ED50 of remifentanil for providing excellent intubating conditions when co-administered with a single standard dose of propofol without the use of muscle relaxants in children: dose-finding clinical trial

Median Effective Dose of Ciprofol Combined With Sufentanil for Inhibiting the Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Placement Reaction in Elderly Patients

Objective

Ciprofol is a new sedative anesthetic drug that can be used for gastrointestinal endoscopy and induction of general anesthesia, but the appropriate dosage for use in elderly patients has not been determined. Sufentanil is a commonly used opioid in clinical practice, and this study was designed to induce anesthesia in elderly patients using sufentanil in combination with ciprofol. However, the optimal dosage of ciprofol when it is co-administered with sufentanil has not yet been established. This study was designed to find the median effective dose (ED50) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of ciprofol for intravenous anesthesia when combined with sufentanil.

Methods

We studied 57 patients who were scheduled to undergo a diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. According to age, it was divided into two groups: 65∼74 years old (group A) and over 75 years old (group B). Using the modified Dixon sequence test method, intravenous bolus of 0.1 μg/kg sufentanil was given 3 min before ciprofol is administered, the initial dose of ciprofol was 0.4 mg/kg, the upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was placed after reaching the depth of sedation, and vital signs and adverse events were recorded at each perioperative time point (T0-T7).

Results

In the group A, when combined with 0.1 μg/kg sufentanil, the ED50 of ciprofol to inhibiting responses to insertion of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was 0.23 mg/kg, and the 95% CI was 0.09∼0.30 mg/kg; in the group B, the ED50 was 0.18 mg/kg, and the 95% CI was 0.13∼0.22 mg/kg.

Conclusion

The ED50 of ciprofol in combination with sufentanil (0.1 μg/kg) for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients: 0.23 mg/kg in group A and 0.18 mg/kg in group B.

Comparison of Two Anesthetic Regimens on Extubation Time and Postoperative Recovery in Children Undergoing Ambulatory Adenoidectomy: A Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

This aim of this study was to compare two anesthetic regimens in terms of extubation time and postoperative recovery in children undergoing ambulatory adenoidectomy.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching.

METHODS

The medical charts of 452 children aged between 3 and 8 years undergoing ambulatory adenoidectomy were retrieved for analysis, of which 438 were eligible to participate in this study. A majority (n = 327) were children exposed to a conventional propofol-pronounced general anesthetic regimen (high-dose propofol plus low-dose remifentanil, labeled as group P), while n = 111 were administered a modified remifentanil-pronounced anesthetic regimen (low-dose propofol plus high-dose remifentanil, namely group R). Propensity score matching was employed to adjust for confounders, resulting in 69 matched patients in each group. The primary endpoint of this study was extubation time. The secondary endpoints were total intraoperative fluid volume, length of stay in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), postoperative pain rating, the incidence of emergence agitation, nausea and vomiting, as well as the level of consciousness (fully awake or waking by gentle patting) when transferred out of PACU, and any major complications (wound bleeding, reintubation, readmission, and overnight stay).

FINDINGS

No major complications were observed in both groups. Compared to group P, group R had significantly shorter extubation time (8.2 ± 1.4 minutes vs 13.3 ± 2.4 minutes, P < .001), shorter length of stay in the PACU (14.1 ± 3.1 minutes vs 20.2 ± 3.4 minutes, P < .001), and a higher proportion of cases being fully awake when transferred out of the PACU (91% vs 46%, P < .001). Lastly, the pain rating, frequency of oropharyngeal airway usage, incidence of emergence agitation, and nausea and vomiting were comparable between the two groups (P > .05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Remifentanil-pronounced anesthesia was superior to propofol-pronounced anesthesia in children undergoing ambulatory adenoidectomy, given that the former was associated with a faster recovery time from anesthesia without jeopardizing patient safety.

Tracheal intubation with or without a neuromuscular blocking agent for a short surgical procedure in children: Prospective, randomized, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

Although a neuromuscular blocking agent during induction of anesthesia is the standard of care in adults, some pediatric anesthesiologists remain concerned about their use for several reasons. Therefore, propofol and short-acting opioids with a moderate concentration of sevoflurane have been used as alternatives to a neuromuscular blocking agent.

AIMS

This study compared propofol, alfentanil, and rocuronium to determine the optimal anesthetic agent for intubation conditions as well as emergence in a short pediatric procedure.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, 114 pediatric patients, aged 1-9 years, were randomly assigned to one of three groups receiving either propofol 2 mg kg^-1 (propofol group), alfentanil 14 mcg kg^-1 (alfentanil group), or rocuronium 0.3 mg kg^-1 (rocuronium group). The primary outcome was intubating conditions, which were evaluated 90 s after test drug administration. Vital signs were recorded during the intubation period. Complications during and after emergence, time to recovery, airway-related complications, and severity of emergence agitation were recorded.

RESULTS

Compared with the propofol group (60%), significantly more excellent intubating conditions were observed in the alfentanil group (97%, percent difference -37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -54.4--21.0, p < .001) and the rocuronium group (87%, percent difference -27, 95% CI -46.5--8.2, p = .041). Hemodynamic responses were different between the rocuronium and alfentanil groups, although the incidence of adverse events was not different among the three groups. The emergence duration was only statistically different between the rocuronium group [9.9 ± 3.2 min] and the propofol group [11.7 ± 2.2 min] (difference 95% CI 0.667-3.583, p = .001), while that of the alfentanil group [10.9 ± 2.4 min] was comparable with the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both 0.3 mg kg^-1 rocuronium and 14 µg kg^-1 alfentanil are superior adjuncts for tracheal intubation in children undergoing frenulectomy in comparison with 2 mg kg^-1 propofol. Hemodynamic adverse events and recovery profiles were comparable among the three groups.

Airway anesthesia with lidocaine for general anesthesia without using neuromuscular blocking agents in a patient with a history of anaphylaxis to rocuronium: a case report

We experienced a case of induction of general anesthesia without using neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in a 40-year-old woman with a history of anaphylaxis immediately after the administration of anesthetics lidocaine, propofol, and rocuronium to perform endoscopic sinus surgery 2 years before. The skin test showed a positive reaction to rocuronium and cis-atracurium. We induced general anesthesia without using NMBAs after inducing airway anesthesia with lidocaine (transtracheal injection and superior laryngeal nerve block). Deep general anesthesia was maintained with end-tidal 4 vol% sevoflurane. Hypotension was treated with phenylephrine infusion. The operation condition was excellent, and patient recovered without complications after surgery. Airway anesthesia with local anesthetics may be helpful when we cannot use NMBAs for any reason, including hypersensitivity to NMBA and surgery that needs neuromuscular monitoring.

ED50 of propofol in combination with low-dose sufentanil for intravenous anaesthesia in hysteroscopy

OBJECTIVES

Sufentanil has favourable pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties as an opioid, and it is usually co-administered with propofol as intravenous anaesthesia for hysteroscopic examination or therapeutic surgery. However, the optimal dosage of propofol when it is co-administered with low-dose sufentanil has not yet been established. This study was designed to find the median effective dose of propofol for intravenous anaesthesia when combined with low-dose sufentanil.

METHODS

Fifty-four patients were enrolled and randomized into two groups in this prospective study. Sufentanil 0.2 μg/kg (Group A) or 0.1 μg/kg (Group B) was given intravenously before speculum placement. The initial propofol dose was set at 2 mg/kg and varied by 0.1 mg/kg according to the sequential allocation up-and-down rule designed by Dixon and Massey. Respiratory depression, duration of initial dose of propofol, total drug quantity administered and recovery time were recorded.

RESULTS

The ED50 of propofol was 1.651 mg/kg (95% CI, 1.561-1.722 mg/kg) in Group A and 1.991 mg/kg (95% CI, 1.902-2.081 mg/kg) in Group B. The ED95 of propofol was 1.827 mg/kg (95% CI, 1.746-2.236 mg/kg) in Group A and 2.153 mg/kg (95% CI, 2.070-2.73 7 mg/kg) in Group B. The initial and total dosage of propofol in Group A were significantly lower than those in Group B, but the incidence of respiratory depression in Group A (26.67%) was significantly higher than that in Group B (4.17%).

CONCLUSION

The ED50 values for propofol when co-administered with low-dose sufentanil for intravenous anaesthesia in hysteroscopy were 1.651 mg/kg (sufentanil 0.2 μg/kg) and 1.991 mg/kg (sufentanil 0.1 μg/kg). (www.chictr.org.cn, registration number: ChiCTR1900021224).