Propofol Group Research Articles

A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blinded Study on the Comparison of Propofol and Ketofol (Combination of Ketamine and Propofol) for Modified Electroconvulsive Therapy

ABSTRACT Background and Aims: Modified electroconvulsive therapy is routinely used to treat complicated psychiatric disorders. Its therapeutic effect is directly proportional to induced seizure duration but it is associated with hemodynamic disturbances. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a ketamine + propofol combination (“ketofol”) for electroconvulsive therapy and to compare these with the effects of propofol alone. Methods: In this prospective study, 60 patients aged 18–60 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Ι and ΙΙ for psychiatric disorders were included. Patients were divided into two groups (30 each). Group P received propofol at 10 mg/ml and group K received ketofo at 10 mg/ml (ketamine 5 mg/ml and propofol 5 mg/ml in a 1:1 ratio). Motor/electroencephalography (EEG) seizure duration, induction time, hemodynamic variables, recovery time, agitation score, and complications were recorded. Standard qualitative and quantitative tests were used to compare the data (e.g., unpaired student t-test, Chi-squared test, etc). A P value of < 0.05 was considered to be significant. Results: The mean duration of (motor/EEG) seizure was statistically significantly high in the ketofol group compared to the propofol group (P = 0.0001/0.0001). The mean induction time was significantly less in the ketofol group compared to propofol group (P = 0.0001). The recovery time was significantly early in group K patients compared to group P (P = 0.004). The ketofol group was more hemodynamically stable with comparable agitation score and side effects than patients in the propofol group. Conclusion: In modified ECT, ketofol was associated with longer seizure duration, lesser induction time, better hemodynamic stability, early recovery with comparable post ECT agitation and adverse effects compared to propofol alone.

Impact of general anaesthesia on breast cancer survival: a 5-year follow up of a pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial, the CAN-study, comparing propofol and sevoflurane.

Anaesthesia may impact long-term cancer survival. In the Cancer and Anaesthesia study, we hypothesised that the hypnotic drug propofol will have an advantage of at least five percentage points in five-year survival over the inhalational anaesthetic sevoflurane for breast cancer surgery. From 2118 eligible breast cancer patients scheduled for primary curable, invasive breast cancer surgery, 1764 were recruited after ethical approval and individual informed consent to this open label, single-blind, randomised trial at four county- and three university hospitals in Sweden and one Chinese university hospital. Of surveyed patients, 354 were excluded, mainly due to refusal to participate. Patients were randomised by computer at the monitoring organisation to general anaesthesia maintenance with either intravenous propofol or inhaled sevoflurane in a 1:1 ratio in permuted blocks. Data related to anaesthesia, surgery, oncology, and demographics were registered. The primary endpoint was five-year overall survival. Data are presented as Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Hazard Ratios based on Cox univariable regression analyses by both intention-to-treat and per-protocol. EudraCT, 2013-002380-25 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01975064. Of 1764 patients, included from December 3, 2013, to September 29, 2017, 1670 remained for analysis. The numbers who survived at least five years were 773/841 (91.9% (95% CI 90.1-93.8)) in the propofol group and 764/829 (92.2% (90.3-94.0)) in the sevoflurane group, (HR 1.03 (0.73-1.44); P=0.875); the corresponding results in the per-protocol-analysis were: 733/798 (91.9% (90.0-93.8)) and 653/710 (92.0% (90.0-94.0)) (HR=1.01 (0.71-1.44); P=0.955). Survival after a median follow-up of 76.7 months did not indicate any difference between the groups (HR 0.97, 0.72-1.29; P=0.829, log rank test). No difference in overall survival was found between general anaesthesia with propofol or sevoflurane for breast cancer surgery. Swedish Research Council; Uppsala-Örebro Regional Research Council; Västmanland Regional Research Fund; Västmanland Cancer Foundation; Stig and Ragna Gohrton Foundation; Birgit and Henry Knutsson Foundation.

Comparison of hemodynamic alterations and post-operative profile of sevoflurane and propofol during laparoscopic cholecystectomies

Background: Modern laparoscopic surgeries with insufflation of gas into peritoneal cavity are gold standard treatment for cholelithiasis. Propofol, a GABA receptor positive allosteric modulator and Sevoflurane, an inhalational anesthetic are used for maintenance of general anesthesia. In laparoscopy, significant hemodynamic changes occur. Searching in field of anesthesia is going on for anesthetic agent for better recovery. Aims and Objectives: Objective of the study is to compare sevoflurane with propofol for intraoperative hemodynamic changes and post-operative recovery profile of patient’s undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomies under general anesthesia. Secondary objective is to compare post-operative complications. Materials and Methods: A prospective, randomized, single-blinded, and comparative study done after permission from the institutional ethical committee and informed consent from patients. Total 84 patients of 20–50 years age of either sex were scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, divided in two equal groups – Group P, induced with propofol and anesthesia was maintained with propofol (100–120 μg/kg/min), nitrous oxide and oxygen and Group S induced with propofol and anesthesia was maintained using sevoflurane (1–2%), nitrous oxide, and oxygen. Results: We found that time for eye opening was 9±1.21 min in Group P and 8±1.34 min in Group S. Time for following verbal command was 10±1.20 min in Group P and 9±1.32 min in Group S. Time for speaking name by patient was 11±1.20 min in Group P and 10±1.34 min in Group S. Difference between two groups regarding eye opening, following verbal command, and time to speak own name are highly significant with P<0.001 which proves that eye opening, following verbal command and time for speaking name by patient were significantly shorter in sevoflurane group. Time to achieve modified aldrete score >8 was 14±1.30 min in Group P and 13±1.37 min in Group S. Difference between two groups is also highly significant with P<0.001 which proves that time to achieve modified aldrete score>8 were significantly shorter in sevoflurane group. Conclusion: From our study, maintenance of general anesthesia with sevoflurane is associated with faster recovery from anesthesia.

Safety and effectiveness of the combination of remimazolam tosilate and propofol in gastroscopy: a multicenter, randomized controlled, single-blind clinical trial.

Remimazolam tosilate (RT) is a new short-acting γ-aminobutyric acid A (GABAA) receptors agonist. However, its optimal use mode and dosage still remain unclear. This study aimed to examine the safety and effectiveness of the combination of RT and propofol in gastroscopy. This was a prospective, single-blind, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group study. All eligible 256 patients were randomized into the following 3 groups. Patients were anesthetized with propofol (Group P), RT (Group R) or the combination of RT and propofol (Group RP). The primary efficacy endpoints were: body movement score; satisfaction of gastroscopy doctors; success rate of sedation and effects on sleep status. Sedation induction time, time to be fully alert and adverse events were also recorded. The probability of complete immobility was lower in group R (33.73%) than in group P (86.67%) and RP (83.13%). The rate of doctors' satisfaction was much lower in group R (28.92%) than in group P (77.78%) and RP (72.29%). The success rate of sedation and sleep outcome score has no difference in the three groups. The time to adequate sedation was longer in group RP (77.27 ± 18.63s) than in group P (64.47 ± 24.36s), but much shorter than that in group R (102.84 ± 46.43s). The time to be fully alert was shorter in group R (6.30 ± 1.52min) and RP (6.54 ± 1.13min) than in group P (7.87 ± 1.08min). The proportion of sedative hypotension was significantly higher in group P (41.11%) than in group R (1.20%) and group RP (3.61%) (p < 0.001). The incidence of respiratory depression was much higher in group P (17.78%) than in group R (no patient) and group RP (1.2%). The incidence of adverse events was lower in groups R (4.82%) and RP (9.64%) than in group P (31.11%). The combination of RT and propofol takes effect quickly, makes patients alert quickly, provides a sufficient depth of sedation, reduces body movement, does not inhibit circulation and respiratory function, does not affect sleep, and is the preferred mode for gastroscopy doctors and anesthesiologists.

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosilate versus propofol in patients undergoing day surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BackgroundRemimazolam tosilate (RT) is a novel short-acting GABA (A) receptor agonist that has a rapid recovery from procedural sedation and can be fully reversed by flumazenil. To date, there have been relatively few articles comparing RT and propofol for general anesthesia. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of RT with or without flumazenil compared with propofol in general anesthesia for day surgery.Methods115 patients scheduled for day surgery were randomized into three groups: RT (n = 39), RT + flumazenil (n = 38) and propofol (n = 38). The primary endpoints were anesthesia induction time and time until fully alert. Anesthesia success rate, bispectral index (BIS) values, injection pain, opioid and vasopressor dosages, postoperative recovery profiles and perioperative inflammatory and cognitive changes were assessed. Any adverse events were recorded.ResultsInduction times were similar among the three groups (P = 0.437), but the median time until fully alert in patients treated with RT was longer than that of the propofol or RT + flumazenil groups (17.6 min vs. 12.3 min vs. 12.3 min, P < 0.001). The three groups had comparable postoperative recovery quality and inflammatory and cognitive state changes (P > 0.05). Smaller percentages of patients who received RT (26.3%) and RT + flumazenil (31.6%) developed hypotension during anesthesia maintenance compared with propofol (68.4%), and consequently less ephedrine (P < 0.001) and phenylephrine (P = 0.015) were needed in the RT group. Furthermore, serum triglyceride levels were lower (P < 0.001) and injection pain was much less frequent in the RT with or without flumazenil groups compared with the propofol group (5.3% vs. 0% vs. 18.4%).ConclusionRT permits rapid induction and comparable recovery profile compared with propofol in general anesthesia for day surgery, but has a prolonged recovery time without flumazenil. The safety profile of RT was superior to propofol in terms of hypotension and injection pain.Trial registrationThe study was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry http://www.chictr.org.cn/ (Registration date: 19/7/2021; Trial ID: ChiCTR2100048904).

Effects of remimazolam versus propofol on postoperative recovery quality in elderly patients undergoing thoracoscopic laparoscopic radical esophagectomy

Objective: To investigate the effects of remimazolam versus propofol on postoperative recovery quality in elderly patients undergoing thoracoscopic laparoscopic radical esophagectomy. Methods: A total of 108 elderly patients undergoing thoracoscopic laparoscopic radical esophagectomy under general anesthesia in the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University from May to October 2022 were prospectively included. The participants were divided into two groups by the random number table method: remimazolam group (R group, n=54) and propofol group (P group, n=54). There were 54 cases in the R group, with 35males and 19 females, and aged (65.4±3.1) years. Meanwhile, there were 54 cases in the P group, with 33males and 21 females, and aged (64.5±3.0) years. Anesthesia was induced as follows: remimazolam 0.2-0.3 mg/kg and remifentanil 0.5-1.0 μg/kg were intravenously injected in R group, while propofol 1-2 mg/kg and remifentanil 0.5-1.0 μg/kg were intravenously injected in P group. Subsequently, anesthesia was maintained as follows: remimazolam 0.4-1.0 mg·kg-1·h-1 and remifentanil 0.05-0.2 μg·kg-1·min-1 were intravenously infused in group R, while propofol 4-10 mg·kg-1·h-1 and remifentanil 0.05-0.2 μg·kg-1·min-1 were intravenously infused in group P. Bispectral index (BIS) was maintained at 45-60 during operation. The main outcome measures were the 15-item quality of recovery (QoR-15) scores 1 day before surgery, 1 day and 3 days after surgery. Secondary outcome measures included mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate and pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2) recorded 5 min before anesthesia induction (T0), 1 min after induction (T1), 1 min after endotracheal intubation (T2), immediately after skin incision (T3) and tracheal extubation (T4). The incidence of bradycardia and hypotension and the frequency of application of vasoactive drugs during anesthesia were recorded. Restlessness score (RS) and Ramsay sedation scale during the awakening period were recorded. Emergence time, tracheal extubation time, duration of postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay and postoperative length of hospital stay were recorded. The incidence of postoperative pulmonary infection and other complications were also recorded. Results: The QoR-15 scale scores [M (Q1, Q3)] of R group 1 day and 3 days after surgery were 114.0 (109.0, 118.3) and 131.0 (127.8, 133.0), which were higher than those of P group [106.0 (101.0, 112.0) and 127.0 (125.0, 129.3)] (both P<0.001). The incidence of bradycardia, hypotension and the frequency of application of vasoactive drugs of R group during anesthesia were 5.6% (3/54), 35.2% (19/54) and 27.8% (15/54), which were lower than those in P group [33.3% (18/54), 63.0% (34/54) and 55.6% (30/54), respectively] (all P<0.05). RS score during the awakening period in R group was 0.9±0.5, which was lower than that of P group (1.1±0.6) (P=0.046). Emergence time, tracheal extubation time and postoperative length of hospital stay of R group were (15.4±4.9) min, (16.6±4.7) min and (11.6±1.4) d, which were shorter than those of P group [(26.2±6.4) min, (27.8±5.8) min and (12.6±1.3) d] (all P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in Ramsay scores during the awakening period, duration of PACU stay and the incidence of postoperative complications (all P>0.05). Conclusions: Both remimazolam and propofol can achieve satisfactory postoperative recovery quality in elderly patients undergoing thoracoscopic laparoscopic radical esophagectomy. Remimazolam has more stable hemodynamics and lower incidence of adverse reactions.

Comparison of Procedural Sedation With Propofol and Dexmedetomidine During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Using the Transfemoral Approach

Although procedural sedation is an established method of anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), reliable evidence to guide the choice of a suitable sedative agent remains scarce. Accordingly, this trial aimed to compare the effect of procedural sedation with dexmedetomidine versus propofol on postoperative neurocognitive and related clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR. Prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. The study was conducted at the University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia. The study enrolled 78 patients who underwent TAVR under procedural sedation between January 2019 and June 2021. Seventy-one patients randomized into the propofol group (n=34) and dexmedetomidine group (n=37) were included in the final analysis. Patients in the propofol group received sedation with propofol (continuous intravenous infusion of 0.5-2.5 mg/kg/h), whereas patients in the dexmedetomidine group received sedation with dexmedetomidine (loading dose of 0.5 µg/kg over 10 minutes followed by continuous intravenous infusion of 0.2-1.0 µg/kg/h). Minimental state examination (MMSE) was performed before and 48 hours after TAVR. There was no statistically significant difference in MMSE scores between groups before TAVR (p=0.253), but the MMSE after the procedure revealed a significantly lower incidence of delayed neurocognitive recovery (p=0.005) and thus better cognitive outcomes in the dexmedetomidine group (p=0.022). Compared with propofol, procedural sedation with dexmedetomidine in TAVR was associated with a significantly lower incidence of delayed neurocognitive recovery.

Effect of remimazolam versus propofol for the induction of general anesthesia on cerebral blood flow and oxygen saturation in elderly patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy

BackgroundThis study was conducted to investigate the effects and safety of remimazolam versus propofol on cerebral oxygen saturation and cerebral hemodynamics during the induction of general anesthesia in patients receiving carotid endarterectomy (CEA), so as to provide theoretical basis for better clinical application of remimazolam.MethodsForty-three patients (60–75 years old) with carotid artery stenosis (carotid artery stenosis greater than 70%) were randomly divided into the remimazolam group (R group) and the propofol group (P group). Anesthesia was induced with remimazolam (0.3 mg/kg) or propofol (1.5-2 mg/kg) individually. At time of admission (T0), post-anesthesia induction (T1), consciousness disappears (T2), 1 min after loss of consciousness (T3), 2 min after loss of consciousness (T4) and pre-endotracheal intubation (T5), measurement in patients with regional cerebral oxygen saturation (SrO2), average blood flow velocity (Vm), resistance index (RI), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and cardiac index (CI) were recorded.ResultsSrO2 increased significantly in both groups after induction of anesthesia compared with baseline (P < 0.05) and decreased after loss of consciousness (P < 0.05). There was no difference in the mean value of the relative changes in SrO2 between the groups. Meanwhile, the Vm, RI, HR and CI of each time point between two groups showed no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) while MAP in group P at T5 was lower than that in group R individually(P < 0.05). In each group, Vm, HR, CI and MAP at T2-T5 were all significantly reduced compared with T1, with statistically differences(P < 0.05). Specifically, there was no difference of RI at each time between or within groups(P > 0.05).ConclusionsOur study revealed that remimazolam can be administered safely and effectively during the induction of general anesthesia for carotid endarterectomy in elder population and it demonstrated superiority in hemodynamic changes compared with propofol.Clinical trial registrationThis trial was retrospectively registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. Registration number: ChiCTR2300070370. Date of registration: April 11, 2023.

Propofol anesthesia decreases the incidence of new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation compared to desflurane in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: A retrospective single-center study.

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) increases postoperative morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay. Propofol is reported to modulate atrial electrophysiology and the cardiac autonomic nervous system. Therefore, we retrospectively examined whether propofol suppresses POAF in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) compared to desflurane. We retrospectively recruited adult patients who underwent VATS during the period from January 2011 to May 2018 in an academic university hospital. Between continuous propofol and desflurane administration during anesthetic maintenance, we investigated the incidence of new-onset POAF (within 48 hours after surgery) before and after propensity score matching. Of the 482 patients, 344 received propofol, and 138 received desflurane during anesthetic maintenance. The incidence of POAF in the propofol group was less than that in the desflurane group (4 [1.2%] vs. 8 patients [5.8%], odds ratio [OR]; 0.161, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.040-0.653, p = 0.011) in the present study population. After adjustment for propensity score matching (n = 254, n = 127 each group), the incidence of POAF was still less in propofol group than desflurane group (1 [0.8%] vs. 8 patients [6.3%], OR; 0.068, 95% CI: 0.007-0.626, p = 0.018). These retrospective data suggest propofol anesthesia significantly inhibits POAF compared to desflurane anesthesia in patients undergoing VATS. Further prospective studies are needed to elucidate the mechanism of propofol on the inhibition of POAF.

Comparison of the recovery profile of remimazolam with flumazenil and propofol anesthesia for open thyroidectomy

BackgroundPrevious studies have consistently reported a slower recovery of consciousness following remimazolam-based total intravenous anesthesia without flumazenil than with propofol. This study aimed to compare the reversal effect of flumazenil on the recovery of consciousness after remimazolam-based total intravenous anesthesia with the propofol recovery profile.MethodsThis prospective, single-blinded, randomized trial included 57 patients undergoing elective open thyroidectomy at a tertiary university hospital. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either remimazolam- or propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (remimazolam group: 28 patients, propofol group: 29 patients). The primary outcome was the time from the end of general anesthesia to first eye opening (min). The secondary outcomes were the time from the end of the general anesthesia to extubation (min), initial modified Aldrete score measured at the post-anesthesia care unit, length of stay at the post-anesthesia care unit (min), occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting during the first 24 h postoperatively, and Korean version of Quality of Recovery-15 score at 24 h postoperatively.ResultsThe remimazolam group showed significantly faster first eye opening time (2.3 [interquartile range, IQR: 1.8–3.3] min vs. 5.0 [IQR: 3.5–7.8] min, median difference:—2.7 [95% confidence interval, CI: -3.7 to -1.5] min, P < 0.001) and extubation time (3.2 [IQR: 2.4–4.2] min vs. 5.7 [IQR: 4.7–8.3] min, median difference: -2.7 [97.5% CI: -5.0 to -1.6] min, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in other postoperative outcomes.ConclusionsThe planned incorporation of flumazenil with remimazolam-based total intravenous anesthesia provided rapid and reliable recovery of consciousness.

Feasibility and Safety of Remazolam versus Propofol When Inserting Laryngeal Masks Without Muscle Relaxants During Hysteroscopy.

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remazolam compared with propofol in patients who underwent laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion without the use of muscle relaxant agents during hysteroscopic surgery. A total of 72 patients undergoing hysteroscopy with LMA insertion were assigned to two groups. The patients in the remazolam group received 0.3 μg/kg sufentanil, 0.3 mg/kg remazolam and 1.2 mg/kg remifentanil, whereas the patients in the propofol group received 0.3 μg/kg sufentanil, 2.0 mg/kg propofol and 1.2 mg/kg remifentanil for insertion of the LMA. The primary endpoint was the summed score of the insertion conditions. The secondary endpoints included hemodynamics, the duration of induction, the duration of insertion, tidal volume, plateau pressure and adverse events. No difference was identified between the propofol group and remazolam group in the median summed score [18.0 (18.0, 18.0), 18.0 (17.0, 18.0), respectively, P > 0.05]. The induction duration was significantly longer (P < 0.05) in the remazolam group than propofol group. The cost of dopamine (P < 0.05) was significantly lower in the remazolam group compared with the patients in the propofol group, while the plateau pressure (P < 0.05) and the incidence of transient mild laryngospasm (P < 0.05) were significantly higher in the remazolam group. No differences were identified between the two groups in terms of heart rate, tidal volume, injection pain or hiccups (P > 0.05). Remazolam provided similar insertion conditions and better hemodynamic stability than propofol during LMA insertion without the use of muscle relaxant agents. However, a higher incidence of transient mild laryngospasm was found in the remazolam group, which should be considered.

Impact of intravenous propofol and volatile sevoflurane anesthesia on renal function in an experimental pig model of hemorrhage-induced acute kidney injury

Volatile anesthesia has recently been associated with an independent stimulatory effect on the renal sympathetic nervous system, which causes a reduction in renal blood flow (RBF) and renal excretory function. This anesthetic modality could therefore be a significant contributor to renal injury in the surgical setting. We therefore aimed to investigate the role of anesthetic modality on renal function in an experimental pig model and hypothesized that volatile anesthesia aggravates renal recovery after hemorrhage and resuscitation.Pigs (30±2 kg, 1:1 male-female) were anesthetized with either propofol-fentanyl (P) or sevoflurane-fentanyl (S) and surgically prepared. Renal function and hemodynamics were monitored during a baseline period, a 30-min hemorrhage period, and after 1h recovery after fluid resuscitation with the lost volume (1:1 blood-Ringers Acetate).During baseline, RBF and oxygen delivery (DO 2 ) was significantly lower in the pigs with sevoflurane than propofol anesthesia (RBF P: 191±40 vs S: 130±30 ml min -1 , p&lt;0.001; DO 2 P: 31±5 vs S: 15±3 ml min -1 , p&lt;0.001). Renal vascular resistance (RVR) was also higher in the sevoflurane anesthetized pigs during baseline (P: 0.2±0.05 vs S: 0.5±0.1, p=0.002). There was no statistically different effect of hemorrhage on renal function or hemodynamics between the two anesthetic modalities. Moreover, hemorrhage did not significantly reduce diuresis (P: decreased by 0.7±0.4 ml min -1 , p=0.08; S: decreased by 0.4±0.4 ml min -1 , p=0.38). After resuscitation, both groups recovered similarly regarding hemodynamics and renal function however, creatinine clearance was still significantly decreased in the sevoflurane group compared with baseline (decreased by 37±31 ml min -1 , p=0.02) but recovered in the propofol group. Regarding renal excretory function, no significant differences between the anesthetic modalities were revealed during the experimental protocol.Sevoflurane anesthesia reduced RBF and DO 2 and increased RVR. After hemorrhage and resuscitation, creatinine clearance was significantly lower than before the hemorrhage in the sevoflurane group. Even though this reduction in renal perfusion is in alignment with an increase in renal sympathetic nerve activity, no significant impact of anesthetic modality was seen on renal excretory function. However, sevoflurane anesthesia still has an effect on RBF and creatinine clearance. The choice of anesthesia could therefore effect the incidence of acute kidney injury in patients with higher susceptibility for acute kidney injury. Funding sources: Magnus Bergvall Foundation (2017-02295) and Swedish Research Council (2014-02569 and 2014-07606). This is the full abstract presented at the American Physiology Summit 2023 meeting and is only available in HTML format. There are no additional versions or additional content available for this abstract. Physiology was not involved in the peer review process.

Effect of sevoflurane-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil anesthesia on glycocalyx shedding during deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction: a prospective randomized, controlled trial.

The endothelial glycocalyx (EG) is an important structure that regulates vascular homeostasis. Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is expected to cause substantial EG breakdown owing to the long procedural duration and ischemia- reperfusion injury. This prospective, randomized, controlled study aimed to compare syndecan-1 levels during sevoflurane-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil anesthesia in patients who underwent DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Fifty-one patients were randomized to either sevoflurane (n = 26) or propofol (n = 25) groups. Anesthesia was maintained with remifentanil in combination with either sevoflurane or propofol. The primary endpoint was the concentration of serum syndecan-1 measured at 1 h after surgery. Fifty patients (98.0%) completed the study. Patients in the propofol group had significantly lower levels of syndecan-1 than patients in the sevoflurane group at 1 h after operation (23.8 ± 1.6 vs. 30.9 ± 1.7 ng/ml, respectively; Bonferroni corrected P = 0.012). There were no significant differences between groups in postoperative complications. The postoperative hospital stay was 8.4 ± 2.5 days in the sevoflurane group and 7.4 ± 1.0 days in the propofol group (P = 0.077). Propofol-remifentanil anesthesia resulted in lesser increases in syndecan-1 levels compared to increases with sevoflurane-remifentanil anesthesia in patients who underwent DIEP flap reconstruction. Our results suggest that propofol-remifentanil anesthesia shows protective effects against EG damage during DIEP flap breast reconstruction in contrast to sevoflurane-remifentanil anesthesia.

Comparison of postoperative nausea and vomiting between Remimazolam and Propofol in Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery: a prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

BackgroundRemimazolam is a recently approved, ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine. However, few studies have investigated remimazolam in relation to postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study aimed to compare the effects of remimazolam and propofol on PONV in patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery.MethodsPatients (n = 206) aged 19–65 years who were scheduled for oral and maxillofacial surgery were randomized into two groups, the remimazolam (R) and propofol group (P). In the R group (n = 94), remimazolam was used to induce anesthesia at 12 mg/kg/h and to maintain anesthesia at 1–2 mg/kg/h. In the P group (n = 95), anesthesia was induced and maintained with propofol (target effect-site concentration: 3–5 µg/ml). In both groups, remifentanil was administered at a target effect-site concentration of 2.5-4 ng/ml. The primary outcome was the overall incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the severity of nausea, use of rescue antiemetics, severity of postoperative pain, use of rescue analgesia, and quality of recovery.ResultsThe incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery was 11.7% and 10.5% in the R group and P group, respectively, and there was no significant difference in the severity of nausea (P > 0.05). Ten patients in the R group and ten patients in the P group required rescue antiemetics during the first 24 h after surgery (P = 0.98). No inter-group differences were observed in terms of postoperative pain score, use of rescue analgesia, and quality of recovery (P > 0.05).ConclusionsIn this study, remimazolam did not increase the incidence and severity of PONV compared with propofol.Trial registrationKCT0006965, Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), Republic of Korea. Registration date: 26/01/2022.

Effect of remimazolam tosilate on the incidence of hypoxemia in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: A bi-center, prospective, randomized controlled study.

Background: Remimazolam tosilate is a new ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative medicine. In this study, we evaluated the effect of remimazolam tosilate on the incidence of hypoxemia during sedation in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: Patients in the remimazolam group received an initial dose of 0.1mg/kg and a bolus dose of 2.5mg of remimazolam tosilate, whereas patients in the propofol group received an initial dose of 1.5mg/kg and a bolus dose of 0.5mg/kg of propofol. Patients received ASA standard monitoring (heart-rate, non-invasive blood pressure, and pulse oxygen saturation) during the entire examination process. The primary outcome was the incidence of moderate hypoxemia (defined as 85%≤ SpO2< 90%, >15s) during the gastrointestinal endoscopy. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of mild hypoxemia (defined as SpO2 90%-94%) and severe hypoxemia (defined as SpO2< 85%, >15s), the lowest pulse oxygen saturation, airway maneuvers used to correct hypoxemia, patient's hemodynamic as well as other adverse events. Results: 107 elderly patients (67.6 ± 5.7years old) in the remimazolam group and 109 elderly patients (67.5 ± 4.9years old) in the propofol group were analyzed. The incidence of moderate hypoxemia was 2.8% in the remimazolam group and 17.4% in the propofol group (relative risk [RR] = 0.161; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.049 to 0.528; p < 0.001). The frequency of mild hypoxemia was less in the remimazolam group, but not statistically significant (9.3% vs. 14.7%; RR = 0.637; 95% CI, 0.303 to 1.339; p = 0.228). There was no significant difference in the incidence of severe hypoxemia between the two groups (4.7% vs. 5.5%; RR = 0.849; 95% CI, 0.267 to 2.698; p = 0.781). The median lowest SpO2 during the examination was 98% (IQR, 96.0%-99.0%) in patients in the remimazolam group, which was significantly higher than in patients in the propofol group (96%, IQR, 92.0%-99.0%, p < 0.001). Patients in the remimazolam group received more drug supplementation during endoscopy than patients in the propofol group (p = 0.014). There was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of hypotension between the two groups (2.8% vs. 12.8%; RR = 0.218; 95% CI, 0.065 to 0.738; p = 0.006). No significant differences were found in the incidence of adverse events such as nausea and vomiting, dizziness, and prolonged sedation. Conclusion: This study explored the safety of remimazolam compared with propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients. Despite the increased supplemental doses during sedation, remimazolam improved risk of moderate hypoxemia (i.e., 85%≤ SpO2 < 90%) and hypotension in elderly patients.

Comparison of the Effect of Propofol and Midazolam on Cognitive Performance in Elderly Patients Undergoing Spinal Anesthesia: A Double-Blind Clinical Trial

Background: The effects of anesthetics on memory have not yet been completely clear, and there have been some discrepancies on this issue in the literature. This study aimed to compare the effect of two sedatives, Propofol and Midazolam, on the incidence of cognitive dysfunction in elderly patients undergoing spinal anesthesia.&#x0D; Methods: This double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 136 elderly patients‏ who underwent spinal anesthesia in Besat Hospital, Hamadan, Iran, during 2020-21. The patients were randomly assigned into two groups of Propofol (0.2 mg/kg) and Midazolam (0.02 mg/kg). The Wechsler Memory Scale-III (WMS-III) were utilized to assess the cognitive dysfunction and memory coefficient in the two groups.&#x0D; Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of short and long-term memory, as well as cognitive dysfunction before and after spinal anesthesia (P&gt;0.05). The time of onset of sedation (Z=-11.11; P&lt;0.005) and recovery from sedation (Z=-10.56; P&lt;0.005) were longer in the Midazolam group, compared to the Propofol group. There were no significant differences between the two groups before and after operation regarding the WMS-III categories (P&gt;0.05). The comparison of the two groups in terms of memory coefficient after operation showed no significant differences between them in this regard (Z=-0.63; P=0.52).&#x0D; Conclusion: Midazolam and Propofol showed no differences regarding the effects on the postoperative memory coefficient or cognitive dysfunction.

A Comparative Study of Propofol and Sevoflurane for General Anesthesia in Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Introduction: Anesthesia plays a vital role in the success of surgical procedures, with the choice of anesthetic agents influencing patient recovery and postoperative complications. Propofol and sevoflurane are two commonly used anesthetic agents, each with distinct properties and implications on patient outcomes. The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects of propofol and sevoflurane on intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, recovery profiles, and postoperative complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. Methods: This prospective randomized trial was conducted over 2 years at Holy Family Red Crescent Medical College Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh, and included 180 laparoscopic appendectomy cases. Participants were randomized into two groups: 90 receiving propofol and 90 receiving sevoflurane for general anesthesia. The study received ethical approval from the hospital's review committee. Result: The mean age of patients in the Propofol group was 59.5 years (SD=2.6), while in the Sevoflurane group, it was 56.3 years (SD=7.9). Intraoperative heart rate and recovery profiles showed statistically significant differences between the two groups (p&lt;0.05). The time to eye opening was 6.8 minutes (SD=1.5) for Propofol and 7.4 minutes (SD=1.7) for Sevoflurane. Postoperative complications were significantly higher in the Sevoflurane group: pain (35.56% vs. 24.44%), nausea and vomiting (27.78% vs. 16.67%), and analgesic requirements (44.44% vs. 30.00%). Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that propofol may be a more favorable anesthetic agent compared to sevoflurane in laparoscopic appendectomy procedures. Propofol demonstrated better intraoperative heart rate control, faster recovery profiles, and reduced postoperative complications, potentially enhancing overall patient outcomes and satisfaction.

Comparison of effects of volatile and intravenous anesthetics on pupillary function during general anesthesia in children: A prospective observational study.

The light reflex, which reflects central nervous system dysfunction, can also be affected by anesthetic agents. We evaluated whether these effects differed according to the anesthetic agent in pediatric patients. Twenty children aged 3-12 years who were scheduled to undergo elective surgery under general anesthesia were randomly allocated to propofol and sevoflurane groups and underwent pupillometric assessments at five points during anesthesia: T1, after confirming loss of consciousness; T2, after endotracheal intubation; T3, at the time of skin incision; T4, 1 h after skin incision; and T5, before endotracheal extubation. The primary outcome was the Neurological Pupil index at T4, and the secondary outcomes were other pupillometric parameters, including pupil diameter, percentage of change in pupil diameter, dilation velocity, and constriction velocity. At T4, the Neurological Pupil index was significantly lower in the sevoflurane group (median difference, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.70; p = .036). Furthermore, the Neurological Pupil index at all time points was lower in the sevoflurane group. The time-and-group interaction effects on constriction velocity and dilation velocity were significantly different [F(1, 4) = 16.68, p = .002; F(1, 4) = 14.78, p = .008, respectively] but were not different on the Neurological Pupil index, pupil diameter, and percentage of change in pupil diameter. No intergroup differences were observed in the baseline characteristics, the flow rate of remifentanil at each time point, and total infused remifentanil. The Neurological Pupil index value in pediatric patients under general anesthesia is affected by the anesthetic agent used; this factor requires consideration in evaluations of the Neurological Pupil index during general anesthesia.

Propofol and survival: an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BackgroundPropofol is one of the most widely used hypnotic agents in the world. Nonetheless, propofol might have detrimental effects on clinically relevant outcomes, possibly due to inhibition of other interventions' organ protective properties. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate if propofol reduced survival compared to any other hypnotic agent in any clinical setting.MethodsWe searched eligible studies in PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials. The following inclusion criteria were used: random treatment allocation and comparison between propofol and any comparator in any clinical setting. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up available. We conducted a fixed-effects meta-analysis for the risk ratio (RR). Using this RR and 95% confidence interval, we estimated the probability of any harm (RR > 1) through Bayesian statistics. We registered this systematic review and meta-analysis in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022323143).ResultsWe identified 252 randomized trials comprising 30,757 patients. Mortality was higher in the propofol group than in the comparator group (760/14,754 [5.2%] vs. 682/16,003 [4.3%]; RR = 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.20; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%; number needed to harm = 235), corresponding to a 98.4% probability of any increase in mortality. A statistically significant mortality increase in the propofol group was confirmed in subgroups of cardiac surgery, adult patients, volatile agent as comparator, large studies, and studies with low mortality in the comparator arm.ConclusionsPropofol may reduce survival in perioperative and critically ill patients. This needs careful assessment of the risk versus benefit of propofol compared to other agents while planning for large, pragmatic multicentric randomized controlled trials to provide a definitive answer.Graphical

Propofol Versus Dexmedetomidine Sedation Reduces Delirium

OBJECTIVES Postoperative delirium (POD) is a serious complication after cardiac surgery. Use of dexmedetomidine infusion to prevent delirium is controversial. We hypothesized that dexmedetomidine sedation after cardiac surgery would reduce the incidence of POD.METHODOLOGY After the approval from institutional ethics review board and informed consent, a comparative cross sectional study was conducted in 100 patients scheduled for cardiac surgery. Patients suffering from consequential psychological issues, delirium, and grievous dementia were excluded. Delirium was evaluated by confusion assessment method for ICU (CAM-ICU). Normality and homogenity of data were analyzed using Kolmogorov-Sminorv and saphiro wilk. The factors related to delirum status were analyzed using Logistic Regression.RESULTSThe mean age among propofol group was 55.14+9.6 while among Dexmedetomidine was 55.96+12.1. POD was present in 24 of 50 (48%) and 4 of 50 (8.%) patients in propofol and dexmedetomidine groups, respectively. variables which had significance values &lt;0.05 were patient age (0.000), associated disease (p&lt;-0.003). In regards to other variables like patient gender (p value: 0.660), pre-operative medication (p value: -0.090), different type of surgery (p value: -0.239), had no correlation with POD.CONCLUSIONIn comparison with propofol, dexmedetomidine postoperative sedation minimized the occurrence and abbreviated the time span of POD in patients who had to undergo cardiac surgery.