Ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol) vs propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia: systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of propofol-esketamine versus propofol-sufentanil for deep sedation and analgesia in children with autism: A randomized double-blind clinical trial

Propofol sedation, routinely used for endoscopic procedures, is safe and acceptable for children. Adjuvants, such as esketamine or sufentanil, are commonly added to improve the efficacy and safety of propofol sedation. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of propofol-esketamine (PE) versus propofol-sufentanil (PS) for deep sedation and analgesia in children with autism undergoing colonoscopy procedure. One hundred and twenty-four children with autism undergoing colonoscopy procedure were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the two adjuvants: esketamine (0.3 mg/kg) or sufentanil (0.2 μg/kg), subsequently administered propofol 2.0 mg/kg to induce anesthesia. Additional doses of propofol (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) were administered as needed to ensure patient tolerance for the remaining duration of the procedure. Movement during the procedure, hemodynamic variables, the total dose of propofol, recovery time, and adverse events were recorded. The PE group exhibited a significantly lower incidence of severe movement during the procedure compared with the PS group (14.52% vs. 32.26%, p = 0.020). The PE group showed significantly lower incidence of respiratory depression, hypotension, and severe injection pain of propofol than the PS group during the procedure (all p < 0.05). The mean arterial pressure (MAP) decreased significantly after anesthesia induction in the PS group and remained lower than baseline (all p < 0.05). Compared with the combination of low-dose sufentanil (0.2 μg/mg) with propofol, the low-dose esketamine (0.3 mg/kg) combined with propofol provided more stable hemodynamics, higher quality of sedation, and fewer adverse events in children with autism undergoing colonoscopy procedure.

Effect of esketamine on the ED50 of propofol for successful insertion of ureteroscope in elderly male patients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol is effective and used as a kind of routine anesthetics in procedure sedative anesthesia (PSA) for ureteroscopy. However, respiratory depression and unconscious physical activity always occur during propofol-based PSA, especially in elderly patients. Esketamine has sedative and analgesic effects but without risk of cardiorespiratory depression. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether esketamine can reduce the propofol median effective dose (ED50) for successful ureteroscope insertion in elderly male patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

49 elderly male patients undergoing elective rigid ureteroscopy were randomly divided into two groups: SK Group (0.25 mg/kg esketamine+propofol) and SF Group (0.1 µg/kg sufentanil+propofol). Patients in both two groups received propofol with initial bolus dose of 1.5 mg/kg after sufentanil or esketamine was administered intravenously. The effective dose of propofol was assessed by a modified Dixon's up-and-down method and then was adjusted with 0.1 mg/kg according to the previous patient response. Patients' response to ureteroscope insertion was classified as "movement" or "no movement". The primary outcome was the ED50 of propofol for successful ureteroscope insertion with esketamine or sufentanil. The secondary outcomes were the induction time, adverse events such as hemodynamic changes, hypoxemia and body movement were also measured.

RESULT

49 patients were enrolled and completed this study. The ED50 of propofol for successful ureteroscope insertion in SK Group was 1.356 ± 0.11 mg/kg, which was decreased compared with that in SF Group, 1.442 ± 0.08 mg/kg (P = 0.003). The induction time in SK Group was significantly shorter than in SF Group (P = 0.001). In SK Group, more stable hemodynamic variables were observed than in SF Group. The incidence of AEs between the two groups was not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

The ED50 of propofol with esketamine administration for ureteroscope insertion in elderly male patients is 1.356 ± 0.11 mg/kg, significantly decreased in comparsion with sufentanil.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, No: ChiCTR2300077170. Registered on 1 November 2023. Prospective registration. http://www.chictr.org.cn .

Assessment of Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Double-Blinded Comparison of Propofol and Ketofol Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

ERCP is an endoscopic procedure for the diagnosis and treatment of biliopancreatic system diseases. An increase in intra-abdominal pressure due to the insufflation of air to the intestinal lumen may be transmitted to ICP through the course of ERCP. In this prospective, randomized, controlled double-blinded study, we aimed to assess the ICP change using ultrasonography measurement of ONSD in patients undergoing ERCP comparing the effects of propofol and ketofol anesthesia.

MATERIAL/METHODS

One hundred and nine patients undergoing ERCP under propofol or ketofol anesthesia were enrolled in the study. Ultrasonography measurement of ONSD was performed before (T0) and immediately after induction of anesthesia (T1), during sphincterotomy (T2), at the end of procedure (T3), and after the patient is fully awake (T4).

RESULTS

Comparison of ONSD values and ONSD alteration between groups showed no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). Both groups showed significantly greater changes from T0 to T2 compared with values from T0 to T1, T3, and T4, respectively (P = 0,000). T0 to T3 alteration was also significantly greater than T0 to T1 and T4 change in both groups (P = 0,000).

CONCLUSIONS

ERCP procedure increases intracranial pressure most prominently during sphincterotomy both under propofol or ketofol anesthesia. Further studies are needed to investigate the impact of this phenomenon on adverse clinical outcomes.

Ketamine-Propofol Coadministration for Induction and Infusion Maintenance in Anesthetized Dogs: Effects on Electroencephalography and Antinociception

The effects of concurrent ketamine and propofol (ketofol) constant rate infusion (CRI) were examined in six dogs. The K:P ratio was 1:2, with an initial CRI of 0.25/0.5 mg/kg/min over ten minutes, followed by a 0.5 mg/kg ketamine bolus for induction. During induction, a comprehensive EEG frequency spectrum from delta to gamma was observed, accompanied by subanesthetic-dose ketofol-induced behavioral excitation, including nystagmus, tongue flicking, salivation and active muscle activity. The dogs were maintained on three 15 min decremental doses of ketofol CRI (0.8/1.6, 0.4/0.8 and 0.2/0.4 mg/kg/min). This phase featured a significant decrease in the Patient State Index, electromyographic activity and a shift to low beta waves (SEF95: 13-18 Hz). Additionally, profound antinociception to electric stimulation and a stable heart rate and blood pressure (MBP 81.5-110 mmHg) were observed, as well as a merging of ketamine and propofol EEG characteristics during maintenance. In the recovery phase, a return to beta and gamma EEG patterns and excitement behavior occurred, accompanied by a significant reduction in antinociception, highlighting features of low doses of ketofol. This study reveals biphasic EEG dynamic changes, associated behaviors and robust antinociception and cardiovascular function, suggesting the utility of ketofol as a total intravenous anesthetic combination in dogs.

Low-dose ketamine or opioids combined with propofol for procedural sedation in the emergency department: a systematic review

Procedural sedation is routinely performed for procedures in the emergency department (ED). Propofol is a commonly used sedative, frequently combined with an opioid or low-dose ketamine as an analgesic. However, there is still controversy on the optimal combination of agents in current guidelines. The objective of this systematic review is to identify and present studies comparing low-dose ketamine to opioids when combined with propofol for procedural sedation in the ED and to describe the dosing regimen, observed efficacy, and side effects. For this systematic review, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, EMBASE and PubMed databases were searched. Studies comparing propofol with opioids versus propofol with low-dose (es)ketamine in patients undergoing procedural sedation for procedures in the ED were included. Analyses were descriptive because of the high heterogeneity among included studies. The outcomes were dosing regimen, efficacy of analgesia, efficacy of sedation depth, efficacy of recovery and (adverse) events. We included four out of 2309 studies found in the literature search. Overall, the studies had a low risk of bias, but the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation evidence profile was downgraded due to the imprecision and inconsistency of the studies. All studies compared low-dose ketamine with fentanyl. Dosing ranged from 0.3 to 1.0 mg/kg (ketamine), 1.0-1.5 μg/kg (fentanyl) and 0.4-1.0 mg/kg (propofol). The efficacy of analgesia was measured by two studies, one favoring the fentanyl group, and one favoring the ketamine group. The efficacy of sedation depth was measured by one study, with the fentanyl group having a deeper sedation score. Two studies showed shorter recovery time with low-dose ketamine. One study showed a higher incidence of cardio-respiratory clinical events and interventions in the fentanyl group. Two studies showed significant differences of overall sedation events in the fentanyl group. One study did not find any significant differences of the incidence of sedation events. This systematic review did not provide sufficient evidence that the combination of low-dose ketamine and propofol is associated with a shorter recovery time and fewer sedation events compared to the combination of opioids and propofol.

Comparison of remifentanil and esketamine in combination with propofol for patient sedation during fiberoptic bronchoscopy

BACKGROUND

Ideal sedation and analgesia strategies for fiberoptic bronchoscopy have not been found. At present, propofol based sedation strategy still has some defects, such as respiratory depression and blood pressure drop. It is difficult to meet the requirements of safety and effectiveness at the same time. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of propofol/remifentanil with propofol/esketamine for patient sedation during fiberoptic bronchoscopy.

METHOD

Patients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy were randomly assigned to propofol/ remifentanil (PR group; n = 42) or propofol/esketamine (PK group; n = 42) for sedation and analgesia. The primary outcome was the rate of transient hypoxia (oxygen saturation (SpO₂) < 95%). The secondary outcomes are the intraoperative hemodynamics, including the changes in blood pressure, heart rate, the incidence of adverse reactions, the total amount of propofol usage were recorded, and the satisfaction level of patients and bronchoscopists.

RESULTS

After sedation, the arterial pressure and heart rate of patients in the PK group were stable without significant decrease. Decreases in diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate were observed in patients in the PR group (P < 0.05), although it was not of clinical relevance. The dosage of propofol in the PR group was significantly higher than that in the PK group (144 ± 38 mg vs. 125 ± 35 mg, P = 0.012). Patients in the PR group showed more transient hypoxia (SpO₂ < 95%) during surgery (7 vs. 0, 0% versus 16.6%, P = 0.018), more intraoperative choking (28 vs. 7, P < 0.01), postoperative vomiting (22 vs. 13, P = 0.076) and vertigo (15 vs. 13, P = 0.003). Bronchoscopists in the PK group showed more satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Compared with remifentanil, the combination of esketamine with propofol in fiberoptic bronchoscopy leaded to more stable intraoperative hemodynamics, lower dosage of propofol, lower transient hypoxia rate, fewer incidence of adverse events, and greater bronchoscopists satisfaction.

Comparison of Sedation With Ketamine-Propofol Versus Propofol-Fentanyl for Elderly Patients Undergoing Prostate Biopsy: A Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Procedural sedation is increasingly used for elderly patients, but there is no established ideal method for elderly patients who are prone to respiratory and circulatory depression. This study aims to investigate the association of respiratory complications and the combination of ketamine-propofol versus fentanyl-propofol in elderly patients undergoing prostate biopsy requiring deep sedation.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, observational study conducted from April 2020 to March 2021. We included male patients aged 65 years and older scheduled for prostate biopsy under procedural sedation. Ketamine-propofol and fentanyl-propofol were administered at the discretion of the anesthesiologist. The primary outcome was the need for assisted ventilation. The secondary outcome was the duration of oxygen saturation (SpO2) below 90%.

RESULTS

We enrolled 120 patients over 65 years, and 92 patients were included in the final analysis. The anesthesiologist administered an initial dose of ketamine and propofol of 1:1 to 1:4 of 1.0 mg kg-1 (interquartile range: 0.98 to 1.17) or administered an initial dose of fentanyl of 0.05 to 0.1 mg and a target-controlled infusion of propofol of 2.8 μg ml-1 (interquartile range: 2.0 to 3.0) followed by additional doses at the discretion of the anesthesiologist. Ketamine-propofol was associated with a reduced need for assisted ventilation and a shorter duration of SpO2 below 90% than propofol-fentanyl (95.7% vs. 4.3%, P < 0.05; 0.64 minutes vs. 0.17 minutes, P = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine-propofol is associated with a significantly reduced need for assisted ventilation compared to propofol-fentanyl during procedural sedation and analgesia for procedures requiring deep sedation for the elderly.

Safety and efficacy of the combination of esketamine and propofol in procedural sedation/analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the side effects and efficacy of esketamine combined with propofol in procedural sedation and analgesia.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies occurring between their inceptions and September 2022. The primary outcome was the incidence of sedation-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, total consumption of propofol and body movement.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Data from a total of seven RCTs enrolling 808 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooling of data showed that compared with other drug regimens, the esketamine and propofol combination was associated with a reduction in the risk of hypotension (relative risk [RR]: 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25 to 0.56) and bradycardia (RR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.80) as well as an increase in the risk of agitation (RR: 6.29, 95% CI: 1.15 to 34.32). The results also indicated a decrease in propofol consumption (standardized mean difference: -1.45, 95% CI: -2.39 to -0.50) with the use of the esketamine and propofol combination. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in respiratory depression, nausea/vomiting, recovery time or body movement.

CONCLUSIONS

Esketamine combined with propofol has an advantage in reducing the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia during procedural sedation and analgesia, but it may increase the risk of agitation in the recovery phase. More studies of high quality are needed before the widespread adoption of the combination of esketamine and propofol.

Uncovering the Benefits of the Ketamine-Dexmedetomidine Combination for Procedural Sedation during the Italian COVID-19 Pandemic

This retrospective observational study evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ketamine and dexmedetomidine combination (keta-dex) compared to ketamine or dexmedetomidine alone for sedation of patients with acute respiratory distress due to COVID-19 pneumonia who require non-invasive ventilation. The following factors were assessed: tolerance to the ventilation, sedation level on the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), hemodynamic and saturation profile, adverse effects, and discontinuation or mortality during ventilation. The study included 66 patients who underwent sedation for non-invasive ventilation using keta-dex (KETA-DEX group, n = 22), ketamine (KET group, n = 22), or dexmedetomidine (DEX group, n = 22). The DEX group showed a slower sedation rate and a significant reduction in blood pressure compared to the KETA-DEX group (p < 0.05). An increase in blood pressure was recorded more frequently in the KET group. No reduction in oxygen saturation and no deaths were observed in any of the groups. None of the patients discontinued ventilation due to intolerance. The mean duration of sedation was 28.12 h. No cases of delirium were observed in any of the groups. Overall, keta-dex was associated with faster sedation rates and better hemodynamic profiles compared to dexmedetomidine alone. Keta-dex is effective and safe for sedation of uncooperative patients undergoing non-invasive ventilation.

The Effect of Preoperative Combined with Intravenous Lidocaine and Ketamine vs. Intravenous Ketamine on Pediatric Patients Undergoing Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Background

Ketamine is widely used in pediatric sedation. New studies have recommended combination therapy to reduce the side effects of ketamine.

Objectives

This study investigated the effect of adding intravenous (IV) lidocaine to ketamine on hemodynamic parameters, endoscopist satisfaction, and recovery time of children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Methods

This triple-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted in Isfahan, Iran (2021). One hundred twenty children between the ages of 1 and 6 were enrolled. Patients were divided into 2 groups. The intervention group received 1.0 mg/kg of IV lidocaine and 1.0 mg/kg of IV ketamine, and the placebo group received 1.0 mg/kg of IV ketamine and placebo 2 minutes before entering the endoscopic room. Patients in both groups were sedated with 1.0 mg/kg of propofol, 0.1 mg/kg of midazolam, and 2.0 ug/kg of fentanyl for the procedure. The pulse rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation were recorded 1 minute before injection and every 5 minutes afterward.

Results

The mean (SD) ages of the intervention and control groups were 3.4 (1.5) and 3.4 (1.7), respectively. The mean difference in hemodynamic parameters between the 2 groups was insignificant during the investigation (P > 0.05). Furthermore, no significant differences were found regarding endoscopist satisfaction scores and length of recovery room stay (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Adding low-dose IV lidocaine to ketamine for pediatric sedation does not significantly affect the hemodynamic status, endoscopist satisfaction, and recovery time.

Electroencephalographic and Cardiovascular Changes Associated with Propofol Constant Rate of Infusion Anesthesia in Young Healthy Dogs

This study aimed to evaluate electroencephalography (EEG) and cardiovascular changes associated with propofol constant rate of infusion (CRI) anesthesia in dogs. Six dogs were each given propofol CRI to induce different anesthetic phases including induction (1 mg/kg/min for 10 min), and decremental maintenance doses of 2.4 mg per kg per min, 1.6 mg per kg per min, and 0.8 mg per kg per minute over 45 min. Processed EEG indices including patient state index (PSI), (burst) suppression ratio (SR), and spectral edge frequency (95%) were obtained continuously until the dogs recovered to sternal recumbency. The dogs were intubated and ventilated. Cardiovascular and EEG index values were compared between anesthetic phases. The PSI, SR, mean arterial blood pressure, and subjective anesthetic depth scores were highly correlated throughout anesthetic depth changes. The PSI decreased from 85.0 ± 17.3 at awake to 66.0 ± 29.0 at induction, and then sharply reduced to 19.7 ± 23.6 during maintenance and returned to 61.5 ± 19.2 at extubation. The SR increased from 15.4 ± 30.9% at induction to 70.9 ± 39.8% during maintenance and decreased to 3.4 ± 8.9% at extubation. We concluded that EEG indices can be used to aid in tracking ongoing brain state changes during propofol anesthesia in dogs.

Comparison of Single Target-Controlled Infusion Pump-Delivered Mixed Propofol and Remifentanil with Two Target-Controlled Infusion Pumps-Delivered Propofol and Remifentanil in Patients Undergoing Breast Cancer Surgery-A Prospective Study

Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with remifentanil and propofol (RP) is considered to be an ideal type of general anesthesia (GA) for pediatric and adult patients undergoing medical procedures. However, delivery of an RP mixture by target-controlled infusion (TCI) for GA in surgical procedures has not been described. We investigated the merit of this approach for breast cancer surgery. Eighty-four patients (n = 42 per group) were randomly allocated to propofol and remifentanil either delivered by separate TCI pumps (S group) or in an RP mixture by a single TCI pump (M group). Dosages were adjusted based on the bispectral index (BIS) and the analgesia nociception index (ANI). The primary outcomes were adequate anesthesia (BIS 40-60 and ANI 50-70, respectively), acceptable hemodynamic fluctuations (<30% of baseline) with less frequent TCI pump adjustments, bolus injections of anesthetics, and total consumption of anesthetics during the procedure. The secondary endpoints included time of emergence from anesthesia, patient satisfaction, postoperative pain, rescue with opioids, and adverse events. The characteristics of patients, hemodynamic parameters, BIS and ANI scores, duration of surgery, anesthesia, and emergence were not significantly different between groups. The adjustment frequency of TCI was significantly higher in the S group (3 (range 0-6) vs. 2 (0-6) times; p = 0.005). The total dosage of anesthetics, pain rating, patient satisfaction, need for opioids postoperatively, and incidence of adverse events were not significantly different. We have demonstrated that this RP mixture provided adequate hypnotic and analgesic effects under BIS and ANI monitoring in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery within 1 h.

Inducción Anestésica: Propofol, Ketamina o Ketofol ¿Cuándo utilizarlos?

Introducción: La anestesia general se subdivide en diferentes etapas donde una de las más importantes es la etapa de la inducción anestésica y los fármacos que se utilizan en ella, siendo el Propofol y la Ketamina los más nombrados Objetivo: Realizar una revisión de las propiedades farmacocinéticas y farmacodinámicas de estos dos medicamentos, para la toma de decisiones sobre en qué situaciones debería usarse cada uno de ellos o de forma concomitante Materiales y métodos: Se realizaron 4 búsquedas separadas en la base de datos de PUBMED, obteniendo un total de 27 bibliografías utilizadas para la revisión. Resultados: El propofol es un agente hipnótico útil para procedimientos cortos, en pacientes estables hemodinámicamente. La ketamina tiene un perfil farmacodinámico ideal para pacientes con inestabilidad hemodinámica. El ketofol es una alternativa que logra adecuado sinergismo permitiendo mantener los beneficios de cada uno de estos medicamentos y disminuyendo la probabilidad de efectos adversos. Conclusión: Dependiendo de la cirugía que se vaya a realizar y de la estabilidad hemodinámica de cada paciente se puede preferir un medicamento sobre otro.

Sedative effect and safety of different doses of S-ketamine in combination with propofol during gastro-duodenoscopy in school-aged children: a prospective, randomized study

Background

Propofol combined with opioids can reduce the dosage of propofol and improve the safety of endoscopy. However, there are few studies on propofol combined with S-ketamine in children undergoing gastro-duodenoscopy. We aim to determine the sedative effect and safety of different doses of S-ketamine in combination with propofol in school-aged children undergoing gastro-duodenoscopy.

Methods

This is a prospective, randomized trial. Totally, 120 school-aged children who underwent gastro-duodenoscopy were randomly allocated into Group P, Group S0.3, Group S0.5 and Group S0.7. During induction, children in Group P, Group S0.3, Group S0.5 and Group S0.7 received 0, 0.3 mg.kg−1, 0.5 mg.kg−1 and 0.7 mg.kg−1 S-ketamine, respectively, following 3 mg.kg−1 propofol injection. During gastro-duodenoscopy, 1 mg.kg−1 of propofol was added according to the condition of the children and the BIS (bispectral index) value. The primary outcome was smooth placement rate of the first endoscope insertion. The secondary outcome was the times of additional propofol, the total amount of propofol, adverse events, recovery time, length of PACU (post anesthesia care unit) stay and endoscopist satisfaction.

Results

The smooth placement rate of the first endoscope insertion in Group P, Group S0.3 and Group S0.5 was significantly lower than that in Group S0.7 (16.70%, 34.50%, 50.00% vs. 83.30%, respectively, P < 0.001). The times of additional propofol in Group S0.3 (P = 0.018), Group S0.5 (P = 0.014) and Group S0.7 (P = 0.001) were significantly less than Group P. The total amount of propofol in Group S0.7 was significantly less than Group P (P < 0.001). The incidence of intraoperative hypotension in Group S0.5 and Group S0.7 was low. Group S0.7 had significantly higher incidence of postoperative dizziness (P = 0.003), longer PACU stay (P = 0.018) and higher endoscopist satisfaction (P = 0.001) than Group P. There was no difference in the recovery time among groups.

Conclusion

S-ketamine (0.7 mg.kg−1) in combination with propofol can provide satisfactory sedative effect and reduce the dosage of propofol in school-aged children undergoing gastro-duodenoscopy, but there are higher incidence of postoperative dizziness and longer PACU stay.

The comparison of ketamine-dexmedetomidine (ketadex) and ketamine-propofol (ketofol) for procedural sedation in pediatric patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

The combination of different agents used for procedural sedation allows a greater range of desirable effects while minimizing side effects. The ketamine-dexmedetomidine combination (ketadex) and ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol) are successful examples. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of ketadex with ketofol used for procedural sedation in pediatric patients.

Methods

We searched Pubmed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, and Embase from inception to June 2022. Studies were independently evaluated for inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria by two reviewers. Outcome measures for safety comparison were the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting, and agitation; Outcome measure for efficacy comparison was clinicians' satisfaction. In addition, we compared the recovery time of ketadex and ketofol.

Results

Nine studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with ketofol, ketadex sedation in pediatric patients had lower risk of respiratory depression (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.34–0.76, P = 0.0009). However, ketadex displayed significant effect on recovery time (MD: 8.38 min, 95% CI: 7.55–9.22 min, P < 0.00001). Ketadex had similar incidence of hypotension (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.33–2.67, P = 0.92) and bradycardia (RR: 1.80, 95% CI: 0.64–5.06, P = 0.26) compared to those with ketofol. Clinicians' satisfaction rate of ketadex and ketofol were both high (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.69–1.25, P = 0.62). Also, no significant difference was observed between ketadex and ketofol on the incidence of nausea, vomiting, and agitation.

Conclusions

Both ketadex and ketofol can provide effective sedation and maintain stable hemodynamics. In consideration of good safety profile in respiratory problems, we suggest ketadex is a better option for procedural sedation in pediatric patients.

Delayed Adverse Events after Procedural Sedation in Pediatric Patients with Hematologic Malignancies

Background and objectives: Procedural sedation for bone marrow examination (BME) and intrathecal chemotherapy (ITC) is necessary for pediatric patients with hematological malignancies. There has been no report on adverse events after discharge from the recovery room. This retrospective study evaluated the types and incidences of delayed adverse events among pediatric patients scheduled for BME or ITC under deep sedation in a single center for 3 years. Materials and Methods: The patients were divided into two groups: inpatients (group I) and outpatients (group O). All patients were managed during the procedures and the recovery period. In total, 10 adverse events were assessed; these occurred 2 h (T1, acute), 12 h (T2, early), and 24 h (T3, delayed) after the procedure. The duration of each adverse event was also recorded and was classified as 2 h (D1), 12 h (D2), or 24 h (D3). The data of 263 patients (147 inpatients and 116 outpatients) who met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Results: The overall incidence of adverse events was statistically significant difference: 48.3% in group I and 33.6% in group O (p = 0.011). The rates of adverse events at T1 and T2 were significantly different between groups I and O (42.8% vs. 11.2% and 7.5% vs. 20.7%, respectively) (p < 0.001). The adverse events were mostly of D1 or D2 duration in both groups. Patients with a higher proportion of ketamine in a propofol−ketamine mixture had a significantly higher proportion of adverse events at T1 (34.6%), as compared with those with a mixture with a lower proportion of ketamine (21.1%) or propofol alone (17.9%) (p = 0.012). Conclusions: The most common adverse events were dizziness or headache; typically, they did not last longer than 12 h. The propofol-ketamine combination with a higher proportion of ketamine seems to produce more adverse events within 2 h after the procedure. Nevertheless, all sedative types appear safe to use without additional management.

An Analytical Comparison Between Ketamine Alone and a Combination of Ketamine and Propofol (Ketofol) for Procedural Sedation and Analgesia From an Emergency Perspective: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is a treatment approach involving treating patients with agents with dissociative, sedative, or analgesic properties to suppress their consciousness to variable levels. Ketamine and propofol have been used historically for PSA. Because they each have their demerits, it was postulated that combining both drugs (ketofol) would result in a mixture with additive properties and lessen or eliminate the demerits attributed to each drug. The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare ketamine alone and a combination of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) for procedural sedation and analgesia from an emergency perspective.

A systematic search was conducted on published studies from the databases of Scopus, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, APA PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial (CENTRAL) until July 2022. The articles that were published on the online databases were authored between January 2007 and 2018. The selected papers were scanned and examined to check whether they met the eligibility criteria for the study.

The search produced six articles that were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. All six articles that passed the eligibility criteria were viable for the analysis. All the trials focused on the effectiveness of ketofol versus ketamine for PSA from an emergency perspective.

Ketofol was found to be safe and more effective in comparison to ketamine for PTA.

A Safety Comparison of Single-Agent Methohexital, Ketamine, or Propofol for Musculoskeletal Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

The use of sedative and analgesic agents is required for procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED). Agents such as ketamine and propofol are commonly used for procedural sedation. This is likely due to clinical experience with these agents, as well as optimal pharmacologic properties when used in combination with one another. Methohexital, a barbiturate, is less frequently used due to concerns for adverse events associated with this drug class.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety of methohexital in comparison with ketamine and propofol when used for procedural sedation in musculoskeletal procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted to evaluate adult ED patients who received ketamine, propofol, or methohexital for procedural sedation from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2020.

RESULTS

Overall, a total of 43 procedures were included in the study. Procedures included shoulder relocation, elbow relocation, hip relocation, ankle reduction, radius/ulnar reduction, mandibular relocation, patellar relocation, and wrist reduction. There was a 90.6% overall procedural success rate, which was similar between groups. Overall adverse events occurred in 34.8% of patients. Respiratory depression occurred in 9.3% of patients. No incidence of respiratory depression was observed in the methohexital group, compared with 2 patients receiving ketamine and 4 receiving propofol (p = 0.44).

CONCLUSION

Methohexital is a safe and effective option for procedural sedation for musculoskeletal procedures in the ED when compared with ketamine and propofol.

Anesthesia and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in Bariatric Surgery

The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society published guidelines for bariatric surgery reviewing the evidence and providing specific care recommendations. These guidelines emphasize preoperative nutrition, multimodal analgesia, postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, anesthetic technique, nutrition, and mobilization. Several studies have since evaluated these pathways, showing them to be safe and effective at decreasing hospital length of stay and postoperative nausea and vomiting. This article emphasizes anesthetic management in the perioperative period and outlines future directions, including the application of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery principles in patients with extreme obesity, diabetes, and metabolic disease and standardization of the pathways to decrease heterogeneity.

Procedural Sedation Using Two Different Proportions of Ketamine-Propofol Combination in Short Gynecological Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Procedural sedation with a combination of propofol and ketamine for short-duration surgeries is a convenient technique of anesthesia as it has a faster recovery avoiding the side effects of general anesthesia. The aim of this study was to compare the sedative and analgesic effects of two different proportions of ketamine and propofol combination in patients undergoing short gynecological procedures.

Methods: A randomized double-blind study was conducted in 140 patients posted for elective gynecological procedures with a duration equal to or less than 30 minutes. After premedication of all participants, sedation was induced with bolus administration (0.1 mL/kg) of the study drugs to achieve desired Ramsay sedation score (RSS) of 6, followed by infusion at 0.3 mL/kg/h (Group A, ketamine:propofol in the ratio of 1:4 and Group B, ketamine:propofol in the ratio of 1:2). The adequacy of sedation, volume of drug to induce the patient, time to achieve desired RSS, time for first bolus dose, the total volume of the drugs, hemodynamic variables, awakening time, and side effects were observed.

Results: The incidence of movement of lower extremities was found to be significantly lower in the higher concentration ketamine group (Group B, P - 0.028). The volume of a drug for induction and the duration to reach RSS of 6 were significantly lower in Group B with P-values of 0.002 and <0.001, respectively. Hemodynamic variables, awakening time, and side effects were not statistically significant between the two groups.

Conclusion: Ketamine-propofol combination in the ratio 1:2 provides better sedation and analgesia with no increased side-effects compared to ketamine-propofol in the ratio 1:4 for short outpatient gynecological procedures.

Propofol ameliorates acute postoperative fatigue and promotes glucagon-regulated hepatic gluconeogenesis by activating CREB/PGC-1α and accelerating fatty acids beta-oxidation

Postoperative fatigue (POF) is the most common and long-lasting complication after surgery, which brings heavy burden to individuals and society. Recently, hastening postoperative recovery receives increasing attention, but unfortunately, the mechanisms underlying POF remain unclear. Propofol is a wildly used general anesthetic in clinic, and inspired by the rapid antidepressant effects induced by ketamine at non-anesthetic dose, the present study was undertaken to investigate the anti-fatigue effects and underlying mechanisms of propofol at a non-anesthetic dose in 70% hepatectomy induced POF model in rats. We first showed here that single administration of propofol at 0.1 mg/kg ameliorated acute POF in hepatectomy induced POF rats. Based on metabonomics analysis, we hypothesized that propofol exerted anti-fatigue activity in POF rats by facilitating free fatty acid (FFA) oxidation and gluconeogenesis. We further confirmed that propofol restored the deficit in FFA oxidation and gluconeogenesis in POF rats, as evidenced by the elevated FFA utilization, acetyl coenzyme A content, pyruvic acid content, phosphoenolpyruvic acid content, hepatic glucose output and glycogen storage. Moreover, propofol stimulated glucagon secretion and up-regulated expression of cAMP-response element binding protein (CREB), phosphorylated CREB, peroxlsome prolifeator-activated receptor-γ coactivator-1α (PGC-1α), phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinade1 and carnitine palmitoltransferase 1A. In summary, our study suggests for the first time that propofol ameliorates acute POF by promoting glucagon-regulated gluconeogenesis via CREB/PGC-1α signaling and accelerating FFA beta-oxidation.

Continuous infusion of lidocaine in pediatric colonoscopy: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Propofol is commonly used for providing procedural sedation during pediatric colonoscopy. Intravenous (i.v.) lidocaine can mitigate visceral pain and reduce propofol requirements during surgery. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of i.v. lidocaine on perioperative propofol and sufentanil dose, pulse oxygen saturation, postoperative pain score, and recovery time during pediatric colonoscopy.

METHODS

We designed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study and enrolled 40 children aged from 3 to 10 years who underwent colonoscopy. After titration of propofol to achieve unconsciousness, the patients were given i.v. lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg later 2 mg/kg^/hour) or the same volume of saline. Sedation was standardized and combined propofol with sufentanil. The primary outcome variables were intraoperative propofol and sufentanil requirements, and the number of oxygen desaturation episodes. Secondary outcome variables were recovery time after colonoscopy and post-colonoscopy pain.

RESULTS

Lidocaine infusion resulted in a significant reduction in propofol requirements: (median (quartile) 1.8 (1.5-2.0) vs. 3.0 (2.8-3.3) mg/kg respectively; P < 0.001) and sufentanil requirements: (median (quartile) 0.06 (0.05-0.08) vs. 0.1 (0.1-0.1) μg/kg respectively; P < 0.001). The number of subjects who experienced oxygen desaturation below 95% in the lidocaine group was also significantly less than that in the control group: 1 vs. 6 (P = 0.04). The mean (SD) recovery time was significantly shorter in the lidocaine group: (19.2 (2.6) vs. 13.3 (2.6) min respectively; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in post-colonoscopy pain.

CONCLUSION

Continuous infusion of lidocaine resulted in reduction of propofol and sufentanil requirements, recovery time, and risk of hypoxemia during pediatric colonoscopy.

The Influence of Age on Propofol Dosing Requirements During Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department

Propofol is a frequently used agent for procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED). Some have suggested that propofol dosing in this setting should be adjusted in elderly patients; however, limited data exist supporting this recommendation. Additional factors that may contribute to altered propofol dose requirements in this setting have not been thoroughly explored. The objective of this analysis was to ascertain the effect age may have on the propofol dose required during procedural sedation in the ED. This retrospective study was conducted at a Level 1 academic medical center ED and included patients 18 years or older who received propofol for procedural sedation from 2015 to 2017. Those patients who were 18-64 years of age were compared with those 65 years or older. Between the two groups, total and weight-based propofol requirements for sedation, opioid doses, and adverse events were compared. This analysis included 101 procedural sedations. The median induction dose and opioid requirements before or during the procedure were not significantly different between the two groups. Compared with patients 18-64 years of age, those 65 years or older had significantly less total weight-based propofol requirements (p = 0.024) and required less total propofol for sedation (p = 0.007). In addition, patients 65 years or older required fewer repeat doses of propofol during the procedure than younger patients (p = 0.043). The incidence of adverse effects, including respiratory suppression, was not significantly different between the two groups. Patients 65 years or older may have lower weight-based propofol dosing requirements than younger patients. Utilizing a reduced total dose and repeat dosing strategy for propofol in this setting may be indicated. Further investigations are recommended to clarify factors that signal the need for more tailored dosing.

Clinical Knowledge and Practice of "Ketofol" at University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital

Background: Ketamine and propofol in a single syringe are reported to create an admixture used for balancing cardiorespiratory effects during induction of general anesthesia. This study aimed to assess the clinical practice and knowledge of “ketofol” among anesthesia providers.

Methods: A cross-sectional institutional-based study was conducted among anesthesia providers. Data abstracted format was prepared and distributed to senior anesthetists, junior anesthetist postgraduate students, and undergraduate students. The study was conducted from January 1, 2019, to January 30, 2019. Descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression were performed for frequency distribution and to determine the association, respectively.

Result: From a total of 133 participants included in the study, the majority, 88 (66.2%), were men and 75 (56.9%) had 0–2 years of experience. More than two-thirds of participants, 105 (78.9%), have never had a seminar or educational session about combined use. Lack of experience among 11 participants (8.3%) was one of the reasons for not using “ketofol” followed by lack of knowledge among three (2.3%) participants. The majority of participants, 112 (84.2%), prefer ketamine and propofol to be administered one right after the other with separate syringes and the ratio to be 1:2, 64 (48.2). There was no significant association observed between sociodemographic and other characteristics and the practice of “ketofol.”

Conclusion: In this study, nearly half of the participants rated their knowledge at the average level, and the study identifies that there is clinical knowledge and practice gap among anesthesia providers working in the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital (UOGCSH). Preparing educational sessions regarding “ketofol” for addressing identified barriers is among the recommendations forwarded to UOGCSH.

Implementation of a protocol using ketamine-propofol ('ketofol') in a 1 to 4 ratio for procedural sedation in adults at a university hospital emergency department - report on safety and effectiveness

Objectives: To test the feasibility of an evidence-based protocol for procedural sedation in adults at our emergency department, using a mixture of ketamine and propofol ('ketofol') in a 1 to 4 ratio. We hypothesize that the protocol is safe and effective and can facilitate procedural sedation.Methods: During 14 months, adults in need of procedural sedation at our university hospital emergency department were included in a prospective convenience sample study. Patients with important comorbidity were discussed with the anaesthesiology department for feasibility of sedation in the emergency department setting. Outcome measures were procedural success, respiratory and hemodynamic events, vomiting, agitation or hallucinations, recall and physician's satisfaction.Results: Sixty-one patients between 18 and 89 years were included. All but one procedure were successful. Six respiratory events were registered in 6 patients (9.8%). These consisted of airway obstruction alleviated by airway repositioning and without influence on vital signs except for one brief episode of desaturation. Neither hemodynamic events nor vomiting were reported. Five patients (8.2%) experienced pleasant hallucinations and one patient (1.6%) became agitated upon awakening but recovered rapidly without medication. Three patients (4.9%) had recall and physician satisfaction rate was 93.4%.Conclusion: A feasibility trial of an implemented protocol for ketofol procedural sedation in adults showed only minor respiratory events, a low incidence of agitation or hallucinations, minimal recall and a high success and physician satisfaction rate. Despite a non-consecutive and limited sample used, ketofol in a 1 to 4 ratio appears safe and effective for use in the emergency department.

Dexmedetomidine in combination with ketamine for pediatric procedural sedation or premedication: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effectiveness of combinational use of dexmedetomidine and ketamine (DEX-KET) for pediatric procedural sedation or premedication.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified after a literature search in electronic databases and study selection was based on precise eligibility criteria. Meta-analyses of mean differences were performed to examine differences in sedation onset and recovery times between DEX-KET and comparators. Changes from baseline in heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and mean arterial pressure (MAP), were pooled. Meta-analyses of proportions were performed to estimate incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

15 studies (1087 patients) were included. Onset of sedation was significantly shorter in DEX-KET than in DEX group. HR declined in DEX-KET group from start (-3.5 beats per minute (BPM) [95% CI: -5.1, -1.9]) through midpoint (-7.2 BPM [95% CI: -12.1, -2.3]) and at end of sedation (-8.7 BPM [95% CI: -13.1, -4.4]). Decrease in HR after DEX administration at start was -11.6 BPM [95% CI: -16.0, -7.1] and remained consistent afterward. There was no change in MAP during DEX-KET sedation. However, after DEX administration, MAP decreased by -6.9 [95% CI: -10.4, -3.3] at start, -7.8 [95% CI: -11.4, -4.2] at middle, and by -6.6 [95% CI: -14.4, 1.1] at end of sedation. Incidence of hypotension was 3% [95% CI: 0, 9] in DEX-KET, 7% [95% CI: 2, 14] in DEX, and 0% [95% CI: 0, 2] in KET groups. Incidence of bradycardia was 2% [95% CI: 0, 6] with DEX-KET and 12% [95% CI: 5, 20] with DEX. Incidence of oxygen desaturation was 3% [95% CI: 0, 8] in DEX-KET, 2% [95% CI: 0, 6] in DEX, 12% [95% CI: 5, 20] in KET, and 13% [95% CI: 6, 21] in PROP-KET groups. MIDA-KET sedation had 13% [95% CI: 4, 25] incidence of tachycardia.

CONCLUSIONS

DEX-KET for pediatric sedation results in better sedation outcomes than DEX or KET by shortening onset of sedation and recovery while maintaining hemodynamic and respiratory stability with low incidence of adverse events. DEX sedation was associated with higher incidence of bradycardia. Higher incidence of oxygen desaturation was observed with KET and PROP-KET whereas MIDA-KET was associated with higher incidence of tachycardia.

Safety and Efficacy of the Combination of Propofol and Ketamine for Procedural Sedation/Anesthesia in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Drugs such as propofol and ketamine are used alone or in combination to provide sedation for medical procedures in children. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the safety and effectiveness of propofol and ketamine to other drug regimens.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Web of Science, and the grey literature (meta-Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar) for randomized controlled studies comparing intravenous propofol and ketamine to any other single or combination drug regimen administered to children undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. Meta-analyses were performed for primary (hemodynamic and respiratory adverse events) and secondary outcomes using RevMan 5.3. We assessed the risk of bias and the certainty (quality) evidence for all outcomes using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included for analysis. Based on low-to-moderate quality evidence, we concluded that the use of propofol and ketamine may result in a slight-to-small reduction in the risk of hypotension, bradycardia, and apnea, and a slight increase in the risk of tachycardia, hypertension, and other respiratory adverse events, such as cough or laryngospasm. The ratio of propofol to ketamine and comparator drug regimen subgroups effects were important for desaturation and some secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of propofol and ketamine had a minimal effect on the incidence of adverse events and other secondary outcomes. Large-scale studies are required to more accurately estimate adverse event rates and the effects of propofol and ketamine on patient-important outcomes.

Induction and maintenance of procedural sedation in adults: focus on remimazolam injection

Introduction: Procedural sedation (PS) is a humane way to help patients get through painful medical procedures by the administration of sedative drugs combined with analgesics. However, each of the currently used medications has certain shortcomings, urging the search for a new drug. Remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, is an ultra-short-acting hypnotic agent invented out of the 'soft drug' development.Areas covered: This presented review provides an overview of the drugs used in clinical practice for the induction and maintenance of procedural sedation in adults, focusing on the newly investigated benzodiazepine remimazolam. Literature search was conducted using the MEDLINE and ClinicalTrial.gov databases from January 2007 to December 2020.Expert opinion: Based on the reported clinical trials so far, remimazolam has demonstrated its effectiveness and safety with promising properties including rapid onset, short duration of action, predictable and consistent recovery profile, metabolism almost unaffected by liver or renal function, with non or minimal cardiorespiratory depression, and availability with a reversal drug. With marketing approval received recently, remimazolam is expected to have a place in the practice for procedural sedation in the near future if its efficacy and safety are further confirmed by more clinical trials and post-market analyses.

Effect of Perioperative Ketamine on Postoperative Mood and Depression: A Review of the Literature

Introduction: Ketamine is being increasingly utilized in a variety of patient care settings, ranging from high acuity inpatient scenarios to the outpatient management of select mental health diagnoses. Postoperative patients are at an increased risk of developing a depressed state, and though ketamine's ability to improve mood is well documented in the literature, the relationship between perioperative ketamine and postoperative mood has not been fully elucidated. Areas covered: The purpose of this review was to determine ketamine's ability to improve mood and depression scores in the perioperative setting. A comprehensive literature review was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, and CINAHL using the following search terminology: 'ketamine' AND 'perioperative' OR 'surgery' AND 'mood' OR 'depression.' Seven clinical trials are evaluated in this review. Expert opinion: As the use of ketamine continues to expand, clinicians must be cognizant of the fact that many of its desired effects are likely to overlap. Patients outside of the perioperative setting may benefit from using ketamine as an analgesic or sedative, as appropriate, to mitigate mood and depression. Ketamine, when administered as an anesthetic in the perioperative setting, seemingly has effect on postoperative mood and depression. Further studies that are sufficient.

Ketamine-propofol (Ketofol) for procedural sedation and analgesia in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

The aim of this review is to elucidate the efficacy and side effects of ketofol in comparison to other anaesthetic agents during procedural sedation and analgesia.

Method

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1996 to Feb 2019) and MEDLINE (1966 to Feb 2019) were searched, including the related randomised control trials and reviewed articles to find unpublished trials or trials not obtained via electronic searches. Inclusion criteria for the studies included comparing recovery time, recording clinician satisfaction, and assessing the adverse effects of ketofol.

Results

Eleven trials consisting of a total of 1274 patients met our criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Five trials compared ketofol with a single agent, while six trials compared ketofol with combined agents. While comparing between ketofol and a single agent (either ketamine or propofol), ketofol showed significant effect on recovery time (MD: -9.88, 95% CI: − 14.30 to − 5.46; P = 0.0003; I² = 92%). However, no significant difference was observed while comparing ketofol with combined agents (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: − 6.24 to 7.74; P < 0.001; I² = 98%). During single-agent comparison, ketofol showed no significant differences in terms of clinician satisfaction (RR: 2.86, 95% CI: 0.64 to 12.69; P = 0.001; I² = 90%), airway obstruction (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 11.48; P = 0.81; I² = 0%), apnoea (RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.33 to 2.44; P = 0.88; I² = 0%), desaturation (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.94; P = 0.28; I² = 21%), nausea (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.41; P = 0.2; I² = 38%), and vomiting (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.61; P = 0.18; I² = 42%). During comparison with combined agents, ketofol was more effective in reducing hypotension (RR: 4.2, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.85; P = 0.76; I² = 0%), but no differences were observed in terms of bradycardia (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.14 to 03.63; P = 0.09; I² = 53%), desaturation (RR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.15 to 23.6; P = 0.11; I² = 61%), and respiratory depression (RR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.18 to 21.94; P = 0.12; I² = 59%).

Conclusion

There is low certainty of evidence that ketofol improves recovery time and moderate certainty of evidence that it reduces the frequency of hypotension. There was no significant difference in terms of other adverse effects when compared to other either single or combined agents.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42019127278.

A randomized controlled trial for measuring effects on cognitive functions of adding ketamine to propofol during sedation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of adding ketamine to propofol on cognitive functions in patients undergoing sedation for colonoscopy.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blinded, and controlled study, 200 patients were randomly allocated to ketamine/propofol admixture group (Group KP, n = 100), and propofol group (Group P, n = 100). Patients in Group KP received 0.25 mg/kg of ketamine and 0.5 mg/kg of propofol. Patients in Group P received 0.5 mg/kg propofol. Cognitive functions were measured using CogState battery before and after the colonoscopy procedure. Ninety five patients in Group KP and 92 patients in Group P had completed the CogStates tests and were included in the data analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with before procedure baseline, the performance on detection and identification tasks were significantly impaired after the procedure in both Group KP (P = .004, P = .001) and Group P patients (P = .005, P < .001). However, one-card learning accuracy and One-back memory was only impaired in Group KP patients (P = .006, P = .040) after the endoscopy but left intact in Group P patients. Group KP patients showed more severe impairment in one-card learning accuracy compared with Group P patients (P = .044). Group KP patients have better 5 minutes MAP (P = .005) and were also less likely to suffer from complications such as respiratory depression (P = .023) and hypotension (P = .015). OAA/S scores, BIS, MAP, complications, recovery times, and endoscopist and patient satisfaction were similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Although adding ketamine to propofol for sedation in colonoscopy provided fewer complications such as respiratory depression and hypotension, it also causes more impairment in cognitive functions.

Comparison of the efficacy of ketamine- propofol versus sodium thiopental-fentanyl in sedation: a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Many sedative regimens have been studied with controversial efficiencies. This study tried to assess the desirable and adverse effects of sodium thiopental-fentanyl (TF) with ketamine-propofol (KP) for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department.

METHODS

After signing written consent, patients were enrolled in this randomised double-blind trial to receive either KP or TF to reach the desired sedation level. The respiratory and haemodynamic complications, nausea and vomiting, recovery agitation, patient recall and satisfaction, provider satisfaction and recovery time were compared.

RESULTS

Of the participants, 47 in the KP group and 49 in the TF group were enrolled. The mean and SD scores were 6.91±1.93 and 8.34±1.25 for patients' satisfaction and 7.55±1.54 and 8.65±1.00 for satisfaction of physicians performing the procedures in TF and KP groups, respectively (p=0.000). Moreover, 39 (79.59%) and 18 (38.29%) of patients declared that they had recalled the procedures in the TF and KP groups, respectively (p=0.000). Transient hypoxia was reported in 2.1% and 8.1% in the KP and TF groups leading to perform 4.2% vs 8.1% airway manoeuvres, respectively, without the need for endotracheal intubation or further admission.

CONCLUSIONS

KP and TF combinations were effectively comparable although KP resulted in higher patient and provider satisfaction. This study did not detect a difference regarding adverse respiratory or haemodynamic effects. It is estimated that the TF combination can be potent and efficacious with possible low adverse events in procedural sedation.

Total intravenous anaesthesia with tumescent infiltration anaesthesia without definitive airway for early excision and skin grafting in a major burn - A prospective observational study

Background and Aims:

Patients with major burns posted for early tangential excision and skin grafting pose peculiar challenges for anaesthesiologists. The purpose of the study was to assess safety and efficacy of total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) with tumescent infiltration anaesthesia (TIA) for these burn procedures.

Methods:

This observational single-arm study was conducted on 48 cases of a tertiary centre burn unit, requiring early tangential excision and skin grafting between third and fifth days of burn injury. TIVA was administered using a combination of intravenous (iv) infusion of injection dexmedetomidine and iv boluses of fentanyl, ketamine, propofol, midazolam and paracetamol. TIA was administered in burn wounds after aseptic preparation. Spontaneous breathing was maintained with oxygen supplementation. Haemodynamic and respiratory monitoring was done intraoperatively every 15 minutes and for 6 hours postoperatively. Modified Aldrete's score was calculated at 10 minutes after completion of surgery. Statistical analysis was done using statistical package for the social science software (version 16). Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative variables.

Results:

Baseline mean HR was 106.95 ± 11.17 bpm (beats per minute). HR settled at 73.17 ± 6.97 bpm during the intraoperative period. The baseline mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 82.42 ± 10.04 mmHg was maintained at 81 ± 7.32 mmHg during the intraoperative period. In all, 95.8% achieved early recovery with mean modified Aldrete's score of ≥9 at 10 minutes post-surgery. There was no episode of apnoea or desaturation.

Conclusion:

TIVA in combination with TIA minimally interferes with homeostasis and promotes early recovery in patients undergoing early excision and grafting in major burns.

The KEEP SIMPLEST Study: Improving In-House Delays and Periinterventional Management in Stroke Thrombectomy-A Matched Pair Analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Although the treatment window for mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has been extended in recent years, it has been proven that recanalizing treatment must be administered as soon as possible. We present a new standard operating procedure (SOP) to reduce in-house delay, standardize periinterventional management and improve patient safety during MT.

METHODS

KEep Evaluating Protocol Simplification In Managing Periinterventional Light Sedation for Endovascular Stroke Treatment (KEEP SIMPLEST) was a prospective, single-center observational study aimed to compare aspects of periinterventional management in AIS patients treated according to our new SOP using a combination of esketamine and propofol with patients having been randomized into conscious sedation (CS) in the Sedation versus Intubation for Endovascular Stroke TreAtment (SIESTA) trial. Primary outcome was early neurological improvement at 24h using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and secondary outcomes were door-to-recanalization, recanalization grade, conversion rate and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 3 months.

RESULTS

Door-to-recanalization time (128.6 ± 69.47 min vs. 156.8 ± 75.91 min; p = 0.02), mean duration of MT (92.01 ± 52 min vs. 131.9 ± 64.03 min; p < 0.001), door-to-first angiographic image (51.61 ± 31.7 min vs. 64.23 ± 21.53 min; p = 0.003) and computed tomography-to-first angiographic image time (31.61 ± 20.6 min vs. 44.61 ± 19.3 min; p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the group treated under the new SOP. There were no differences in early neurological improvement, mRS at 3 months or other secondary outcomes between the groups. Conversion rates of CS to general anesthesia were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

An SOP using a novel sedation regimen and optimization of equipment and procedures directed at a leaner, more integrative and compact periinterventional management can reduce in-house treatment delays significantly in stroke patients receiving thrombectomy in light sedation and demonstrated the safety and feasibility of our improved approach.

Effect of Ketamine/Propofol Admixture on Peri-Induction Hemodynamics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To evaluate the effectiveness of an admixture of ketamine and propofol on peri-induction hemodynamics during airway manipulation, we searched electronic databases of randomized controlled trials from January 1, 2000, to October 17, 2018. Trial screening, selection, and data extraction were done independently by two reviewers with outcomes pooled across included trials using the random-effects model. We included 10 randomized trials (722 patients, mean age of 53.99 years, 39.96% female). American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status was reported in 9 trials with classes I and II representing the majority. Ketamine/propofol admixture was associated with a nonsignificant increase in heart rate (weighted mean difference, 3.36 beats per minute (95% CI, -0.88, 7.60), I 2 = 88.6%), a statistically significant increase in systolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference, 9.67 mmHg (95% CI, 1.48, 17.86), I 2 = 87.2%), a nonsignificant increase in diastolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference, 2.18 mmHg (95% CI, -2.82, 7.19), I 2 = 73.1%), and a nonsignificant increase in mean arterial pressure (weighted mean difference, 3.28 mmHg (95% CI, -0.94, 7.49), I 2 = 69.9%) compared to other agents. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was low. In conclusion, among patients undergoing airway manipulation and needing sedation, the use of a ketamine/propofol admixture may be associated with better hemodynamics compared to nonketamine/propofol sedation. This trial is registered with CRD42019125725.

[Periinterventional management of acute endovascular stroke treatment]

Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is more effective than standard medical treatment with or without intravenous thrombolysis alone for treating acute ischemic stroke (AIS) caused by large vessel occlusion (LVO) in the anterior circulation. MT is therefore recommended in current international guidelines, and many acute-care hospitals and stroke centers will have to prepare for providing this treatment in an optimal way. Beside successful recanalization, management before, during, and after the intervention represents significant challenges. One unresolved matter is whether the choice of anesthetic strategy, including airway management, affects functional outcome. Based on current data, treatment under general anesthesia (GA)-respecting predefined safety criteria and contraindications-seem seems to be equivalent to treating the patient in conscious sedation (CS) and not necessarily disadvantageous. Aspects of periinterventional management of MT, including pragmatic recommendations concerning logistics, monitoring, postprocedural steps, and follow-up imaging, will be summarized in this overview.

Effects of the addition of low-dose ketamine to propofol anesthesia in the dental procedure for intellectually disabled patients

Background

This study aimed to examine whether the combination of low-dose ketamine and propofol in deep sedation is clinically useful in controlling the behavior in intellectually disabled patients who are typically extremely noncooperative during dental procedures.

Methods

A total of 107 extremely noncooperative intellectually disabled adult patients were analyzed. In all patients, deep sedation was performed using either propofol alone (group P) or using a combination of propofol and 0.2 mg/kg or 0.4 mg/kg ketamine (groups PK0.2 and PK0.4, respectively). The procedures were performed in the order of insertion of nasal cannula into the nostril, attachment of mouth gag, and mouth cleaning and scaling. The frequency of patient movement during the procedures, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, recovery time, discharge time, and postoperative nausea and vomiting were examined.

Results

The three groups were significantly different only in the frequency of patient movement upon stimulation during single intravenous injection of propofol and scaling.

Conclusion

For propofol deep sedation, in contrast to intravenous injection of propofol alone, prior intravenous injection of low-dose ketamine (0.4 mg/kg) is clinically useful because it neither affects recovery, nor causes side effects and can suppress patient movement and vascular pain during procedures.

Procedural Sedation Using a Propofol-Ketamine Combination (Ketofol) vs. Propofol Alone in the Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP): A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Although the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) is a brief procedure, it can cause severe pain and discomfort to patients in the absence of adequate sedation. An admixture of ketamine with propofol (ketofol), may reduce patient movement due to insufficient sedation while providing hemodynamic and respiratory stability. This study evaluated the ability of two ratios of a propofol–ketamine combination, compared with propofol alone, to reduce patient movement during procedural sedation for LEEPs. Methods: One hundred and twenty women scheduled for a LEEP were randomly assigned to three groups. Anesthesia was induced with 1 mg/kg propofol (group P), 1 mg/kg propofol and 0.33 mg/kg ketamine (group K1), or 1 mg/kg propofol and 0.66 mg/kg ketamine (group K2). The primary outcome was the incidence of adduction motion in the lower extremities during the procedure. The requirements for respiratory interventions, changes in vital signs, sedation score, additional anesthetic usage, and surgeon and patient satisfaction were also evaluated. Results: The incidence of adduction motion was significantly lower in groups K1 and K2 than in group P (overall p-value <0.001) but did not differ significantly in groups K1 and K2. Group K2 needed more jaw thrust maneuvers than group K1. Additional propofol usage was lower and surgeon satisfaction scores higher in groups K1 and K2 than in group P. Conclusion: A propofol–ketamine combination is more effective than propofol alone in reducing procedural interference during LEEPs. However, increasing the dose of ketamine showed no additional benefit.

Propofol produces preventive analgesia via GluN2B-containing NMDA Receptor/ERK1/2 Signaling Pathway in a rat model of inflammatory pain

Abstract

Propofol, an intravenous anesthetic, has been shown to offer superior analgesic effect clinically. Whether propofol has preventive analgesic property remains unexplored. The present study investigated the antinociceptive effect of propofol and underlying molecular and cellular mechanisms via pre-emptive administration in a formalin-induced inflammatory pain model in rats. Male adult Sprague–Dawley rats were randomly allocated into four groups: naïve (Group Naïve), formalin injection only (Group Formalin), and formalin injection at 30 min (Group P-30 min) or 2 h (Group P-2 h) after intravenous infusion of propofol (0.6 mg kg−1 min−1) for 1 h. Nociceptive responses and protein expression of phosphorylated- or pan-GluN2B, ERK1/2, p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase, and c-Jun N-terminal kinase in the spinal dorsal horn were evaluated. Alteration of intracellular Ca2+ concentration induced by N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor agonists with or without pre-treatment of propofol was measured using fluorometry in SH-SY5Y cells while neuronal activation in the spinal dorsal horn by immunofluorescence. Pre-emptive propofol reduced pain with a delayed response to formalin and a reduction in hypersensitivity that lasted at least for 2 h. The formalin-induced activation of spinal GluN2B and ERK1/2 but not p38 or c-Jun N-terminal kinase was also diminished by propofol treatment. Preconditioning treatment with 3 µM and 10 µM of propofol inhibited Ca2+ influx mediated through NMDA receptors in SH-SY5Y cells. Propofol also reduced the neuronal expression of c-Fos and p-ERK induced by formalin. This study shows that pre-emptive administration of propofol produces preventive analgesic effects on inflammatory pain through regulating neuronal GluN2B-containing NMDA receptor and ERK1/2 pathway in the spinal dorsal horn.

Clinical and economic burden of procedural sedation-related adverse events and their outcomes: analysis from five countries

Background

Studies have reported on the incidence of sedation-related adverse events (AEs), but little is known about their impact on health care costs and resource use.

Methods

Health care providers and payers in five countries were recruited for an online survey by independent administrators to ensure that investigators and respondents were blinded to each other. Surveys were conducted in the local language and began with a “screener” to ensure that respondents had relevant expertise and experience. Responses were analyzed using Excel and R, with the Dixon’s Q statistic used to identify and remove outliers. Global and country-specific average treatment patterns were calculated via bootstrapping; costs were mean values. The sum product of costs and intervention probability gave a cost per AE.

Results

Responses were received from 101 providers and 26 payers, the majority having >5 years of experience. At a minimum, the respondents performed a total of 3,430 procedural sedations per month. All AEs detailed occurred in clinical practice in the last year and were reported to cause procedural delays and cancellations in some patients. Standard procedural sedation costs ranged from €74 (Germany) to $2,300 (US). Respondents estimated that AEs would increase costs by between 16% (Italy) and 179% (US). Hypotension was reported as the most commonly observed AE with an associated global mean cost (interquartile range) of $43 ($27–$68). Other frequent AEs, including mild hypotension, bradycardia, tachycardia, mild oxygen desaturation, hypertension, and brief apnea, were estimated to increase health care spending on procedural sedation by $2.2 billion annually in the US.

Conclusion

All sedation-related AEs can increase health care costs and result in substantial delays or cancellations of subsequent procedures. The prevention of even minor AEs during procedural sedation may be crucial to ensuring its value as a health care service.

Ketamine-based anesthesia improves electroconvulsive therapy outcomes: a randomized-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common and debilitating condition that can be challenging to treat. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is currently the therapeutic gold standard for treatment-resistant MDD. We tested our hypothesis that ketamine-based anesthesia for ECT results in superior improvement in treatment-resistant MDD outcomes compared with propofol-based anesthesia.

METHODS

Patients with treatment-resistant MDD were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial with assignment to ketamine- or propofol-based anesthesia arms. Using a modified intention-to-treat analysis, we compared the median number of ECT treatments required to achieve a 50% reduction (primary outcome) and a score ≤ 10 (secondary outcome) on the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS) between anesthesia groups.

RESULTS

The study was terminated as significant results were found after the first planned interim analysis with 12 patients in each of the ketamine (intervention) and propofol (control) groups. All ketamine patients achieved at least a 50% MADRS reduction after a median of two ECT treatments whereas ten propofol patients (83%) achieved the same outcome after a median of four ECT treatments. All ketamine patients and seven propofol patients (58%) achieved MDD remission (MADRS ≤ 10). Log rank tests showed that both time-to-50% reduction and remission differed significantly between groups. Adverse events and recovery time were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this early-terminated small-sized study, ketamine-based anesthesia compared with propofol-based anesthesia provided response and remission after fewer ECT sessions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01935115). Registered 4 September 2013.

Adverse Events With Ketamine Versus Ketofol for Procedural Sedation on Adults: A Double-blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

The goal of our study was to compare the frequency and severity of recovery reactions between ketamine and ketamine-propofol 1:1 admixture ("ketofol").

METHODS

We performed a multicentric, randomized, double-blind trial in which adult patients received emergency procedural sedations with ketamine or ketofol. Our primary outcome was the proportion of unpleasant recovery reactions. Other outcomes were frequency of interventions required by these recovery reactions, rates of respiratory or hemodynamic events, emesis, and satisfaction of patients as well as providers.

RESULTS

A total of 152 patients completed the study, 76 in each arm. Compared with ketamine, ketofol determined a 22% reduction in recovery reactions incidence (p < 0.01) and less clinical and pharmacologic interventions required by these reactions. There was no serious adverse event in both groups. Rates in hemodynamic or respiratory events as well as satisfaction scores were similar. Significantly fewer patients experienced emesis with ketofol, with a threefold reduction in incidence compared with ketamine.

CONCLUSION

We found a significant reduction in recovery reactions and emesis frequencies among adult patients receiving emergency procedural sedations with ketofol, compared with ketamine.