[Paraneoplastic peripheral neuropathy].

J. Juntunen

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Intravenous Lidocaine Attenuates Response to Cervical Dilation for Hysteroscopy: a Randomised Controlled Trial

Lili Xu,Chun Wang,Shaobing Dai,Jianjun Shen,Xiaoping Chen,Warwick D Ngan Kee,Xinzhong Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2021.07.020

IF: 11.719

2021-01-01

British Journal of Anaesthesia

Abstract:Editor—Monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) using propofol is commonly used for operative hysteroscopic procedures.1,2 However, dilation of the cervix can cause significant visceral stimulation and pain. Lidocaine has been shown to reduce visceral pain in both animal models and clinical trials.3–5 We designed this study to determine whether lidocaine 1.5 mg kg−1 i.v. is an effective adjunct for reducing the propofol requirement for attenuating the response to cervical dilation. Using an up–down sequential study design, we quantified this effect by comparing the target effect-site concentration of propofol (Ceprop) required to attenuate the response to cervical dilation in 50% of patients (EC50).
Efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine in propofol-based sedation for ERCP procedures: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial

Jing Liu,Xiaoping Liu,Li-Ping Peng,Rui Ji,Chao Liu,Yan-Qing Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.02.050

IF: 10.396

2020-08-01

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Abstract:<h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Background and aims</h3><p>Propofol-based sedations are widely used in ERCP procedures, but adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events commonly occur. Intravenous injection of lidocaine has an analgesic effect and can reduce the requirements of fentanyl and propofol during abdominal surgery. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine on propofol requirements during ERCP procedures.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Method</h3><p>Forty-eight patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly divided into 2 groups (the lidocaine group and the control group). All patients received 0.02 mg/kg midazolam and 0.1 μg/kg sufentanil intravenously as premedication. A bolus of propofol was applied for induction of sedation, and perfusion of propofol was applied for maintenance. The patients in the lidocaine group received a bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine intravenously followed by continuous infusion of 2 mg/kg/h whereas the control group received the same volumes of saline solution. The primary outcome was the propofol requirement during ERCP.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Results</h3><p>Compared with the control group, the propofol requirements were reduced by 33.8% in the lidocaine group (212.0±118.2 mg vs 320.0±189.6 mg, <em>p=</em>0.023). Involuntary movement was less common in the lidocaine group than in the control group (12.5% vs 41.7%, <em>p</em>=0.049). In the lidocaine group, postprocedure pain and fatigue were significantly reduced (0 [0-4] vs 3 [0-5], <em>p</em>=0.005; 2 [0-4] vs 5 [2-8], <em>p</em><0.001).The incidence of oxygen desaturation, hypotension, and bradycardia tended to be lower in the lidocaine group.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Conclusions</h3><p>Intravenous lidocaine can significantly decrease propofol requirements during ERCP, with higher sedation quality and endoscopist satisfaction.</p>

gastroenterology & hepatology
The propofol-sparing effect of intravenous lidocaine in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled study

Mengmeng Chen,Yi Lu,Haoran Liu,Qingxia Fu,Jun Li,Junzheng Wu,Wangning Shangguan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01049-z

IF: 2.376

2020-05-30

BMC Anesthesiology

Abstract:Abstract Background Propofol provides a prominent sedation effect in colonoscopy. However, anesthesia and sedation induced with propofol in the elderly might result in cardiopulmonary complications, especially when it is combined with opoids in the regimen. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation could decrease the overall propofol requirement in elderly patients during colonoscopy while the procedural sedation satisfaction and the hemodynamic stability were not compromised. Methods Ninety-two patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly enrolled into lidocaine+propofol (L + P) group or normal saline+propofol (NS + P) groups. Subjects received intravenous bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine followed by 4 mg kg − 1 h − 1 lidocaine continuous infusion in L + P group or equivalent volumes of normal saline for boluses and infusion in NS + P group. Anesthesia was induced with 2.5 μg sufentanil followed by injection of 1.2 mg kg − 1 propofol in all patients. A single supplemental bolus of 0.6 mg kg − 1 propofol was administered whenever MOAA/S score > 1 or had body movement during the colonoscopy. The recorded primary endpoints included: the total amount of propofol administered during entire procedure, the supplemental amount of propofol after induction, and the frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol. Results A total of 79 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with NS + P group, the total amounts of propofol (induction plus supplemental) were no significant differences in L + P group; however, the required supplemental propofol was less (69.9 ± 39.2 mg vs. 51.5 ± 38.6 mg) ( P = 0.039); the average frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol given after induction were lower (2.1 ± 1.1 vs. 1.4 ± 0.9) ( P = 0.003); the calculated “unit propofol” infusion rate was lower (0.18 ± 0.05 vs. 0.14 ± 0.04 mg kg − 1 min − 1 ) ( P = 0.002). Conclusions The addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation resulted in a remarked reduction of supplemental propofol in the elderly during colonoscopy. Trial registration The present clinical trial was registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn on 11th March 2019 (registration No. ChiCTR1900021818).

anesthesiology
Impact of intravenous and topical lidocaine on clinical outcomes in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Kuo-Chuan Hung,Ming Yew,Yao-Tsung Lin,Jen-Yin Chen,Li-Kai Wang,Ying-Jen Chang,Yang-Pei Chang,Kuo-Mao Lan,Chun-Ning Ho,Cheuk-Kwan Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2021.08.036

IF: 11.719

2022-04-01

British Journal of Anaesthesia

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The efficacy of i.v. or topical lidocaine as an anaesthesia adjunct in improving clinical outcomes in patients receiving gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures under propofol sedation remains unclear.METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library) were searched for RCTs comparing the clinical outcomes with or without lidocaine application (i.v. or topical) in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 29 March 2021. The primary outcome was propofol dosage, while secondary outcomes included procedure time, recovery time, adverse events (e.g. oxygen desaturation), post-procedural pain, and levels of endoscopist and patient satisfaction.RESULTS: Twelve trials (1707 patients) published between 2011 and 2020 demonstrated that addition of i.v. (n=7) or topical (n=5) lidocaine to propofol sedation decreased the level of post-procedural pain (standardised mean difference [SMD]=-0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.8 to -0.14), risks of gag events (risk ratio [RR]=0.51, 95% CI: 0.35-0.75), and involuntary movement (RR=0.4, 95% CI: 0.16-0.96). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that only i.v. lidocaine reduced propofol dosage required for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (SMD=-0.83, 95% CI: -1.19 to -0.47), increased endoscopist satisfaction (SMD=0.75, 95% CI: 0.21-1.29), and shortened the recovery time (SMD=-0.83, 95% CI: -1.45 to -0.21). Intravenous or topical lidocaine did not affect the incidence of oxygen desaturation (RR=0.72, 95% CI: 0.41-1.24) or arterial hypotension (RR=0.6, 95% CI: 0.22-1.65) and procedure time (SMD=0.21, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.51).CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrated that i.v. or topical lidocaine appears safe to use and may be of benefit for improving propofol sedation in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Further large-scale trials are warranted to support our findings.

anesthesiology
Sedation and Safety of Propofol for Therapeutic Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.

Wei-Xing Chen,Hui-Jia Lin,Wei-Fang Zhang,Qing Gu,Xiao-Qi Zhong,Chao-Hui Yu,You-Ming Li,Zhu-Ying Gu

2005-01-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the most complex gastrointestinal procedure, which needs patients' cooperation. The aim of this study was to observe the quality and safety of sedation with propofol in patients undergoing therapeutic ERCP.METHODS:Seventy patients who had undergone therapeutic ERCP were randomly divided into two groups. One group,given intravenously propofol,and the other sedated with routine method,served as the control. Blood pressure,heart rate, oxygen saturation were monitored and cardiorespiratory event was observed. Patient cooperation, performance, recovery time and amnesia served as variables postoperation.RESULTS:Blood pressure elevated in four patients in the propofol group, less than in the control group (P < 0.01). Seven patients showed decreased blood pressure after administration of propofol, but none in the control group (P < 0.01). Twelve patients in the control group showed mild or significant resistance, but none in the propofol group (P < 0.01). The time for performance in the propofol group (P < 0.05) was shorter than in the control group. Patient recovery was quicker in the propofol group than in the control group (P < 0.01). The degree of amnesia better in the propofol group than in the control group (P < 0.01). The degree of amnesia was also better in the propofol group than in the control group (P<0.01).CONCLUSIONS:Propofol proves to be an excellent sedative for therapeutic ERCP. Being effective and safe, it shows a shorter ERCP duration but quick recovery and better amnesia. It is better than other routine sedatives.
Effect of intravenous lidocaine on the ED50 of propofol induction dose in elderly patients undergoing painless gastroscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study

Lili Tang,Wenhui Lv,Jingjing Sun,Lijian Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13741-024-00370-2

2024-03-06

Perioperative Medicine

Abstract:Intravenous lidocaine could be a potential alternative adjuvant to propofol-based sedation for gastroscopy in elderly patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on the median effective dose (ED50) of propofol induction dose in elderly patients undergoing painless gastroscopy.

surgery,anesthesiology
Comparison Between Intravenous Nalbuphine and Lidocaine in Reducing Propofol-Induced Injection Pain During Gastroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Jiang Wang,Jinjuan Duan,Cuiyu Xie,Yongqi Yu,Yao Lu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-020-00188-y

IF: 3.96

2020-08-03

Pain and Therapy

Abstract:IntroductionIntravenous propofol anesthesia is widely used in painless endoscopy. However, propofol injection pain is a common adverse effect. This study investigated the effects of nalbuphine and lidocaine in reducing propofol-induced injection pain.MethodsIn this double-blind, randomized study, 330 patients were randomly divided into three groups by using a random number table: the nalbuphine group (N), lidocaine group (L), and control group (C). The N, L, and C groups received either 0.1 mg/kg nalbuphine, 0.5 mg/kg lidocaine, or an equivalent volume of normal saline, respectively, as pretreatment drug. Then propofol was manually injected. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of propofol-induced injection pain, and secondary outcomes included the severity of propofol-induced injection pain, vital signs, and adverse events, including hypotension, bradycardia (< 50 beats/min), hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90%), drowsiness, physical movement, and cough.ResultsThe percentages of patients with propofol injection pain were higher in group C than in group N and group L (64, 34, and 27%, respectively, p < 0.05). The percentage of patients with severe pain after propofol injection was significantly higher in group C than in group N and group L (12, 1, and 0%, respectively, p < 0.05). The doses of propofol in group C and group L were significantly higher than that in group N. More patients suffered hypoxemia in group N than in group C and group L. Then, less patients got physical movement and cough in group N.ConclusionsPretreatment with nalbuphine 0.1 mg/kg was effective in reducing propofol-induced injection pain and propofol consumption. Propofol combined with nalbuphine can be safely and effectively used during gastroscopy.Trial RegistrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry; ChiCTR1900025438.

clinical neurology
Deep sedation using propofol target-controlled infusion for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a retrospective cohort study

María E. García Guzzo,María S. Fernandez,Delfina Sanchez Novas,Sandra S. Salgado,Sergio A. Terrasa,Gonzalo Domenech,Carlos A. Teijido

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01103-w

IF: 2.376

2020-08-10

BMC Anesthesiology

Abstract:Abstract Background Propofol sedation is effective for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, but its narrow therapeutic window highlights the importance of identifying an optimal administration technique regarding effectiveness and safety. This study aimed to determine the incidence of significant adverse events in adult patients scheduled for gastrointestinal endoscopy under anaesthetist-performed sedation using propofol target-controlled infusion and determine the existence of associations between these events and potentially related variables. Methods This single-centre, retrospective cohort study took place in a tertiary referral university hospital. Medical records of 823 patients (age > 18 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification scores I–III) who had undergone elective gastrointestinal endoscopy under propofol target-controlled infusion sedation during September 2018 were reviewed. Outcomes included hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia events, requirement of vasoactive drugs, unplanned tracheal intubation or supraglottic device insertion, and need for advanced cardiac life support. Results The most frequently encountered adverse event was oxygen desaturation < 95% with an incidence of 22.35%. Vasoactive drug administration, hypotension, and oxygen desaturation < 90% followed, with incidences of 19.2, 12.64, and 9.92%, respectively. Only 0.5% of patients required advanced airway management. Multivariate analysis revealed an association between hypotension events, colonoscopic procedures, and propofol doses (odds ratio: 3.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.43 to 6.61; P = 0.004 and odds ratio: 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.29; P = 0.046). A strong dose-effect relationship was found between hypoxia and obesity; patients with body mass index ≥40 were nine times (odds ratio: 10.22, 95% confidence interval: 2.83 to 36.99) more likely to experience oxygen desaturation < 90% events. Conclusions Propofol sedation using target-controlled infusion appears to be a safe and effective anaesthetic technique for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with acceptable rates of adverse events and could be more widely adopted in clinical practice.

anesthesiology
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion for Sedation During Coblation-Assisted Upper Airway Procedure.

Ma Xiao-xu,Fang Xiang-ming,Hou Tie-ning

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2012.05.025

2012-01-01

Abstract:Background Sedation for the coblation-assisted upper airway procedure has lacked easy modulation between appropriate pain control and airway protection. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine versus target controlled propofol infusion in providing sedation during a coblation-assisted upper airway procedure.Methods In a prospective, randomized trial, 60 adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome due to undergoing a coblation-assisted upper airway procedure were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive dexmedetomidine, 1.0 mu g/kg over 10 minutes and maintain dosage 0.7 mu g.kg(-1).h(-1) (n=30) or propofol target controlled infusion (n=30). Satisfaction with the analgesia and tolerance of the procedure by the patient, as assessed by a visual analogue scale, were evaluated as primary outcomes. Cardiopulmonary parameters and some side effects were monitored and recorded.Results Both groups of 30 patients had comparable demographics and initial parameters. Patients in the propofol group reported more pain (P<0.05), tolerated the procedure less well (P<0.05), and were less satisfied with the different stages of procedure (P<0.05 or P<0.01). Changes in mean arterial pressure and heart rate were more dramatic in the propofol group (P<0.05). The dexmedetomidine group experienced fewer airway events and less respiratory depression than did the propofol group.Conclusion Dexmedetomidine in conjunction with local anesthesia offered better analgesia and conscious sedation for a coblation-assisted upper airway procedure as well as less airway obstruction, apnea and greater haemodynamic stability. Chin Med J 2012;125(5):869-873
Single-Artery Human Ear Graft Procurement: A Simplified Approach

J. Duisit,Hadrien Amiel,D. Debluts,L. Maistriaux,A. Gerdom,A. Bol,P. Gianello,C. Behets,B. Lengelé

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003591

2017-09-01

Abstract:Summary: In the field of experimental facial vascularized composite tissue allotransplantation, a human auricular subunit model, pedicled on both superficial temporal and posterior auricular arteries, was described. Clinical cases of extensive auricular replantation, however, suggested that a single artery could perfuse the entire flap. In this study, variants of this single-pedicle approach have been studied, aiming to develop a more versatile replantation technique, in which the question of venous drainage has also been addressed. For arterial perfusion study, the authors harvested 11 auricular grafts, either on a single superficial temporal artery pedicle (n = 3) or a double superficial temporal and posterior auricular artery pedicle (n = 8). The authors then proceeded to selective barium injections, in the superficial temporal, posterior auricular, or both superficial temporal and posterior auricular arteries. Arteriograms were acquired with a micro–computed tomographic scan and analyzed on three-dimensionally reconstructed images. Venous drainage was investigated in eight hemifaces, carefully dissected after latex injection. Observations showed a homogenous perfusion of the whole auricle in all arterial graft variants. Venous drainage was highly variable, with either a dominant superficial temporal vein (37.5 percent), dominant posterior auricular vein (12.5 percent), or co-dominant trunks (50 percent). The authors demonstrated that auricular subunit vascularized composite tissue allotransplantation can be performed on a single artery, relying on the dynamic intraauricular anastomoses between superficial temporal artery and posterior auricular branches. Potentially, this vascular versatility is prone to simplify the subunit harvest and allows various strategies for pedicle selection. Venous drainage, however, remains inconstant and thus the major issue when considering auricular transplantation. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, V.
Evaluation of pharyngeal lidocaine anesthesia for esophagogastroduodenoscopy: Double-blind randomized control trial

Irene Martín-Marcos,Nuria Fernández-Morte,María Balsategui-Martín,Alexandra Ortiz-Cantero,Cristina Bermúdez-Ampudia,Amanda López-Picado,Pilar Pérez-Vaquero,Marta Salvador-Pérez,Estíbaliz Cristóbal-Domínguez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/den.14168

Abstract:Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess whether the use of topical pharyngeal anesthesia improves endoscopist- and patient-reported tolerance and satisfaction, the total dose of propofol used and the rate of adverse effects associated with this procedure. Methods: This double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted in patients undergoing elective oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, who met the inclusion criteria. Patients were randomly assigned to receive five squirts of lidocaine 10% spray (50 mg, n = 268) or placebo (n = 271) 3 min before starting the procedure or sedation. The main outcome measures were patient- and endoscopist-reported tolerance, and additionally, satisfaction with the procedure, adverse events and supplementary propofol used. Results: In the lidocaine group, it was twice (odds ratio [OR] 2.136, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.228-3.715) or three times (OR 3.311, 95% CI 1.623-6.757) more likely that the endoscopist rated the procedure as well tolerated and easy to intubate than as well tolerated but the patient difficult to intubate or as poorly tolerated, respectively. Further, in these patients, less propofol was used (80 vs. 100 mg, P = 0.001). Controls were more likely to cough during the intubation (OR 2.172, 95% CI 1.378-3.423) and the procedure (OR 1.989, 95% CI 1.325-2.984), as well as more likely to retch (OR 3.582, 95% CI 1.667-7.7). Conclusions: Topical lidocaine may improve the procedure as rated by the endoscopist, as well as reduce the requirement for propofol and rate of adverse events such as retching and coughing. No adverse events associated with lidocaine administration were observed. ClinicalTrials registration no. NCT02733471.
Efficacy and safety of subanesthetic doses of esketamine combined with propofol in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Yongtong Zhan,Shuqing Liang,Zecheng Yang,Qichen Luo,Shuai Li,Jiamin Li,Zhaojia Liang,Yalan Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-022-02467-8

2022-08-21

BMC Gastroenterology

Abstract:Painless gastrointestinal endoscopy is widely used for the diagnosis and treatment of digestive diseases. At present, propofol is commonly used to perform painless gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the high dose of propofol often leads to a higher incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory complications. Studies have shown that the application of propofol combined with ketamine in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy is beneficial to reduce the dosage of propofol and the incidence of related complications. Esketamine is dextrorotatory structure of ketamine with a twice as great anesthetic effect as normal ketamine but fewer side effects. We hypothesized that esketamine may reduce the consumption of propofol and to investigate the safety of coadministration during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol Sedation ocirculation After Cardiac Surgery : A Randomized Controlled Trial

Xu Liu,Kai Zhang,Wei Wang,Guohao Xie,B. Cheng,Yan Wang,Yaoqin Hu,X. Fang

2017-01-01

Abstract:Objectives: To compare the effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol on sublingual microcirculation in patients after cardiac surgery. Design: A prospective, randomized, single-blind study. Setting: University hospital. Participants: Adult patients undergoing elective valve surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Interventions: On arrival in the intensive care unit (ICU), patients were assigned randomly to receive either dexmedetomidine (0.2-1.5 μg/kg/h) or propofol (5-50 μg/kg/min) with open-label titration to a target Richmond AgitationSedation Scale of 0 to –3. Measurements and Main Results: Sublingual microcirculation was recorded using sidestream dark-field imaging at ICU admission (baseline [T1]) and 4 hours (T2) and 24 hours after ICU admission (T3). At T2, median changes in perfused smallvessel density and the De Backer score from baseline were significantly greater in the dexmedetomidine group (n 1⁄4 29) than in the propofol group (n 1⁄4 32) (1.3 v 0 mm/mm, p 1⁄4
Comparison of propofol-esketamine versus propofol for anesthesia in gastroscopy: a double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial

Xiaoli Liu,Qingyu Xiao,Shaohui Zhuang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1184709

IF: 3.9

2023-08-08

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:Objective To compare the effects of propofol-esketamine and propofol in gastroscopy in adults. Methods This randomized controlled clinical trial was performed from January 2021 to March 2021. Eighty patients were enrolled and allocated into normal saline group (group N) and esketamine group (group E). The primary outcome was total amount of propofol. Secondary outcomes included incidences of injection pain, involuntary movement, hemodynamic and respiratory adverse events during examination, total examination time, recovery time and postoperative adverse effects. Results Total amount of propofol was significantly smaller in group E (101.64 ± 32.64 mg) than in group N (129.55 ± 36.34 mg, p = 0.001). Incidences of injection pain, involuntary movement and hypotension was significantly lower in group E than in group N. Incidences of hypertension and tachycardia was higher in group E than in group N. There was no significant difference in incidences of laryngospasm or hypoxemia, total examination time, recovery time, incidences of postoperative adverse effects between two groups. Conclusion Combination of propofol with 0.2 mg/kg esketamine reduced total amount of propofol, provided a more stable hemodynamic status and did not affect recovery time in gastroscopy. Clinical trial registration http://www.chictr.org , identifier ChiCTR2100042406.

medicine, general & internal
The Effect of Different Doses of Ciprofol in Patients with Painless Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Lini Chen,Yongguo Xie,Xueke Du,Weiyong Qin,Lifu Huang,Junmin Dai,Ke Qin,Jianfeng Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S414166

2023-06-12

Abstract:Lini Chen, &ast Yongguo Xie, &ast Xueke Du, Weiyong Qin, Lifu Huang, Junmin Dai, Ke Qin, &ast Jianfeng Huang &ast Department of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, People's Republic of China &astThese authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence: Ke Qin; Jianfeng Huang, Department of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, 530007, People's Republic of China, Tel/Fax +8613878103578 ; +8613978896039, Email ; Background: Ciprofol is currently used for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy and anesthesia induction. However, whether it is superior to propofol and its optimal dose remains unknown. Methods: A total of 149 patients, 63 males and 86 females, aged 18– 80 years, BMI 18– 28 kg/m 2 , ASA I–III, were divided randomly into four groups: propofol group (group P, n = 44), ciprofol 0.2mg/kg group (group C2, n = 38), ciprofol 0.3mg/kg group (group C3, n = 36) and ciprofol 0.4 mg/kg group (group C4, n = 31). Groups C2, C3 and C4 had injected IV with ciprofol 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 mg/kg, respectively. Group P had injected IV with propofol 1.5mg/kg. The time for disappearance of the eyelash reflex, gastrointestinal endoscopy time, recovery time, and the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) score at awakening (T 1 ), 15 minutes after awakening (T 2 ) and 30 minutes after awakening (T 3 ) were recorded. Results: Compared with group P, the time to fall asleep was significantly shortened, and the incidence of nausea and vomiting and injection pain was significantly lower in groups C2, C3 and C4 ( P 0.05). Compared with group P and C4, the incidence of hypotension and respiratory depression was significantly lower in groups C2 and C3 ( P < 0.05). Conclusion: The appropriate dose of ciprofol for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy is more advantageous than propofol in hemodynamics and respiratory stability, with less injection pain and nausea and vomiting, which is worthy of clinical promotion. Keywords: ciprofol, propofol, painless gastrointestinal endoscopy With the rapid development of medicine and the promotion of comfort medicine, painless gastrointestinal endoscopy has been widely used in clinics. As one of the most commonly used drugs for sedation, propofol has pharmacokinetic properties such as fast onset and rapid elimination. In painless gastrointestinal endoscopies, it is however limited by their high incidence of hypotension, respiratory depression, and injection pain. The latest 2,6-disubstituted phenol derivative, ciprofol, was independently developed in China and is currently used for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy and anesthesia induction. 1 Although ciprofol has a similar sedative effect as propofol, it has a clear absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion processes, a low incidence of hypotension and respiratory depression, and a high level of safety. 2 Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare different doses of ciprofol and propofol used in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy in order to determine the appropriate dose of ciprofol, improve the sedation mode of painless gastrointestinal endoscopy, reduce the incidence of related complications, and provide reference for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. This was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial. It was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi medical University (KY-2022-0502). It was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR2200063410). Signed, informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from the patients and their families before the operation. The study was a prospective, randomized, single-blind study conducted on 160 patients who underwent elective painless gastrointestinal endoscopy, and was aged 18–80 years, with a body mass index (BMI) of 18–28 kg/m 2 and an American Society of Anesthesiology physical status (ASA PS) of I–III. Patients were excluded according to the following criteria: patients with mental and nervous system diseases, heart failure, respiratory failure, long-term use of sedatives or antidepressants, pregnant or lactating women, and unable to communicate or cooperate. Patients were withdrawn from the study according to the following criteria: endoscopic operation fails, gastroscopy combined with colonoscopy examination, change to tracheal intubati -Abstract Truncated-

pharmacology & pharmacy,chemistry, medicinal
Optimizing sedation in gastroscopy: a study on the etomidate/propofol mixture ratio

Shuyi Tang,Yuling Zheng,Xiaoli Li,Yiwen Zhang,Zhongqi Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1392141

IF: 3.9

2024-06-12

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:Objective Propofol and etomidate are the most commonly used sedative agents in procedural sedation, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. However, there remains considerable controversy regarding the optimal ratio for the mixture of these two drugs, warranting further investigation. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the optimal ratio for combining propofol and etomidate during gastroscopy. Methods This study is a prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial. One hundred and sixty-two patients from July 2019 to December 2022 were evenly classified into three groups using a random number table as follows: (1) P group (propofol); (2) EP1 group (5 mL etomidate +10 mL propofol); (3) EP2 group (10 mL etomidate +10 mL), 54 patients per group. The medications, including a pre-sedation dose of 50 μg/kg dezocine followed by sedatives, ceasing when the patient’s eyelash reflex vanished, indicating adequate sedation. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) measurements taken before anesthesia (T1), immediately after the administration of sedatives (T2), immediately gastroscopic insertion (T3) and immediately recovery (T4) were determined. Additional, perioperative related outcomes and adverse events were also recorded. Results The EP2 group exhibited a higher MAP at T2 compared to the P and EP1 groups ( p < 0.05). Calculated decreases in MAP revealed values of 19.1, 18.8, and 13.8% for the P, EP1, and EP2 groups at T2, respectively. Adverse events: Group EP2 exhibited a significantly lower hypotension incidence (11.1%) compared to the Propofol group (50%) and EP1 (31.5%). Concerning injection pain, Group EP2 also showing a significant decrease in comparison to P and EP1 groups ( p < 0.05). Conclusion The use of a mixture of 10 mL etomidate and 10 mL propofol (at a 1:1 ratio) combined with dezocine for painless gastroscopy demonstrates hemodynamic stability, a low incidence of adverse reactions. Clinical Trial Registration https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=39874

medicine, general & internal
Effect of inspiratory muscle training on hypoxemia in obese patients undergoing painless gastroscopy: protocol for a single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Lijuan Yan,Xiao Wang,Kairong Du,Ying Liang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1269486

IF: 3.9

2023-09-14

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:Introduction Obese patients who undergo painless gastroscopy are particularly prone to suffer from upper airway obstruction, respiratory depression, and subsequent hypoxemia. Despite adequate preoxygenation, the incidence of hypoxemia remains high. Recently, inspiratory muscle training (IMT) has been considered to be a promising strategy to increase respiratory muscle strength and endurance with the attendant improvement of pulmonary function. However, it remains unclear whether IMT is associated with a lower rate of hypoxemia in obese patients during this sedative procedure. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of IMT used in obese patients who are scheduled for selective painless gastroscopy. Methods and analysis This prospective, randomized controlled trial (RCT) will enroll 232 obese patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 35–39.9 kg·m −2 who undergo painless gastroscopy at the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University. Subjects will be randomly assigned to two groups with a 1:1 ratio. Participants in both groups will receive IMT for 4 weeks prior to gastroscopy. The intervention group will receive IMT with a load of 30% of the maximal inspiratory pressure (Pi(max)) in the first week, with an increase of 10% per week since the following week, while the counterparts in the control group will not receive any load during the 4-week IMT. The primary outcome is the incidence of hypoxemia during painless gastroscopy. Secondary outcomes include the need for airway maneuvers, blood pressure changes, sleep quality assessment, pro-inflammatory cytokines levels, and monitoring of adverse events. Discussions The outcomes of this study will offer invaluable guidance for the clinical implementation of IMT as a potential non-invasive preventive measure. Additionally, it stands to enrich our comprehension of anesthesia management and airway-related challenges in obese patients undergoing procedural sedation, which we anticipate will further contribute to addressing the turnaround concerns within high-volume, swiftly paced ambulatory endoscopy centers. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University (2022, No.091). The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number China Clinical Trial Center (ChiCTR2200067041).

medicine, general & internal
Effects of Intravenous Infusion of Lidocaine on Isoflurane Consumption and Postoperative Pain in Patients Underwent Nasal Endoscopy Surgery

于淑侠,马正良,顾小萍,王尔华

2010-01-01

Abstract:Objective To investigate the effects of intravenous infusion of lidocaine on isoflurane consumption and postoperative pain in patients underwent nasal endoscopy surgery.Methods Forty patients of selective nasal endoscopy surgery were divided randomely into two groups of L and C.Anesthesia was induced with propofol-remifentanil-atracurium and maintained with isoflurane inhalation,which was regulated to keep bispectral index(BIS) within 45-55.Before induction,group L was given lidocaine injection of 1.5 mg/kg,which was followed by lidocaine infusion of 2 mg·kg-1·h-1 intraoperatively.Group C received normal saline instead of lidocaine as the control.BP,HR,isoflurane consumption,time of extubation,VAS pain score and fentanyl injection were recorded during operation and at 0.5,2 and 6 h after surgery.Results BP and HR of two groups were stable.The isoflurane consumption was less,the time of extubation was earlier,VAS scores were less,and fentanyl injection in PACU was less in group L than those in group C(P0.05).Conclusion Lidocaine used during operation could enhance anestheic depth and reduce postoperative pain in the patients undergoing nasal endoscopy surgery.
Efficacy and Safety of Propofol combined with different doses of Remifentanil for gastroscopy: A-randomized controlled trial

Chaochao Zhong,Yi-bin Qin,Hai-hang Miao,Xin-chong Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-42059/v1

2020-08-06

Abstract:Abstract Background Propofol is used to induce sadation or general anesthesia for procedures. Adjuvants, such as remifentanil characterized by a rapid onset of analgesia and a very short duration of action, which was proved to be an effective opioid receptor agonist considering its effective inhibition of autonomic nervous reflex during endoscopy. Meanwhile, it brings respiratory depression and hypoxia in particular, but there is few reports to explore the optimal dose of remifentanil during gastroscopy so far. So we design this randomized controlled trial (RCT) to identify an optimal remifentanil dosage in patients receiving gastroscopy. Methods A total of 200 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to receive one of four doses of remifentanil: 0 (control group), 1.25μg/ml (PR1 group), 2.5μg/ml (PR2 group), 5μg/ml (PR3 group) combined with propofol anesthesia. The primary outcome is the incidence of hypoxia. The secondary outcomes are the dosage of propofol, patients’ awakening time, and perioperative adverse reactions such as hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, body movements, nausea and vomiting. Results The onset time of PR2 (19 ± 2 s) and PR3(18 ± 4 s) group were shorter than control group (21 ± 3 s). Awaking time in PR2 (1.6 ± 0.4 min) and PR3 (1.7 ± 0.6 min) groups were significantly less than control group (4.1± 1.1min). The dose of propofol in PR2(90 ± 11 mg) and PR3(87±12 mg) groups were also significantly less than control group( 180 ± 20 mg)。The incidence of hypoxia and increase the flow of oxygen and jaw lift in PR2 group were significantly decreased from 38% to 14% and 32% to 10% compared with the control group, respectively (p<0.01).While the incidence of hypoxia in PR3 group was increased to 46%, higher than other groups (p<0.01). Total number of Sedation-related adverse events in PR2 was significantly decreased from 32% to 8% (p=0.03). Conclusions Both 2.5μg/ml (PR2) and 5μg/ml (PR3) remifentanil combined with propofol used in gastroscopy can reduce the onset time、awaking time and the amount of propofol. But the incidence of hypoxia and total number of sedation-related adverse events in PR2 group were significantly decreased compared with other groups. In our study, 2.5μg/ml remifentanil combined with propofol in gastroscopy is an optimal remifentanil dosage. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ChiCTR2000029216.
Evaluation of Propofol-Sparing Effect of Intravenous Lignocaine in Patients Undergoing Daycare Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures

Nidhi Arun,Mumtaz Hussain,Puja Kumari,Arvind Kumar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.32090

2022-12-01

Cureus

Abstract:Background Propofol is the most common sedative for endoscopies. Propofol alone may require larger doses for adequate level of sedation. Lignocaine is known for its anesthetic-sparing effect. We tested whether the addition of intravenous lignocaine to propofol-based sedation reduces its dose. Methods This prospective, randomized study was performed on 90 patients of 18 to 60 years of age, of either sex of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grade-I & II, and was divided into two groups. Group L + P received IV bolus of 1.5 mg/kg 2% lignocaine over 10 minutes followed by 1.5 mg/ kg/ h infusion and group NS + P- received the equivalent volumes of normal saline in bolus and infusion. Patients were induced with fentanyl (2 µg/kg) and propofol (1 mg/kg). To maintain an adequate sedation level, a supplemental bolus of 0.5 mg /kg propofol was administered. The outcomes recorded were the total and supplemental amount of propofol administered, as well as recovery time. Results The mean supplemental propofol for group L + P and group NS + P- 37.00 ± 29.93 and 58.67 ± 19.49 mg, respectively and mean total propofol consumption was 98.22 ± 34.00 mg and 131.11 ± 23.18 mg, respectively, (p < 0.001). Mean recovery time in group L + P was also shorter (5.22 ± 2.14 versus 9.96 ± 2.14). The incidence of adverse events like gag reflux, upper airway obstruction, pain on injection, and hypotension was significantly lower in group L + P (p < 0.05). Conclusion The addition of lignocaine to propofol-based sedation reduced the overall propofol requirement at the same time maintaining hemodynamic stability, spontaneous respiration, and early recovery.

[Paraneoplastic peripheral neuropathy].

Intravenous Lidocaine Attenuates Response to Cervical Dilation for Hysteroscopy: a Randomised Controlled Trial

Efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine in propofol-based sedation for ERCP procedures: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial

The propofol-sparing effect of intravenous lidocaine in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled study

Impact of intravenous and topical lidocaine on clinical outcomes in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Sedation and Safety of Propofol for Therapeutic Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on the ED50 of propofol induction dose in elderly patients undergoing painless gastroscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study

Comparison Between Intravenous Nalbuphine and Lidocaine in Reducing Propofol-Induced Injection Pain During Gastroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Deep sedation using propofol target-controlled infusion for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a retrospective cohort study

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion for Sedation During Coblation-Assisted Upper Airway Procedure.

Single-Artery Human Ear Graft Procurement: A Simplified Approach

Evaluation of pharyngeal lidocaine anesthesia for esophagogastroduodenoscopy: Double-blind randomized control trial

Efficacy and safety of subanesthetic doses of esketamine combined with propofol in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol Sedation ocirculation After Cardiac Surgery : A Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison of propofol-esketamine versus propofol for anesthesia in gastroscopy: a double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial

The Effect of Different Doses of Ciprofol in Patients with Painless Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Optimizing sedation in gastroscopy: a study on the etomidate/propofol mixture ratio

Effect of inspiratory muscle training on hypoxemia in obese patients undergoing painless gastroscopy: protocol for a single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Effects of Intravenous Infusion of Lidocaine on Isoflurane Consumption and Postoperative Pain in Patients Underwent Nasal Endoscopy Surgery

Efficacy and Safety of Propofol combined with different doses of Remifentanil for gastroscopy: A-randomized controlled trial

Evaluation of Propofol-Sparing Effect of Intravenous Lignocaine in Patients Undergoing Daycare Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures