Propofol Sedation Research Articles

Effectiveness and safety of remimazolam tosilate versus propofol for sedation in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

Remimazolam tosilate is a new type of benzodiazepine currently used for gastrointestinal endoscopy and can be combined with alfentanil. This trial compared the effectiveness and safety of remimazolam with alfentanil to propofol with alfentanil in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. One hundred and sixty-six patients were randomly divided into propofol-alfentanil anaesthesia (Group P) and remimazolam-alfentanil anaesthesia (Group R). The primary outcomes were perioperative haemodynamic variables, including systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and oxygen saturation (SpO2) preoperatively (T0); after anaesthesia induction (T1); when the gastroscope passed through the oropharynx (T2); 3min (T3), 5min (T4) and 7min (T5) after T2; at the end of surgery (T6); and when patients successfully awakened (T7). The secondary outcomes included induction and awakening time, patient satisfaction, operator satisfaction, and adverse event occurrences. Compared with those in Group P, the SBP in Group R was significantly higher at T1, T2, T3, and T6 (P < 0.05); the DBP and MAP were significantly higher at T1, T2, T3, T5, and T6 (P < 0.05); the HR was significantly faster at T1 to T6 (P < 0.05); the SpO2 was significantly higher at T1 to T4 (P < 0.05); the incidences of hypoxemia, hypotension, and drug injection pain were significantly lower in Group R (P < 0.05); the incidence of hiccups was higher (P < 0.05); the awakening time was shorter in Group R (P < 0.05); and the operator satisfaction score was high (P < 0.05). Compared to propofol with alfentanil, remimazolam with alfentanil can be used safely and effectively for sedation in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy, with less impact on the patient's circulatory and respiratory systems and a lower incidence of adverse events. This trial protocol was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCR2300077252, date: 2023-11-02).

Association between anesthesia assistance and precancerous lesions and early cancer detection during diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a propensity score-matched retrospective study.

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is a fundamental procedure for early detection of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer. However, limited research has been conducted on the impact of sedation during EGD on the identification of precancerous lesions and early cancer (EC). This retrospective study aims to evaluate whether sedation during EGD can improve the detection rates of precancerous lesions and EC. In this propensity score-matched retrospective study, we examined medical records from outpatients who underwent diagnostic EGD at a large tertiary center between January 2023 and December 2023. Data on endoscopic findings and histology biopsies were obtained from an endoscopy quality-control system. The primary objective was to compare the rates of detecting precancerous lesions and EC in patients who received sedation during EGD vs. those who did not receive sedation. Additionally, we aimed to identify factors influencing these detection rates using binary logistic regression analysis. Following propensity score matching, a total of 17,862 patients who underwent diagnostic EGD with or without propofol sedation were identified. The group that received sedation exhibited a higher detection rate of precancerous lesions and EC in comparison to the non-sedated group (1.04 vs. 0.75%; p = 0.039). Additionally, within the sedated group, there was an increased likelihood of identifying precancerous lesions and EC specifically at the gastric antrum (0.60 vs. 0.32%, p = 0.006). Binary logistic regression analysis demonstrated that independent risk factors influencing the detection rates included age, gender, observation time, and number of biopsies conducted during the procedure. Anesthesia assistance during EGD screening proved advantageous in detecting EC as well as precancerous lesions. It is crucial for endoscopists to consider these factors when performing EGD screening procedures.

Remimazolam for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A comprehensive review.

Worldwide, a majority of routine endoscopic procedures are performed under some form of sedation to maximize patient comfort. Propofol, benzodiazepines and opioids continue to be widely used. However, in recent years, Remimazolam is gaining immense popularity for procedural sedation in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. It is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in July 2020 for use in procedural sedation. Remimazolam has shown a favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile in terms of its non-specific metabolism by tissue esterase, volume of distribution, total body clearance, and negligible drug-drug interactions. It also has satisfactory efficacy and has achieved high rates of successful sedation in GI endoscopy. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that the efficacy of Remimazolam is non-inferior to Propofol, which is currently a gold standard for procedural sedation in most parts of the world. However, the use of Propofol is associated with hemodynamic instability and respiratory depression. In contrast, Remimazolam has lower incidence of these adverse effects intra-procedurally and hence, may provide a safer alternative to Propofol in procedural sedation. In this comprehensive narrative review, highlight the pharmacologic characteristics, efficacy, and safety of Remimazolam for procedural sedation. We also discuss the potential of Remimazolam as a suitable alternative and how it can shape the future of procedural sedation in gastroenterology.

Dexmedetomidine vs. Propofol: Haemodynamic Changes in Conscious Sedation in Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery in the Beach Chair Position: A Randomized Control Trial

Background: Interscalene brachial plexus block (ISB) combined with conscious sedation is a viable alternative to general anaesthesia for arthroscopic shoulder surgery in the beach chair position. The purpose of the trial was to compare the haemodynamic instability and safety of Dexmedetomidine vs Propofol for conscious sedation in arthroscopic shoulder surgery in the beach chair position. Method: A single-blinded prospective randomized trial was conducted in 56 patients randomly allocated into Dexmedetomidine and Propofol groups for conscious sedation following ISB placement. The primary outcome was to measure intraoperative haemodynamic variations (systolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, heart rate) in the two groups maintaining adequate conscious sedation during arthroscopic shoulder surgery in the beach chair position. Results: In the dexmedetomidine group a significantly higher percentage of systolic blood pressure (21.86 𝑣𝑠 10.81%, p = 0.001, 𝑑 = 1.05) and a higher percentage heart rate (18.52 vs 9.02%, p = 0.002, 𝑑 = .98) drop from baseline measurements was noted. A large (d ≥ 0.8) Cohen’s effect size suggested the high practical significance of the finding. Perioperative hypotensive (f=19, p&lt;0.001) and bradycardic (f=21, p=0.003) episodes were significantly more frequent in the dexmedetomidine group. The propofol group had a greater incidence of airway complications requiring intervention (f=6 vs f=0, p=.023). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine leads to significant blood pressure and heart rate reductions from baseline values in the beach chair position providing controlled hypotension and has minimal airway complications in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery in the beach chair position under ISB and conscious sedation compared to Propofol.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in sedating patients in the operating room and outside the operating room: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BackgroundAs a new type of intravenous anesthetic, ciprofol has the advantages of fast onset of action, fast recovery and high clearance rate. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of ciprofol versus traditional propofol for anesthesia and sedation in and out of the operating room.MethodsWe searched the literature in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases from January 2021 to December 2023. All clinical studies comparing the sedative effects of propofol and ciprofol, both inside and outside the operating room, were included in our trial. The main outcome measures were induction time and incidence of injection-site pain. Data are merged using risk ratio and standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval. Subgroup analysis, meta-regression, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were performed. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023447747).ResultsA total of 15 randomized, controlled trials involving 2002 patients were included in this study. Compared with propofol, ciprofol has a longer induction time in the operating room but a shorter induction time in non-operating room settings. Ciprofol can effectively reduce the risk of injection-site pain and respiratory depression both inside and outside the operating room. In addition, the risk of drug-related hypotension induced with ciprofol in the operating room is lower, but the awakening time is also longer. Meta-regression analysis showed that neither age nor BMI were potential sources of heterogeneity. Funnel plot, egger and begg tests showed no significant publication bias. Sensitivity analyzes indicate that our results are robust and reliable.ConclusionCiprofol has absolute advantages in reducing the risk of injection-site pain and respiratory depression, both in and outside operating room. Intraoperative use of ciprofol reduces the risk of drug-related hypotension and may also reduce the risk of intraoperative physical movements. However, ciprofol may have longer induction and awakening time than propofol.

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.

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. 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. 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. Successful awake C-MAC® D-blade video laryngoscopic intubation can be performed under dexmedetomidine/propofol conscious sedation, with propofol giving a better intubation score.

Do all sedatives promote biological sleep electroencephalogram patterns? A machine learning framework to identify biological sleep promoting sedatives using electroencephalogram.

Sedatives are commonly used to promote sleep in intensive care unit patients. However, it is not clear whether sedation-induced states are similar to the biological sleep. We explored if sedative-induced states resemble biological sleep using multichannel electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings. Multichannel EEG datasets from two different sources were used in this study: (1) sedation dataset consisting of 102 healthy volunteers receiving propofol (N = 36), sevoflurane (N = 36), or dexmedetomidine (N = 30), and (2) publicly available sleep EEG dataset (N = 994). Forty-four quantitative time, frequency and entropy features were extracted from EEG recordings and were used to train the machine learning algorithms on sleep dataset to predict sleep stages in the sedation dataset. The predicted sleep states were then compared with the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/ Sedation (MOAA/S) scores. The performance of the model was poor (AUC = 0.55-0.58) in differentiating sleep stages during propofol and sevoflurane sedation. In the case of dexmedetomidine, the AUC of the model increased in a sedation-dependent manner with NREM stages 2 and 3 highly correlating with deep sedation state reaching an AUC of 0.80. We addressed an important clinical question to identify biological sleep promoting sedatives using EEG signals. We demonstrate that propofol and sevoflurane do not promote EEG patterns resembling natural sleep while dexmedetomidine promotes states resembling NREM stages 2 and 3 sleep, based on current sleep staging standards.

Etomidate Combined with Propofol versus Remimazolam for Sedation in Elderly Patients During Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial.

Remimazolam is a novel short-acting benzodiazepine used for sedation and general anesthesia. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate in elderly patients who underwent diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy. A total of 120 patients aged 60-75 years were randomly allocated to one of two groups. Remifentanil 0.3μg/kg was used for analgesia. Patients were administered remimazolam besylate 7 mg (R group) or etomidate 0.1 mg/kg combined with 1% propofol 0.5 mg/kg (EP group) for induction, supplemental repeated doses were given as needed. Some time metrics, vital signs, adverse events were evaluated. Patients' Mini-cog score and recovery questionnaires were compared. Compared to the EP group, the induction time was slightly longer in the R group (1.50 VS 1.15 minutes) (P<0.05), the time spent in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) was shorter (15.17 VS 17.40 minutes) (P<0.05). Compare with EP group, SBP was lower in R group at T15 and T25 time point, but heart rate was higher in T2, T3, T5 (P< 0.05). The Mini-Cog score was higher after the procedure (2.83 VS 2.58) (P<0.05). The incidence of respiratory adverse events was higher in the EP group than R group (18.3% VS 5.0%, P < 0.05). The most common adverse event in R group was hiccups. The sedation satisfaction rate and degree of amnesia were higher in the R group (66.7% VS 11.7%) (P < 0.05), and the effect on patient's life within 24 hours was lower (12.0% VS 30.5%) (P < 0.05). The safety and efficacy of remimazolam besylate are not inferior to those of etomidate combined with propofol, rendering it a safe option for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy in ASA I-II elderly patients, but care should be taken to monitor the occurrence of hiccups.

Safety of propofol sedation administered by interventional radiologists for radiofrequency ablation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

PurposeTo evaluate the safety of propofol sedation administered by interventional radiologists during radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Materials and methodsPropofol sedation was administered by interventional radiologists in 72 patients (85 procedures, 93 tumors) during RFA for HCC between August 2018 and December 2020. Interventional radiologists equipped with adequate knowledge and skills in sedation and respiratory management were responsible for sedation. Sedation was carefully assessed based on vital signs, including end-tidal carbon dioxide, consciousness status, and bispectral index. The primary endpoint was the incidence of sedation-related complications, which were evaluated separately as respiratory and cardiovascular complications. Secondary endpoints were technical success rate, ablation-related complications, and local tumor control rate. Technical success was defined as completion of ablation in the planned area. Complications were evaluated using the Clavien–Dindo classification. Sedation-related complications, technical success rate, and ablation-related complications were evaluated on a procedure basis, and local tumor control was evaluated on a tumor basis.ResultsRespiratory and cardiovascular complications were observed in eight (8/85, 9.4%) and two (2/85, 2.4%) patients, respectively. Four patients required the jaw thrust maneuver due to glossoptosis, whereas a decrease in oxygen saturation to < 90% was recorded in the other four patients. However, these were temporary, and none required manual ventilation or endotracheal intubation. Bradycardia (< 50 bpm) was detected in two patients; one recovered immediately without treatment, whereas the other rapidly improved after atropine sulfate administration. No severe hypotension (< 80 mmHg) was observed. The technical success rate was 100% (85/85). Grade 3 ablation-related complications were identified in three patients (3/85, 3.5%). The local tumor control rate was 95.7% (89/93).ConclusionPropofol sedation can be safely administered by interventional radiologists during RFA for HCC. Although it requires special safety considerations, it may be a sedation option during hepatic RFA.

Comparison of Changes in Rso2 in Midazolam and Propofol Sedation Post Craniotomy in the Icu of H. Adam Malik Hospital

Introduction: Cerebral oxygen saturation reflects tissue perfusion in the cerebrum. Decreases in cerebral oxygen saturation are linked to longer hospital stays and cognitive impairment. Midazolam and propofol can decrease cerebral blood flow through decreasing the cerebral oxygen metabolic rate. The purpose of this research is to analyze the comparison of changes in cerebral oxygen saturation after midazolam and propofol administration in post-craniotomy patients in the ICU of Haji Adam Malik General Hospital Medan. Subject and Method: This is a randomized control trial study. Patients were divided into, Midazolam group, that given an initial dose of 0.05 mg/kg followed by a maintenance dose of 0.02-0.10 mg/kg/hour and Propofol group that given sedation with a dose of 0.3-3mg/kg/hour, with the target of the 2 groups being a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) value of 0 to -2. Data analysis using unpaired T test. Results: The results for cerebral regional oxygen saturation and RASS between groups showed significant differences in right and left value (p &lt; 0.001), but there was no significant difference in RASS (p&gt;0.05) between each group at each measurement time. The results of the analysis of cerebral regional oxygen saturation and RASS between times, there was no significant difference in right and left value (p&gt;0.05), but there was a significant difference in RASS (p&lt;0.001) at each measurement time. Based on the results of the analysis carried out, it is known that there is no statistically significant difference in changes in cerebral regional oxygen saturation both right and left in changes in RASS because it is found that all data have p&gt;0.05. Conclusion: There is no change in right and left for cerebral regional oxygen saturation after administration of propofol and midazolam groups with RASS value 0 to -2 in post-craniotomy patients in the ICU of Haji Adam Malik General Hospital Medan

Determining the Target Concentration of Propofol for Sedation in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Target-Controlled Infusion Approach.

Introduction Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is vital for diagnosing and treating biliary and pancreatic diseases, necessitating deep sedation typically achieved through total intravenous anesthesia. Propofol, with its favorable pharmacokinetic profile, is the preferred sedative, but conventional administration methods of mg/kg boluses or infusion rates pose challenges. Target-controlled infusion (TCI) systems offer a solution that ensures precise dose delivery of propofol. Despite its widespread use, the literature lacks specific guidance on the target plasma concentration (Cp) of propofol for sedation in patients undergoing ERCP. Methods A prospective interventional study was conducted at the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, Delhi, India to determine the target Cp of propofol for sedation during ERCP. The study enrolled 86 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I and II patients aged 18-70 years. The primary objective was to establish the optimal propofol concentration for sedation as guided by a bispectral index (BIS) value of 60-70. Secondary outcomes included induction time, recovery time, total propofol consumption, and the occurrence of adverse events (if any). The Marsh pharmacokinetic model guided the TCI pump, adjusting Cp until the target sedation was achieved. Results The mean Cp of propofol to maintain the BIS value 60-70 was 2.21 ± 0.42 µg/ml. Age-wise analysis revealed variations, emphasizing the need for individualized dosing. Induction time was 4.21 ± 0.68 minutes; recovery times were seven minutes (median, IQR: 5-10 minutes) for BIS >80 and seven minutes (median, IQR: 5-10 minutes) for achieving a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score of ≥5. The mean propofol consumption was 6.24 mg/kg/hr. Side effects were minimal, with 1.16% experiencing transient hypoxia and hypotension. Conclusion The study establishes a mean target propofol concentration of 2.21 ± 0.42 µg/ml for sedation in ASA I and II patients undergoing ERCP.

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol for intraoperative sedation during regional anesthesia: A phase II, multicenter, randomized, active-controlled, single-blind clinical trial.

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam for intraoperative sedation during regional anesthesia. It was a phase II-multicenter, randomized, single-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled clinical trial (No. ChiCTR2100054956). From May 6, 2021 to July 4, 2021, patients were randomly enrolled from 17 hospitals in China. A total of 105 patients aged 18-65 years who underwent selective surgery under regional anesthesia were included. Patients received different sedatives with different dosages: 0.1 mg/kg remimazolam (HR), 0.05 mg/kg remimazolam (LR), or 1.0 mg/kg propofol (P) group, followed by a maintenance infusion. Main outcome measures included the efficacy of sedation measured by Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (MOAA/S) levels (1-4, 1-3, 2-3, 3, and 2-4) during the sedation procedure (the duration percentage) and incidence of adverse reactions. It showed that the duration percentage of MOAA/S levels 1-4 was 100.0 [8.1]% (median [interquartile range]), 89.9 [20.2]%, 100.0 [7.7]% in the HR, LR, and P groups, respectively. The percentage of patients in the HR, LR, and P groups who achieved MOAA/S levels 1-4 within 3 min after administration was 85.7%, 58.8%, and 82.9%, respectively. However, the time to recovery from anesthesia after withdrawal of sedatives (7.9 ± 5.7 min), incidence of anterograde amnesia (75%), and adverse effects were not statistically significant among the three groups. These findings suggest that a loading dose of remimazolam 0.1 mg/kg followed by a maintenance infusion of 0-3 mg/kg/h provides adequate sedation for patients under regional anesthesia without increasing adverse reactions.

Comparison of propofol-esketamine versus propofol-sufentanil for deep sedation and analgesia in children with autism: A randomized double-blind clinical trial.

Propofol sedation, routinely used for endoscopic procedures, is safe and acceptable for children. Adjuvants, such as esketamine or sufentanil, are commonly added to improve the efficacy and safety of propofol sedation. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of propofol-esketamine (PE) versus propofol-sufentanil (PS) for deep sedation and analgesia in children with autism undergoing colonoscopy procedure. One hundred and twenty-four children with autism undergoing colonoscopy procedure were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the two adjuvants: esketamine (0.3 mg/kg) or sufentanil (0.2 μg/kg), subsequently administered propofol 2.0 mg/kg to induce anesthesia. Additional doses of propofol (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) were administered as needed to ensure patient tolerance for the remaining duration of the procedure. Movement during the procedure, hemodynamic variables, the total dose of propofol, recovery time, and adverse events were recorded. The PE group exhibited a significantly lower incidence of severe movement during the procedure compared with the PS group (14.52% vs. 32.26%, p = 0.020). The PE group showed significantly lower incidence of respiratory depression, hypotension, and severe injection pain of propofol than the PS group during the procedure (all p < 0.05). The mean arterial pressure (MAP) decreased significantly after anesthesia induction in the PS group and remained lower than baseline (all p < 0.05). Compared with the combination of low-dose sufentanil (0.2 μg/mg) with propofol, the low-dose esketamine (0.3 mg/kg) combined with propofol provided more stable hemodynamics, higher quality of sedation, and fewer adverse events in children with autism undergoing colonoscopy procedure.

The EC50 of propofol with different doses of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

The goal of this study was to evaluate the dose-response relationship between dexmedetomidine and propofol in sedating patients and to determine the optimal dosage of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy. One hundred fifty patients were divided into 5 groups, each receiving a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 µg/kg) or saline, with propofol for sedation. The median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol was calculated using the modified Dixon up-and-down approach. Adverse effects, vital signs, procedure, and recovery times were recorded. The EC50 of propofol in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, D0.8, and D1.0 were 3.02, 2.44, 1.97, 1.85, and 1.83 µg/mL, respectively. Heart rate in the dexmedetomidine groups decreased more than the NS group (P < .001). The mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the NS group experienced a decline compared to groups D0.8 and D1.0 when the plasma concentration and effect-site concentration reached equilibrium. Additionally, the respiratory rate was found to be lower in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, and D0.8 (P < .05). Recovery time in groups D0.8 and D1.0 was longer than the NS group (P < .05). Bruggemann comfort scales score was higher in group D1.0 (P < .05). No significant difference was found in the incidences of hypotension and bradycardia, and the dose of ephedrine and atropine. Respiratory depression was significantly reduced in groups D0.8 and D1.0 compared to the NS group. A single dose of 0.6 to 0.8 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine should be recommended in combination with propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. And the EC50 of propofol is 1.97 to 1.85 µg/mL.

Dynamical changes of interaction across functional brain communities during propofol-induced sedation.

It is crucial to understand how anesthetics disrupt information transmission within the whole-brain network and its hub structure to gain insight into the network-level mechanisms underlying propofol-induced sedation. However, the influence of propofol on functional integration, segregation, and community structure of whole-brain networks were still unclear. We recruited 12 healthy subjects and acquired resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging data during 5 different propofol-induced effect-site concentrations (CEs): 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0μg/ml. We constructed whole-brain functional networks for each subject under different conditions and identify community structures. Subsequently, we calculated the global and local topological properties of whole-brain network to investigate the alterations in functional integration and segregation with deepening propofol sedation. Additionally, we assessed the alteration of key nodes within the whole-brain community structure at each effect-site concentrations level. We found that global participation was significantly increased at high effect-site concentrations, which was mediated by bilateral postcentral gyrus. Meanwhile, connector hubs appeared and were located in posterior cingulate cortex and precentral gyrus at high effect-site concentrations. Finally, nodal participation coefficients of connector hubs were closely associated to the level of sedation. These findings provide valuable insights into the relationship between increasing propofol dosage and enhanced functional interaction within the whole-brain networks.

Emergency Department closed reduction of dislocated THR: the REDDTHR Prospective Multi-centre Study.

Dislocation is a potentially devastating complication severely affecting outcomes post total hip arthroplasty (THR). We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of closed reduction of a dislocated THR within the Emergency Department (ED). A prospective multi-centre study was conducted over a 1-year period from November 2020 to December 2021 within 10 hospitals based in the East of England. Collected data included patient demographics, agent used for sedation, hospital length of stay, implant type and discharge destination. Patients were analysed according to whether successful reduction was performed in the ED or not. The primary outcome was length of stay, with secondary outcomes including discharge destination and pain post-procedure. We studied 99 patients with an average age of 77.02 years, with 39 (39%) patients being male. 11 patients had revision hip replacements and 88 patients had primary THRs. 57 (57.6%) underwent closed reduction in the Emergency department, of which 44 (77.2%) were successful. Successful closed reduction was significantly associated with lower patient age (p = 0.02), lower American society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (p < 0.01) and use of propofol (p < 0.01). Patients who underwent successful ED closed reduction had a lower hospital stay than those that did not (1 vs. 3 days, p < 0.01), however there was no significant difference in discharge destination. When adopted, success following closed reduction is increased in younger patients with less comorbidities following use of propofol sedation. Following sedation, patients have a significantly shorter hospital stay. Increasing uptake of closed reduction of THR dislocation within the ED in suitable patients with evidence-based best practice protocols will maximise patient outcomes whilst allowing efficient resource utilisation.

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

BackgroundBalanced 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.MethodsForty-one patients were randomly divided into two groups: the dexmedetomidine (DEX) group and the propofol (PRO) group. Patients in the DEX group received an additional bolus of 0.6 μg kg−1 dexmedetomidine followed by a dexmedetomidine infusion at 1.2 μg kg−1 h−1, whereas the PRO group received 1–2 mg kg−1 of propofol bolus followed by a propofol infusion at 2–3 mg kg−1 h−1. During ERCP, the primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90% for > 10 s). Other intraoperative adverse events were also recorded as secondary outcomes, including respiratory depression (respiratory rate of < 10 bpm min−1), hypotension (MAP < 65 mmHg), and bradycardia (HR < 45 beats min−1).ResultsThe incidence of hypoxemia was significantly reduced in the DEX group compared to the PRO group (0% versus 28.6%, respectively; P = 0.032). Patients in the PRO group exhibited respiratory depression more frequently than patients in the DEX group (35% versus 81%, respectively; P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in terms of hypotension and bradycardia episodes between groups. During the procedures, the satisfaction scores of endoscopists and patients, as well as the pain and procedure memory scores of patients were comparable between groups.ConclusionIn comparison with propofol, dexmedetomidine provided adequate sedation safety with no adverse effects on sedation efficacy during ERCP.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200061468, 25/06/2022.

Implementation of nurse administered propofol sedation for same-day discharge pulsed field ablation of atrial fibrillation is safe and has excellent patient reviews

Abstract Background In June 2022, we introduced Pulsed Field Ablation (PFA) for de novo pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Simultaneously, deep sedation with propofol undertaken by trained nurses from the cath lab was introduced. Purpose To evaluate feasibility, safety and patient reported experience for same-day discharge AF ablations performed with PFA on propofol sedation. Methods Patients with an ASA physical status classification of 1 or 2 referred for de novo AF ablation were planned for PFA in propofol sedation. Three nurses with previous experience from the intensive care unit planned and undertook the sedation. In addition, two nurses were trained locally. The initial 200 consecutive patients were included in the observational cohort study after signing consent to participate in follow-up after the procedure. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools. In addition to procedure related data, patient-reported quality measures were acquired 30 days after the procedure by an internet based questionnaire including scaling and open questions. Results 96% of the procedures were successfully completed using only propofol while 4% were scheduled for general anesthesia, mainly because of sleep apnea and high BMI. The average procedure time for the first 100 procedures was 57 min (95% CI, 54.1-62.9) and 45 min (95% CI, 42.6-47.4) for the following 100 procedures. Acute PVI was achieved during all procedures. No sedation related adverse effects were observed. One patient experienced pericardial tamponade requiring prolonged hospitalization. 87% were discharged on the same day as planned while 12% remained hospitalized one additional day for reassurance and social reasons. 93% (186/200) completed the questionnaire. 56% of patient only responded "very little" or "not at all" to all questions about adverse symptoms during and after the procedure. For each specific symptom, 80 to 95 % were only experienced "very little" or "not at all" (Fig 1). In general, patients felt safe about the preparation for and handling of the sedation (Fig 2). Conclusions Nurse administered deep sedation with propofol, provides excellent pain relief for PFA procedures, facilitates an efficient workflow and can safely be implemented and administered by nurses from the cath lab. Propofol sedation constitutes an important alternative to general anesthesia that is not widely available.Figure 1Figure 2

Comparison of dexmedetomidine versus propofol sedation on microcirculation and organ injuries in critically ill surgical patients: A randomized controlled pilot study

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that dexmedetomidine may improve microcirculation and prevent organ failure. However, most evidence was obtained from experimental animals and patients receiving cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. This study aimed to investigate the effect of dexmedetomidine on microcirculation and organ injuries in critically ill general surgical patients. METHODS: In this prospective randomized trial, patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit after general surgery were enrolled and randomly allocated to the dexmedetomidine or propofol groups. Patients received continuous dexmedetomidine or propofol infusions to meet their requirement of sedation according to their grouping. At each time point, sublingual microcirculation images were obtained using the incident dark field video microscope. RESULTS: Overall, 60 patients finished the trial and were analyzed. Microcirculation parameters did not differ significantly between two groups. Heart rate at 4 h after ICU admission and mean arterial pressures at 12 h and 24 h after ICU admission were lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the propofol group. At 24 h, serum aspartate aminotransferase (41 (25–118) vs 86 (34–129) U/L, p = 0.035) and alanine aminotransferase (50 (26–160) vs 68 (35–172) U/L, p = 0.019) levels were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the propofol group. CONCLUSION: Microcirculation parameters did not differ significantly between the dexmedetomidine and propofol groups. At 24 h after ICU admission, serum liver enzyme levels were lower in patients receiving dexmedetomidine as compared to propofol.

The periprocedural respiratory safety of propofol sedation in patients with a motor neuron disease undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion

Motor neuron diseases (MND), such as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and Primary Lateral Sclerosis (PLS), may cause swallowing and respiratory problems, due to muscle weakness. Chronic enteral feeding via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is often indicated in these patients. PEG insertion is normally performed with sedation. Some guidelines withhold sedation in MND patients, due to the risk of respiratory complications. These guidelines seem to be defensive however and evidence is lacking. Our aim was to examine periprocedural respiratory complications occurring in MND patients undergoing PEG insertion with propofol sedation. A retrospective monocentre study was conducted in a referral hospital with an experienced PEG team. Patients with MND who underwent PEG insertion with propofol sedation between January 1. 2016 to January 1. 2023 were analysed to identify periprocedural respiratory complications. 46 patients were included. In five patients (10.9%) respiratory adverse events (AE) occurred, of which two serious (4.3%) and four AE (8.7%). Serious AE (SAE) were fatal in both cases: aspiration pneumonia (2.2%) and hypercapnia (2.2%) a few days after insertion. Sedation may have influenced the first case. Respiratory AE consisted of desaturation in two (4.3%), mild aspiration pneumonia in one (2.2%), and apnea in one patient (2.2%). Compared to previous studies respiratory complications and mortality had comparable prevalences.