore, incidence of delirium and confusion were comparable between the groups. Conclusively, adjunctive esketamine anesthesia does not provide any advantage in improving the response and remission rates of ECT. However, it can improve remission of SI and alleviate accompanying psychotic symptoms in depressive patients. With adjunctive usage, the adverse cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric events associated with esketamine appear to be tolerable.

The efficacy and safety of using a combination of rocuronium and sugammadex for awake craniotomy anesthesia: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Awake craniotomy (AC) is a neurosurgical method for the resection of brain lesions located in eloquent areas to achieve maximal and safe resection. A patient's arousal quality is essential for the success of the operation. This study compared the arousal time and quality after AC achieved by 2 different drug combinations: rocuronium with sugammadex and propofol with remifentanil. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, controlled trial included 42 adult patients undergoing AC with a laryngeal mask, who were randomly assigned to either a rocuronium-sugammadex group (RS; n = 21) or a propofol-remifentanil without muscle relaxant group (nRS; n = 21). The primary outcomes were the arousal time and arousal quality. The secondary outcomes included the number of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) adjustments and diaphragmatic excursion length. RESULTS: This study included 42 participants. The median (IQR) arousal time was 13.5 minutes (7-20) in the RS group and 21 minutes (16.5-26.5) in the nRS group (P = .005). There was no significant difference in arousal quality between the 2 groups (P = .229). LMA adjustments were significantly less frequent in the nRS group than in the RS group [0.25 times (±0.62) vs 1.26 times (±1.17), P = .001]. Adverse events, such as spontaneous movements and brain swelling, were more frequent in the nRS group than in the RS group. CONCLUSIONS: Using a combination of rocuronium and sugammadex with propofol and remifentanil may shorten the awakening time, reduce the duration of laryngeal mask adjustment, and do not affect the arousal quality and postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing awake craniotomy, compared to propofol and remifentanil alone.

Adverse Drug Events Observed with the Newly Approved Remimazolam in Comparison to Propofol for General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Surgery: A Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Developments in anesthetic pharmacology have been aiming at minimizing physiological disturbance in addition to maintaining and improving titrateability, recovery profile, and patient experience. Remimazolam, a GABAAlpha receptor agonist, is a new intravenous anesthetic agent which has recently been approved for use. This analysis aimed to systematically compare the adverse drug events reported with the newly approved remimazolam in comparison to propofol for general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing surgery. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from 15 May to 20 December 2023 for relevant publications which compared the outcomes reported with the newly approved remimazolam versus propofol in patients undergoing surgery. Relevant reported adverse drug events were the endpoints of this study. The statistical analysis was carried out using the latest version of the RevMan software. Data analysis was represented by risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Sixteen studies with a total number of 1897 participants were included in this analysis; 1104 participants received remimazolam and 793 participants received propofol. The risks for hypotension (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.43-0.58; P = 0.00001), hypoxemia (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-0.99; P = 0.05), bradycardia (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36-0.78; P = 0.001), pain at injection site (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.56; P = 0.01), and total adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24-0.47; P = 0.00001) were significantly lower with remimazolam. However, no significant differences were observed in terms of postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66-1.46; P = 0.93), dizziness (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11-1.57; P = 0.20), psychiatric symptoms (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.45-2.67; P = 0.85), and respiratory depression (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.24-2.76; P = 0.74). CONCLUSION: Our current analysis showed that the newly approved remimazolam was apparently associated with significantly fewer adverse drug events in comparison to propofol for GA in patients undergoing surgery. Therefore, this new drug should be further studied and more research with larger population sizes should be carried out to confirm this hypothesis.

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for anesthesia induction in adult patients received elective surgeries: a meta­analysis.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is use widely used in anesthesia, known for its effectiveness, may lead to cardiopulmonary issues in some patients. Ciprofol has emerged as a possible alternative to propofol because it can achieve comparable effects to propofol while causing fewer adverse events at lower doses. However, no definitive conclusion has been reached yet. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol in adult patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anesthesia. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) to identify potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing ciprofol with propofol in general anesthesia until September 30, 2023. The efficacy outcomes encompassed induction success rate, time to onset of successful induction, time to disappearance of eyelash reflex, and overall estimate means in Bispectral Index (BIS). Safety outcomes were assessed through time to full alertness, incidence of hypotension, incidence of arrhythmia, and incidence of injection-site pain. Continuous variables were expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), and dichotomous variables were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 and STATA 14.0. The quality of the evidence was rated through the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS: A total of 712 patients from 6 RCTs were analyzed. Meta-analysis suggested that ciprofol was equivalent to propofol in terms of successful induction rate, time to onset of successful induction, time to disappearance of eyelash reflex, time to full alertness, and incidence of arrhythmia, while ciprofol was better than propofol in overall estimated mean in BIS (MD: -3.79, 95% CI: -4.57 to -3.01, p < 0.001), incidence of hypotension (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.94, p = 0.02), and incidence of injection-site pain (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.47, p < 0.001). All results were supported by moderate to high evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Ciprofol may be a promising alternative to propofol because it facilitates achieving a satisfactory anesthesia depth and results in fewer hypotension and injection-site pain. However, we still recommend conducting more studies with large-scale studies to validate our findings because only limited data were accumulated in this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023479767.

Inhaled anesthesia associated with reduced mortality in patients with stage III breast cancer: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with stage III breast cancer often undergo surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy as part of their treatment. The choice of anesthesia technique during surgery has been a subject of interest due to its potential association with immune changes and prognosis. In this study, we aimed to compare the mortality rates between stage III breast cancer patients undergoing surgery with propofol-based intravenous general anesthesia and those receiving inhaled anesthetics. METHODS: Using data from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database and Taiwan Cancer Registry, we identified a cohort of 10,896 stage III breast cancer patients. Among them, 1,506 received propofol-based intravenous anesthetic maintenance, while 9,390 received inhaled anesthetic maintenance. To ensure comparability between the two groups, we performed propensity-score matching. RESULTS: Our findings revealed a significantly lower mortality rate in patients who received inhaled anesthetics compared to those who received propofol-based intravenous anesthesia. Sensitivity analysis further confirmed the robustness of our results. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that inhaled anesthesia technique is associated with a lower mortality rate in clinical stage III breast cancer. Further research is needed to validate and expand upon these results.

Provider Experience With the Use of Ketamine for Refractory Status Epilepticus.

OBJECTIVE: Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) treated with anesthetic agents can be associated with complications including respiratory depression and hypotension. Ketamine is an emerging RSE treatment, but optimal dosing and timing are unknown. We studied provider attitudes and practices regarding the use of ketamine for RSE. METHODS: A literature review informed the creation of the survey, developed by professionals in epilepsy, pharmacy, and neurocritical care. The survey was distributed to members of the Critical Care EEG Monitoring and Research Consortium, Neurocritical Care Society, American Academy of Neurology Synapse community, American Epilepsy Society, and the Canadian League Against Epilepsy. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: There were 109 respondents. First-line agents for RSE were midazolam (53%), propofol (42%), pentobarbital (2%), and ketamine (1%). Reasons for ketamine use included failure of midazolam/propofol to control seizures (81%) or hypotension on another anesthetic (35%). Perceived contraindications included hypertension (37%), elevated intracranial pressure (24%), and heart failure (18%). Perceived benefits included decreased use of vasopressors (53%) and more rapid RSE control when used adjunctively (49%). Routine ketamine users often treated more than 10 RSE cases per year, worked as intensivists or at academic institutions. Of the respondents, 59% found ketamine useful for RSE and 94% were interested in learning more about its use. CONCLUSIONS: Although most participants found ketamine helpful for RSE, it is mainly used as a second-line agent adjunctively with midazolam or propofol. Perceived ketamine benefits included decreased need for hemodynamic support and more rapid seizure control when used in conjunction with other anesthetics. Perceived contraindications centered on cardiac and intracranial pressure concerns.

Efficacy of propofol-supplemented cardioplegia on biomarkers of organ injury in patients having cardiac surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass: a statistical analysis plan for the ProMPT-2 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The ProMPT-2 trial (Propofol for Myocardial Protection Trial #2) aims to compare the safety and efficacy of low- and high-dose propofol supplementation of the cardioplegia solution during adult cardiac surgery versus sham supplementation. This update presents the statistical analysis plan, detailing how the trial data will be analysed and presented. Outlined analyses are in line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and the statistical analysis plan has been written prior to database lock and the final analysis of trial data to avoid reporting bias (following recommendations from the International Conference on Harmonisation of Good Clinical Practice). METHODS/DESIGN: ProMPT-2 is a multi-centre, blinded, parallel three-group randomised controlled trial aiming to recruit 240 participants from UK cardiac surgery centres to either sham cardioplegia supplementation, low dose (6 µg/ml) or high dose (12 µg/ml) propofol cardioplegia supplementation. The primary outcome is cardiac-specific troponin T levels (a biomarker of cardiac injury) measured during the first 48 h following surgery. The statistical analysis plan describes the planned analyses of the trial primary and secondary outcomes in detail, including approaches to deal with missing data, multiple testing, violation of model assumptions, withdrawals from the trial, non-adherence with the treatment and other protocol deviations. It also outlines the planned sensitivity analyses and exploratory analyses to be performed. DISCUSSION: This manuscript prospectively describes, prior to the completion of data collection and database lock, the analyses to be undertaken for the ProMPT-2 trial to reduce risk of reporting and data-driven analyses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN15255199. Registered on 26 March 2019.

Efficacy and safety of Ciprofol compared with Propofol during general anesthesia induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT).

BACKGROUND: Ciprofol, a newer entrant with similarities to propofol, has shown promise with a potentially improved safety profile, making it an attractive alternative for induction of general anesthesia. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared with propofol during general anesthesia induction. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Clinical Trial.gov, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to July 2023 to identify relevant studies. All statistical analyses were conducted using R statistical software version 4.1.2. RESULTS: Thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) encompassing a total of 1998 participants, were included in our analysis. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for postoperative hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Ciprofol is not inferior to Propofol in terms of its effectiveness in general anesthesia. Ciprofol emerges as a valuable alternative sedative with fewer side effects, especially reduced injection pain, when compared to Propofol. SUMMARY: Propofol, frequently utilized as an anesthetic, provides swift onset and quick recovery. However, it has drawbacks such as a narrow effective dosage range and a high occurrence of adverse effects, particularly pain upon injection. Ciprofol, a more recent drug with propofol-like properties, has demonstrated promise and may have an improved safety profile, making it a compelling alternative for inducing general anesthesia. This meta-analysis compared the safety and effectiveness of Ciprofol with Propofol for general anesthesia induction in a range of medical procedures, encompassing thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and 1998 individuals. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia. In conclusion, ciprofol is equally effective at inducing and maintaining general anesthesia as propofol. When compared to propofol, ciprofol is a better alternative sedative for operations including fiberoptic bronchoscopy, gynecological procedures, gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and elective surgeries because it has less adverse effects, most notably less painful injections.

Opioid-free anesthesia with ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum block in the supine position for lower abdominal or pelvic surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

In the past, quadratus lumborum block (QLB) was mostly used for postoperative analgesia in patients, and few anesthesiologists applied it during surgery with opioid-free anesthesia (OFA). Consequently, it is still unclear whether QLB in the supine position can provide perfect analgesia and inhibit anesthetic stress during surgery under the OFA strategy. To observe the clinical efficacy of ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum block (US-QLB) in the supine position with OFA for lower abdominal and pelvic surgery. A total of 122 patients who underwent lower abdominal or pelvic surgery in People's Hospital of Wanning between March 2021 and July 2022 were selected and divided into a quadratus lumborum block group (Q) (n = 62) and control group (C) (n = 60) according to the random number table method. Both groups underwent general anesthesia combined with QLB in the supine position. After sedation, unilateral or bilateral QLB was performed via the ultrasound guided anterior approach based on images resembling a "human eye" and "baby in a cradle" under local anesthesia according to the needs of the operative field. In group Q, 20 ml of 0.50% lidocaine and 0.20% ropivacaine diluted in normal saline (NS) were injected into each side. In group C, 20 ml of NS was injected into each side. The values of BP, HR, SPO2, SE, RE, SPI, NRS, Steward score, dosage of propofol, dexmedetomidine, and rocuronium, the number of patients who needed remifentanil, propofol, or diltiazem, puncture point, block plane, duration of anesthesia, catheter extraction, and wakefulness during the operation were monitored. There were no significant differences in the general data, number of cases requiring additional remifentanil, propofol, or diltiazem treatment, as well as puncture point and puncture plane between the two groups (P > 0.05). HR, SBP, and DBP values were higher in group Q than in group C at T1; HR, SPI, and SE, while RE values were lower in group Q than in group C at T3, SE, and RE; the Steward score was higher in group Q than in group C at T4 and T5, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The extubation and awake times were lower in group Q than in group C, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The SE, RE, and SPI values were lower at T1, T2, T3, and T4 than at T0. The Steward scores at T4 and T5 were higher in group Q than in group C, and were lower than at T0, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). There were significant differences in the effectiveness of postoperative analgesia between the two groups at t1, t3 and t4 (P < 0.05). US-QLB in the supine position with OFA is effective in patients undergoing lower abdominal or pelvic surgery with stable intraoperative vital signs, complete recovery and better postoperative analgesia.

Efficacy of remimazolam tosilate versus propofol for total intravenous anaesthesia in urological surgery: A randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative that acts on the gamma-aminobutyric acid type A receptor (GABAAR). OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacies of remimazolam (RMZ), and propofol (PROP) combined with remifentanil and cisatracurium for total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) in patients undergoing urological surgery. DESIGN: A prospective, single-blind, randomised, noninferiority clinical trial. SETTING: Single centre from 1 January 2022 to 30 March 2022. PATIENTS: A total of 146 adult patients undergoing elective urological surgery. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly allocated in a 1 : 1 ratio to the PROP or RMZ groups. In the PROP group, anaesthesia was induced with propofol at 100 mg min -1 to reach a bispectral index score (BIS) of 40 to 60. After loss of consciousness (LOC), intravenous fentanyl 3 µg kg -1 was administered, followed by cisatracurium 0.3 mg kg -1 . Patients were intubated 3 min after cisatracurium administration. Anaesthesia was maintained with the combination of propofol (plasma concentration: 2.5 to 4 µg ml -1 ) and remifentanil (plasma concentration: 2.5 to 4 ng ml -1 ). In the RMZ group, anaesthesia was induced with remimazolam tosilate starting at 10 mg kg -1  h -1 to reach a BIS of 40 to 60 and maintained between 0.2 and 2 mg kg -1  h -1 . After LOC, fentanyl and cisatracurium were administered and intubation was performed as in the PROP group. Anaesthesia was maintained with a combination of remimazolam (0.2 to 2 mg kg -1  h -1 ) and remifentanil (plasma concentration: 2.5 to 4 ng ml -1 ). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the TIVA success rate. The predefined noninferiority margin considered an absolute difference of 6% in the primary outcome between the groups. The secondary outcomes were vital signs, anaesthesia and surgery characteristics, and adverse events. RESULTS: All patients completed the trial. The success rates of TIVA with remimazolam and propofol were 100 and 98.6%, respectively. The incidence of hypotension during anaesthesia was lower in the RMZ group (26%) than in the PROP group (46.6%) ( P  = 0.016). The median [IQR] total consumption of ephedrine during anaesthesia was higher in the PROP group 10 [0 to 12.5] mg than in the RMZ group 0 [0 to 10] mg ( P  = 0.0002). The incidence of injection pain was significantly higher in the PROP group (76.7%) than in the RMZ group (0; P  < 0.001). No significant differences in the controllability of the anaesthesia depth, anaesthesia and surgery characteristics, or vital signs were observed between the groups. CONCLUSION: Remimazolam demonstrated noninferior efficacy to propofol combined with remifentanil and cisatracurium for TIVA in patients undergoing urological surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chictr.org.cn, identifier: ChiCTR2100050923. CLINICAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100050923, Principal investigator: Xuehai Guan, Date of registration: 8 November 2021, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=133466 ).

Association of Early Dexmedetomidine Utilization With Clinical and Functional Outcomes Following Moderate-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Transforming Clinical Research and Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine early sedation patterns, as well as the association of dexmedetomidine exposure, with clinical and functional outcomes among mechanically ventilated patients with moderate-severe traumatic brain injury (msTBI). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data. SETTING: Eighteen Level-1 Trauma Centers, United States. PATIENTS: Adult (age > 17) patients with msTBI (as defined by Glasgow Coma Scale < 13) who required mechanical ventilation from the Transforming Clinical Research and Knowledge in TBI (TRACK-TBI) study. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using propensity-weighted models, we examined the association of early dexmedetomidine exposure (within the first 5 d of ICU admission) with the primary outcome of 6-month Glasgow Outcomes Scale Extended (GOS-E) and the following secondary outcomes: length of hospital stay, hospital mortality, 6-month Disability Rating Scale (DRS), and 6-month mortality. The study population included 352 subjects who required mechanical ventilation within 24 hours of admission. The initial sedative medication was propofol for 240 patients (68%), midazolam for 59 patients (17%), ketamine for 6 patients (2%), dexmedetomidine for 3 patients (1%), and 43 patients (12%) never received continuous sedation. Early dexmedetomidine was administered in 77 of the patients (22%), usually as a second-line agent. Compared with unexposed patients, early dexmedetomidine exposure was not associated with better 6-month GOS-E (weighted odds ratio [OR] = 1.48; 95% CI, 0.98-2.25). Early dexmedetomidine exposure was associated with lower DRS (weighted OR = -3.04; 95% CI, -5.88 to -0.21). In patients requiring ICP monitoring within the first 24 hours of admission, early dexmedetomidine exposure was associated with higher 6-month GOS-E score (OR 2.17; 95% CI, 1.24-3.80), lower DRS score (adjusted mean difference, -5.81; 95% CI, -9.38 to 2.25), and reduced length of hospital stay (hazard ratio = 1.50; 95% CI, 1.02-2.20). CONCLUSION: Variation exists in early sedation choice among mechanically ventilated patients with msTBI. Early dexmedetomidine exposure was not associated with improved 6-month functional outcomes in the entire population, although may have clinical benefit in patients with indications for ICP monitoring.

Deep continuous sedation at the patient's request until death in a palliative care unit: retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Limited descriptive data are available on continuous and deep sedation maintained until death (CDSUD) at the patient's request in palliative care units. This study aimed to describe such practices in the context of refractory suffering or after a request to stop life-sustaining treatment, evaluating the duration and dosage of sedative treatments used. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included consecutively hospitalised patients in a palliative care unit from January 2020 to December 2021. Data on patient profiles, reasons for the sedation request, duration of sedation and doses of sedatives were collected. RESULTS: Among 42 patients who underwent CDSUD, 79% occurred due to refractory suffering. In cases of sedation following a request to stop life support, high-dose corticosteroid therapy was the most commonly involved life-sustaining treatment. Midazolam was always the first-line sedative treatment. Chlorpromazine was added in 79% of cases, and propofol in 40%, to achieve a deep level of sedation. The mean maximum doses of midazolam, chlorpromazine and propofol were 7.6 mg/hour (±1.9), 3.3 mg/hour (±0.9) and 1.7 mg/kg/hour, respectively. The average duration of sedation was 37 hours. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new descriptive elements on CDSUD. Notably, it highlights the use of second-line sedative molecules, such as propofol.