Efficacy and Safety of Ketamine-Dexmedetomidine Versus Ketamine-Propofol Combination for Periprocedural Sedation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The combination of ketamine with propofol and dexmedetomidine has gained popularity for sedation and general anesthesia in different populations. In our meta-nalysis, we helped the anesthesiologists to know the efficiency and the efficacy of both combinations in adult and pediatric patients. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to August 1, 2023. Our outcome parameters for efficacy were recovery time, pain score, and physician satisfaction while for safety were the related cardiorespiratory, neurological, and gastrointestinal adverse events. RECENT FINDINGS: Twenty-two trials were included with a total of 1429 patients. We found a significantly longer recovery time in the ketadex group of 7.59 min (95% CI, 4.92, 10.26; I2 = 94%) and a significantly less pain score of - 0.72 (95% CI, - 1.10, - 0.34; I2 = 0%). Adults had a significantly better physician satisfaction score with the ketofol group, odds ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.12, 0.71; I2 = 0%). Recovery agitations were higher in the ketofol group with an odds ratio of 0.48 (95% CI, 0.24, 0.98; I2 = 36%). Furthermore, we found a significant difference between the combinations with a higher incidence in the ketadex group with pooled odds ratio of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.06, 2.88; I2 = 15%). Ketadex was associated with lower pain scores, hypoxic events and airway obstruction, and emergence agitation. At the same time, ketofol had much more clinician satisfaction which might be attributed to the shorter recovery time and lower incidence of nausea and vomiting. Therefore, we suppose that ketadex is the better combination in periprocedural sedation for both adult and pediatric patients who are not at greater risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Ketofol versus Dexmedetomidine for preventing postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing intestinal obstruction surgeries: a randomized controlled study.

PURPOSE: Postoperative delirium (POD) is considered the most common postoperative neurological complication in elderly patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the administration of ketofol versus dexmedetomidine (DEX) for minimizing POD in elderly patients undergoing urgent exploration for intestinal obstruction. METHODS: This prospective double-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted on 120 elderly patients undergoing urgent exploration for intestinal obstruction. Patients were randomly allocated to one of the three groups: Group C (control group) patients received normal saline 0.9%, group D received dexmedetomidine, and group K received ketofol (ketamine: propofol was 1:4). The primary outcome was the incidence of POD. Secondary outcomes were incidence of emergence agitation, postoperative pain, consumption of rescue opioids, hemodynamics, and any side effects. RESULTS: The incidence of POD was statistically significantly lower in ketofol and DEX groups than in the control group at all postoperative time recordings. Additionally, VAS scores were statistically significantly decreased in the ketofol and DEX groups compared to the control group at all time recordings except at 48 and 72 h postoperatively, where the values of the three studied groups were comparable. The occurrence of emergence agitation and high-dose opioid consumption postoperatively were found to be significant predictors for the occurrence of POD at 2 h and on the evening of the 1st postoperative day. CONCLUSION: The administration of ketofol provides a promising alternative option that is as effective as DEX in reducing the incidence of POD in elderly patients undergoing urgent exploration for intestinal obstruction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This clinical trial was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Zagazig University (ZU-IRB# 6704// 3/03/2021) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04816162, registration date 22/03/ 2021). The first research participant was enrolled on 25/03/2021).

Effects of propofol alone or in combination with ketamine on intraocular pressure in unpremedicated dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of propofol (P) alone and in combination with ketamine (KP) at ratios of 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 on intraocular pressure (IOP) in unpremedicated dogs. ANIMALS STUDIED: A total of 28 cross-bred healthy dogs. PROCEDURES: Dogs were randomly assigned to one of four groups (n = 7 per group) to receive intravenous P or KP at 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 ratios, respectively. The infusion was administered at 0.6 mg/kg/min for 60 min. IOP, cardiorespiratory variables, rectal temperature (RT), and pedal reflex were recorded every 5 min for 60 min, starting from baseline (BL). RESULTS: There was a statistically significant increase in IOP in all groups: P (p = .011), KP 1:1 (p = .003), KP 1:2 (p = .023), and KP 1:3 (p = .008). The IOP increase was less pronounced in the KP 1:2 group and was only significant (p = .023) at T45 compared with BL. A significant correlation was observed between IOP and SpO2 in P (r = -.215, p = .02), KP 1:2 (r = -.579, p < .01), and KP 1:3 (r = -.402, p < .01) groups. IOP significantly increased due to decreased SpO2 below 86.5% (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Propofol alone and in combination with ketamine may increase preexisting IOP in unpremedicated dogs. SpO2 levels below 86.5% may trigger an increase in IOP. Administering KP in a 1:2 ratio at an infusion rate of 0.6 mg/kg/min does not significantly alter IOP for under 45 min in unpremedicated dogs with sufficient oxygenation.

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol: An effective combination with ketamine for adult procedural sedation: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Recently, drug combination protocols have been preferred over single drugs in procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA). This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and hemodynamic profile of ketamine-dexmedetomidine (ketodex) and ketofol as drug combinations with ketamine as a single medication for PSA in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial was performed among adult patients (≥18 years) requiring PSA for a painful procedure in the ED. 135 patients were enrolled and assigned into three equal groups to receive either ketodex, ketofol, or ketamine. Additional ketamine was used as a rescue agent for inadequate sedation in three groups. Oxygen saturation, heart rate, and blood pressure were recorded from baseline until 120 min after induction of PSA. Adverse events, hemodynamic variables, induction, and recovery time were recorded and compared between groups. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 38.16 ± 19.09 years and no differences were observed between the three groups in terms of demographic variables, pain scores, and procedures between the three groups. Respiratory events had similar incidences between the three groups. The O2 reduction was less in the Ketodex group in comparison with Ketofol and Ketamine groups (1.9%, 6.5%, and 3.8%, P = 0.015). No patient needed endotracheal intubation. Changes in mean arterial pressure from the baseline in Ketamine and Ketofol groups compared to Ketodex was higher (difference was 12.9 mmHg [95% CI, 9.5 to 20.3] and 8.6 mmHg [95% CI, 3.4 to 13.7]. Tachycardia in the Ketamine group had a significantly higher incidence. The recovery time was statistically shorter in the Ketofol group in comparison with other groups. The differences between Ketofol with Ketamine and Ketodex groups were 9.8 min (95% CI, [2.5 to 17.1]) and 8.3 min (95% CI, [1.5 to 15.1]). CONCLUSION: Ketodex, as well as ketofol, were effective and safe combinations with good recovery profiles and hemodynamic stability for adult PSA in ED.

Comparison of haemodynamic changes between propofol and ketofol as induction agents in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries under general anaesthesia.

Background and Aims: Laparoscopic surgeries are more commonly performed procedure nowadays because of its advantages however generation of pneumoperitoneum causes significant physiological changes. Propofol is the most commonly used induction agent but its use is limited by its side effects like dose-dependent hypotension and myocardial depression. So by combining propofol with ketamine to form ketofol may result in better hemodynamic stability. The aim of this study was to compare the haemodynamic changes in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia using propofol and ketofol as induction agents. Material and Methods: In this prospective randomized double blind study, 80 patients of ASA I/II undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery were randomized into two Groups. Group A received 1 mg/kg of propofol + 1 mg/kg ketamine made up to a total volume of 20 ml with normal saline and Group B received 2 mg/kg propofol + normal saline to make up to an equal volume. Hemodynamic profiles like HR, SBP, DBP, and MAP were recorded at different time intervals until pneumoperitoneum. Postoperative recovery profile and complications were recorded. All data were entered in MS excel and analyzed using SPSS Version 20.0. Repeated measures ANOVA and Chi-square test were used to test the level of significance. Results: Demographic character and duration of surgery were comparable. SBP, DBP, MAP and HR showed statistically significant difference in both groups in various time intervals with P < 0.05 with Group A (ketofol ) having a better hemodynamic stability. Recovery profile in ketofol group took longer duration (4.95 min) compared to propofol group B (1.8 min). Postoperative nausea and vomiting were significant (P = 0.004) in ketofol group. Conclusion: We concluded that ketofol had a better hemodynamic stability compared to propofol as an induction agent, however time for recovery in ketofol group took a longer period compared to propofol group, with no complication in either groups.

Empirical ratio of the combined use of S-ketamine and propofol in electroconvulsive therapy and its impact on seizure quality.

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective treatment for depressive disorders. In certain cases, ECT-associated anaesthesia can be improved by the use of ketofol (i.e., S-ketamine + propofol). We aimed to evaluate the empirical mixing ratio of ketofol in these cases for better clinical implementation. We retrospectively investigated n = 52 patients who received 919 ECT sessions with S-ketamine plus propofol as anaesthetic agents. Several anaesthesia and ECT-related parameters including doses of S-ketamine and propofol were analysed. The mean empirically determined S-ketamine/propofol ratio was 1.38 (SD ± 0.57) for 919 individual ECT sessions and 1.52 (SD ± 0.62) for 52 patients, respectively. The mean relative dose was 0.72 (± 0.18) mg/kg S-ketamine and 0.54 (± 0.21) mg/kg propofol. Higher propofol dose was associated with poorer seizure quality. Seizure quality and time in recovery room were significantly influenced by age. Ketofol could be an option to exploit the advantageous qualities of S-ketamine and propofol, if both doses are reduced compared with single use of S-ketamine or propofol. Patients with poor seizure quality may benefit from lower propofol doses, which are applicable by the addition of ketamine. An empirically determined mixing ratio in favour of ketamine turned out to be preferable in a clinical setting. Recovery time was primarily prolonged by higher age rather than by ketamine dose, which had previously often been associated with a prolonged monitoring time in the recovery room. These new findings could improve electroconvulsive therapy and should be replicated in a prospective manner.

A comparative study of propofol, thiopentone sodium, and ketofol as induction agents for electro convulsive therapy.

Background and Aims: Thiopentone and propofol are most commonly used induction agents for electro convulsive therapy (ECT). Recently, ketofol, an admixture of propofol and ketamine, is being tried in ECT. We aimed to compare propofol, thiopentone, and ketofol as induction agents during ECT regarding their effects on ECT-induced hemodynamic changes, seizure duration and recovery parameters. Material and Methods: This prospective randomized double blind study was conducted in 30 patients between 18 and 65 years with ASA status I and II scheduled for ECT. All patients received all study agents for first three sessions of ECT. The observations were compiled as Group K (Inj. Ketofol i.e., Inj. propofol 0.5mg/kg % Inj. ketamine 0.5mg/kg), Group P (Inj. propofol 1mg/kg), and Group T (Inj. thiopentone 3mg/kg). Heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (systolic, diastolic, and mean) was recorded at pre op, 0, 5, 10, and 20 min after ECT. The seizure duration, time to spontaneous eye opening, andobeying verbal commands and agitation score were recorded. Results: Statistically significant difference was seen in HR at 10 min after delivery of shock; in systolic BP at 2 min after shock; in diastolic BP after administration of study drug and immediately after shock and in mean arterial pressure at post induction, 0and2 min after shock with group T showing higher values compared to group K and P (p < 0.05). At all other times HR andBP was comparable in all the three groups. Seizure duration was more in group T than Groups P and K although the difference was statistically insignificant. Time to spontaneous eye opening and obey verbal commands was comparable in all groups. Mean agitation score was highest in group T than Groups P& Kwith Group P showing least value (p = 0.003). Conclusion: Propofol and ketofol showed superior hemodynamic stability than thiopentone but comparable seizure duration and recovery parameters. Thus, propofol and ketofol can be effectively used as induction agents for ECT although propofol is associated with lesser agitation than ketofol.

Ketamine-propofol (Ketofol) for procedural sedation and analgesia in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to elucidate the efficacy and side effects of ketofol in comparison to other anaesthetic agents during procedural sedation and analgesia. METHOD: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1996 to Feb 2019) and MEDLINE (1966 to Feb 2019) were searched, including the related randomised control trials and reviewed articles to find unpublished trials or trials not obtained via electronic searches. Inclusion criteria for the studies included comparing recovery time, recording clinician satisfaction, and assessing the adverse effects of ketofol. RESULTS: Eleven trials consisting of a total of 1274 patients met our criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Five trials compared ketofol with a single agent, while six trials compared ketofol with combined agents. While comparing between ketofol and a single agent (either ketamine or propofol), ketofol showed significant effect on recovery time (MD: -9.88, 95% CI: - 14.30 to - 5.46; P = 0.0003; I2 = 92%). However, no significant difference was observed while comparing ketofol with combined agents (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: - 6.24 to 7.74; P < 0.001; I2 = 98%). During single-agent comparison, ketofol showed no significant differences in terms of clinician satisfaction (RR: 2.86, 95% CI: 0.64 to 12.69; P = 0.001; I2 = 90%), airway obstruction (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 11.48; P = 0.81; I2 = 0%), apnoea (RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.33 to 2.44; P = 0.88; I2 = 0%), desaturation (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.94; P = 0.28; I2 = 21%), nausea (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.41; P = 0.2; I2 = 38%), and vomiting (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.61; P = 0.18; I2 = 42%). During comparison with combined agents, ketofol was more effective in reducing hypotension (RR: 4.2, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.85; P = 0.76; I2 = 0%), but no differences were observed in terms of bradycardia (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.14 to 03.63; P = 0.09; I2 = 53%), desaturation (RR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.15 to 23.6; P = 0.11; I2 = 61%), and respiratory depression (RR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.18 to 21.94; P = 0.12; I2 = 59%). CONCLUSION: There is low certainty of evidence that ketofol improves recovery time and moderate certainty of evidence that it reduces the frequency of hypotension. There was no significant difference in terms of other adverse effects when compared to other either single or combined agents. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019127278 .

Effect of ketofol versus propofol as an induction agent on ease of laryngeal mask airway insertion conditions and hemodynamic stability in pediatrics: an observational prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Laryngeal mask airway is a supraglottic airway device which has led to a fundamental change in the management of modern general anesthesia. In the present study; we evaluated the laryngeal mask airway insertion conditions and hemodynamic changes comparing ketamine-propofol mixture (ketofol) with propofol. The study was to compare the ketamine-propofol mixture (ketofol) with propofolon the ease of laryngeal mask airway insertion conditions and hemodynamic effects for induction of general anesthesia. METHODS: One hundred twenty pediatric patients were recruited and assigned to two groups (60 each). Group KP = ketofol, group P = propofol. Insertion conditions were compared using a Chi-square test while hemodynamic variables were compared using the independentt-test. Statistical significance was stated at p-value< 0.05. RESULTS: Laryngeal mask airway insertion summed score was nearly similar between the two groups. Mean blood pressure and heart rate were maintained higher in ketofol group while a significant drop was observed in the propofol group. The time from the Laryngeal mask airway placement to the return of spontaneous ventilation was significantly longer in propofol group (240 s [range = 60-360 s]) compared with ketofol group (180 s [range = 30-320 s]) (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Laryngeal mask airway insertion condition summed score was comparable in both ketofol and propofol group. Ketofol provided equivalent laryngeal mask airway insertion conditions while maximizing hemodynamics and minimizing apnea time. Ketofol can be used as an alternative to propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion in pediatrics.

Comparison of TIVA with different combinations of ketamine-propofol mixtures in pediatric patients.

PURPOSE: Adding ketamine to propofol has been suggested to be useful for sedation and general anesthesia. This study aimed to determine the effect of TIVA with different ratios of ketofol on recovery in children. METHODS: Seventy-five children aged 3-12 years and undergoing adenoidectomy and/or tonsillectomy surgery were randomized into three groups. Ratios of 1:5, 1:6.7 and 1:10 ketamine-propofol mixture (ketofol) were prepared in the same syringe for groups I, II and III, respectively. Induction and maintenance of anesthesia were performed with 1:5, 1:6.7 and 1:10 ratios of ketofol in groups I, II and III, respectively. A McFarlan infusion dose regimen was used (15 mg/kg/h for 15 min, 13 mg/kg/h for 15 min, 11 mg/kg/h for 30 min) and infusion rates were decreased for the different ratios. Infusion rates were reduced to 67, 80 and 90% of the McFarlan dose regimen for groups I, II and III, respectively. Extubating time, length of stay in PACU, postoperative PAED and FLACC scores were recorded. RESULTS: Extubating time was significantly lower [mean 254.3 ± 92.7 s (95% CI 216.6-292.6, p = 0.001)] in group III than in groups I and II [371.3 ± 153 s (308.1-434.48) and 343.2 ± 123.7 s (292.2-394.3), respectively]. Length of stay in the PACU was lower in group III [median 15 min (interquartile range 15-20, p = 0.001)] than in groups I and II: 20 (15-27.5) and 20 min (20-27.5), respectively. CONCLUSION: TIVA with a 1:10 ratio of ketofol admixture with a 90% reduction of McFarlan regimen can provide improved recovery conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02848963.

Comparison of three different ketofol proportions in children undergoing dental treatment.

AIM AND BACKGROUND: Sedation is gaining popularity among dental procedures in children. Ketamine and propofol mixture, known as ketofol, is one of the promising choices in sedation protocols; however, there is no consensus on the exact ratio of ketamine plus propofol especially in dental practice. The aim of present study was to compare perioperative side effect profiles, recovery profiles, and satisfaction rates of both parents' and dentists' following three different ratio of ketofol mixtures in children undergoing dental treatment. Materials and. METHODS: Three study groups each containing 30 children scheduled for dental treatment were created. Following anesthesia induction with 5% sevoflurane, 50% nitrous oxide mixture in 50% oxygen, 1 mg/kg bolus ketofol dose was administered. Patients in Group 1 received ketofol as a 1:1 mixture, patients in Group 2 received 1:2 ketofol while in Group 3; 1:4 ketofol was administered at a constant dose of 100 µg/kg/min. Additional doses of the ketofol solution at the same concentration with infused solutions in groups (0.5 mg/kg from either 1:1, 1:2, or 1:4 proportions) were administered if required. Perioperative vital signs, side effects, postoperative side effects, recovery durations, parents' and dentists' satisfaction levels were compared between groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups in terms of perioperative vital signs and side effects. Depth of sedation, dentists' satisfaction levels and postoperative side effects -myoclonus, hypersalivation and tachycardia were significantly higher in Group 1. Parents' satisfaction was highest in Group 3, however, necessity of additional doses and dissatisfaction of dentists' were found highest in this group. Mean duration of recovery recorded in Group 3 was shortest compared with other groups. CONCLUSION: Decreased ketamine doses in ketofol mixture was related with decreased side effect profile, high parents' satisfaction with fast recovery, however, dentists' satisfaction was lower. In this context, results of present study indicated that ketofol mixture of 1:2 ratio was more reliable choice than others when all investigated parameters evaluated simultaneously.

Comparison of ketamine and ketofol for deep sedation and analgesia in children undergoing laser procedure.

The aim of our study was to research and evaluate cardiovascular and respiratory stability, clinical efficacy, and safety of two different anesthetic agents in pediatric patients who underwent Pulse dye (wavelength 595 nm, pulse duration 0-40 ms, power 0-40 J) and CO2 (wavelength 10,600 nm, intensity-fraxel mod with SX index 4 to 8, power 0-30 W) laser procedure. This prospective non-blinded study included 203 pediatric patients ASA I-II, aged between 1 month and 12 years who underwent short-term procedural sedation and analgesia for the laser procedure. After oral premedication with midazolam, 103 children were analgo-sedated with ketamine and fentanyl (K group) and 100 with ketofol and fentanyl (KT group). Vital signs, applied drug doses, pulse oximetry, and parental satisfaction questionnaire were used to compare these two groups. Statistical differences were tested using Student's t test, Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to assess the cut-off value of the duration of anesthesia predicting apnea. Tachycardia was recorded in a significantly higher number of patients who received ketamine as the anesthetic agent (35.9 vs. 3% respectively). Hypertension was also significantly more frequent in patients who received ketamine in comparison with patients who received ketofol (25.2 vs. 3%). Laryngospasm was not observed in both examined groups. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in satisfaction of parents and doctors. Apnea and respiratory depression occurred significantly more frequent in ketofol than in ketamine group (12 vs. 0.97% and 13 vs. 0%). Based on ROC analysis for apnea, we found a significantly higher number of patients with apnea in the ketofol group when duration of anesthesia was longer than 17 min. Our study has shown that ketofol is more comfortable than ketamine in short-term laser procedures in children, causing less hemodynamic alteration with mild respiratory depression and less post-procedural adverse events.

A comparison of cardiopulmonary function, recovery quality, and total dosages required for induction and total intravenous anesthesia with propofol versus a propofol-ketamine combination in healthy Beagle dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare cardiopulmonary function, recovery quality, and total dosages required for induction and 60 minutes of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol (P) or a 1:1 mg mL(-1) combination of propofol and ketamine (KP). STUDY DESIGN: Randomized crossover study. ANIMALS: Ten female Beagles weighing 9.4 ± 1.8 kg. METHODS: Dogs were randomized for administration of P or KP in a 1:1 mg mL(-1) ratio for induction and maintenance of TIVA. Baseline temperature, pulse, respiratory rate (fR), noninvasive mean blood pressure (MAP), and hemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO2) were recorded. Dogs were intubated and spontaneously breathed room air. Heart rate (HR), fR, MAP, SpO2, end tidal carbon dioxide tension (Pe'CO2), temperature, and salivation score were recorded every 5 minutes. Arterial blood gas analysis was performed at 10, 30, and 60 minutes, and after recovery. At 60 minutes the infusion was discontinued and total drug administered, time to extubation, and recovery score were recorded. The other treatment was performed 1 week later. RESULTS: KP required significantly less propofol for induction (4.0 ± 1.0 mg kg(-1) KP versus 5.3 ±1.1 mg kg(-1) P, p = 0.0285) and maintenance (0.3 ± 0.1 mg kg(-1) minute(-1) KP versus 0.6 ±0.1 mg kg(-1) minute(-1) P, p = 0.0018). Significantly higher HR occurred with KP. Both P and KP caused significantly lower MAP compared to baseline. MAP was significantly higher with KP at several time points. P had minimal effects on respiratory variables, while KP resulted in significant respiratory depression. There were no significant differences in salivation scores, time to extubation, or recovery scores. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Total intravenous anesthesia in healthy dogs with ketamine and propofol in a 1:1 mg mL(-1) combination resulted in significant propofol dose reduction, higher HR, improved MAP, no difference in recovery quality, but more significant respiratory depression compared to propofol alone.

Comparison of propofol with ketofol, a propofol-ketamine admixture, for induction of anaesthesia in healthy dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare anaesthetic induction in healthy dogs using propofol or ketofol (a propofol-ketamine mixture). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled, 'blinded' study. ANIMALS: Seventy healthy dogs (33 males and 37 females), aged 6-157 months and weighing 4-48 kg. METHODS: Following premedication, either propofol (10 mg mL(-1)) or ketofol (9 mg propofol and 9 mg ketamine mL(-1)) was titrated intravenously until laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation were possible. Pulse rate (PR), respiratory rate (f(R)) and arterial blood pressure (ABP) were compared to post-premedication values and time to first breath (TTFB) recorded. Sedation quality, tracheal intubation and anaesthetic induction were scored by an observer who was unaware of treatment group. Mann-Whitney or t-tests were performed and significance set at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Induction mixture volume (mean ± SD) was lower for ketofol (0.2 ± 0.1 mL kg(-1)) than propofol (0.4 ± 0.1 mL kg(-1)) (p < 0.001). PR increased following ketofol (by 35 ± 20 beats minute(-1)) but not consistently following propofol (4 ± 16 beats minute(-1)) (p < 0.001). Ketofol administration was associated with a higher mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) (82 ± 10 mmHg) than propofol (77 ± 11) (p = 0.05). TTFB was similar, but ketofol use resulted in a greater decrease in f(R) (median (range): ketofol -32 (-158 to 0) propofol -24 (-187 to 2) breaths minute(-1)) (p < 0.001). Sedation was similar between groups. Tracheal intubation and induction qualities were better with ketofol than propofol (p = 0.04 and 0.02 respectively). CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Induction of anaesthesia with ketofol resulted in higher PR and MAP than when propofol was used, but lower f(R). Quality of induction and tracheal intubation were consistently good with ketofol, but more variable when using propofol.

Effects of propofol, ketamine-propofol mixture in pediatric dental patients undergoing intravenous sedation: a clinical study.

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effects, complications (peri- and postoperative), depth of sedation, recovery times, and changes in anxiety levels in paediatric dental patients receiving intravenous sedation with propofol and ketamine-propofol mixtures. This prospective clinical study included 69 healthy children (ASA 1) aged 3-7 years. The patients were assigned randomly to propofol group (n = 23), which received propofol; 1:3 ketofol group (n = 23), which received 1:3 ketofol; or 1:4 ketofol group (n = 23), which received 1:4 ketofol. The bispectral index (BIS) and Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score were recorded at intervals of 5 min to measure the depth of sedation, and vital signs were evaluated. Peri- and postoperative complications and recovery times were recorded. Anxiety levels were also evaluated using the Facial Image Scale (FIS) and changes in saliva cortisol levels (SCLs) before and after the intravenous sedation procedure. The Kruskal‒Wallis test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to determine pre- and posttreatment parameters. Dunn's test for post hoc analysis was used to determine the differences among groups. Children's pre- and posttreatment anxiety levels did not differ significantly according to FIS scores, and increases in SCLs were detected in 1:3 ketofol and 1:4 ketofol groups after dental treatment was completed. Compared with those in the other groups, the BIS values of the patients in 1:4 ketofol indicated a slightly lower depth of sedation. The recovery time of the patients in 1:3 ketofol was longer than that of patients in propofol and 1:4 ketofol. The incidence of postoperative complications (agitation, hypersalivation, nausea/vomiting, and diplopia) did not differ among the groups. Ketamine-propofol combinations provided effective sedation similar to that of propofol infusion without any serious complications during dental treatment performed under intravenous sedation. The ketofol infusion increased the anxiety level of paediatric dental patients to a greater extent than the propofol infusion.

Comparison of the effects of opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) and opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) on postoperative analgesia and intraoperative hemodynamics in patients undergoing spine surgery: A prospective randomized double-blind controlled trial.

Background: Opioids form the basis of perioperative pain management but are associated with multiple side effects. In opioid-free anesthesia (OFA), several non-opioid drugs or neuraxial/regional blocks are used as substitutes for opioids. Ketamine, a N-methyl-d-aspartate antagonist, provides intense analgesia. However, there is a shortage of literature on the effects of ketamine-based OFA on hemodynamics (HD) and postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing thoracolumbar spine surgery. Materials and Methods: This prospective randomized controlled trial included 60 adult patients. The patients in Group OFA (n = 30) received OFA with ketamine and ketofol (1:5) infusion, and those in Group OBA (n = 30) received opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) with fentanyl and propofol infusion. The postoperative pain-free period, pain scores, rescue analgesia, intraoperative HDs, and postoperative complications were assessed. Results: The mean pain-free period in Group OFA (9.86 ± 1.43 hr) was significantly higher than that in Group OBA (6.93 ± 1.93 hr) (P = 0.002). During the postoperative 48 hours, the total requirement of fentanyl was considerably lower in Group OFA (P < 0.05). There was a significantly higher incidence of hypertension in Group OFA (46%) and hypotension (43%) in Group OBA (43%), respectively. Postoperative nausea vomiting (PONV) was more common in Group OBA at the 2nd and 6th hr (P = 0.046 and P = 0.038). Conclusion: OFA with ketamine and ketofol provided adequate postoperative analgesia with a lower incidence of PONV after spine surgery. However, hypertension in the ketamine group and hypotension in the propofol group required fine titration of the infusion rate of drugs during the intraoperative period.

Ketamine-propofol (ketofol) in procedural sedation: a narrative review.

Sedation methods for dental treatment are increasingly explored. Recently, ketofol, which is a combination of ketamine and propofol, has been increasingly used because the advantages and disadvantages of propofol and ketamine complement each other and increase their effectiveness. In this review, we discuss the pharmacology of ketamine and propofol, use of ketofol in various clinical situations, and differences in efficacy between ketofol and other sedatives.

Ketamine-Propofol Coadministration for Induction and Infusion Maintenance in Anesthetized Dogs: Effects on Electroencephalography and Antinociception.

The effects of concurrent ketamine and propofol (ketofol) constant rate infusion (CRI) were examined in six dogs. The K:P ratio was 1:2, with an initial CRI of 0.25/0.5 mg/kg/min over ten minutes, followed by a 0.5 mg/kg ketamine bolus for induction. During induction, a comprehensive EEG frequency spectrum from delta to gamma was observed, accompanied by subanesthetic-dose ketofol-induced behavioral excitation, including nystagmus, tongue flicking, salivation and active muscle activity. The dogs were maintained on three 15 min decremental doses of ketofol CRI (0.8/1.6, 0.4/0.8 and 0.2/0.4 mg/kg/min). This phase featured a significant decrease in the Patient State Index, electromyographic activity and a shift to low beta waves (SEF95: 13-18 Hz). Additionally, profound antinociception to electric stimulation and a stable heart rate and blood pressure (MBP 81.5-110 mmHg) were observed, as well as a merging of ketamine and propofol EEG characteristics during maintenance. In the recovery phase, a return to beta and gamma EEG patterns and excitement behavior occurred, accompanied by a significant reduction in antinociception, highlighting features of low doses of ketofol. This study reveals biphasic EEG dynamic changes, associated behaviors and robust antinociception and cardiovascular function, suggesting the utility of ketofol as a total intravenous anesthetic combination in dogs.

Total Intravenous Anesthesia with Ketofol versus Combination of Ketofol and Lidocaine for Short-Term Anesthesia in Pediatric Patients; Double Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial of Effects on Recovery.

BACKGROUND: Ketofol admixture has been proposed to be useful for sedation and general anesthesia. The beneficial effect of the combination of ketofol with lidocaine may be a shortened time of anesthesia and recovery period. This study aimed to establish the effect of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with ketofol and ketofol with lidocaine on recovery in children. METHODS: Two hundred children from the ages of 1-12 years who underwent short surgical procedures were randomly allocated into two groups. Propofol mixtures (ketofol) were prepared for group l. A ratio of 1:4 of ketofol was used for induction and for the maintenance of anesthesia a ratio of was used 1:7. For the induction and maintenance of anesthesia ketofol with lidocaine (lidoketofol) was used in group II. The McFarlan infusion regimen was used with reduction. The extubating time, anesthesia duration and the length of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) were recorded. RESULTS: Extubation time showed to be considerably shorter in the lidoketofol group than in the ketofol group (120 s versus 240 s; p < 0.00001). The anesthesia duration was also significantly shorter in the lidoketofol group (35 min vs. 50 min; p < 0.00001). The lidoketofol group showed to have a lower length of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) than the ketofol group (20 min vs. 35 min; p < 0.00001). The lidoketofol group showed lower fentanyl consumption per kg (2.1 µg per kg vs. 2.3 µg per kg; p < 0.056) and lower propofol consumption (6.6 mg per kg vs. 7.6 mg per kg; p < 0.032). CONCLUSION: The recovery in pediatric anesthesia can improve with usage of TIVA with ketofol plus lidocaine admixture with a reduced McFarlan dose regimen.