Induction Dose Of Propofol Research Articles

Optimizing anesthesia management based on early identification of electroencephalogram burst suppression risk in non-cardiac surgery patients: a visualized dynamic nomogram

Background Burst suppression (BS) is a specific electroencephalogram (EEG) pattern that may contribute to postoperative delirium and negative outcomes. Few prediction models of BS are available and some factors such as frailty and intraoperative hypotension (IOH) which have been reported to promote the occurrence of BS were not included. Therefore, we look forward to creating a straightforward, precise, and clinically useful prediction model by incorporating new factors, such as frailty and IOH. Materials and methods We retrospectively collected 540 patients and analyzed the data from 418 patients. Univariate analysis and backward stepwise logistic regression were used to select risk factors to develop a dynamic nomogram model, and then we developed a web calculator to visualize the process of prediction. The performance of the nomogram was evaluated in terms of discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility. Results According to the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the nomogram showed good discriminative ability (AUC = 0.933) and the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test demonstrated the nomogram had good calibration (p = 0.0718). Age, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) score, midazolam dose, propofol induction dose, total area under the hypotensive threshold of mean arterial pressure (MAP_AUT), and cerebrovascular diseases were the independent risk predictors of BS and used to construct nomogram. The web-based dynamic nomogram calculator was accessible by clicking on the URL: https://eegbsnomogram.shinyapps.io/dynnomapp/ or scanning a converted Quick Response (QR) code. Conclusions Incorporating two distinctive new risk factors, frailty and IOH, we firstly developed a visualized nomogram for accurately predicting BS in non-cardiac surgery patients. The model is expected to guide clinical decision-making and optimize anesthesia management.

A Comparison of the Use of Propofol versus Midazolam for Pediatric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Sedation: Retrospective Cohort Study.

The aim of the present study was to do a comparison of the recovery profiles and airway-related adverse events of pediatric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sedation patients who received propofol alone to those who received midazolam alone. This retrospective cohort study was approved by the Mutah University Ethical Approval Committee (No. 2378). A search of the patients' medical records was performed between September 2021 and April 2022 to identify children aged 4 months-11 years who received propofol or midazolam for MRI sedation. The patients were subdivided into two groups: Those who had propofol alone (propofol group) and those who received midazolam (midazolam group) for pediatric MRI sedation. In propofol group, a 1-2 mg/kg of propofol bolus was given to have a deep sedation (Ramsay Sedation Scale score of 5). Patients in midazolam group received 0.05 mg/kg of midazolam. During the maintenance state of sedation, the patient received 150 µg/kg/min of propofol, and the infusion rate was adjusted in 25 μg/kg/min increments up or down at the discretion of the anesthesiologists to maintain a state of deep sedation. The major targets of this study were recovery profiles (time to awake and time to discharge) and airway-related intervention ratios in pediatric MRI sedation patients. Patient demographics, MRI sedation, and recovery data, including propofol induction dose, airway intervention, and sedation-related adverse events from the pediatric sedation recovery unit were also collected. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) propofol induction dose was higher compared to midazolam group (2.4 [0.7] mg vs. 1.3 [0.5] mg; mean difference, 1.1 mg; P < 0.001). The mean (SD) infusion rate was higher in propofol group compared to midazolam group (161.3 [37.6] μg/min/kg vs. 116.2 [25.6] μg/min/kg; mean difference 45.1 μg/min/kg; P < 0.001). The mean (SD) propofol total dose was higher in propofol group compared to midazolam group (236.3 [102.4] mg vs. 180.7 [80.9] mg; mean difference, 155.4 mg; P < 0.001). The mean (SD) time to awake was longer in midazolam group compared to propofol group (21.2 [5.6] min vs. 23.0 [7.1] min; mean difference, 1.8 min; P < 0.001). The mean (SD) time to discharge was longer in midazolam group compared to propofol group (34.5 [6.9] min vs. 38.6 [9.4] min; mean difference, 4.1 min; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-5.1; P < 0.001). The administration of midazolam during pediatric MRI sedation can decrease the frequency of airway complications without prolonging the clinically significant recovery profile.

Addition of Dexmedetomidine to Propofol Anesthesia for Middle-Ear Surgeries: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Study.

Background Middle-ear surgery commonly performed under a microscope requires a bloodless field provided by hypotensive anesthesia. Our objective wasto study the effects of dexmedetomidine on propofol consumption and intraoperative hemodynamic stability. Methods One hundred adults undergoing elective middle-ear surgery were randomized into two groups. The propofol+dexmedetomidine group (Group PD) received a loading dose of dexmedetomidine 1μg/kg in 10ml normal saline over 10min followed by infusion of the same at 0.5μg/kg/h. Propofol-only group (Group P) received 10ml normal saline over 10min followed by an infusion of the same. General anesthesia was induced with intravenous morphine, propofol, and vecuronium, and maintained with propofol, oxygen, and N2O. During microscope use, we aimed to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) within 60-69mmHg. Results There was no significant difference in the mean (SD) consumption of propofol [Group P 8.6 (2.1)mg/kg/h vs Group PD 8.1 (1.5)mg/kg/h, P=0.172]. The induction dose of propofol was significantly less in Group PD [1.8 (0.3) vs 2 (0.4)mg/kg, P<0.001]. Except for the baseline value, the heart rate was significantly lower in Group PD, P<0.001. The time duration during which MAP was within 60-69mmHg was higher in Group P [37.5 (36.8) vs 30.9 (38.3)min] though the difference was not statistically significant. The recovery was delayed in Group PD [25.4 (8.6) vs 17.6 (4.9)min, P<0.001]. Group PD had a significantly better operative field, P=0.0003. Conclusion The addition of dexmedetomidine did not reduce propofol consumption but reduced the induction dose of propofol. Propofol and dexmedetomidine combination provided comparable mean arterial pressure and better operative field but caused delayed recovery.

The effect of intravenous magnesium sulphate infusion on total intravenous anesthesia with propofol in adult dogs: A randomized, blinded trial

ObjectiveTo evaluate cardiopulmonary, arterial blood gas and propofol-sparing effects of magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) constant rate infusion (CRI) in mechanically ventilated dogs maintained under total intravenous anesthesia with propofol. Study designBlinded, randomized, clinical trial. AnimalsA total of 24 healthy adult dogs. MethodsDogs were premedicated with intramuscular acepromazine (0.05 mg kg–1) and morphine (0.5 mg kg–1), followed by an intravenous (IV) bolus of saline or MgSO4 (50 mg kg–1 over 15 minutes) and propofol (given to effect to induce anesthesia). Anesthesia was maintained with an IV propofol infusion (beginning at 0.3 mg kg–1 minute–1, adjusted as necessary). Concurrently, one of three IV infusions were administered: GS (0.9% NaCl), GM30 (MgSO4, 30 mg kg–1 hour–1) or GM80 (MgSO4, 80 mg kg–1 hour–1). Propofol induction and maintenance doses were recorded. The following variables were recorded at baseline (T0), after bolus treatment (T1), after beginning mechanical ventilation (T5) and every 15 minutes until the end of the procedure (T15–T120): mean arterial pressure, heart rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, end-tidal partial pressure of CO2, temperature, blood gas variables, indirect calorimetry and extubation time. Values of p < 0.05 were considered significant. ResultsPropofol induction bolus dose was lower in GM30 (31.2%, p = 0.04) and GM80 (38.9%, p = 0.003) than in GS. The maintenance propofol infusion rate in GM80 was 16.9% lower (p = 0.03), resulting in fewer propofol CRI rescues during the perioperative period. GM30 and GM80 exhibited faster extubation times than GS (46.2%, p = 0.002 and 48.9%, p = 0.001, respectively). Conclusions and clinical relevanceInfusion of a 50 mg kg–1 bolus, followed by CRI of MgSO4 (30 and 80 mg kg–1 hour–1), reduces the propofol induction and maintenance (CRI) requirement, maintaining cardiorespiratory stability and reducing the time required to extubation.

Comparison of cardiopulmonary effects of propofol, ketamine–propofol and isoflurane anesthesia in the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus)

ObjectiveTo compare the effects of propofol, ketamine–propofol and isoflurane, at similar anesthetic depth, on cardiopulmonary variables in unpremedictated chickens. Study designProspective, randomized, crossover experimental trial. AnimalsA total of 10 male Leghorn domestic chickens, aged 3 months and body mass 1.4–2.0 kg. MethodsBirds were randomly assigned to each of three anesthetic protocols, 7 days apart: intravenous propofol, intravenous ketamine–propofol or isoflurane. Anesthesia was induced (indicated by loss of righting reflex and tracheal intubation) and maintained with propofol (10 mg kg–1 minute–1, then 1.1 mg kg–1 minute–1), ketamine–propofol (5 mg mL–1 ketamine and 5 mg mL–1 propofol combined; 10 mg kg–1 minute–1, then 1.1 mg kg–1 minute–1) or isoflurane [5% vaporizer setting initially, then end-tidal concentration (Fe′Iso) of 2%] for 65 minutes. Anesthesia was maintained at a similar anesthetic depth based upon positive or negative responses to toe pinch. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (fR), noninvasive arterial blood pressure and arterial blood gases were measured during anesthesia. Propofol or ketamine–propofol infusion rates and Fe′Iso required to prevent movement in response to a noxious stimulus and recovery times were recorded. ResultsAnesthesia induction dose was 9.0 ± 0.8 (mean ± SD) and 12.2 ± 0.3 mg kg–1 for propofol and ketamine–propofol, respectively. Propofol and ketamine–propofol infusion rates and Fe′Iso required to prevent movement in response to the noxious stimulus were 0.88 ± 0.14 mg kg–1 minute–1, 0.92 ± 0.14 mg kg–1 minute–1 and 1.45 ± 0.28%, respectively. Cardiopulmonary variables remained clinically acceptable, but ketamine–propofol was associated with a significantly higher HR (p = 0.0001) and lower fR (p = 0.0001). Time to extubation did not differ among treatments. Conclusions and clinical relevanceCardiovascular and respiratory variables were maintained within normal ranges in all treatments. Coadministration of ketamine with propofol significantly reduced the induction and maintenance dose of propofol.

A Comparative Study of Fixed-Dose Dexmedetomidine and Propofol Infusions on Intraoperative Desflurane Consumption During Bispectral Index-Guided Laparoscopic Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Study.

Background Desflurane is an excellent but expensive volatile anesthetic agent. Dexmedetomidine and propofol may decrease intraoperative desflurane consumption. This study aimed to compare the desflurane-sparing effect of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries under bispectral index (BIS)-guided general anesthesia (GA). Methods Sixty-two adult patients, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status I or II, of either sex, aged between 18 and 60 years, were randomly allocated into group D or group P. Only group D patients received an intravenous (IV) bolus of dexmedetomidine (1 mcg/kg) over 15 minutes before induction. In both groups, GA was induced following the standard protocol with propofol infusion (0.5 mg/kg/min) until the BIS value dropped below 60. For maintenance, group D and group P patients received IV dexmedetomidine infusion (0.5 mcg/kg/h) and propofol infusion (50 mcg/kg/min), respectively. In both groups, desflurane dial concentration was adjusted between 3 and 8% to maintain the BIS within the range of 45-55. An hourly bolus of IV fentanyl (0.5 mcg/kg) and a half-hourly bolus of IV vecuronium (0.02 mg/kg) were administered. The total amount of desflurane consumed, duration of pneumoperitoneum, extra aliquots of propofol used during maintenance, number of boluses of IV atropine, fentanyl, and esmolol, time to attain Ramsay Sedation Score of 2 after extubation, time to first postoperative analgesic request at Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) score ≥ 4, time to reach a Modified Aldrete Score of ≥9, and incidence of any side effects were recorded. All the data were analyzed and compared using appropriate statistical tests, and a p-value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results The final data analysis was performed on 60 patients. The mean desflurane consumption was clinically higher in group P patients than in group D, but the difference was statistically insignificant (p-value > 0.05). The mean induction dose of propofol was significantly less in group D than in group P (p-value < 0.05). After extubation, the difference in time to the first analgesic request (NRS ≥ 4) between the groups was statistically significant (p-value < 0.05). Group D patients had a residual intraoperative analgesic effect. Conclusion The effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol infusions on desflurane consumption in laparoscopic surgeries are comparable, with minimal effects on intraoperative hemodynamics and postoperative recovery profiles.

COMPARISON BETWEEN EFFECT OF TWO DIFFERENT DOSES OF INTRAVENOUS DEXMEDETOMIDINE IN ATTENUATING HEMODYNAMIC RESPONSE TO LARYNGOSCOPY AND ENDOTRACHEAL INTUBATION IN ELECTIVE GENERAL SURGERIES UNDER GENERAL ANAESTHESIA

Objective: The process of intubation is a noxious stimuli leading to a period of hemodynamic stress and is accompanied with intense sympathetic activity marked by tachycardia, hypertension and arrythmias. Methods: It was a randomised, prospective, double-blind study. After approval from the ethics committee 60 patients (ASA class 1 and II) were selected randomly, thirty in each group. Group A (n=30) received 0.5 µg/kg of inj. Dexmedetomidine and Group B received 0.75µg/kg of inj. Dexmedetomidine in 20 ml of normal saline as an infusion over 10 min. The patient was induced with inj Fentanyl 1µg/kg, inj. Propofol and inj. Succinylcholine administered and intubated. The primary outcome variables were heart rate and blood pressure at 1, 3, 5, 10, 15 min after intubation. The secondary outcome variables were the effect on the induction dose of propofol and any adverse effect associated with dexmedetomidine. The statistical package used was spss version 22. Results: The hemodynamic responses were attenuated in both groups after laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation, with statistical significant difference between both groups and better obtundation of hemodynamic response in terms of heart rate, systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressure at all points of time with dexmedetomidine 0.75µg/kg. Sedation scores were more with dexmedetomidine 0.75µg/kg. No significant side effects were there in both groups. Conclusion: Inj. dexmedetomidine 0.75µg/kg is more effective in attenuating the response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation.

Comparison of nebulisation 0.75% ropivacaine with 2% lignocaine for attenuation of haemodynamic response due to intubation: A prospective randomised study.

Laryngoscopy and intubation are associated with the reflex response of hypertension, tachycardia and other intraoperative complications. Nebulised route drug administration and entropy-guided induction enable optimal intubating conditions. To compare pre-induction nebulisation between 0.75% ropivacaine and 2% lignocaine in blunting the nasotracheal intubation response. A total of 100 patients undergoing elective faciomaxillary surgeries were prospectively randomised to receive pre-induction nebulisation: 5mL of 2% lignocaine (100mg) (Group L) or 5mL of 0.75% ropivacaine (37.5mg) (Group R). Patients were induced and intubated (nasotracheal) with entropy monitoring. Observed parameters included systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, entropy at baseline, induction, intubation, post-intubation one, three and five minutes, propofol induction dose, electrocardiogram changes and peri-intubation cough reflex. Ropivacaine aerosol proved significantly better than lignocaine aerosol on haemodynamics (systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, heart rate) and cough reflex (p < 0.05). Both groups experienced similar entropy changes and propofol induction dose requirements and no fresh electrocardiogram changes (compared with the baseline). Pre-induction nebulised ropivacaine offers superior intubating conditions than lignocaine regarding haemodynamic response and cough reflex for faciomaxillary surgeries.

Comparison of Hemodynamic Effects of Dose Response vs. Conventional Dosing of Propofol for Anesthesia Induction Under Bispectral Index Monitoring: A Clinical Trial

Propofol is an advantageous agent for anesthesia induction. It can cause dose-related hemodynamic adverse effects. The bispectral index (BIS) is a brain function monitor utilized to assess the depth of anesthesia. This study aimed to compare the adverse hemodynamic effects of BIS-guided response dosing with conventional weight-based dosing of Propofol. In this clinical trial, patients were anesthetized with propofol in two different orthopedic operating rooms. In one operating room, patients received propofol with dose-response method (group A), and the other received weight-based dosing (group B). For both groups, BIS was used as an index of anesthesia depth. Hemodynamic parameters were recorded at baseline, during induction, and at different time points. A total of 73 patients were included in the final analysis. The mean dose of propofol for induction was higher in the control group than in the response-guided group (1.94±1.65 vs. 1.09±0.32, respectively, P=0.006). There were no reported significant adverse hemodynamic effects in patients of the two groups. Response-guided propofol dosing can be used to decrease propofol dose during anesthesia induction. Further studies are needed to investigate the clinical benefit of this dosing strategy.

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

BackgroundIntravenous lidocaine could be a potential alternative adjuvant to propofol-based sedation for gastroscopy in elderly patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on the median effective dose (ED50) of propofol induction dose in elderly patients undergoing painless gastroscopy.MethodsThe study included 70 patients aged ≥ 60 years undergoing painless gastroscopy with 64 randomly assigned to either group L (2% lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg, n = 31) or group N (equal volume normal saline, n = 33). All patients received propofol induction following 0.1 μg/kg intravenous sufentanil. The Dixon “up-and-down” sequential method was used, with a 1.5 mg/kg initial induction dose of propofol followed by a 0.1 mg/kg sequential variable dose. The primary endpoint was the ED50 of the propofol induction dose. The total propofol dose, recovery time, adverse events, and local anesthetic intoxication reactions were also recorded.ResultsThe ED50 of propofol induction dose was 0.670 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.216–0.827) mg/kg in group L and 1.118 (95% CI 0.803–1.232) mg/kg in group N. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.001). The incidence of hypotension and propofol injection pain were lower in group L than in group N (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the orientation recovery time in group L was shorter compared to group N (p < 0.05). None of the participants in group L observed local anesthetic intoxication reactions after receiving lidocaine.ConclusionsThe administration of intravenous lidocaine to elderly patients undergoing painless gastroscopy resulted in a significant 40% reduction in the ED50 of propofol induction dose, which may be related to the decreased incidence of hypotension and injection pain, as well as the improved post-gastroscopy orientation recovery.Trial registrationChiCTR, ChiCTR2200065530. Registered on 08 November 2022.

Comparative effects of intravenous esmolol and lidocaine on bispectral index during propofol-fentanyl induction in patients scheduled for elective surgeries under general anaesthesia

INTRODUCTION: Laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation at induction of anaesthesia have been associated with awareness and haemodynamic fluctuations. Agents that can mitigate these effects should create better anaesthetic conditions. This study aimed to compare the effects of intravenous esmolol and lidocaine on the bispectral index (BIS) and haemodynamic responses during induction of general anaesthesia with propofol/fentanyl in adult patients scheduled for elective surgical procedures.&#x0D; METHODS: This was a prospective randomized controlled study in ninety patients aged 18-65 years who were randomized into three groups to receive either IV esmolol 0.5 mg/kg, IV lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg or normal saline prior to induction of general anaesthesia.&#x0D; RESULTS: The esmolol group had a significantly shorter induction time (p&lt;0.0001) and a lower dose of propofol consumed (p&lt;0.0001) than the lidocaine group. The mean pulse rate was significantly lower at the 1st min to 4th min post-intubation in esmolol and lidocaine groups compared to the control group (p values; 1 min= 0.005, 2 min= 0.008, 3 min= 0.023, 4 min= 0.018). There was a significant difference in the systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the three groups at 2 min post-intubation.&#x0D; CONCLUSION: Pre-induction intravenous esmolol 0.5 mg/kg was more effective than intravenous lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg in reducing the induction dose of propofol and the induction time. Esmolol also prevented increases in BIS better than lidocaine following endotracheal intubation but both agents were equally effective in attenuating the haemodynamic changes associated with laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation.

Comparison of Recovery Characteristics between Fentanyl-Propofol Dexmedetomidine: Propofol based Anaesthesia in Supratentorial Brain Tumor Surgery

Background: The aim of the present study is to compare the recovery profiles, perioperative hemodynamic changes and undesirable side-effects such as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and shivering of patients undergoing anaesthesia with fentanyl-propofol or dexmedetomidine–propofol in supratentorial brain tumour surgery.Materials and Methods: In a prospective randomized double-blind study 70 ASA I-II patients aged 18-65 yrsof either sex, scheduled for supratentorial craniotomy with a maximum anticipated duration of 300 minutes,was allocated into two equal groups. One group received dexmedetomidine-propofol and other group received fentanyl-propofol as induction and maintenance of anaesthesia along with other drugs. Both the groups (n=35) received either i.v. dexmedetomidine or i.v. fentanyl 1 μg/kg 15mins prior to induction as loading dose followed by 0.5 μg/kg/ hr by continuous i.v. infusion peroperatively. At the end of surgery, recovery characteristics were assessed and recorded.Results: Patients in Group 1 recovered early compared to Group 2 in terms of response to verbal command(6.99±0.77 vs 8.79±0.88), extubation time (9.14±0.91 vs 10.83±1.06) and orientation time (11.14±0.703 vs12.76±1.10) which were found to be statistically significant. Induction dose of propofol and infusion dose of atracurium were significantly less in dexmedetomidine group in comparison to fentanyl group. Though in both the groups adverse effects were seen, but it was very less (less than 9%).Conclusion: Propofol-fentanyl and propofol-dexmedetomidine are both suitable for elective supratentorialcraniotomy and provide similar intraoperative hemodynamic responses. Propofol-dexmedetomidine allowsearlier cognitive recovery.

Comparison of Fat-Free Mass and Ideal Body Weight Scalar for Anesthetic Induction Dose of Propofol in Patients with Morbid Obesity: A Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial.

Obesity is a growing problem worldwide and can affect both the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of various drugs, including anesthetics, resulting in the under-or overdosing of certain drugs. There is no consensus on the ideal dosing regimen for obese populations. In this study, 2 weight-based dosing of propofol used for induction of anesthesia were compared in terms of the onset of action time, adequacy of anesthesia, and effects on hemodynamic indices (eg, heart rate [HR] and blood pressure). In this randomized, double-blind clinical trial, 40 patients with morbid obesity (MO) scheduled for bariatric surgery with body mass index (BMI) > 35, age 18 - 59 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) II and III were randomly divided into 2 groups, using block randomization method, to receive 2 mg/kg of propofol for induction of anesthesia based on either fat-free mass (FFM) group or ideal body weight (IBW) group. The primary outcome was the time duration to reach the bispectral index (BIS) ≤ 60. Time to the disappearance of eyelash reflex, signs of inadequate anesthesia (ie, BIS > 60, straining during intubation, or eye-opening), requirements for additional doses, and hemodynamic indices (including HR and mean arterial pressure [MAP]) were also compared. The mean time to reach BIS ≤ 60 was 134.1 s in the FFM group and 148.7 s in the IBW group. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.334). The time of disappearance of eyelash reflex was also not significantly different between the study groups (P = 0.814). However, 2 patients in the FFM group and 8 patients in the IBW group showed signs of inadequate anesthesia and required additional doses. This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.032). Hemodynamic variables, before and 2 min after propofol induction dose administration were comparable between the study groups (P = 0.520, P = 0.327, P = 0.847, P = 0.516 for pre-intervention MAP, post-intervention MAP, pre-intervention HR, and post-intervention HR, respectively). Propofol dosing, based on FFM and IBW, for induction of anesthesia, provides comparable onset time of action and hemodynamic effects; however, in terms of the adequacy of anesthesia, the dosing based on FFM is more favorable compared to the dosing based on IBW.

Effectiveness of F3 feline facial pheromone analogue for acute stress reduction within clinical veterinary practice

PICO Question In cats within a clinical veterinary context, does the application of the F3 feline facial pheromone (Feliway™), when compared to placebo, reduce signs of acute stress? Clinical bottom line Category of research Treatment. Number and type of study designs reviewed Five papers were critically reviewed. There were three prospective, double-blinded, randomised controlled trials, one prospective, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial and one prospective, single-blinded, non-randomised controlled trial. Strength of evidence Moderate. Outcomes reported Four studies found improvement in select indicators of acute stress following F3 feline facial pheromone analogue (FFPA) exposure. One study showed FFPA reduced patient stress during routine physical examination, and improved caregiver impression of patient relaxation and ease of handling. One study revealed FFPA decreased vocalisations but had no effect upon systolic blood pressure during physical examination. One study determined that FFPA calmed but did not reduce struggling during venous catheterisation. One study demonstrated reduced time to sedation and propofol induction dose for routine surgical procedures when a transport protocol incorporating FFPA was applied. Finally, one study found no significant effect of FFPA upon behavioural and physiologic measures of acute stress during physical examination. No studies reported outward negative effects associated with FFPA exposure. Conclusion It can be concluded that FFPA may reduce signs of acute stress within a clinical veterinary context. Additionally, exposure to FFPA is unlikely to cause patient harm. To optimise patient welfare, FFPA is not recommended as a sole agent for stress mitigation and should instead be incorporated holistically with patient friendly handling, clinic design, and pharmacotherapy where indicated. How to apply this evidence in practice The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.

Trazodone may reduce propofol induction dose and anxiety in dogs

Trazodone may reduce propofol induction dose and anxiety in dogs

Acid-base Status and Electrolyte Changes During Propofol Based General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Septoplasty

Propofol is a widely used hypnotic agent globally; however, it may have adverse effects on critical patient outcomes, potentially by interfering with the organ-protective properties of other interventions. Propofol anesthesia can lead to disruptions in metabolic balance. This research aims to examine alterations in acid-base and electrolyte levels during septoplasty surgery when propofol-based anesthesia is administered. In this prospective, observational cohort study, a total of 30 patients between the ages of 18 and 65 with an American Society of Anesthesia physical status I-II were included. Arterial blood samples were collected both before the administration of propofol and five minutes after propofol injection, with the purpose of evaluating the acid-base status and electrolyte parameters including sodium, chloride, calcium and potassium. No cases of acidosis or statistically significant alterations in electrolyte levels were observed in patients following the administration of propofol. Furthermore, none of the patients exhibited any adverse effects such as cardiac failure, rhabdomyolysis, severe metabolic acidosis, or renal failure attributable to propofol during the study. We suggest that the induction dose of propofol for general anesthesia does not lead to metabolic acidosis or electrolyte disturbances. Keywords: Propofol, Arterial, Metabolic acidosis, Anesthesia, Acid-base balance, Potassium, Anion gap

Comparison of clinical effectiveness of propofol auto co-induction and midazolam propofol co-induction using the priming principle among patients undergoing surgeries

Introduction and Aim: Anaesthesia is a balance between adequate usage of anaesthetic drugs and the state of arousal of the patient. Inadequate dose of anaesthesia leads to increased incidence of awareness, while administration of generous drugs leads to complications such as hemodynamic instability and delayed recovery. The objective of the present study was to investigate the clinical effectiveness of propofol auto co-induction (PP) and midazolam propofol co-induction (PM) using the priming principle among patients undergoing surgeries. Materials and Methods: A prospective, randomized and comparative study, recruited 80 patients who were admitted for elective surgeries was carried out after the approval from institutional ethics committee approval and the trial was registered with the clinical trial registry-India (CTRI). Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: PP group, where patients received 0.4mg/kg of propofol and PM group, where patients received 0.05mg/kg of midazolam. This was followed by propofol induction (2 mg/kg)-10mg every 15 seconds until a BIS value of 45 was attained in both groups. The collected data was assessed for the normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. A p-value greater than 0.05 (&gt;0.05) was considered to check the normality. The Student’s t-test and Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyse parametric data and non-parametric data before and after the intervention, respectively. Results: The results depicted a significantly reduced requirement of propofol (induction dose) in the PM group. Conclusion: Pre-dosing with Midazolam significantly decreases the induction dose (propofol) requirement without affecting hemodynamic stability.

Hypotension after Anesthesia Induction: Target-Controlled Infusion Versus Manual Anesthesia Induction of Propofol.

Post-induction hypotension frequently occurs and can lead to adverse outcomes. As target-controlled infusion (TCI) obviates the need to calculate the infusion rate manually and helps safer dosing with prompt titration of the drug using complex pharmacokinetic models, the use of TCI may provide a better hemodynamic profile during anesthesia induction. This study aimed to compare TCI versus manual induction and to determine the hemodynamic risk factors for post-induction hypotension. A total of 200 ASA grade 1-3 patients, aged 24 to 82 years, were recruited and randomly assigned to the TCI (n = 100) or manual induction groups (n = 100). Hemodynamic parameters were monitored with the pressure-recording analytic method. The propofol dosage was adjusted to keep the Bispectral Index between 40 and 60. Post-induction hypotension was significantly higher in the manual induction group than in the TCI group (34% vs. 13%; p < 0.001, respectively). The propofol induction dose did not differ between the groups (TCI: 155 (135-180) mg; manual: 150 (120-200) mg; p = 0.719), but the induction time was significantly longer in the TCI group (47 (35-60) s vs. 150 (105-220) s; p < 0.001, respectively). In the multivariable Cox regression model, the presence of hypertension, stroke volume index (SVI), cardiac power output (CPO), and anesthesia induction method were found to predict post-induction hypotension (p = 0.032, p = 0.013, p = 0.024, and p = 0.015, respectively). TCI induction with propofol provided better hemodynamic stability than manual induction, and the presence of hypertension, a decrease in the pre-induction SVI, and the CPO could predict post-induction hypotension.

The effect of age on the induction dose of propofol for general anesthesia in dogs.

In people, the dose of propofol (DOP) required for procedural sedation and anesthesia decreases significantly with age. The objective of this study was to determine if the DOP required to perform endotracheal intubation decreases with age in dogs. Retrospective case series. 1397 dogs. Data from dogs anesthetized at referral center (2017-2020) were analyzed with three multivariate linear regression models with backward elimination using a combination of either absolute age, physiologic age, or life expectancy (ratio between age at the time of anesthetic event and expected age of death for each breed obtained from previous literature) as well as other factors as independent variables, and DOP as the dependent variable. The DOP for each quartile of life expectancy (<25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, 75-100%, >100%) was compared using one-way ANOVA. Significance was set at alpha = 0.025. Mean age was 7.2 ± 4.1 years, life expectancy 59.8 ± 33%, weight 19 ± 14 kg, and DOP 3.76 ± 1.8 mg kg-1. Among age models, only life expectancy was a predictor of DOP (-0.37 mg kg-1; P = 0.013) but of minimal clinical importance. The DOP by life age expectancy quartile was 3.9 ± 2.3, 3.8 ± 1.8, 3.6 ± 1.8, 3.7 ± 1.7, and 3.4 ± 1.6 mg kg-1, respectively (P = 0.20). Yorkshire Terrier, Chihuahua, Maltese, mixed breed dogs under 10 kg, and Shih Tzu required higher DOP. Status of neutered male, ASA E, and Boxer, Labrador and Golden Retriever breeds decreased DOP, along with certain premedication drugs. In contrast to what is observed in people, an age cut-off predictive of DOP does not exist. Percentage of elapsed life expectancy along with other factors such as breed, premedication drug, emergency procedure, and reproductive status significantly alter DOP. In older dogs, the dose of propofol can be adjusted based on their elapsed life expectancy.

Effects of different dexmedetomidine doses on haemodynamic variability during laryngoscopy and intubation: A randomized double-blind study

Background: Effective airway management is vital in anesthesiology for preserving patient lives. Laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation, commonly used procedures, can lead to undesirable outcomes due to vagal activation and sympathoadrenal reaction. This double-blind, randomized interventional study aimed to assess the impact of two different doses of dexmedetomidine on heart rate and blood pressure during laryngoscopy and intubation, which often induce tachycardia and hypertension, particularly risky for patients with hypertension, myocardial insufficiency, and cerebrovascular disease. Methods: Seventy-six participants, aged 20-60 years and classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grade I &amp; II, were enrolled after Institutional Ethics Committee approval. Random allocation assigned them to two groups: Group A (0.5 µg/kg dexmedetomidine) and Group B (1.0 µg/kg dexmedetomidine) before anesthesia induction. Hemodynamic measurements were recorded at various time points: pre- and post-drug administration, before intubation, and at intervals thereafter. Results: Both groups exhibited similar age, weight, and gender distribution. Group B consistently demonstrated lower hemodynamic variables compared to Group A after laryngoscopy and intubation. Additionally, Group B required a smaller induction dose of propofol than Group A. No significant adverse effects were reported in either group during the study. Conclusion: The study suggests that intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine at a rate of 1 µg/kg is more effective than 0.5 µg/kg in attenuating the physiological response to laryngoscopy and intubation. Moreover, it reduces the required propofol dose for anesthesia induction. These findings highlight the potential benefits of higher dexmedetomidine doses in mitigating adverse physiological effects during airway management procedures