Patient-maintained propofol sedation for adult patients undergoing surgical or medical procedures: a scoping review of current evidence and technology

Non-Opioid Anesthetics Addiction: A Review of Current Situation and Mechanism

Drug addiction is one of the major worldwide health problems, which will have serious adverse consequences on human health and significantly burden the social economy and public health. Drug abuse is more common in anesthesiologists than in the general population because of their easier access to controlled substances. Although opioids have been generally considered the most commonly abused drugs among anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists, the abuse of non-opioid anesthetics has been increasingly severe in recent years. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the clinical situation and potential molecular mechanisms of non-opioid anesthetics addiction. This review incorporates the clinical and biomolecular evidence supporting the abuse potential of non-opioid anesthetics and the foreseeable mechanism causing the non-opioid anesthetics addiction phenotypes, promoting a better understanding of its pathogenesis and helping to find effective preventive and curative strategies.

Patient-maintained versus anaesthetist-controlled propofol sedation during elective primary lower-limb arthroplasty performed under spinal anaesthesia: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patient-maintained propofol TCI sedation (PMPS) allows patients to titrate their own target-controlled infusion (TCI) delivery of propofol sedation using a handheld button. The aim of this RCT was to compare PMPS with anaesthetist-controlled propofol TCI sedation (ACPS) in patients undergoing elective primary lower-limb arthroplasty surgery under spinal anaesthesia.

METHODS

In this single-centre open-label investigator-led study, adult patients were randomly assigned to either PMPS or ACPS during their surgery. Both sedation regimes used Schnider effect-site TCI modelling. The primary outcome measure was infusion rate adjusted for weight (expressed as mg kg-1 h-1). Secondary outcomes measures included depth of sedation, occurrence of sedation-related adverse events and time to medical readiness for discharge from the postanaesthsia care unit (PACU).

RESULTS

Eighty patients (48 female) were randomised. Subjects using PMPS used 39.3% less propofol during the sedation period compared with subjects in group ACPS (1.56 [0.57] vs 2.57 [1.33] mg kg-1 h-1; P<0.001), experienced fewer discrete episodes of deep sedation (0 vs 6; P=0.0256), fewer airway/breathing adverse events (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.94 [1.31-6.64]; P=0.009) and were ready for discharge from PACU more quickly (8.94 [5.5] vs 13.51 [7.2] min; P=0.0027).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-maintained propofol sedation during lower-limb arthroplasty under spinal anaesthesia results in reduced drug exposure and fewer episodes of sedation-related adverse events compared with anaesthetist-controlled propofol TCI sedation. To facilitate further investigation of this procedural sedation technique, PMPS-capable TCI infusion devices should be submitted for regulatory approval for clinical use.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN29129799.

Safety and efficacy of ciprofol vs propofol for sedation in intensive care unit patients with mechanical ventilation: a multi-center, open label, randomized, phase 2 trial

Background:

Ciprofol (HSK3486; Haisco Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd., Chengdu, China), developed as a novel 2,6-disubstituted phenol derivative showed similar tolerability and efficacy characteristics as propofol when applicated as continuous intravenous infusion for 12 h maintenance sedation in a previous phase 1 trial. The phase 2 trial was designed to investigate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic characteristics of ciprofol for sedation of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation.

Methods:

In this multicenter, open label, randomized, propofol positive-controlled, phase 2 trial, 39 Chinese intensive care unit patients receiving mechanical ventilation were enrolled and randomly assigned to a ciprofol or propofol group in a 2:1 ratio. The ciprofol infusion was started with a loading infusion of 0.1–0.2 mg/kg for 0.5–5.0 min, followed by an initial maintenance infusion rate of 0.30 mg·kg⁻¹·h⁻¹, which could be adjusted to an infusion rate of 0.06 to 0.80 mg·kg⁻¹·h⁻¹, whereas for propofol the loading infusion dose was 0.5–1.0 mg/kg for 0.5–5.0 min, followed by an initial maintenance infusion rate of 1.50 mg·kg⁻¹·h⁻¹, which could be adjusted to 0.30–4.00 mg·kg⁻¹·h⁻¹ to achieve −2 to +1 Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale sedation within 6–24 h of drug administration.

Results:

Of the 39 enrolled patients, 36 completed the trial. The median (min, max) of the average time to sedation compliance values for ciprofol and propofol were 60.0 (52.6, 60.0) min and 60.0 (55.2, 60.0) min, with median difference of 0.00 (95% confidence interval: 0.00, 0.00). In total, 29 (74.4%) patients comprising 18 (69.2%) in the ciprofol and 11 (84.6%) in the propofol group experienced 86 treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs), the majority being of severity grade 1 or 2. Drug- and sedation-related TEAEs were hypotension (7.7% vs. 23.1%, P = 0.310) and sinus bradycardia (3.8% vs. 7.7%, P = 1.000) in the ciprofol and propofol groups, respectively. The plasma concentration-time curves for ciprofol and propofol were similar.

Conclusions:

ciprofol is comparable to propofol with good tolerance and efficacy for sedation of Chinese intensive care unit patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the present study setting.

Trial registration:

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04147416.