Etomidate for procedural sedation in the elderly: a retrospective comparison between age groups

Emerging Anesthetic Nanomedicines: Current State and Challenges

Anesthetics, which include both local and general varieties, are a unique class of drugs widely utilized in clinical surgery to alleviate pain and promote relaxation in patients. Although numerous anesthetics and their traditional formulations are available in the market, only a select few exhibit excellent anesthetic properties that meet clinical requirements. The main challenges are the potential toxic and adverse effects of anesthetics, as well as the presence of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), which makes it difficult for most general anesthetics to effectively penetrate to the brain. Loading anesthetics onto nanocarriers as anesthetic nanomedicines might address these challenges and improve anesthesia effectiveness, reduce toxic and adverse effects, while significantly enhance the efficiency of general anesthetics passing through the BBB. Consequently, anesthetic nanomedicines play a crucial role in the field of anesthesia. Despite their significance, research on anesthetic nanomedicines is still in its infancy, especially when compared to other types of nanomedicines in terms of depth and breadth. Although local anesthetic nanomedicines have received considerable attention and essentially meet clinical needs, there are few reported instances of nanomedicines for general anesthetics. Given the extensive usage of anesthetics and the many of them need for improved performance, emerging anesthetic nanomedicines face both unparalleled opportunities and considerable challenges in terms of theory and technology. Thus, a comprehensive summary with systematic analyses of anesthetic nanomedicines is urgently required. This review provides a comprehensive summary of the classification, properties, and research status of anesthetic nanomedicines, along with an exploration of their opportunities and challenges. In addition, future research directions and development prospects are discussed. It is hoped that researchers from diverse disciplines will collaborate to study anesthetic nanomedicines and develop them as a valuable anesthetic dosage form for clinical surgery.

Pain Management for Orthopedic Injuries

Pain management in acute orthopedic injury needs to be tailored to the presentation and patient. Subjective and objective assessment, in conjunction with pathophysiology, should be used to provide symptom control. Ideally, treatment should be administered in an escalating fashion, attempting to manage pain with the lowest dose of the safest medication available. There are also adjunctive therapies, including those that are nonpharmacologic, that can provide additional relief.

Incidence of Adverse Events in Adults Undergoing Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the incidence of adverse events in adults undergoing procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

Eight electronic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Scopus, from January 2005 through 2015. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies of adults undergoing procedural sedation in the ED that reported a priori selected outcomes and adverse events were included. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model and reported as incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

The search yielded 2,046 titles for review. Fifty-five articles were eligible, including 9,652 procedural sedations. The most common adverse event was hypoxia, with an incidence of 40.2 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 32.5 to 47.9), followed by vomiting with 16.4 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 9.7 to 23.0) and hypotension with 15.2 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 10.7 to 19.7). Severe adverse events requiring emergent medical intervention were rare, with one case of aspiration in 2,370 sedations (1.2 per 1,000), one case of laryngospasm in 883 sedations (4.2 per 1,000), and two intubations in 3,636 sedations (1.6 per 1,000). The incidence of agitation and vomiting were higher with ketamine (164.1 per 1,000 and 170.0 per 1,000, respectively). Apnea was more frequent with midazolam (51.4 per 1,000), and hypoxia was less frequent in patients who received ketamine/propofol compared to other combinations. The case of laryngospasm was in a patient who received ketamine, and the aspiration and intubations were in patients who received propofol. When propofol and ketamine are combined, the incidences of agitation, apnea, hypoxia, bradycardia, hypotension, and vomiting were lower compared to each medication separately.

CONCLUSIONS

Serious adverse events during procedural sedation like laryngospasm, aspiration, and intubation are exceedingly rare. Quantitative risk estimates are provided to facilitate shared decision-making, risk communication, and informed consent.

Procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department

Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is a core part of modern emergency department (ED) care allowing the rapid provision of important procedures. The safe delivery of a PSA service requires an appropriately staffed and equipped environment backed up by an ongoing system of training, audit and review. Topics covered in this review include: the evidence relating to the agents used; patient care before, during and after the procedure; the outcomes of ED PSA; and, the special considerations relating to PSA in children.

Clinical study of etomidate emulsion combined with remifentanil in general anesthesia

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate and evaluate the safety, recovery time, and side effects of general anesthesia with different doses of etomidate emulsion combined with remifentanil.

METHODS

One hundred ten patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 or 2 who underwent gynecological general anesthesia with a 1-3-hour operation time were randomly divided into the following groups: etomidate emulsion group 1 ([E1] n = 30); etomidate emulsion group 2 ([E2] n = 30); etomidate emulsion group 3 ([E3] n = 20); and propofol group ([P group] n = 30). For induction of anesthesia, 0.3 mg/kg etomidate emulsion, and the continuous remifentanil infusion also to induce anesthesia (0.1~0.3 μg · kg(-1) · min(-1)), was applied in all cases. Afterwards, continuous infusion of etomidate emulsion and remifentanil, respectively (E1: 10 μg · kg(-1) · min(-1) and 0.1 μg · kg(-1) · min(-1); E2: 15 μg · kg(-1) · min(-1) and 0.2 μg · kg(-1) · min(-1); E3: 20 μg · kg(-1) · min(-1) and 0.2 μg · kg(-1) · min(-1)), and propofol (P group: 6~10 mg · kg(-1) · h(-1)) were administered. Changes in blood flow kinetics and adverse reactions were noted and compared between the four groups.

RESULTS

Both arterial blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) decreased after induction of anesthesia (P < 0.05). Systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) BP changed only slightly, and HRs were slightly infected in E1, E2, and E3. SBP, DBP, and HR during the operation all decreased significantly in P group (P < 0.05). Muscle tremor at the time of induction occurred in 13 cases (11.8%). Following etomidate emulsion anesthesia maintenance, postoperative agitation occurred in seven cases (8.75%), lethargy in 20 cases (25%), and vomiting in 19 cases (23.75%). No adverse reactions were found in P group.

CONCLUSION

Continuous infusion of etomidate emulsion at 10 μg · kg(-1) · minute(-1) combined with remifentanil during anesthesia has the advantages of hemodynamic stability, quick wake-up, and few adverse reactions. Increasing the dose of etomidate emulsion increases the incidence of adverse reactions.

Recent Publications on Medications and Pharmacy

Hospital Pharmacy presents this feature to keep pharmacists abreast of new publications in the medical/pharmacy literature. Articles of interest regarding a broad scope of topics are abstracted monthly.