Propofol Group Research Articles

A Comparison of Efficacy between Low-dose Dexmedetomidine and Propofol for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Delirium in Elderly Patients Undergoing Hip Fracture Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

The efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol in preventing postoperative delirium is controversial. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol for preventing postoperative delirium in extubated elderly patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. This randomized controlled trial included participants undergoing hip fracture surgery. Participants were randomly assigned to receive dexmedetomidine, propofol, or placebo intravenously during intensive care unit (ICU) admission (8 p.m. to 6 a.m.). The drug dosages were adjusted to achieve the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) of 0 to -1. The primary outcome was postoperative delirium. The secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, fentanyl consumption, and length of hospital stay. 108 participants were enrolled (n = 36 per group). Postoperative delirium incidences were 8.3%, 22.2%, and 5.6% in the dexmedetomidine, propofol, and placebo groups, respectively. The hazard ratios of dexmedetomidine and propofol compared with placebo were 1.49 (95% CI, 0.25, 8.95; p = 0.66) and 4.18 (95% CI, 0.88, 19.69; p = 0.07). The incidence of bradycardia was higher in the dexmedetomidine group compared with others (13.9%; p = 0.01) but not for hypotension (8.3%; p = 0.32). The median length of hospital stays (8 days, IQR: 7, 11) and fentanyl consumption (240 µg, IQR: 120, 400) were not different among groups. This study did not successfully demonstrate the impact of nocturnal low-dose dexmedetomidine and propofol in preventing postoperative delirium among elderly patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. While not statistically significant, it is noteworthy that propofol exhibited a comparatively higher delirium rate. Ekkapat G, Kampitak W, Theerasuwipakorn N, Kittipongpattana J, Engsusophon P, Phannajit J, et al. A Comparison of Efficacy between Low-dose Dexmedetomidine and Propofol for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Delirium in Elderly Patients Undergoing Hip Fracture Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(5):467-474.

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.

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

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

Comparison of 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.

Postoperative liver injury after sevoflurane or propofol anesthesia in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a retrospective cohort study

Although sevoflurane is generally considered safe, reports suggest that sevoflurane may cause postoperative liver injury more frequently than previously believed. Therefore, we aimed to compare the incidence of clinically significant postoperative liver injury following non-cardiac surgery between patients who underwent sevoflurane anesthesia and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia. We retrospectively reviewed adult surgical patients from January 2010 to September 2022 who underwent general anesthesia in our center using sevoflurane or propofol over 3 h. After 1:1 propensity score matching, the incidence of postoperative liver injury was compared between the two groups. Out of 58,300 patients reviewed, 44,345 patients were included in the analysis. After propensity score matching, 7767 patients were included in each group. The incidence of postoperative liver injury was 1.4% in the sevoflurane group, which was similar to that in the propofol group (1.6%; p = 0.432). Comparison of the severity of postoperative alanine aminotransferase elevation showed that the incidence of borderline and mild elevation was higher in the sevoflurane group, but there was no difference in the incidence of moderate and severe elevation. In conclusion, sevoflurane anesthesia over 3 h was not associated with a higher incidence of clinically significant postoperative liver injury compared to propofol anesthesia.

Continuous Infusion of Ketamine in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with SARS-CoV-2.

Widespread drug shortages led to higher utilization of ketamine in our intensive care unit, especially among patients with SARS-CoV-2. To evaluate the impact of continuous infusion of ketamine on vasopressor requirements in patients with SARS-CoV-2. This was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study comparing mechanically ventilated (MV), adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 receiving either propofol or ketamine for at least 72 hours. 84 patients (mean age of 61-year-old, 68% male) were analyzed. 31 patients received ketamine, and 53 patients received propofol. Mean vasopressor doses were not significantly different between ketamine and propofol groups at prespecified timepoints. However, mean arterial pressures (MAP) were higher in the ketamine group at 24 h, 48 h, and 96 h postsedative initiation. The median opioid infusion requirements were 3 vs. 12.5 mg/hr (p < 0.0001) for ketamine and propofol groups, respectively. Comparing to propofol, C-reactive protein (CRP) values were significantly lower in the ketamine group at 24 h (7.53 vs. 15.9 mg/dL, p=0.03), 48 h (5.23 vs. 14.1 mg/dL, p=0.0083), and 72 h (6.4 vs. 12.1 mg/dL, p=0.0085). In patients with SARS-CoV-2 on MV, there was no difference in the vasopressor requirement in patients receiving ketamine compared to propofol. Nevertheless, the use of ketamine was associated with higher MAP, reductions in CRP in select timepoints, and overall lower opioid requirements.

Comparison the Cerebroprotective Effect of Sevoflurane and Propofol in Patients with Carotid Artery Stenosis Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Randomized Clinical Study

Objective: The Objective of the study was to evaluate the perioperative cerebral protective effect of sevoflurane and propofol in patients with carotid artery stenosis undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Materials and Methods: A randomized clinical study included 200 patients with preoperative carotid artery stenosis &amp;lt;50% scheduled for cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. The patients were classified into 2 groups (each=100), Sevoflurane group: The patients received sevoflurane (concentration 1% to 4%) as an inhalational agent. Propofol group: The patients received propofol infusion (4-6 mg/kg/hr). The sevoflurane and propofol were given during the whole procedure (before, during, and after cardiopulmonary bypass). The monitors included heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), central venous pressure and cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction and stroke. Results: There was no significant difference in the perioperative heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, central venous pressure, and the right or left regional cerebral oxygen saturation between the two groups (P&amp;gt;0.05). The incidence of postoperative neurological complication was significantly lower with sevoflurane than propofol (P=0.012). The incidence of delirium was significantly lower with sevoflurane than propofol (P=0.023). The incidence of stroke was lower with sevoflurane than propofol, but the difference was insignificant (P=0.682). The ICU and hospital length of stay were shorter with sevoflurane than propofol (P=0.013, P=0.033 respectively). Conclusions: The sevoflurane was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction than propofol in patients with carotid artery stenosis undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.

Impact of anesthetic induction with etomidate, thiopentone, and propofol on regional cerebral oxygenation: An observational study in patients with traumatic brain injury

Abstract Background and Aims: Anesthetic induction plays a pivotal role in determining the operative course and the outcome in patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). The present study compared the effect of anesthetic induction with etomidate, thiopentone, and propofol primarily on systemic hemodynamics and regional cerebral oxygenation (rScO2) and secondarily on the serum cortisol levels in TBI patients. Material and Methods: In this prospective observational study, eligible patients were recruited and divided into three groups as per the induction agent received. Data collected were hemodynamic parameters and rScO2 levels at baseline, following 3 min of preoxygenation, and over 10 min of induction. Serum cortisol levels were measured before and after 24 h of induction. The statistical analysis was done using R software. Results: A total of 115 patients were included: 32, 33, and 50 in thiopentone, propofol, and etomidate groups, respectively. A significant increase (P &lt; 0.001) in bilateral rScO2 was noted in all three groups following anesthetic induction. Intergroup comparison of the propofol and the etomidate groups revealed significantly lesser increase in contralateral rScO2 (P = 0.019) and a greater fall in mean arterial pressure (P = 0.003) on using propofol as an induction agent. Trend changes in bilateral rScO2 and hemodynamic parameters were comparable between thiopentone and etomidate groups. An insignificant fall in serum cortisol was observed in etomidate (P = 0.332) and thiopentone (P = 0.364) groups, but a significant increase was observed in the propofol group (P = 0.004). The Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score at discharge improved significantly in all the groups (P &lt; 0.001). Conclusions: In TBI patients, anesthetic induction with etomidate resulted in least hemodynamic changes compared to induction with thiopentone and propofol. The rScO2 increased in all three groups after induction, with the maximal increase observed with etomidate compared to propofol and thiopentone. Insignificant fall in serum cortisol was observed with etomidate and thiopentone, but not with propofol. Outcome at discharge, assessed with GCS, was comparable in all the groups. Key Messages: Anesthetic induction with etomidate produced least hemodynamic changes compared to induction with thiopentone and propofol in patients with traumatic brain injury. Consequently, maximal increase in cerebral oxygen saturation occurred with etomidate among the three induction agents. An insignificant decrease in serum cortisol was observed with etomidate and thiopentone, but not with propofol. Neurological outcome at discharge was similar with all drugs.

Influences of Propofol, Ciprofol and Remimazolam on Dreaming During Anesthesia for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Double-Blind Parallel-Design Trial.

To compare the influences of propofol, ciprofol and remimazolam on dreaming during painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. This study was a single-center, prospective, parallel-design, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Between May 2023 and October 2023, patients undergoing elective painless gastrointestinal endoscopy were recruited and randomly allocated into one of the three groups. Demographic data, intraoperative information, incidence of dreaming, insufficient anesthesia and intraoperative awareness, type of dream, patient satisfaction score, adverse events, and improvement of sleep quality were collected. The difference in incidence of dreaming among the three groups was not significant (33.33% vs 48.33% vs 41.67%, p=0.061). The number of patients with intraoperative hypotension in the propofol group was larger than that of the remimazolam group (32 vs 12, p=0.001). However, the cases of intraoperative hypotension between propofol group and ciprofol group or ciprofol group and remimazolam group were comparable (32 vs 22, p=0.122; 22 vs 12, p=0.064). The percentage of insufficient anesthesia between propofol group and remimazolam group was significant (13.33% vs 1.67%, p=0.001), while no statistical difference was detected between propofol group and remimazolam group or ciprofol group and remimazolam group (13.33% vs 5.00%, p=0.025; 5.00% vs 1.67%, p=0.150). The ability of propofol to improve sleep quality at 1st post-examination day was significantly better than that of remimazolam (86.21% vs 72.88%, p=0.015), while it was not significant between propofol group and ciprofol group or ciprofol group and remimazolam group (86.21% vs 80.36%, p=0.236; 72.88% vs. 72.88%, p=0.181). Incidence of intraoperative awareness, intraoperative hypoxia, type of dream, satisfaction score, adverse events during recovery, and sleep improvement on the 7th post-examination day was not significant among the groups. Anesthesia with propofol, ciprofol and remimazolam, respectively, for gastrointestinal endoscopy did not induce statistical difference in the incidence of dreaming, despite that all of them are more likely to induce pleasant dreams.

Comparison of the genotoxicity of propofol and desflurane using the comet assay in the lymphocytes of patients who underwent lumbar discectomy: A randomized trial.

To compare the genotoxic effects of desflurane and propofol using comet assay in patients undergoing elective discectomy surgery. This was a randomized controlled study. Patients who underwent elective lumbar discectomy under general anesthesia with propofol or desflurane were included in the study. Venous blood samples were obtained at 4 different time points: 5 minutes before anesthesia induction (T1), 2 hours after the start of anesthesia (T2), the first day after surgery (T3), and the fifth day following surgery (T4). Deoxyribonucleic acid damage in lymphocytes was assessed via the comet assay. A total of 30 patients, 15 in each group, were included in the analysis. The groups were similar in terms of age and gender distribution. There were no significant differences in demographics, duration of surgery, total remifentanil consumption, and total rocuronium bromide consumption. The comet assay revealed that head length, head intensity, tail intensity, tail moment at T1 were similar in the desflurane and propofol groups. Head length, tail length and tail moment measured in the desflurane group at T4 were significantly higher compared to the propofol group. Tail lengths of the desflurane group at T1, T2 and T3 were significantly higher than the corresponding values in the propofol group. Propofol and desflurane do not appear to induce DNA damage in lymphocytes. However, when the quantitative data were compared, it was determined that propofol had relatively lower genotoxic potential than desflurane.ClinicalTrials.gov Reg. No.: NCT05185167.

Comparison of Remimazolam Tosilate and Propofol Sedation on the Early Postoperative Quality of Recovery in Patients Undergoing Day Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

Remimazolam tosilate is a novel ultrafast-acting benzodiazepine that has a rapid emergence even after continuous infusion when using flumazenil. So far, relatively few articles are still focusing on the quality of recovery after general anesthesia with remimazolam, especially in day surgery. This study aimed to compare the early postoperative quality of recovery of remimazolam tosilate with flumazenil and propofol in patients undergoing day surgery. 137 patients scheduled for day surgery were randomly divided into the remimazolam tosilate or propofol group. The primary endpoint was the incidence of overall recovery assessed with the early postoperative quality of recovery scale (PostopQRS) on postoperative day 1 (POD 1). The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), extubation time, postoperative recovery profiles, and perioperative data were documented. Any adverse events were recorded. The incidence of overall recovery on POD1 was 47.7% in the remimazolam tosilate group and 65.1% in the propofol group (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.06; P = 0.072). In general, the overall recovery of the PostopQRS increased over time, and its interaction between time and group was significant (P = 0.003). Among the five dimensions of PostopQRS, there exist statistical differences between groups including emotional state and cognitive recovery. Upon arrival at the PACU, the remimazolam group was more sedated and took longer to recover to a RASS score similar to propofol. The frequency of application of vasoactive drugs during anesthesia was similar in both groups (P = 0.119). Despite rapid emergence with remimazolam after flumazenil reversal, re-sedation (10.8%) or somnolence (60%) in the PACU was observed, and the length of PACU stay in patients treated with remimazolam tosilate was longer than that of the propofol (35 min vs 30 min, P<0.001). General anesthesia with remimazolam tosilate in conjunction with flumazenil reversal permits rapid recovery of consciousness in day surgery, but there was a notable occurrence of re-sedation or somnolence observed in PACU.

Effect of propofol and isoflurane on NK Cells: A pilot study on perioperative breast cancer patients from Eastern India

Introduction: In onco-anesthesiology, the selection between intravenous and volatile anesthetics for maintaining NK cell response during cancer surgery has been an ambiguous area. In the absence of any such comparative Indian report, this pilot study aimed to investigate the effect of intravenous anesthetic, Propofol, and volatile anesthetic, Isoflurane on the NK cell-mediated immune-inflammatory response of perioperative breast cancer patients. Materials and Methods: Treatment naive breast cancer patients (N, 50) selected for surgery were randomly subjected to either Isoflurane (N, 25) or Propofol (N, 25) anesthetic group. The peripheral blood samples were collected 1 day before surgery (Pre), 1 h after incision (Intra) and 48 h after surgery (Post). The blood samples were subjected to immunophenotyping, activation, degranulation, and cytokine analysis. Results: The frequency of NK cell populations did not differ between the Isoflurane and Propofol groups irrespective of cancer stage II/III. NK cell degranulation marker CD107a and activation marker CD335 expression were significantly reduced in the postoperative period compared to the preoperative group in the Isoflurane group but Propofol did not inflict such alterations. Both Isoflurane/Propofol elicited similar trends in the cytokine profiles of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-15, interferon (IFN)-g and transforming growth factor (TGF)-β levels. Isoflurane significantly increased IL-8 during the intraoperative period and matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-9 during the postoperative period whereas no such changes were observed with Propofol. Conclusion: This pilot study indicated that Propofol partially proved better over Isoflurane in maintaining the activation (CD335) and degranulation of NK cells (CD107a) and alleviating inflammation (IL-8 and MMP-9) during the perioperative period in the breast cancer patients.

The effect of propofol-midazolam versus sevoflurane on bispectral index and eye position in pediatric cataract surgery: A randomized controlled study

ABSTRACT Background Cataract surgery is one of the infrequent ocular surgeries. The adequate ocular position with central alignment is the main prerequisite for good surgical technique. Propofol and sevoflurane are the common anesthetics drugs used during pediatric anesthesia. BIS monitor is one of the common intraoperative awareness monitors used. Aim To assess the efficacy of the bispectral index monitor in quantifying the depth of anesthesia and its correlation with ocular alignment during juvenile cataract surgery. Specifically, we will compare the use of sevoflurane anaesthesia with total intravenous anesthesia using a midazolam bolus and propofol infusion. Methods This study included 100 children scheduled for cataract surgery. The children were divided into two groups: group (S) included 50 children who were anesthetized using sevoflurane maintenance only and group (P) included 50 children who were anesthetized using continuous intravenous anesthesia (midazolam bolus plus propofol infusion) as maintenance after induction with sevoflurane anesthesia 8%. The bispectral index was recorded immediately after induction and after intubation and every 5 min later on until end of surgery. Results The eye position showed statistically significant central position among the propofol group with p value 0.02. An eye position-BIS value association was found statistically significant negative correlation in sevoflurane group while no statistically significant link was found in the propofol group. Conclusion Use of BIS monitor for making correlation between depth of anesthesia for prediction of ocular alignment was significant in sevoflurane group, but not in propofol group in pediatric patients and even with adequate depth of general anesthesia.

Effect of propofol and ciprofol on the euphoric reaction in patients with painless gastroscopy: A prospective randomized controlled trial

ObjectiveTo explore the effects of propofol and ciprofol on patient euphoric reactions during sedation in patients undergoing gastroscopy and to investigate potential factors that may influence euphoric reactions in patients. MethodsA total of 217 patients were randomly divided into two groups: the propofol group (P group, n = 109) and the ciprofol group (C group, n = 108). The patients in the P group were given 2 mg/kg propofol, and those in the C group were given 0.5 mg/kg ciprofol. The patients were assessed using the Addiction Research Center Inventory-Chinese Version (ARCI-CV) to measure euphoric reactions at three time points: preexamination, 30 min after awakening, and 1 week after examination. Anxiety, depression, and sleep status were evaluated using appropriate scales at admission and 1 week after the examination. The dream rate, sedative effects, vital sign dynamics, and adverse reactions were documented during the sedation process. ResultsAfter 30 min of awakening, the P group and C group showed no statistically significant differences in the mean morphine-benzedrine group (MBG) score (8.84 vs. 9.09, P > 0.05), dream rate (42.2 % vs. 40.7 %, P > 0.05), or MBG score one week after the examination (7.04 vs. 7.05, P > 0.05). The regression analysis revealed that sex, dream status, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score, and examination time had notable impacts on the MBG-30 min score. No statistically significant differences were observed in sedative effects, anxiety, depression, or sleep status between the two groups (P > 0.05). The incidence of injection pain and severe hypotension was significantly lower in the C group (P < 0.05), and hemodynamics and SpO2 were more stable during sedation (P < 0.05). ConclusionThere was no significant difference between propofol and ciprofol in terms of euphoria experienced by patients after sedation in patients undergoing gastroscopy. Ciprofol has demonstrated addictive potential similar to that of propofol, warranting careful attention to its addictive potential during clinical application.

To Compare the Anesthetic Effect of Remimazolam and Propofol in Painless Hysteroscopic Minimally Invasive Surgery.

Hysteroscopic surgery will stimulate the autonomic nerves innervating the uterus, causing intense discomfort and pain in the examined person, and in severe cases, it will cause blood pressure drop, heart rate slowing, arrhythmia and even cardiac arrest, so most patients need anesthetic intervention. This study to retrospectively compare the anesthetic effect of remimazolam and propofol in minimally invasive painless hysteroscopic surgery and to explore the safety and efficacy of remimazolam. The clinical data of 110 female patients who underwent painless hysteroscopic minimally invasive surgery in our hospital from January 2023 to June 2023 were collected. The patients were divided into the remimazolam group (group R, n = 55) and the propofol group (group P, n = 55) according to the main anesthetic drugs used during the operation. The changes in heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), and respiratory rate (RR) at the time of entry (T0), modified vigilance/sedation score (MOAA/S) 0 (T1), cervical dilation (T2), end of the operation (T3) and anesthesia recovery (T4) were compared between the two groups. Anesthesia induction time, operation time, and anesthesia recovery time were compared between the two groups, and the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative adverse reactions was compared between the two groups. HR, MAP, and SpO2 in group R were significantly higher than those in group P at T1, T2, T3, and T4 (p < 0.05), and there was no significant difference in RR between the two groups (p > 0.05). HR, MAP, and SpO2 at T1 and T2 were significantly lower than those at T0 in group R (p < 0.05), and RR at different time points in the group had no significant difference (p > 0.05). HR, MAP, and SpO2 at T1, T2, T3, and T4 were significantly lower than those at T0 in group P (p < 0.01), and RR at different time points in the same group had no significant difference (p > 0.05). The anesthesia induction time in group R was more prolonged than in group P, and the anesthesia recovery time in group R was shorter than in group P (p < 0.05). The incidences of hypotension, bradycardia, low oxygen saturation, respiratory depression, and injection pain in group R were significantly lower than those in group P (p < 0.05). Intravenous induction of remimazolam at 6 mg·kg-1·h-1 and maintenance of anesthesia at 1-2 mg·kg-1·h-1 have less effect on hemodynamics, faster recovery time and lower incidence of adverse reactions compared with propofol when used in minimally invasive hysteroscopic surgery. Remimazolam can be safely and effectively used in this kind of surgery.

The efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in patients undergoing colonoscopy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial

Study objectivePropofol is a commonly utilized anesthetic for painless colonoscopy, but its usage is occasionally limited due to its potential side effects, including cardiopulmonary suppression and injection pain. To address this limitation, the novel compound ciprofol has been proposed as a possible alternative for propofol. This study sought to determine whether there are any differences in the safety and efficacy of propofol and ciprofol for painless colonoscopy. DesignRandomized clinical trial. SettingSingle-centre, class A tertiary hospital, November 2021 to November 2022. PatientsAdult, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I to II and body mass index of 18 to 30 kg m−2 patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy. InterventionsConsecutive patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive sedation for colonoscopy with ciprofol (group C) or propofol (group P). MeasurementsThe primary outcome was the success rate of colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes were onset time of sedation, operation time, recovery time and discharge time, patients and endoscopists satisfaction, side effects (e.g. injection pain, myoclonus, drowsiness, dizziness, procedure recall, nausea and vomiting) and incidence rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events. Main resultsNo significant difference was found in the success rate of colonoscopy between the two groups (ciprofol 96.3% vs. propofol 97.6%; mean difference − 1.2%, 95% CI: −6.5% to 4.0%, P = 0.650). However, group C showed prolonged sedation (63.4 vs. 54.8 s, P < 0.001) and fully alert times (9 vs 8 min, P = 0.013), as well as reduced incidences of injection pain (0 vs. 40.2%, P < 0.001), respiratory depression (2.4% vs. 13.4%, P = 0.021) and hypotension (65.9% vs. 80.5%, P = 0.034). Patients satisfaction was also higher in Group C (10 vs 9, P < 0.001). ConclusionsCiprofol can be used independently for colonoscopy. When comparing the sedation efficacy of ciprofol and propofol, a 0.4 mg kg−1 dose of ciprofol proved to be equal to a 2.0 mg kg−1 dose of propofol, with fewer side effects and greater patient satisfaction during the procedure.

Safety and efficacy of remimazolam versus propofol during EUS: a multicenter randomized controlled study

Background and aimsPropofol, a widely used sedative in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, is associated with cardiorespiratory suppression. Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative with rapid onset and minimal cardiorespiratory depression. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of remimazolam and propofol during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures. MethodsA multicenter randomized controlled study was conducted between October 2022 and March 2023 in patients who underwent EUS procedures. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remimazolam or propofol as a sedative agent. The primary endpoint was cardiorespiratory adverse events during the procedure, including desaturation, respiratory depression, hypotension, and tachycardia. Secondary endpoints included the time to achieve sedation, recovery time, quality of sedation, pain at the injection site, and satisfaction of both the endoscopists and patients. ResultsFour hundred patients enrolled in the study: 200 received remimazolam (10.8±7.7 mg) and 200 received propofol (88.0±49.1 mg). For cardiorespiratory adverse events, the remimazolam group experienced fewer occurrences than the propofol group (8.5% vs. 16%, p=0.022). There was a non-significant trend toward less oxygen desaturation (1.0% vs 3.5%, p= 0.09), respiratory depression (0.5% vs 1.5%, p= 0.62), hypotension (2.5% vs 5.5%, p=0.12) and tachycardia (4.5% vs 5.5%, p=0.68) with remimazolam than with propofol. Remimazolam showed a shorter induction time than propofol, while maintaining comparable awakening and recovery times. Injection site pain was significantly lower in the remimazolam group than in the propofol group. The remimazolam group demonstrated a significantly higher quality of sedation and satisfaction scores than the propofol group, as evaluated by both endoscopists and patients. ConclusionRemimazolam was superior to propofol in terms of safety and efficacy during EUS examinations.

Quality of Postoperative Recovery in Total Intravenous Anesthesia between Remimazolam and Propofol for Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring: A Prospective Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

This study compared the overall postoperative recovery of patients who underwent total intravenous anesthesia with remimazolam or propofol, using the Quality of Recovery-15 questionnaire (QoR-15). Seventy-two patients who underwent spine surgery with intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) were randomly categorized into the remimazolam group (group R) or propofol group (group P). On the first postoperative day, the QoR-15 scores for groups P and R were 114 and 112, respectively, indicating no significant difference (p = 0.691). Similarly, group-time interaction effects on QoR-15 scores were not significantly different. In the post-anesthesia care unit, the pain intensity at rest was notably higher in group P than in group R (3.0 [0.0] vs. 2.8 [0.5], respectively, p = 0.009). Although the intraoperative consumption of remifentanil was higher in group R (1452.4 µg vs. 2066.8 µg, respectively, p < 0.001), the intraoperative use of vasopressors was lower in group R (1705.6 µg vs. 286.1 µg, respectively, p < 0.001) compared to group P. Group R exhibited significantly lower variability in mean blood pressure over time compared to group P. Remimazolam was viewed as a promising intravenous agent for general anesthesia, showing potential to replace propofol in spine surgery with IONM, considering both recovery quality and intraoperative hemodynamic stability.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of equivalent doses of remimazolam versus propofol for gastroscopy anesthesia in elderly patients

Remimazolam, a novel intravenous anesthetic, has been proven to be safe and efficacious in the gastroscopy setting among the elderly. However, reports comparing the effectiveness and safety of using equivalent doses of remimazolam with propofol have not been seen. The aim of this study was to compare the sedation efficacy and safety of the 95% effective doses (ED95) of remimazolam versus propofol combined with sufentanil in the gastroscopy setting among the elderly. In the first step of this two-step study, a modified up-and-down method was used to calculate the ED95 of remimazolam and propofol when combined with 0.1 µg/kg sufentanil in inhibiting body movement of elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy. In the second step, ED95 of both agents calculated in the first step were administered, endpoints of efficacy, safety, and incidence of adverse events were compared. A total of 46 individuals completed the first step. The ED95 of remimazolam was 0.163 mg/kg (95% CI 0.160–0.170 mg/kg), and that of propofol was 1.042 mg/kg (95% CI 1.007–1.112 mg/kg). In the second step, 240 patients completed the trial. The anesthetic effective rates of the remimazolam group and the propofol group were 78% and 83%, respectively, with no statistical difference (P = 0.312). Patients in the remimazolam group had more stable circulatory functions (P < 0.0001) and a lower incidence of pain on injection (3.3% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.0001). The incidence of hypotension was low in the remimazolam versus propofol group (15.6% vs. 39.0%, P < 0.0001). Overall adverse event was low in the remimazolam versus propofol group (21.3% vs. 62.7%, P < 0.0001).In this study, we found that when anesthesia was administered to elderly gastroscopy patients based on 95% effective doses of remimazolam and propofol, remimazolam was as effective as propofol, but was safer with a lower incidence of adverse events.Study registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000034234. Registered 29/06/2020, https://www.chictr.org.cn.

Exploring the Utility of remimazolam in cesarean sections under general anesthesia: A preliminary retrospective analysis and Implications for future study

BackgroundRemimazolam has recently been introduced as a maintenance agent for general anesthesia. However, the effect of remimazolam on peripartum prognosis has not been reported. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of remimazolam and propofol for uterotonic drugs following cesarean section. MethodsThe electronic medical records of 51 adult women who underwent elective cesarean sections by single obstetrician under general anesthesia were collected. Participants were categorized into two groups: the propofol group and the remimazolam group. General anesthesia was maintained by continuous infusion of propofol or remimazolam after delivery. The number of uterotonic drugs administered during the cesarean section, the estimated blood loss (EBL), and length of hospital stay (LOS) after delivery were assessed. ResultsOf the 51 patients included in the study, 35 were in the propofol group and 16 in the remimazolam group. In the remimazolam group, five patients (31.3%, 5/16) received more uterotonics than the standard regimen. Conversely, in the propofol group, 19 patients (54.3%, 19/35) were injected with more uterotonics than the standard regimen. Logistic regression analysis showed that abnormal positioning of the placenta (P = 0.079) and not using remimazolam (P = 0.100) were the most relevant factors associated with the increased use of uterotonics. There was no significant difference in EBL between the two groups. The use of remimazolam was clinically relevant with a shorter LOS (P = 0.059). ConclusionsThe use of remimazolam as a maintenance agent did not result in significantly higher use of intrapartum uterotonics compared to the use of propofol. These results cannot exclude all adverse effects of remimazolam during cesarean delivery. Further randomized controlled trials must be conducted to obtain high-quality evidence.