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.

Effectiveness and safety of remimazolam combined with alfentanil in hysteroscopic examination: A prospective, randomized, single-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Remimazolam is a novel, ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam and propofol for hysteroscopic examination, to determine the optimal dose of remimazolam combined with alfentanil for painless hysteroscopy, and to calculate its median effective dose (ED50). METHODS: Step 1: A total of 208 patients undergoing hysteroscopic examination were prospectively included in this study. Patients were randomized into 4 groups: 0.2 mg/kg remimazolam (group A), 0.25 mg/kg remimazolam besylate (group B), 0.3 mg/kg remimazolam (group C), and 2 mg/kg propofol (group D), with 52 patients in each group. One minute after losing consciousness, patients received an intravenous injection of alfentanil at 5 µg/kg, followed by a continuous infusion of alfentanil at 0.5 µg/kg/min. If patients showed frowning, movement, or MOAA/S > 1, sedatives were added: 0.05 mg/kg/dose of remimazolam for groups A, B, and C, and 0.5 mg/kg/dose of propofol for group D. Step 2: Dixon's up-and-down method was used to calculate the ED50 of remimazolam combined with alfentanil during hysteroscopic examination. MAIN RESULTS: The sedation success rates of the remimazolam groups were 88.46%, 94.23%, and 98.08%, respectively, compared to 96.15% in the propofol group, with no significant difference (P = .175). MAP in groups A and B was higher than in group D (P < .05), and significantly higher in group C than in group D (P = .0016). SpO2 values in groups A, B, and C were higher than in group D at T2 to T3 (P < .001). HR in groups A, B, and C was significantly higher than in group D (P < .001). The ED50 of remimazolam combined with alfentanil in hysteroscopy was 0.244 mg/kg, 95%CI (0.195-0.22) and ED95 was 0.282 mg/kg, 95%CI (0.261-1.619). CONCLUSION: In hysteroscopy, the sedative effect of remimazolam is like that of propofol, with 0.25 mg/kg remimazolam showing better safety and efficacy, and less impact on the respiratory and circulatory systems. Additionally, under the influence of alfentanil, the ED50 of remimazolam in hysteroscopy is 0.244 mg/kg, with no severe adverse reactions observed.

Clinical Study of Flumazenil Antagonizing Remimazolam on Nausea and Vomiting After Gynecologic Day Surgery.

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of flumazenil antagonizing remimazolam on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after gynecologic day surgery. Patients and Methods: 141 cases of gynaecological daycase surgery patients in Weifang People's Hospital were selected, randomized into group F (flumazenil group, 71 cases) and group C (control group, 70 cases). Dexamethasone 5 mg, flurbiprofen axetil 50 mg, and droperidol 1 mg were given intravenously before induction of anesthesia in both groups. Anesthesia induction: Remimazolam 0.25mg / kg was injected within 1 minute. After the patient fell asleep, mivacurium chloride 0.2mg / kg was injected for 30 seconds and alfentanil 20ug / kg was injected for 30 seconds. Anesthesia maintenance: Remimazolam 1mg/kg/h and alfentanil 40ug/kg/h were continuously pumped by micro pump. Stopping the injection of remimazolam and alfentanil at the end of the operation. Flumazenil 0.2 mg was given to antagonize remimazolam in group F after 1 minute. Group C was given an equal volume of saline. The incidence of PONV in the postoperative PACU and over a 24-hour period, patient awakening time, and general patient information were recorded. Results: The incidence of PONV in both groups within 24 hours was 50.70% in group F was significantly higher than 32.86% in group C. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The incidence of PONV in the PACU was 5.6% in group F and 8.6% in group C. The difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Flumazenil antagonism of remimazolam increases the incidence of PONV within 24 hours in gynecologic day surgery patients and has no significant effect on the incidence of PONV in the PACU.

Comparison of different dosages of propofol combined with its equivalent alfentanil in outpatient abortion: a prospective, double-blinded, randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at determining the optimal dose combination of alfentanil and propofol for outpatient abortion anesthesia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was separated into two parts. In the first part, patients were to determine the median effective dose (ED50) and the 95% effective dose (ED95) of alfentanil in combination with 2.5 mg·kg-1 propofol to inhibit body movements during the abortion using the Dixon up-and-down sequential allocation method. In the second part, 170 patients were randomly divided into group C (2.0 mg·kg-1 propofol with alfentanil 12.16 µg·kg-1) and group E (2.5 mg·kg-1 propofol with its ED95) to compare the anesthetic effect. The primary outcome was the sedation level during general anesthesia. The secondary outcomes were circulation, respiratory complications, and postoperative recovery quality. RESULTS: The ED50 and the ED95 values of alfentanil were 3.37 µg·kg-1 (95% CI: 2.58-3.97 µg·kg-1) and 4.68 µg·kg-1 (95% CI: 4.04-9.32 µg·kg-1). The frequency of deep sedation in group E was significantly higher than in group C (76.5% vs. 60%). Patients in group C showed more wakefulness even during the surgery (14.3% vs. 4.4%). The results of our exploratory analyses did not reveal differences in respiratory depression, circulatory depression, postoperative side effects, or recovery outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of 2.5 mg·kg-1 propofol and 4.68 µg·kg-1 alfentanil produces a better sedative effect than the combination of 2.0 mg·kg-1 propofol and 12.16 µg·kg-1 alfentanil without increasing additional risks associated with anesthesia.

Effective doses of ciprofol combined with alfentanil in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion, a prospective, single-arm, single-center study.

BACKGROUND: Ciprofol is a novel intravenous sedative and anesthetic. Studies have shown that it features a rapid onset of action, a fast recovery time, slight inhibition of respiratory and cardiovascular functions, and a low incidence of adverse reactions. This study aims to explore the median effective dose (ED50) and the 95% effective dose (ED95) of ciprofol in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion when combined with a low dose of alfentanil, and to evaluate its safety, to provide a reference for the rational use of ciprofol in clinical practices. METHODS: We included 25 patients aged 18-64 years of either sex who underwent gastroscopy under intravenous general anesthesia, with a Body Mass Index (BMI) 18-28 kg/m2, and an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I or II. In this study, the dose-finding strategy of ciprofol followed a modified Dixon's up-and-down method with an initial dose of 0.30 mg/kg and an increment of 0.02 mg/kg. Ciprofol was administered after intravenous injection of 7 µg/kg of alfentanil, and 2 min later a gastroscope was inserted. When the insertion response of one participant was positive (including body movement, coughing, and eye opening), an escalation of 0.02 mg/kg would be given to the next participant; otherwise, a de-escalation of 0.02 mg/kg would be administered. The study was terminated when negative response and positive response alternated 8 times. A Probit model was used to calculate the ED50 and ED95 of ciprofol in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion when combined with alfentanil. Patients' recovery time, discharge time, vital signs and occurrence of adverse reactions were recorded. RESULTS: The ED50 of single-dose intravenous ciprofol injection with 7 µg/kg of alfentanil in inhibiting gastroscope insertion responses was 0.217 mg/kg, and the ED95 was 0.247 mg/kg. Patients' recovery time and discharge time were 11.04 ± 1.49 min and 9.64 ± 2.38 min, respectively. The overall incidence of adverse reactions was 12%. CONCLUSION: The ED50 of ciprofol combined with 7 µg/kg of alfentanil in inhibiting gastroscope insertion responses was 0.217 mg/kg, and the ED95 was 0.247 mg/kg. Ciprofol showed a low incidence of anesthesia-related adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2200061727).

Comparison of anesthetic effects of different doses of alfentanil combined with ciprofol in elderly patients undergoing ERCP: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTS: Patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are often old and poor in physical fitness. The purpose of this study was to investigate the anesthetic effect of different doses of alfentanil combined with ciprofol in elderly patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). METHODS: In this clinical trial, 137 patients, who were candidates for ERCP were randomly divided into three groups. Group A were given 0.15 µg/kg/min of alfentanil in maintenance stage, Group B were given 0.25 µg/kg/min and Group C were given 0.35 µg/kg/min. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO2) of the patients at each time point including the entry into the operation room (T0), at the beginning of surgery(T1), 10 min after surgery(T2), 20 min after surgery(T3), 30 min after surgery(T4),endoscopy withdrawal (T5) were recorded. Adverse events(including respiratory depression, body movement and hypoxemia),the dosage of ciprofol, the time of operation time and awakening were recorded. RESULTS: Compared with Group A, MAP and HR in Group B and Group C was decreased during T1-T5 (P < 0.05). Compared with group B, MAP and HR in group C was decreased during T1-T5 (P < 0.05). Compared with Group A and Group C,the number of adverse reactions of Group B was decreased(P < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in surgical time among the three groups(P > 0.05),but a statistically significant difference in recovery time (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The adverse events of alfentanil 0.25µg/kg/min combined with ciprofol were low, and the anesthetic effect was the best.

A promising and highly sensitive electrochemical platform for the detection of fentanyl and alfentanil in human serum.

A novel electrochemical method has been developed, based on a covalent organic framework (COF) and reduced graphene oxide (rGO), to detect fentanyl and alfentanil. COF nanomaterials with chrysanthemum morphology obtained by solvothermal reaction contain rich active sites for electrochemical catalytic reaction, thus improving the detection performance of the designed sensor. Reduced graphene oxide improves the sensor's sensitivity due to enhanced electron transfer. Under optimized experimental conditions, the fabricated electrode presents a linear range of 0.02 to 7.26 µM for alfentanil and 0.1 to 6.54 µM for fentanyl, with detection limits of 6.7 nM and 33 nM, respectively. In addition, the sensor possesses excellent selectivity, outstanding reproducibility, and acceptable stability. The proposed sensor is feasible for the reliable monitoring of fentanyl and alfentanil in human serum samples, with acceptable reliability and high potential in real-world applications. Finally, the electrochemical characteristic fingerprint of fentanyl is investigated by studying the electrochemical behavior of alfentanil and fentanyl on the electrode surface.

Efficacy and safety of alfentanil plus propofol versus propofol only in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of alfentanil plus propofol versus propofol only for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, China Biology Medicine, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials on alfentanil combined with propofol versus propofol only for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy from the inception of the database to August 2022. The Rev Man 5.4 software was used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 1762 patients were identified as eligible for this study. The meta-analysis showed that compared with propofol, alfentanil combined with propofol had a more stable mean arterial pressure [mean difference (MD) = 5.38, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.97-8.80; P = .002], heart rate (MD = 3.78, 95% CI: 1.30-6.26; P = .003) and pulse oxygen saturation (MD = 1.90, 95% CI: 0.93-2.78; P = .0001); a lower propofol dose (standard mean difference = -2.82, 95% CI: -3.70 to -1.94; P < .00001), lower awakening time (MD = -3.23, 95% CI: -4.01 to -2.45; P < .00001) and lower directional force recovery time (MD = -3.62, 95% CI: -4.22 to -3.03; P < .00001); a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting (relative risk [RR] = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.14-0.71; P = .005), body movement (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13-0.54; P = .0002), hypotension (RR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; P < .0001), respiratory depression (RR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.15-0.89; P = .03) and cough reflex (RR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.12-0.89; P = .03). CONCLUSION: This meta-study found that current evidence indicates that alfentanil plus propofol is better than propofol alone for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy and is associated with a lower incidence of adverse reactions. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to validate these above conclusions.

Effectiveness of remimazolam besylate combined with alfentanil for fiberoptic bronchoscopy with preserved spontaneous breathing: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The novel short-acting benzodiazepine remimazolam besylate acts rapidly and is used to induce easily controlled sedation. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of remimazolam besylate combined with alfentanil in patients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy with preserved spontaneous breathing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 192 patients undergoing painless fiberoptic bronchoscopy were randomly assigned to either propofol (P group) or remimazolam besylate (R group); both groups also received alfentanil 10 µg/kg. The respiratory rate was recorded during the inspection. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO2), Narcotrend values and Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) scores were recorded after entry to the operating room (T0), 1 min (T1), 2 min (T2) and 3 min (T3) after anesthesia, immediately after the bronchoscope entered the vocal cords (T4), when the bronchoscope reached the carina (T5), the patient's eyes opened (T6), and 30 min postoperatively (T7). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative hypotension and body movement grading, etc. RESULTS: There was less respiratory depression during the inspection in the R group than in the P group (p < 0.01). The rate of hypotension during the examination was higher in the P group than in the R group (p < 0.01). Narcotrend values in the P group were less for the R group at the T1-T5 time points (p < 0.01). No difference in the number of body movements ≥ grade 3 was found between the two groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam besylate combined with alfentanil for painless fiberoptic bronchoscopy can better preserve the patient's spontaneous breathing and reduce the incidence of respiratory depression during the inspection than propofol.

Remimazolam-remifentanil causes less postoperative nausea and vomiting than remimazolam-alfentanil during hysteroscopy: a single-centre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although the operation time of hysteroscopy is short, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting is high. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in hysteroscopy when remimazolam is combined with remifentanil or alfentanil. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial. Patients undergoing hysteroscopy were recruited and randomly assigned to either the remimazolam-remifentanil (Group RR) or the remimazolam-alfentanil group (Group RA). All patients in the two groups were started with an induction dose of remimazolam besylate 0.2 mg/kg and then maintained with a dosage of 1.0 mg/kg/h. After induction with remimazolam besylate, in Group RR, remifentanil was infused using a target-controlled infusion system with a target concentration of 1.5 ng/ml and titrated throughout the procedure. In Group RA, infusion of alfentanil was started with an initial bolus dose of 20 µg/kg over 30 s and then maintained at an initial rate of 0.16 µg/kg/min. The primary observation outcome was the incidence rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The secondary observation outcomes were the time to awakening, the length of stay in the PACU, the total remimazolam dose and adverse effects, such as low SpO2, bradycardia, hypotension and body movement. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were successfully included in this study. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in Group RR (2/102, 2.0%) was significantly lower than that in Group RA (12/102, 11.8%) (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events, such as low SpO2, bradycardia, hypotension and body movement, between Groups RR and RA (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam-remifentanil causes less postoperative nausea and vomiting than remimazolam-alfentanil in hysteroscopy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2100044177. Full date of the first registration: 12/03/2021.

Cardiopulmonary Adverse Events of Remimazolam versus Propofol During Cervical Conization: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the cardiopulmonary safety of remimazolam and propofol in patients undergoing cervical conization. Methods: This was a single-blind, parallel, randomized controlled study. A total of 204 patients scheduled for day surgery of cold knife cervical conization received either remimazolam-alfentanil anesthesia (remimazolam group) or propofol-alfentanil anesthesia (propofol group). The primary outcome was the incidence of intraoperative cardiopulmonary adverse events (a composite outcome of hypotension, bradycardia and hypoxemia). The occurrence of hypotension, bradycardia, hypoxemia and the degree of body movement were secondary outcomes, as well as the moment at which consciousness was lost, the interval between the end of anesthesia and the operating room's release of the patient, and the overall dosage of alfentanil administered during the procedure. Results: The incidence of intraoperative cardiopulmonary adverse events was 45 (44.1%) in the remimazolam group and 72 (70.6%) in the propofol group (absolute risk difference [95% CI], -26.47% [-39.55% to -13.39%]; odds ratio (OR) [95% CI], 0.43 [0.28 to 0.65]; P < 0.001). The remimazolam group showed lower incidences of hypotension and hypoxemia compared to the propofol group (P = 0.01 for both). No significant differences were observed in the overall alfentanil dosages administered, bradycardia, bodily movement, or time to losing consciousness between the two groups. Conclusion: In patients who underwent cold knife cervical conization, remimazolam-alfentanil anesthesia was associated with a reduced incidence of intraoperative cardiopulmonary adverse events compared with propofol-alfentanil anesthesia.

Effect of low-dose propofol combined with dexamethasone on the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in gynaecological day surgery under remimazolam-based general anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: To observe the effect of low-dose propofol combined with dexamethasone on the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in gynaecological day surgery under remimazolam-based general anesthesia. METHODS: A total of 120 patients, aged from 18 to 65 years old, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I or II, were scheduled to undergo hysteroscopy under total intravenous anesthesia. The patients were divided into 3 groups (n = 40 each): dexamethasone plus saline group (DC group), dexamethasone plus droperidol group (DD group) and dexamethasone plus propofol group (DP group). Dexamethasone 5 mg and flurbiprofen axetil 50 mg were given intravenously before induction of general anesthesia. Anesthesia induction: remimazolam 6 mg/kg/hours was continuously pumped until sleep and slow intravenous injection of alfentanil 20 ug/kg and mivacurium chloride 0.2 mg/kg was given. Anesthesia maintenance: remimazolam 1 mg/kg/hour and alfentanil 40 ug/kg/hours were continuously pumped. After the start of surgery, DC group was given 2 mL saline, DD group was given droperidol 1 mg, and DP group was given propofol 20 mg. Primary outcome: incidence of PONV in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Secondary outcome: incidence of PONV in patients within 24 hours after surgery, as well as general patient data, duration of anesthesia, the recovery time of patients, dose of remimazolam and alfentanil, etc. RESULTS: In PACU, patients of group DD and DP showed less PONV than those in group DC (P < .05). Within 24 hours after operation, there was no significant difference in the incidence of PONV among the 3 groups (P > .05), but the incidence of vomiting in DD group and DP group was significantly lower than that in DC group (P < .05). There was no significant difference in general data, anesthesia time, the recovery time of patients and dosage of remimazolam and alfentanil among the 3 groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION: The effect of low-dose propofol combined with dexamethasone to prevent PONV under remimazolam-based general anesthesia was similar to that of droperidol combined with dexamethasone, both of which significantly reduced the incidence of PONV in the PACU compared to dexamethasone alone. However, low-dose propofol combined with dexamethasone had little effect on the incidence of PONV within 24 hours compared to dexamethasone alone and only reduced the incidence of postoperative vomiting in patients.

Use of Remimazolam Combined With Alfentanil for Plastic Surgery Anesthesia Cases: A Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to observe the safety and effectiveness of remimazolam benzenesulfonate combined with alfentanil for painless and comfort anesthesia in plastic surgery. METHODS: Two hundred patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II for elective facial autologous lipofilling + autologous liposuction (thigh or abdomen) plastic surgery in our hospital were selected. One hundred patients received comfort anesthesia (observation group) on odd-numbered day of surgery, and other 100 patients received painless anesthesia (control group) on even-numbered day. Patients in both groups were given slow injection of remimazolam benzenesulfonate 0.1 mg/kg and alfentanil 5 µg/kg to induce sleep before local anesthesia. Depending on body action reaction to surgical stimulation, patients in the observation group were received with remimazolam 0.05 mg/kg and alfentanil 2.5 µg/kg for maintenance until the end of surgery after local anesthesia, and patients in the control group received with remimazolam 0.25 to 0.5 mg/kg/h and alfentanil 25 to 50 µg/kg/h in continuous pumps. Time to fall asleep, sedation score, time to end of medication, time to open eyes, recovery score, and the presence of body movement, glossoptosis, arousal or jaw support during hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia, operation time, total amount of remimazolam and alfentanil used, and the presence of postoperative complications such as pruritus, dizziness, nausea, and vomiting were recorded in both 2 groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the preoperative vital sign parameters as mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation between 2 groups ( P > 0.05). Intraoperative mean arterial pressure and heart rate were significantly lower in both groups compared with preoperative ( P < 0.05), but there was no statistically significant between the 2 groups ( P > 0.05). There was no significant decrease in oxygen saturation in both groups under the condition of intraoperative oxygen inhalation ( P > 0.05). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the incidence of adverse reactions, such as intraoperative body movement induced by skin cutting, glossoptosis requiring jaw thrust, postoperative pruritus, dizziness, nausea, and vomiting ( P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in time to fall asleep, sedation score during local anesthesia, time to open eyes after stopping anesthetics, and recovery score between the 2 groups ( P > 0.05). Meanwhile, the total amount of remimazolam and alfentanil use was significantly reduced in patients in the observation group compared with the control group ( P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam benzenesulfonate combined with alfentanil can be used as a comfort anesthesia and painless anesthesia protocol in plastic surgery, which has the advantages of rapid onset of action, safety and comfort for patients, rapid recovery, and good cooperation. Furthermore, the protocol of remimazolam benzenesulfonate combined with alfentanil used in the observation group can significantly reduce the total amount of remimazolam and alfentanil used.

A randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing remimazolam to propofol when combined with alfentanil for sedation during ERCP procedures.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In many countries, the combination of propofol and opioid is used as the preferred sedative regime during ERCP. However, the most serious risks of propofol sedation are oxygen deficiency and hypotension. Compared to midazolam, remimazolam has a faster onset and offset of hypnotic effect, as well as cardiorespiratory stability, and to achieve widespread acceptance for procedural sedation, remimazolam must replace propofol which is the most commonly used for procedural sedation. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy profiles of the remimazolam and propofol when combined with alfentanil for sedation during ERCP procedures. DESIGN: A randomized, controlled, single-center trial. SETTING: The Endoscopic Centre of Tianjin Nankai Hospital, China. PATIENTS: 518 patients undergoing elective ERCP under deep sedation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly assigned to be sedated with either a combination of remimazolam-alfentanil or propofol-alfentanil. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the prevalence of hypoxia, which was defined as SpO2 < 90% for >10 s. Other outcomes were the need for airway maneuver, procedure, and sedation-related outcomes and side effects (e.g., nausea, vomiting, and cardiovascular adverse events). MAIN RESULTS: A total of 518 patients underwent randomization. Of these, 250 were assigned to the remimazolam group and 255 to the propofol group. During ERCP, 9.6% of patients in the remimazolam group showed hypoxia, while in the propofol group, 15.7% showed hypoxia (p = 0.04). The need for airway maneuvering due to hypoxia was significantly greater in the propofol group (p = 0.04). Furthermore, patients sedated with remimazolam had a lower percentage of hypotension than patients sedated with propofol (p < 0.001). Patients receiving remimazolam sedation expressed higher satisfaction scores and were recommended the same sedation for the next ERCP. The procedure time in the remimazolam group was much longer than in the propofol group due to the complexity of the patient's disease, which resulted in a longer sedation time. CONCLUSION: During elective ERCP, patients administered with remimazolam showed fewer respiratory depression events under deep sedation with hemodynamic advantages over propofol when administered in combination with alfentanil.

Pharmacodynamic modeling of moderate sedation and rationale for dosing using midazolam, propofol and alfentanil.

PURPOSE: Regulations have broadened to allow moderate sedation administration for gastrointestinal endoscopy by non-anesthesia personnel. The line between moderate and deep sedation is ambiguous. Deep sedation offers patient comfort as well as greater safety concerns. Unintended deep sedation can occur if drug interactions are overlooked. We present a pharmacodynamic model for moderate sedation using midazolam, alfentanil and propofol. The model is suitable for training and devising rationales for appropriate dosing. METHODS: The study consists of two parts: modeling and validation. In modeling, patients scheduled for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) or colonoscopy sedation are enrolled. The modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (MOAA/S) score < 4 is defined as loss of response to represent moderate sedation. Two patient groups receiving bronchoscopy or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are used for validation. Model performance is assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC). Simulations are performed to demonstrate how the model is used to rationally determine drug regimen for moderate sedation. RESULTS: Interaction between propofol and alfentanil is stronger than the other pairwise combinations. Additional synergy is observed with three drugs. ROC AUC is 0.83 for the modeling group, and 0.96 and 0.93 for ERCP and bronchoscopy groups respectively. Model simulation suggests that 1 mg midazolam, 250 µg alfentanil and propofol maximally benefits from drug interactions and suitable for moderate sedation. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate the accurate prediction of a three-drug response surface model for moderate sedation and simulation suggests a rational dosing strategy for moderate sedation with midazolam, alfentanil and propofol.

Alfentanil Pretreatment for Electroconvulsive Therapy-Associated Hemodynamic Lability: A Prospective Randomized Crossover Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is frequently associated with significant hemodynamic changes that increase myocardial oxygen demand including significant hypertension poststimulus. This raises concern about the cumulative effect of repetitive stress from ECT. Historically, various agents have been used to blunt this response and reduce hemodynamic fluctuations in these patients with varying degrees of efficacy. We hypothesized that bolus alfentanil administration timed with the ECT stimulus may reduce near-term hypertension and heart rate (HR) increases in patients undergoing ECT. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled AB/BA crossover trial of 87 patients 18 years or older with mood disorders was carried out. Patients received a standardized anesthetic regimen including induction with methohexital and succinylcholine and were randomized to receive either 20 µg/kg ideal bodyweight of alfentanil or placebo 60 seconds before the ECT stimulus for the first treatment and then crossed over to the other group for the second treatment. The primary outcome was the within-individual difference in preinduction systolic blood pressure and the first systolic blood pressure after the ECT stimulus. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients completed the protocol. The primary outcome of increase in systolic blood pressure pre-ECT to post-ECT was 16.9 mm Hg less in the alfentanil group than the placebo group (95% confidence interval, -26.0 to -7.8; P < 0.001). The maximum HR was 6.5 beats per minute lower (95% confidence interval, -12.1 to -0.9; P = 0.024) when patients received alfentanil compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with alfentanil reduces poststimulus hypertension and increased HR in patients receiving ECT and therefore, may reduce morbidity related to this in susceptible patients.

A comparative study on the efficacy and safety of propofol combined with different doses of alfentanil in gastroscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Propofol can be used alone or in combination with opioids during gastroscopy. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous propofol and different doses of alfentanil in patients undergoing gastroscopy. METHODS: A total of 300 patients undergoing sedative gastroscopy were randomly divided into four groups, and 0.9% saline (group A), 2 µg/kg alfentanil (group B), 3 µg/kg alfentanil (group C) or 4 µg/kg alfentanil (group D) were injected intravenously 1 min before the intravenous injection of 1.5 mg/kg propofol. If body movement and coughing occurred during the procedure, 0.5 mg/kg propofol would be administered intravenously. The primary outcome (awakening time) and secondary outcomes were recorded and analyzed, including hemodynamic changes, the incidences of body movement, coughing, hypoxemia, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, nausea and vomiting, drowsiness and dizziness. RESULTS: Patients in group C (7.0 [5.0 to 8.0] min) and group D (6.0 [5.0 to 7.0] min) woke up significantly earlier than those in group A (8.0 [6.0 to 10.0] min) (P < 0.001). Patients in group A experienced more body movement (P = 0.001) and coughing (P < 0.001) than the other groups. With the increasing dose of alfentanil, the morbidity of hypotension and bradycardia increased significantly (P = 0.001), while the incidence of dizziness decreased significantly (P = 0.037). The incidences of hypoxemia, tachycardia, drowsiness, nausea and vomiting were similar among the four groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous 1.5 mg/kg propofol combined with 3 µg/kg alfentanil is more suitable for patients undergoing gastroscopy, and the dose of alfentanil can be reduced according to the patient's actual physical condition.