Color Texture Analysis Using Wavelet-Based Hidden Markov Model

S. Ding,Jie Yang,Qing Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30549-1_99

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Ketamine and dexmedetomidine (Keto-dex) or ketamine and propofol (Keto-fol) for procedural sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Which is safer? A randomized clinical trial

Ajay Singh,Karthik V Iyer,Souvik Maitra,Puneet Khanna,Soumya Sarkar,Vineet Ahuja,Ajisha Aravindan,Priyankar Kumar Datta,Venkata Ganesh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12664-022-01291-y

2022-12-29

Indian Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:Background Optimum procedural sedation is very essential for conducting non-operating room procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The combination of ketamine and dexmedetomidine (KD) is expected to balance out the undesirable effects of either drug and provide smooth sedation. Together ketamine and propofol (KP) also provide synergistic sedation with stable hemodynamics. This prospective, single-blinded randomized study aimed to compare the effect of both the combinations during ERCP in terms of oxygen desaturation, respiratory depression, hemodynamic parameters, analgesia, recovery time, and ease with which the endoscopist could perform the endoscopy. Methods This prospective, single-blinded randomized study (CTRI/2019/08/020625) was conducted on 84, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status I or II patients, of age 18–65 years presenting for ERCP in a tertiary care center. They were randomized to receive either KD ( n =42) or KP ( n =42) combination during ERCP. Mean SPO 2 at the end of the procedure was compared between the groups. Apart from these periprocedural hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, pain scores on arrival in the recovery room (t0), 15 minutes (t15), and 30 minutes (t30), recovery time, and endoscopist's satisfaction as per a Likert's scale were recorded. Results The mean SpO 2 (SpO 2 recorded every minute during the procedure and averaged over procedure time in minutes) in group KP (97.7 [96.1–98.6]) was significantly lower than group KD (98.5 [98.1–98.8]) ( p =0.005). The post-procedure pain scores measured at t0 and t15 were higher in group KP ( p <0.001 and p =0.043), and comparable at t30 in both the groups ( p =0.711). The time to achieve Modified Aldrete score (MAS) ≥ 9 was significantly more in group KD ( p <0.001). The lowest mean arterial pressure and heart rate in group KD were significantly lower than in group KP ( p <0.001, p =0.006, respectively). The overall endoscopist satisfaction was better in group KP compared to group KD ( p = 0.011). Conclusions The combination of ketamine-dexmedetomidine for procedural sedation during ERCP is a safe alternative to ketamine-propofol with a better respiratory profile. Clinical trial number and registry URL CTRI/2019/08/020625 (www.ctri.nic.in)
Etomidate Versus Propofol for Monitored Anesthesia Care During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Udit Dhingra,Nitin Mantri,Soveena Pani,Deepak K Tempe,Mahesh Arora

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.43178

2023-08-08

Cureus

Abstract:Background and objectives Propofol-based sedation is one of the most commonly used methods for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The commonest complications during ERCP are in the form of adverse cardiopulmonary events as a result of sedation. Etomidate has a more stable cardiovascular and respiratory profile than propofol and has been used for sedation in simple gastrointestinal endoscopy but has not been studied for procedural sedation in ERCP. The objective of the present study was to compare the safety and feasibility of etomidate and propofol for sedation during ERCP procedures. Methods This single-center, randomized trial included 100 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status class I to II patients who were scheduled for ERCP. All patients received midazolam 0.02 mg/kg, lignocaine (2%) 1 mg/kg, and fentanyl 1 µg/kg intravenously, followed by etomidate or propofol according to the group allocation. The primary outcome was to compare the mean arterial pressure (MAP) at various timepoints between the two groups and secondary outcomes were to compare oxygen saturation, induction and recovery times, and adverse events. Transient hypotension was defined as any decrease in MAP below 60 mmHg or 20% below the baseline. Transient hypoxia was defined as desaturation (saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO2) <92%) lasting for more than 10 seconds requiring airway intervention. Results Fifty patients were enrolled in each group (Group E: etomidate and Group P: propofol). Transient hypotension occurred in eight (16%) patients in Group P, and two (4%) patients in Group E (P= 0.045). Baseline MAP was comparable between the two groups but was significantly lower in Group P at three timepoints during the study. Nine (18 %) patients in Group P had a transient hypoxic episode, compared to none in Group E (p= 0.006). The induction and recovery times were similar in the two groups. Conclusions Etomidate offers better hemodynamic and respiratory stability than propofol and can be recommended for use during ERCP in ASA I/II patients.
Changing patterns of neuropsychological functioning in children living at high altitude above and below 4000 m: a report from the Bolivian Children Living at Altitude (BoCLA) study.

Javier Virúes‐Ortega,R. Bucks,F. Kirkham,T. Baldeweg,Ana Baya-Botti,A. Hogan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01064.x

IF: 3.7

2011-09-01

Developmental Science

Abstract:The brain is highly sensitive to environmental hypoxia. Little is known, however, about the neuropsychological effects of high altitude residence in the developing brain. We recently described only minor changes in processing speed in native Bolivian children and adolescents living at approximately 3700 m. However, evidence for loss of cerebral autoregulation above this altitude (4000 m) suggests a potential threshold of hypoxia severity over which neuropsychological functioning may be compromised. We conducted physiological and neuropsychological assessments in 62 Bolivian children and adolescents living at La Paz (∼3700 m) and El Alto (∼4100 m) in order to address this issue. Groups were equivalent in terms of age, gender, social class, schooling, parental education and genetic admixture. Apart from percentage of hemoglobin saturated with oxygen in arterial blood (%SpO(2)), participants did not differ in their basal cardiac and cerebrovascular performance as explored by heart rate, mean arterial pressure, end-tidal carbon dioxide, and cerebral blood flow velocity at the basilar, anterior, middle and posterior cerebral arteries. A comprehensive neuropsychological assessment was administered, including tests of executive functions, attention, memory and psychomotor performance. Participants living at extreme altitude showed lower levels of performance in all executive tests (Cohen effect size = -0.91), whereas all other domains remained unaffected by altitude of residence. These results are compatible with earlier physiological evidence of a transitional zone for cerebral autoregulation at an altitude of 4000 m. We now show that above this threshold, the developing brain is apparently increasingly vulnerable to neuropsychological deficit.
A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Wenyou Zhang,Liangrong Wang,Na Zhu,Wenzhi Wu,Haiyan Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02572-z

IF: 2.376

2024-05-29

BMC Anesthesiology

Abstract:Balanced propofol sedation is extensively used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) are common. In various clinical settings, the combination of dexmedetomidine with opioids and benzodiazepines has provided effective sedation with increased safety. The aim of this investigation was to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during ERCP.

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.
Dexmedetomidine-ketamine versus propofol-ketamine for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in hepatic patients (a comparative randomized study)

Wael Sayed Algharabawy,Rasha Gamal Abusinna,Tamer Nabil AbdElrahman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/11101849.2021.1961428

2021-01-01

Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia

Abstract:Cirrhotic patients are more vulnerable to sedation-related complications than the general population, and there is no consensus on sedation during endoscopic procedures for these patients, whose numbers are increasing globally. Our study compared the efficacy of sedation, hemodynamic, respiratory effects, the incidence of side effects, and patient and endoscopist satisfaction with dexmedetomidine-ketamine versus propofol-ketamine during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) in hepatic patients with Child-Pugh classification A & B.Seventy adult hepatic patients with Child-Pugh classification class A and B scheduled for UGIE were randomly assigned to one of two groups:The ketamine/dexmedetomidine (KD) group received an IV loading of 1 mg/kg ketamine and 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine over 10 minutes, followed by 0.1 mg/kg/hr ketamine and 0.1 µg/kg/hr dexmedetomidine maintenance. Ketamine/propofol (KP) group received an IV loading of 1 mg/kg ketamine and 1 mg/kg propofol over 10 minutes, followed by 0.1 mg/kg/hr ketamine and 0.1 mg/kg/hr propofol. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) were measured every 5 minutes (min) until the procedure was completed. The time required to reach the target Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS) (3–4) which is called the induction time, the time required to recover (the recovery time), and the occurrence of side effects were all recorded. The mini-mental state examination (MMSE) at baseline and 2 hours after recovery were measured.Demographic data showed no significant differences between the two groups. HR changes in the KD group were significantly lower than in the KP group at T1 (after the loading dose), T2 (after the endoscopy was inserted), and at all time points until the procedure was completed. MAP values were lower in the KD group compared to the KP group, but this difference was not statistically significant. Induction and recovery times were longer in the group (KD) than in group (KP), with (8.00 ± 1.26 min in the group (KD) vs 3.00 ± 1.14 min in the group (KP) for induction and (19.00 ± 1.53 min in the group (KD) vs 9.00 ± 1.41 min in the group (KP) for recovery. The prevalence of oxygen desaturation was higher in the group (KP) than in group (KD) ("9" pts in the group (KP) vs "3" pts in the group(KD)) (KD). However, unwanted movements were statistically more common in group KD than in group KP (6 patients versus two patients, respectively). Baseline MMSE and MMSE at PACU values were comparable within and between the two groups. The levels of satisfaction among patients and endoscopists were comparable in both groups.The dexmedetomidine/ketamine combination is as effective as the propofol/ketamine combination in terms of sedation efficacy, with more hemodynamic and respiratory stability, but it has longer induction and recovery times with comparable results in terms of ketamine bolus consumption, MMSE scores after recovery, and patient and endoscopist satisfaction.
Effectiveness of single loading dose of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol for deep sedation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in elderly patients: a prospective randomized study

Mo Chen,Yi Sun,Xueyan Li,Chun Zhang,Xiaochen Huang,Yiming Xu,Chengyong Gu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-022-01630-8

IF: 2.376

2022-03-28

BMC Anesthesiology

Abstract:Abstract Background Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an advanced endoscopic procedure and requires deep sedation. Deep sedation with dexmedetomidine for the respiratory drive preserved has become popular in recent years. However, the use of dexmedetomidine in elderly patients is controversial because its adverse events are more common. The objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of a single loading dose of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol for deep sedation of ERCP in elderly patients. Methods In this prospective randomized trial, 49 elderly patients undergoing ERCP were randomly allocated to the dexmedetomidine (DEX) or propofol (PRO) groups. The single loading dose of dexmedetomidine was set at 0.5 μg/kg at the start of anesthesia induction and loading for 10 min. The primary outcome was the cumulative dose of propofol. Secondary outcomes included time to awake, the frequency of airway interventions, and hemodynamics. Results The intraoperative cumulative dose of propofol was lower in the DEX group (111.0 ± 12.6 μg/kg/min) than the PRO group (143.7 ± 23.4 μg/kg/min) ( P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the time to awake between the two groups. The incidence of artificial airway interventions and hypotension in the PRO group (36%, 60%) were significantly higher than those in the DEX group (4.2%, 16.7%) ( P = 0.011, P = 0.003, respectively). In addition, the occurrence of bradycardia increased significantly in the DEX group (58.3%) compared with the PRO group (12%) ( P < 0.001). Conclusions The single loading dose of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol can reduce propofol consumption and artificial airway intervention and provide better hemodynamic stability than propofol for deep sedation in elderly patients during ERCP. Trial registration www.chictr.org.cn (Registration number ChiCTR1900028069, Registration date 10/12/2019).

anesthesiology
Dexmedetomidine versus Ketamine-Propofol for Sedation of Obese Patients Undergoing Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Ola Nasser Hussain Zaher,Reem Hamdy El Kabarity,Rania Magdy Mohamed Ali,Mohamed Moien Mohamed

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcab086.092

2021-10-01

Abstract:Abstract Background Gastrointestinal endoscopy is an uncomfortable and stressful procedure for most patients. Conscious sedation is a common strategy for improving patient comfort during this procedure. Benzodiazepines (gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) agonists) such as midazolam have been used for sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. The effective dose ranges of such agents differ considerably among patients, making it difficult to achieve stable sedation. Also obesity is a significant health problem that has assumed epidemic proportions. As a result, the number of obese patients requiring endoscopy is increasing. It is relatively unknown how safe the current practices of sedation for endoscopic procedures are in bariatric patients. Therefore, special consideration should be given to these patients Aim of the Work To compare the sedative properties and haemodynamic and respiratory effects of Dexmedetomidine and a Ketamine-Propofol combination (ketofol) in obese patients undergoing Upper GI Endoscopy. Patients and Methods This study was conducted in the endoscopy unit of Ain Shams University Hospital after obtaining approval from the Research Ethical Committee of Ain Shams University. A prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial was found to be the most suitable design in order to achieve the study objectives. Cases were divided into 2 groups using computer generated random list of numbers in sealed opaque envelopes. Results We found that ketamine-propofol infusion (1:3) is a better sedation regimen for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy compared to dexmedetomidine as lesser time is taken to achieve optimal sedation, with no hemodynamic unstability or postprocedure complications. Conclusion In this study, we compared a group of 40 upper GIT endoscopy obese patients (BMI 30-40) who received procedural sedation with either Dexmedetomidine or propofolketamine combination, we found that ketamine-propofol infusion (1:3) is a better sedation regimen for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy compared to dexmedetomidine as lesser time is taken to achieve optimal sedation, with no hemodynamic unstability or post procedure complications.

medicine, general & internal
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
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 the Effect of Adding Low-dose Ketamine to Dexmedetomidine and Propofol on the Quality of Sedation and Hemodynamic Response in Children During Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Hamidreza Shetabi,Sedighe Shahhosseini,Negar Mohamadpour,Amir Shafa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5812/aapm-134581

2023-03-09

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Abstract:Background: As endoscopy is an invasive and painful procedure, it is necessary to use a suitable sedative with a minimum dose, especially in children. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the effect of adding low-dose ketamine to dexmedetomidine and propofol on the quality of sedation and hemodynamic response in children during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: This double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted on 52 children who were candidates for endoscopy in 2 groups, each consisting of 26 patients. In the first group (Ketadex group), infusion of dexmedetomidine (0.7 - 1 μg/kg) for 10 minutes and ketamine bolus (0.4 mg/kg) for anesthesia induction was prescribed. In the second group (Ketofol group), infusion of propofol (50 - 100 μg/kg) for 10 minutes and ketamine bolus (0.4 mg/kg) for anesthesia induction was prescribed. Results: The mean blood pressure of children decreased slightly during and after the endoscopic procedure in the Ketadex group than in the Ketofol group (P < 0.05). The recovery time was significantly less in the Ketofol group (41.85 ± 7.03 minutes) than in the Ketadex group (55.12 ± 7.55 minutes; P < 0.001). Conclusions: The addition of the low-dose ketamine to propofol and dexmedetomidine did not result in any significant changes in the level of sedation, the incidence of adverse effects, and the endoscopist's satisfaction; however, the recovery time was shorter in the propofol-ketamine combination than in the dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination.
Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol in Combination with Fentanyl for Sedation-Analgesia in Colonoscopy Procedures: A Randomized Prospective Study

Elham Kavousi,Hamid Reza Shariefnia,Pejman Pourfakhr,Mohamadreza Khajavi,Alireza Behseresht

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34172/mejdd.2021.242

2021-03-07

Middle East Journal of Digestive Diseases

Abstract:BACKGROUND Colonoscopy is an uncomfortable and short procedure needing brief sedation with fast emergence. METHODS This research is going to measure intravenous dexmedetomidine against propofol-fentanyl combination in terms of sedation-analgesia and hemodynamic changes in non-obligatory colonoscopy procedures. 70 colonoscopy candidates aged between 20 to 70 years were enrolled in this study while separated into two random equal-sized groups (p stands for propofol- & D stands for dexmedetomidine groups). All patients were premedicated with 0.03 mg/kg midazolam and 1 μ/kg fentanyl, 10 minutes and 5 minutes before the colonoscopy process, respectively. 0.5-1 mg/kg propofol for the P group and 1 μ/kg dexmedetomidine for the D group were infused in one minute before the initiation of the procedure following by normal saline as maintenance liquid and boluses of 25-50 μg fentanyl as needed. RESULTS These variables were entered into a datasheet: hemodynamic changes, sedation-analgesia level throughout the procedure, and patients’ and physicians’ contentment. The mean arterial pressure changes were similar and insignificant in the two groups (82.44±12.34 vs. 87.63±22.45 p=0.2). The D group had lower heart rates in comparison with the P group (72.51±16.7 vs. 81.56±15.71 p=0.001). The P group was deeply to moderately sedated and required a significantly lower doses of fentanyl rescue treatment (71.02±25.63 vs. 91.45±38.62 μg p=0.003). The P group was associated with a high incidence of apnea and was significantly superior to the D group in the matter of satisfaction (43% against 77%). CONCLUSION Colonoscopists’ contentment rates were identical in both groups. Propofol infusion is more satisfactory yet having more respiratory depression possibility in comparison with dexmedetomidine infusion in colonoscopy candidates.
The pyridoxal-binding site in pyridoxamine-pyruvate transaminase.

J. Hodsdon,H. Kolb,E. Snell,R. Cole

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1042/BJ1690429

IF: 3.766

1978-02-01

Biochemical Journal

Abstract:The enzyme-substrate complex formed between pyridoxamine-pyruvate transaminase (EC 2.6.1.30) and pyridoxal was reduced with NaBH4. After carboxymethylation and tryptic digestion, pyridoxyl-lysine-containing peptides were isolated by a combination of Sephadex and Dowex 50 chromatography. Analysis of these peptides shows the structure around the pyridoxal-binding lysine residues to be Ala-Asp-Ile-Tyr-Val-Thr-Gly-Pro-Asx-Lys(Pxy)-Cys-Leu(Pro2, Gly2, Ala2, Met)(Thr, Leu2)Gly-Val-Ser-Glu-Arg. This structure differs from those found for the corresponding peptides from pyridoxal phosphate-dependent enzymes.
The effectiveness of esketamine and propofol versus dezocine and propofol sedation during gastroscopy: A randomized controlled study

Yafei Xu,Yuling Zheng,Tianying Tang,Lvlv Chen,Yiwen Zhang,Zhongqi Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpt.13678

2022-04-30

Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics

Abstract:This is a flow diagram showing enrollment of participants. A total of 102 patients were enrolled in this study from October to November 2021, 15 patients were excluded, and 87 patients were randomly assigned to receive esketamine or dezocine, but 83 patients completed the study finally (esketamine group n = 42, dezocine group n = 41).What Is Known and ObjectivePropofol is widely used in painless gastroscopy. However, sedation with propofol alone might increase the risk of respiratory and circulatory complications. This randomized clinical study compares the efficacy and safety of esketamine or dezocine combined with intravenous (IV) propofol in patients undergoing gastroscopy.MethodsA total of 102 patients were enrolled in this study and randomized into two groups. All patients were adults aged 18–64 years who underwent upper gastrointestinal gastroscopy. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups to receive esketamine (0.3 mg/kg) combined with propofol (group E) or dezocine (0.05 mg/kg) combined with propofol (group D). In both groups, the drugs were administered intravenously. The primary outcome was the dose of propofol which provided a satisfactory sedative effect, both to the endoscopist and the patients. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, side effects (such as hypotension, nausea and vomiting and agitation), and the number of adverse circulatory and respiratory events.ResultsData of 83 patients were analysed in the present study. Dosage of propofol required in group E (1.44 mg/kg ± 0.67 mg/kg) was significantly lower compared with that in group D (2.12 mg/kg ± 0.37 mg/kg) (p

pharmacology & pharmacy
Induced Hypotension in Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A Comparative Study of Dexmedetomidine and Esmolol

Baladev P. Sahu,Laba K. Nayak,Partha S. Mohapatra,Krishna Mishra,Baladev Sahu,Baladev P Sahu,Laba K Nayak,Partha S Mohapatra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.15069

2021-05-17

Cureus

Abstract:Introduction Functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) is one of the common surgical procedures requiring hypotensive anesthesia; many agents have been tried to reduce the amount of blood loss. This study aims at comparing the efficacy of two agents for providing deliberate hypotension. Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of esmolol and of dexmedetomidine and compare which one of the two is a better agent to produce induced hypotension during FESS. Materials and methods This was a comparative study conducted in a tertiary care hospital in Odisha, India. There were two study groups with 30 participants each who were given either esmolol or dexmedetomidine (group E and group DEX, respectively). Results Esmolol is an anti-hypertensive agent with better hemodynamic stability. The amount of drug and dose requirement was low in group DEX. The emergence time, sedation score, and time to first analgesic request were found to be highly statistically significant in group DEX. Conclusion Dexmedetomidine was found to be a better agent at controlling intra-operative blood pressure than esmolol and had beneficial effects on recovery from anesthesia and analgesia.
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
Safety and efficacy of a low-dose combination of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol for deep sedation of elderly patients undergoing ERCP

Yanping Zhang,Ning Zhang,Jing Hu,Changlin Liu,Guanjun Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-024-03197-9

2024-04-02

BMC Gastroenterology

Abstract:Abstract 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.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Moderate sedation with dexmedetomidine–remifentanil is safer than deep sedation with propofol–remifentanil for endobronchial ultrasound while providing comparable quality: a randomized double-blind trial

Silvia Bermejo,Begoña Covas,Teresa Silva-Costa-Gomes,Albert Sánchez-Font,Víctor Curull,Àlex Pérez-Ramos,Anna Mases,Lluís Gallart

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17476348.2022.2145949

2022-11-19

Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine

Abstract:We compared dexmedetomidine-remifentanil vs. propofol-remifentanil in terms of safety and quality during sedation for Endobronchial ultrasonography (EBUS). A randomized, double-blind trial. Outpatients undergoing EBUS randomly received 1 μg/kg/hour dexmedetomidine or a target concentration of 2.5 μg/mL propofol, both combined with remifentanil initially targeted at 1.5 ng/mL and subsequently titrated. Additional sedatives were restricted. The primary outcome was the need for airway rescue interventions to treat oxygen desaturation. Twenty-eight patients received dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and 27 received propofol-remifentanil. Airway rescue interventions were fewer in the dexmedetomidine group vs. the propofol one (23 vs. 76% patients, relative risk 3.21 (95% CI 1.55–6.64, P < 0.002)). Desaturation in the dexmedetomidine group was always resolved by increasing nasal oxygen flow, whereas additional interventions were needed in 60% of patients receiving propofol. Hypotension was more frequent in the propofol group, while hypertension, bradycardia and coughing were similar in both. Bronchoscopists' and patients' satisfaction were similar, although in the dexmedetomidine group two patients needed additional sedatives and two patients would not repeat the sedation technique. Moderate sedation with dexmedetomidine-remifentanil for EBUS is safer than deep sedation with propofol-remifentanil but it would occasionally need additional sedatives to ensure patient satisfaction.

respiratory system
Efficacy of sedation with dexmedetomidine plus propofol during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Keiichi Ashikari,Takashi Nonaka,Takuma Higurashi,Tomohiro Takatsu,Tsutomu Yoshihara,Noboru Misawa,Jun Arimoto,Kenji Kanoshima,Tetsuya Matsuura,Akiko Fuyuki,Hidenori Ohkubo,Hideyuki Chiba,Atsushi Nakajima

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.15417

2021-02-04

Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Background and Aim</h3><p>During endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal cancer, patient body movement can sometimes occur, which may cause discontinuation of the procedure. Propofol and dexmedetomidine have recently been found to be useful sedatives for endoscopic submucosal dissection. This study investigated whether sedation using propofol plus dexmedetomidine can suppress the patient's body movements during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection and compared this combination with sedation using propofol alone.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Methods</h3><p>This was a prospective double‐blind randomized controlled trial. Patients with superficial esophageal cancers who underwent esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection at Yokohama city University Hospital were prospectively enrolled and were randomly assigned to the propofol and the propofol plus dexmedetomidine groups. The primary endpoint was the incidence of restlessness. The secondary endpoints were the satisfaction score, maintenance dose of propofol, number of rescue propofol injections.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Results</h3><p>Sixty‐six patients (propofol group: n = 33; combination group: n = 33) were included. The combination group had a significantly lower incidence of restlessness than the propofol group (3.0% vs 27.3%, p=0.02). In the combination group, the satisfaction scores of the endoscopists were significantly higher, the maintenance dose of propofol was significantly lower and the number of rescue propofol injections was lower than those in the propofol group (3.0% vs 18.2%, p<0.001). Although the incidence of bradycardia was significantly higher in the combination group (30.3% vs 3.0%, p<0.01), no serious adverse effects occurred.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Conclusions</h3><p>The propofol plus dexmedetomidine combination provided excellent sedation that effectively suppressed the patient's body movements during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection.</p></section>

gastroenterology & hepatology
Comparison of propofol versus dexmedetomidine sedation for awake C-MAC® D-Blade video laryngoscopic nasotracheal intubation in patients with difficult airway: A randomised clinical study

Gunjan Vishnoi,Shagun B Shah,Rajiv Chawla,Manoj Bhardwaj,Anil Patel,Jenna Arora

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_923_23

Abstract:Background and aims: Awake intubation is the preferred method for securing difficult airways. We compared intravenous (IV) propofol and dexmedetomidine for C-MAC® D-blade-guided anticipated difficult nasotracheal intubation under conscious sedation. Methods: This randomised study included 60 patients with difficult airway (El-Ganzouri Score 4-9). After adequate airway preparation with IV midazolam 0.03 mg/kg and IV fentanyl 1 µg/kg, in Group P, propofol was infused at 250 µg/kg/min and in Group D, dexmedetomidine was infused at 1 μg/kg over 10 min, then at 0.5 μg/kg/h till a bispectral index (BIS) value 65-70 was achieved. Patients underwent C-MAC® D-blade video laryngoscope-guided nasotracheal intubation. The intubation score was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures included haemodynamic parameters, intubation time, number of attempts, the incidence of failed awake intubation, glottic view, time to achieve desired BIS, complications, study drug consumption and patient-reported satisfaction with the awake intubation technique. Quantitative variables were compared between groups using unpaired t-test/Welsch test/Mann-Whitney Test. Qualitative variables were correlated using the Chi-square test/Fisher's exact test. A P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The intubation score was significantly higher in Group D versus Group P (P = 0.007). Patient reaction to intubation, haemodynamic parameters and percentage of glottis opening score were more favourable in Group P. Coughing and vocal cord movement were comparable between the groups (P > 0.05). The time to target BIS was four times longer, and the time to intubate was 6 seconds longer in Group D. Conclusion: Successful awake C-MAC® D-blade video laryngoscopic intubation can be performed under dexmedetomidine/propofol conscious sedation, with propofol giving a better intubation score.

Color Texture Analysis Using Wavelet-Based Hidden Markov Model

Ketamine and dexmedetomidine (Keto-dex) or ketamine and propofol (Keto-fol) for procedural sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Which is safer? A randomized clinical trial

Etomidate Versus Propofol for Monitored Anesthesia Care During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Changing patterns of neuropsychological functioning in children living at high altitude above and below 4000 m: a report from the Bolivian Children Living at Altitude (BoCLA) study.

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Sedation and Safety of Propofol for Therapeutic Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.

Dexmedetomidine-ketamine versus propofol-ketamine for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in hepatic patients (a comparative randomized study)

Effectiveness of single loading dose of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol for deep sedation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in elderly patients: a prospective randomized study

Dexmedetomidine versus Ketamine-Propofol for Sedation of Obese Patients Undergoing Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

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

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

Comparison of the Effect of Adding Low-dose Ketamine to Dexmedetomidine and Propofol on the Quality of Sedation and Hemodynamic Response in Children During Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol in Combination with Fentanyl for Sedation-Analgesia in Colonoscopy Procedures: A Randomized Prospective Study

The pyridoxal-binding site in pyridoxamine-pyruvate transaminase.

The effectiveness of esketamine and propofol versus dezocine and propofol sedation during gastroscopy: A randomized controlled study

Induced Hypotension in Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A Comparative Study of Dexmedetomidine and Esmolol

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

Safety and efficacy of a low-dose combination of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol for deep sedation of elderly patients undergoing ERCP

Moderate sedation with dexmedetomidine–remifentanil is safer than deep sedation with propofol–remifentanil for endobronchial ultrasound while providing comparable quality: a randomized double-blind trial

Efficacy of sedation with dexmedetomidine plus propofol during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Comparison of propofol versus dexmedetomidine sedation for awake C-MAC® D-Blade video laryngoscopic nasotracheal intubation in patients with difficult airway: A randomised clinical study