Efficacy and Tolerability of Sufentanil, Dexmedetomidine, or Ketamine Added to Propofol-based Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Elderly Patients: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Long-Term Prognostic Factors for Patients Aged 80 and Older With Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Undergoing Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an acceptable treatment for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) even in elderly patients. However, studies on the prognostic factors in very elderly patients are limited. Therefore, we aimed to explore the prognostic factors affecting overall survival (OS) in patients aged ≥ 80 with superficial ESCC who underwent ESD.

METHODS

This study included 155 patients aged ≥ 80 who underwent ESD for superficial ESCC. Clinicopathological findings and long-term outcomes were examined. The prognostic nutritional index (PNI) and geriatric nutritional index (GNRI) were used to assess pre-treatment nutritional status.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients (18.7%) were aged ≥ 85. Thirty-five (22.6%) and 61 (39.4%) patients had a GNRI < 92 and PNI < 45, respectively. Metastatic relapse was observed in five cases, four (80%) of which resulted in death due to the primary disease. The median OS of all patients was 86 months. Although factors specifically associated with disease-specific survival were not identified, GNRI, PNI, comorbidity, and physical status were associated with OS. In multivariate analysis, age ≥ 85 years (p = 0.03), GNRI (p < 0.01), and PNI (p < 0.01) remained factors associated with OS. Patients aged ≥ 85 with either GNRI ≥ 92 or PNI ≥ 45 had a median OS of 106 months, whereas those aged ≥ 85 with GNRI < 92 had a median OS of 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

GNRI and PNI are important indicators for assessing the suitability of ESD in elderly patients aged ≥ 80. These indices can help predict OS and guide clinical decision-making for this patient population.

Efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol for conscious sedation in painless colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

We explored the efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol for conscious sedation in painless colonoscopy.

METHODS

A total of 195 patients who underwent painless colonoscopy surgery were randomly divided into three groups: the propofol deep sedation group (group DS), the sufentanil combined with propofol for conscious sedation (group CS1) and the esketamine combined with propofol for conscious sedation (group CS2). The primary outcomes of this study included the incidence of hypoxemia, hypotension, hypertension, and bradycardia and excellent and good rates of anaesthesia during colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes included perioperative changes in vital signs (MAP, HR, and SpO2), anaesthesia induction time, dischargeable time, patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), drowsiness, dizziness, propofol injection pain, assisted ventilation and vasoactive medications.

RESULTS

The incidence of intraoperative hypoxemia in the DS group was significantly greater than that in the CS1 and CS2 groups (χ2 = 7.081, P = 0.029). The incidence of hypotension in the CS2 group was significantly lower than that in the DS and CS1 groups (χ2 = 16.278, P < 0.001). The risk of hypoxemia was 5.727 times higher in Group DS than in Group CS2 (OR 5.727; 95%CI 1.203-27.273), and the risk of hypotension was 9.864 times higher in Group DS than in Group CS2 (OR 9.864; 95%CI 2.770-35.120). The risk of hypotension in Group CS1 was 5.167 times that in Group CS2 (OR 5.167; 95%CI 1.396-19.117). The incidence of propofol injection pain, assisted ventilation, ephedrine usage and drowsiness in the DS group was significantly greater than that in the CS1 and CS2 groups (χ2 = 57.618, P < 0.001; χ2 = 9.544, P = 0.008; χ2 = 14.820, P = 0.001; χ2 = 37.257, P < 0.001). The incidence of dizziness during recovery in the CS1 group was significantly greater than that in the DS and CS2 groups (χ2 = 6.594, P = 0.037). The dischargeable time in the DS group was significantly greater than that in the CS1 and CS2 groups (F = 53.039, P < 0.001). The satisfaction scores of the endoscopist and patients in the DS group were significantly lower than those in the CS1 and CS2 groups (F = 17.390, P < 0.001; F = 19.282; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, esketamine combined with propofol for conscious sedation can be safely and effectively used for painless colonoscopy and has fewer complications.It is recommended for painless colonoscopy.

Impact of different doses of esketamine on the incidence of hypotension in propofol-based sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Hypovolemia is common in colonoscopy due to fasting and bowel preparation, and propofol itself can reduce systemic vascular resistance, resulting in relative hypovolemia. Therefore, hypotension is not a rare event during propofol-based sedation for colonoscopy.

Objectives

Our objective was to explore the efficacy of esketamine as a sedative adjuvant in reducing the incidence of hypotension during colonoscopy.

Design

This was a prospective randomized trial. The trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ID: ChiCTR 2100047032).

Methods

We included 100 eligible patients who planned to receive a colonoscopy and randomly divided them into 4 groups with 25 patients in each group, which were propofol 2 mg/kg (Group P), propofol 1 mg/kg with esketamine 0.2 mg/kg (Group E1), propofol 1 mg/kg with esketamine 0.3 mg/kg (Group E2), and propofol 1 mg/kg with esketamine 0.4 mg/kg (Group E3). The hemodynamic and respiratory parameters were documented at various times during the procedure, including the patient's entry into the endoscopic room (T0), the induction of sedation (T1), the insertion of the colonoscope (T2), the removal of the colonoscope (T3), and the awakening of the patient (T4). The primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular side effects other than hypotension, incidence of hypoxia, cumulative changes in cardiovascular and respiratory parameters, total propofol dosage, anesthesia recovery time, and satisfactory levels of both patients and endoscopists.

Results

The incidence of hypotension in Group E1 (16%), Group E2 (16%), and Group E3 (12%) was significantly lower than in Group P (60%), with p values 0.003, 0.003, and <0.001 respectively. The cumulative changes in diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure in Groups E1, E2, and E3 were significantly higher than in Group P (p = 0.024, p < 0.001, p = 0.006, respectively). Cumulative changes in systolic blood pressure in Group E3 were significantly higher than those in Group P (p = 0.012). The respiratory-related parameters were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

This study showed that the application of 0.4 mg/kg esketamine in propofol-based sedation reduced the incidence of hypotension during colonoscopy while providing satisfactory sedation.

Sedation for GI Endoscopy in the Morbidly Obese: Challenges and Possible Solutions

With the increasing prevalence of obesity and morbid obesity, this subgroup's contribution to patients presenting for elective procedures requiring sedation is significant. Gastrointestinal (GI) procedures clearly form the largest group of such procedures. These procedures may be intended to treat obesity such as the insertion of an intragastric balloon or one or more unrelated procedures such as a screening colonoscopy and (or) diagnostic/therapeutic endoscopy. Regardless of the procedure, these patients pose significant challenges in terms of choice of sedatives, dosing, airway management, ventilation, and oxygenation. An understanding of dissimilarity in the handling of different groups of medications used by an anesthesia provider and alterations in airway anatomy is critical for providing safe sedation. Administration of sedative medications and conduct of anesthesia requires dose modifications and airway adjuncts. In this review, we discuss the above issues in detail, with a particular focus on GI endoscopy.

The efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in patients undergoing colonoscopy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Propofol is a commonly utilized anesthetic for painless colonoscopy, but its usage is occasionally limited due to its potential side effects, including cardiopulmonary suppression and injection pain. To address this limitation, the novel compound ciprofol has been proposed as a possible alternative for propofol. This study sought to determine whether there are any differences in the safety and efficacy of propofol and ciprofol for painless colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Single-centre, class A tertiary hospital, November 2021 to November 2022.

PATIENTS

Adult, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I to II and body mass index of 18 to 30 kg m-2 patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

Consecutive patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive sedation for colonoscopy with ciprofol (group C) or propofol (group P).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the success rate of colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes were onset time of sedation, operation time, recovery time and discharge time, patients and endoscopists satisfaction, side effects (e.g. injection pain, myoclonus, drowsiness, dizziness, procedure recall, nausea and vomiting) and incidence rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

No significant difference was found in the success rate of colonoscopy between the two groups (ciprofol 96.3% vs. propofol 97.6%; mean difference - 1.2%, 95% CI: -6.5% to 4.0%, P = 0.650). However, group C showed prolonged sedation (63.4 vs. 54.8 s, P < 0.001) and fully alert times (9 vs 8 min, P = 0.013), as well as reduced incidences of injection pain (0 vs. 40.2%, P < 0.001), respiratory depression (2.4% vs. 13.4%, P = 0.021) and hypotension (65.9% vs. 80.5%, P = 0.034). Patients satisfaction was also higher in Group C (10 vs 9, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol can be used independently for colonoscopy. When comparing the sedation efficacy of ciprofol and propofol, a 0.4 mg kg-1 dose of ciprofol proved to be equal to a 2.0 mg kg-1 dose of propofol, with fewer side effects and greater patient satisfaction during the procedure.

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 .

Comparing sedation protocols for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): A retrospective study

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a widely used diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. Effective sedation is crucial to enhance patient comfort and optimize endoscopist performance. Various sedation protocols, including Propofol and Dexmedetomidine (Pro-Dex), Ketamine and Propofol (Keto-Fol), Propofol and Midazolam (Pro-Mid), and Propofol alone, have been utilized during ERCP. This retrospective study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of these four sedation protocols.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 600 patients who underwent ERCP between 2018 and 2021, with each patient receiving one of the four sedation protocols. Protocol assignment was based on the endoscopist's preference. Data on hemodynamic parameters, sedation level, recovery time, and procedure-related complications were collected.

Results

Baseline data showed no significant differences among the groups pre-procedure. The Pro-Dex group exhibited significantly lower mean total propofol dose, shorter recovery time, and faster achievement of Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score 3-4 compared to the other groups. The Pro-group demonstrated significantly longer hospital stay than the other three groups (median, 4.19 ± 1.1 vs. 3.48 ± 1.2 days in the KP groups, p = 0.042). There were no significant variations in the incidence of respiratory depression, hypotension, or bradycardia among the four groups. Additionally, notable trends were found for hemodynamic measures, total propofol dosage, time to reach the desired level of sedation (as measured by the Ramsay Sedation Scale), and hospital stay based on BMI categories, indicating that higher BMI is linked to more serious outcomes.

Conclusion

Our retrospective study demonstrates that the Pro-Dex protocol offers superior sedation quality, faster recovery, and fewer complications compared to the other protocols during ERCP. However, the incidence of ERCP-related adverse events did not significantly differ among the four sedation protocols. These findings can aid clinicians in selecting the most appropriate sedation protocol for ERCP, considering patient and endoscopist preferences.

Efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol for curative endoscopic resection in colorectum: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Curative endoscopic resection is widely used to treat colonic polyps and early stage cancers. The anesthetic strategy commonly involves the use of propofol combined with a small dose of opioids for sedation. Adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events such as hypotension often occur when attempting to achieve the necessary level of sedation. Several studies have suggested its advantages owing to the anesthetic, analgesic, and sympathomimetic properties of esketamine. However, there are no reports on curative colorectal endoscopic resection. We designed this randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol for sedation in patients undergoing curative colorectal endoscopic resection.

METHODS

A total of 166 patients who underwent curative colorectal endoscopic resection were randomly assigned to groups A (propofol + fentanyl) or E (propofol + esketamine). Ideal sedation was assessed using the MOAA/S scale and was achieved using TCI-propofol with different doses of fentanyl and esketamine. The propofol consumption and vasoactive drug dosages were recorded. Sedation-related times, adverse events, and satisfaction were recorded.

RESULTS

Of the 160 patients, the total propofol consumption was significantly lower in group E (n = 81) (300 mg) than in group A (n = 79) (350 mg). Hypotension and bradycardia were significantly lower in Group E than in Group A. The groups showed no significant differences in other adverse events, induction time, recovery time, or patient or endoscopist satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Compared to fentanyl, esketamine helps decrease propofol consumption and increases cardiovascular stability during curative colorectal endoscopic resection in American Society of Anesthesiologists Class I-III patients without affecting anesthesia, patient and endoscopist satisfaction, or other adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was retrospectively registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( www.chictr.org.cn ; registration number: ChiCTR2300069014 on 03/03/2023).

Dexmedetomidine Pretreatment Confers Myocardial Protection and Reduces Mechanical Ventilation Duration for Patients Undergoing Cardiac Valve Replacement under Cardiopulmonary Bypass

PURPOSE

The study aims to assess the effects of dexmedetomidine (Dex) pretreatment on patients during cardiac valve replacement under cardiopulmonary bypass.

METHODS

For patients in the Dex group (n = 52), 0.5 μg/kg Dex was given before anesthesia induction, followed by 0.5 μg/kg/h pumping injection before aortic occlusion. For patients in the control group (n = 52), 0.125 ml/kg normal saline was given instead of Dex.

RESULTS

The patients in the Dex group had longer time to first dose of rescue propofol than the control group (P = 0.003). The Dex group required less total dosage of propofol than the control group (P = 0.0001). The levels of cardiac troponin I (cTnI), creatine kinase isoenzyme MB (CK-MB), malondialdehyde (MDA), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were lower in the Dex group than the control group at T4, 8 h after the operation (T5), and 24 h after the operation (T6) (P <0.01). The Dex group required less time for mechanical ventilation than the control group (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

The study suggests that 0.50 µg/kg Dex pretreatment could reduce propofol use and the duration of mechanical ventilation, and confer myocardial protection without increased adverse events during cardiac valve replacement.

Effect of Esketamine Added to Propofol Sedation on Desaturation and Hypotension in Bidirectional Endoscopy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Propofol sedation is widely used for endoscopic procedures, but it poses risks of hemodynamic and respiratory depression. The addition of esketamine as an adjuvant may reduce propofol requirements and associated adverse events.

Objective

To evaluate the effects of low-dose esketamine added to propofol-based sedation on desaturation and hypotension during same-visit bidirectional endoscopy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial assessed patients from 3 teaching hospitals in China who were scheduled for same-visit bidirectional endoscopy between February 8 and November 30, 2022, and randomly assigned to receive esketamine or normal saline (placebo).

Interventions

After induction of sedation with 0.1 μg/kg of sufentanil and 0.5 mg/kg of propofol, patients in the esketamine group received 0.15 mg/kg of intravenous esketamine, whereas patients in the placebo group received an equivalent volume of saline. Sedation was achieved through propofol titration.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the composite of desaturation and hypotension during the procedures. Secondary outcomes included desaturation, hypotension, propofol requirements, postprocedure pain and fatigue, nausea or vomiting, dizziness or headache, hallucination or nightmare, endoscopist satisfaction, and patient satisfaction.

Results

Among the 663 initially enrolled patients, 660 completed the study (median [IQR] age, 48 [36-57] years; 355 [53.8%] female), with 331 randomized to the esketamine group and 329 to the placebo group. The administration of esketamine compared with placebo significantly reduced the incidence of the composite outcome of desaturation and hypotension (8.2% vs 21.0%; difference, -12.8 percentage points; odds ratio [OR], 0.34; 95% CI, 0.21-0.54; P < .001). Additionally, esketamine led to significantly lower incidences of desaturation (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18-0.72; false discovery rate q = .01) and hypotension (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.60; q < .001) and reduced propofol requirements (difference, -58.9 mg; 95% CI, -65.7 to -52.2 mg; q < .001), without significant effects on other secondary outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of patients undergoing same-visit bidirectional endoscopy, the administration of low-dose esketamine resulted in an approximately 61% reduction in the incidence of desaturation and hypotension, accompanied by decreased propofol requirements. These findings support the use of esketamine as an adjuvant to propofol-based sedation in endoscopic procedures.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2200055938.

Efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of sedation with DEX during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with a view to providing evidence-based references for clinical decision-making. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DEX with different sedatives comparators (such as propofol, midazolam, and ketamine) for sedation in a variety of adult gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 1 July 2022. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI were used for continuous outcomes or dichotomous outcomes, respectively, and a random-effect model was selected regardless of the significance of the heterogeneity. Results: Forty studies with 2,955 patients were assessed, of which 1,333 patients were in the DEX group and 1,622 patients were in the control (without DEX) group. The results suggested that the primary outcomes of sedation level of DEX are comparable to other sedatives, with similar RSS score and patient satisfaction level, and better in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of body movements or gagging (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.97; p = 0.04; I2 = 68%), and a reduced additional requirement for other sedatives, and increased endoscopist satisfaction level (SMD: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.77; p = 0.03; I2 = 86%). In terms of secondary outcomes of adverse events, DEX may benefit patients in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of hypoxia (RR:0.34; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.55; p < 0.0001; I2 = 52%) and cough (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54; p = 0.0004; I2 = 0%), no significant difference in the risk of hypotension, while an increased risk of bradycardia (RR: 3.08; 95% CI: 2.12 to 4.48; p < 0.00001; I2 = 6%). Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that DEX is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy because of its benefits for patients in some clinical outcomes. Remarkably, DEX is comparable to midazolam and propofol in terms of sedation level. In conclusion, DEX provides an additional option in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced.

Safety and tolerability of esketamine in propofol based sedation for endoscopic variceal ligation with or without injection sclerotherapy: Randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Esketamine is an S (+) enantiomer of ketamine with greater potency and similar psychomimetic effects compared to racemic ketamine. We aimed to explore the safety of esketamine in different doses as an adjuvant to propofol in patients undergoing endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) with or without injection sclerotherapy.

METHODS

One hundred patients were randomized to receive sedation with propofol 1.5 mg/kg in combination with sufentanil 0.1 μg/kg (group S), esketamine 0.2 mg/kg (group E0.2), esketamine 0.3 mg/kg (group E0.3), or esketamine 0.4 mg/kg (group E0.4) for EVL (n = 25 each). Hemodynamic and respiratory parameters were recorded during the procedure. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension; secondary outcomes included the incidence of desaturation, positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) after the procedure, pain score after the procedure, and secretion volume.

RESULTS

The incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in groups E0.2 (36%), E0.3 (20%), and E0.4 (24%) than in group S (72%). The incidence of SpO2  ≤94% was significantly lower in group E0.4 (4%) than in group S (32%). No significant intergroup difference was found in the PANSS assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining 0.4 mg/kg esketamine with propofol sedation was optimal to facilitate EVL with stable hemodynamic status and better respiratory function during the procedure, without significant psychomimetic side-effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Trial ID: ChiCTR2100047033, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=127518).

Effects of dexmedetomidine in non-operating room anesthesia in adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for its sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic effects. Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) is a modality of anesthesia that can be done under general anesthesia or procedural sedation or/and analgesia. In this particular setting, a level-2 sedation, such as the one provided by DEX, is beneficial. We aimed to study the effects and safety of DEX in the different NORA settings in the adult population.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Interventions using DEX only or DEX associated with other sedative agents, in adults (18 years old or more), were included. Procedures outside the NORA setting and/or without a control group without DEX were excluded. MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, LILACS, and SciELO were searched. The primary outcome was time until full recovery. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and respiratory complications and other adverse events, among others.

RESULTS

A total of 97 studies were included with a total of 6,706 participants. The meta-analysis demonstrated that DEX had a higher time until full recovery (95% CI = [0.34, 3.13] minutes, a higher incidence of hypotension (OR = 1.95 [1.25, 3.05], p = 0.003, I2 = 39%) and bradycardia (OR = 3.60 [2.29, 5.67], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%), and a lower incidence of desaturation (OR = 0.40 [0.25, 0.66], p = 0.0003, I² = 60%).

CONCLUSION

DEX in NORA procedures in adults was associated with a lower incidence of amnesia and respiratory effects but had a long time to recovery and more hemodynamic complications.

Effects of intravenous administration of magnesium sulfate in propofol-based sedation for ERCP in elderly patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Propofol-based sedations are widely used in elderly patients for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure, but respiratory depression and cardiovascular adverse events commonly occur. Magnesium administered intravenously can alleviate pain and decrease propofol requirements during surgery. We hypothesized that intravenous magnesium was used as adjuvant to propofol might be beneficial in elderly patients undergoing ERCP procedures.

METHODS

Eighty patients aged from 65 to 79 years who were scheduled for ERCP were enrolled. All patients were intravenously administered 0.1 µg/kg sufentanil as premedication. The patients were randomized to receive either intravenous magnesium sulfate 40 mg/kg (group M, n = 40) or the same volume of normal saline (group N, n = 40) over 15 min before the start of sedation. Intraoperative sedation was provided by propofol. Total propofol requirement during ERCP was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

The total propofol consumption were reduced by 21.4% in the group M compared with the group N (151.2 ± 53.3 mg vs. 192.3 ± 72.1 mg, P = 0.001). The incidences of respiratory depression episodes and involuntary movement were less in the group M than those in the group N (0/40 vs. 6/40, P = 0.011; 4/40 vs. 11/40, P = 0.045; respectively). In the group M, the patients experienced less pain than those in the group N at 30 min after the procedure (1 [0-1] vs. 2 [1-2], P < 0.001). Correspondingly, the patients' satisfaction was clearly higher in the group M (P = 0.005). There was a tendency towards lower intraoperative heart rate and mean arterial pressure in group M.

CONCLUSIONS

A single bolus of 40 mg/kg of intravenous magnesium can significantly reduce propofol consumption during ERCP, with higher sedation success and lower adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ID UMIN000044737. Registered 02/07/2021.

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.

Evaluating efficacy and safety of sub-anesthetic dose esketamine as an adjuvant to propofol/remifentanil analgosedation and spontaneous respiration for children flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy: a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, and placebo-controlled clinical trial

Background: Flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FFB) for children is widely performed under sedation. Currently, the optimal sedation regimen remains unclear. Esketamine is an N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA) receptor antagonist, which has stronger sedative and analgesic effects and exerts less cardiorespiratory depression than other sedatives. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a subanesthetic dose of esketamine as an adjuvant to propofol/remifentanil and spontaneous ventilation compared with control reduces the procedural and anesthesia-related complications of FFB in children. Materials and methods: Seventy-two children ≤ 12 years of age who were scheduled for FFB were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to the esketamine-propofol/remifentanil (Group S, n = 36) or to the propofol/remifentanil group (Group C, n = 36). All children were retained spontaneous ventilation. The primary outcome was the incidence of oxygen desaturation (respiratory depression). Perioperative hemodynamic variables, blood oxygen saturation (SPO₂), end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PetCO₂), respiratory rate (R), and the Bispectral index (BIS), induction time, procedural time, recovery time, the time to the ward from the recovery room, consumption of propofol and remifentanil during the procedure and the appearance of adverse events, including paradoxical agitation following midazolam administration, injection pain, laryngospasm, bronchospasm, PONV, vertigo, and hallucination were also compared. Results: The incidence of oxygen desaturation was significantly lower in Group S (8.3%) compared to Group C (36.1%, p = 0.005). The perioperative hemodynamic profile including SBP, DBP, and HR were more stable in Group S than that in Group C (p < 0.05). Consumption of propofol and remifentanil was lower in Group S than in Group C (p < 0.05). Furthermore, PAED scores, cough scores and injection pain were lower in the Group S than in Group C (p < 0.05). The recovery time of Group S was slightly longer than that of Group C (p < 0.05). Nobody happened paradoxical agitation following midazolam administration, PONV, vertigo, and hallucinations in both groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Our findings indicate that a subanesthetic dose of esketamine as an adjuvant to propofol/remifentanil and spontaneous respiration is an effective regimen for children undergoing FFB. Our findings will provide a reference for clinical sedation practice during these procedures in children. Clinical Trail Registration: Chinese clinicaltrials.gov registry (identifier: ChiCTR2100053302).

Efficacy and Safety of a Subanesthetic Dose of Esketamine Combined with Propofol in Patients with Obesity Undergoing Painless Gastroscopy: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Patients with obesity are more susceptible to hypoxemia. Anesthetic management for patients with obesity undergoing painless gastroscopy presents a severe challenge for anesthesiologists. Esketamine is a NMDA antagonist that has been proven to be beneficial for ameliorating respiratory depression owing to its sympathomimetic effect; however, there are no relevant reports on its use in patients with obesity. We designed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether esketamine can be the ideal adjuvant to propofol sedation in patients with obesity undergoing painless gastroscopy.

Patients and Methods

A total of 104 patients with obesity undergoing painless gastroscopy were randomly divided into group C (propofol+saline) and group S (propofol+esketamine 0.25 mg/kg). Anesthesia was induced by 2 mg/kg propofol with saline or esketamine. The consumption of propofol, hemodynamic parameters, duration of procedure, induction time, postoperative awakening time, and orientation recovery time were recorded. Adverse events and satisfaction scores were also recorded.

Results

Propofol consumption was 274.4±22.6 mg and 201.3±16.6 mg in groups C and S, respectively. The induction time of groups C and S were 25.4±2.3 s and 17.8±1.9 s, respectively. The postoperative awakening times of groups C and S were 6.2±1.1 min and 4.8±1.3 min, respectively. Hemodynamic parameters were more stable in group S than in group C. The incidence of adverse events such as injection pain, hypoxemia, hypotension, bradycardia, choking, and body movement were significantly lower in group S. The satisfaction scores of the endoscopist and anesthesiologist were (4.58±0.49 vs 3.71±0.83) and (4.75±0.44 vs 3.33±0.92), respectively.

Conclusion

The combination of propofol and esketamine (0.25 mg/kg) improves the safety and reduces the incidence of adverse events in patients with obesity during painless gastroscopy. Thus, this method is worthy of clinical application.

Clinical Trials Registration

ChiCTR 2200062547.

Sedation Is Associated with Higher Polyp and Adenoma Detection Rates during Colonoscopy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background and Aims

Currently sedation is a common practice in colonoscopy to reduce pain of patients and improve the operator satisfaction, whereas its impact on examination quality, especially adenoma detection rate (ADR) is still controversial. Thus, we aimed to investigate the association of sedation with ADR.

Methods

Consecutive patients receiving colonoscopy between January 2017 and January 2020 at the Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing, China, were collected. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were performed to investigate the association between sedation and ADR. Subgroup analysis and propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, as sensitivity analysis, were performed to validate the independent effect.

Results

The ADR was significantly higher in cases with sedation (ADR: 36.9% vs. 29.1%, odds ratio [OR]: 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31-1.55, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that the sedation was an independent factor associated with ADR (OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.35-1.65, P < 0.001). The effect was consistent in subgroup analyses (P > 0.05) and PSM analysis (ADR: 37.6% vs. 29.1%, OR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.33-1.63, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Sedation was associated with a higher polyp and ADR s during colonoscopy, which can promote the quality of colonoscopy.

The median effective doses of propofol combined with two different doses of nalbuphine for adult patients during painless gastroscopy

Objective: Propofol is the most widely administered intravenous anesthetic to induce deep sedation for gastroscopy procedures. Coadministration of nalbuphine can provide analgesia and sedation to patients experiencing visceral pain, thereby decreasing the amount of propofol needed and reducing the risk of propofol-induced adverse events. We carried out this study to determine the median effective dose (ED50) of propofol in combination with different dosages of nalbuphine and the optimal dosage of nalbuphine during painless gastroscopy.

Methods: We recruited sixty-five patients aged 18–60 years who underwent elective painless gastroscopy. A total of sixty-one patients were allocated randomly to the N1 group (nalbuphine 0.1 mg/kg) or N2 group (nalbuphine 0.15 mg/kg). Three minutes after administration of nalbuphine, patients received a preset dose of propofol at 2.0 mg/kg with a dose gradient of 0.2 mg/kg according to Dixon’s “up-and-down” method. The primary outcome was the ED50 of propofol in combination with nalbuphine. Hemodynamic parameters, recovery time, pain score, and adverse events were recorded as secondary outcomes.

Results: The ED50 of propofol in the N2 group was significantly lower than that observed in the N1 group (p < 0.01). Using probit analysis, the ED50 and ED95 of propofol were 1.632 mg/kg and 2.759 mg/kg in the N1 group and 1.111 mg/kg and 2.243 mg/kg in the N2 group, respectively. The incidence of hypotension in the N2 group was lower than that in the N1 group (p < 0.05), and the recovery time was shorter than that of the N1 group (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: In adult patients, 0.15 mg/kg nalbuphine led to a significant reduction in the ED50 and ED95 of propofol during gastroscopy. This dose of nalbuphine also reduced the incidence of hypotension and shortened the recovery time. Therefore, nalbuphine (0.15 mg/kg) combined with propofol is a safe option for enhancing recovery after painless gastroscopy in adult patients.

Clinical Trial Registration: [https://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=126699&htm=4], identifier [ChiCTR2100053204].

Incidence of Dissociation With Low-Dose Pre-hospital Ketamine in Geriatric Patients With Trauma-Related Pain

Introduction

Sub-dissociative ketamine has been used increasingly for the treatment of acute pain in a wide variety of settings. While there are studies evaluating its use in the geriatric population, no studies have described its safety in the pre-hospital geriatric trauma patient. The objective of this study was to define the incidence of dissociation with low-dose pre-hospital ketamine in geriatric trauma patients.

Methods

Using our county emergency medical services database, we identified all trauma patients greater or equal to 65 years of age who received pre-hospital ketamine for pain after the implementation of a low-dose ketamine protocol. We retrospectively reviewed pre-hospital and emergency department records for demographics, traumatic injuries, Glasgow Coma Score, emergency department length of stay and disposition, and hospital length of stay. This group was compared to a similar population of trauma patients, transported prior to the ketamine protocol. The comparison group was chosen by matching the ketamine group to more than double the number of non-ketamine patients. Records were obtained from two separate trauma centers. Our primary outcome was documentation of “ketamine-related dissociation” by either the pre-hospital, emergency department or trauma provider. Secondary outcomes included emergency department length of stay and intensive care unit admission.

Results

Seventy-nine patients received ketamine with records available for analysis. One hundred ninety-three non-ketamine patients were compared to this group. There were nosignificant differences between the two groups in regards to age, weight, gender, or mechanism of injury. The injury severity score was higher in the ketamine group. Nine patients (11%) had documented dissociation after ketamine, with six of these patients back to baseline mentation by arrival to the emergency department. The emergency department length of stay was shorter in the ketamine group. The rate of intensive care unit admission was the same between both groups.

Conclusions

Pre-hospital sub-dissociative ketamine in geriatric trauma patients is associated with brief episodes of dissociation in a small minority of patients.

Intravenous Lidocaine Significantly Reduces the Propofol Dose in Elderly Patients Undergoing Gastroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

Propofol-based sedation has been widely used for gastroscopy, but the risk of respiratory suppression in elderly patients should not be overlooked. Intravenous (IV) lidocaine during surgery can reduce the demand for propofol and the incidence of cardiopulmonary complications. We examined whether IV lidocaine reduces the dose of propofol and the occurrence of adverse events during gastroscopy in elderly patients.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, single-center, double-blind randomized controlled trial in elderly patients aged ≥65 years with ASA I-II. Subjects were randomly assigned to the lidocaine group (Group L, n=70), who received IV 1.5 mg kg⁻¹ lidocaine followed by a continuous infusion of 4 mg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹ lidocaine, or the normal saline group (Group N, n=70), who received an equal volume of saline in the same way.

Results

IV lidocaine reduced the total and maintenance propofol dose in Group L (p<0.001), with no significant effect on the induction dose. The incidence of intraoperative hypoxia (p=0.035), emergency airway management events (p=0.005), duration of gastroscopy (p<0.05), consciousness recovery time (p<0.001), and postoperative pain (p=0.009) were all reduced in Group L. Patient (p=0.025) and gastroscopist (p=0.031) satisfaction was higher in Group L. Intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, the respiratory rate, the incidence of sedation-related events and anesthesiologist satisfaction were similar between the two groups.

Conclusion

IV lidocaine can significantly reduce the amount of propofol, the incidence of hypoxia and postoperative pain during gastroscopy in elderly patients, with a higher patient and gastroscopist satisfaction.

Low-Dose Esketamine as an Adjuvant to Propofol Sedation for Same-Visit Bidirectional Endoscopy: Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Same-visit bidirectional endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy) is widely performed under sedation. At present, the optimal sedation regimen remains unclear. This study aims to test the hypothesis that a low-dose esketamine added to propofol sedation reduces hemodynamic and respiratory adverse events in these procedures.

Methods

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 660 adult patients scheduled for same-visit bidirectional endoscopy under sedation from 3 teaching hospitals in China will be recruited. Patients will be randomly allocated, in a 1:1 ratio, to an esketamine group or a normal saline group (n = 330 in each group), stratified by study center. All patients will receive intravenous propofol 0.5 mg/kg and sufentanil 0.1 μg/mL for induction of sedation, followed by intravenous esketamine 0.15 mg/kg or the same volume of normal saline. Propofol will be titrated to the target sedation levels during the procedures. The primary endpoint is a composite of desaturation (peripheral oxygen saturation < 90%) and hypotension (systolic blood pressure <80 mmHg or decrease >30% of baseline). Secondary endpoints include desaturation, hypotension, total dose of propofol, pain scores and fatigue scores on the 0-10 numerical rating scale, dizziness or headache, hallucination or nightmare, nausea or vomiting, endoscopist satisfaction, and patient satisfaction. All analyses will be intention-to-treat.

Discussion

We expect that a low-dose esketamine adjunct to propofol-based sedation will improve cardiorespiratory stability in patients undergoing same-visit bidirectional endoscopy, providing reference for clinical sedation practice during these procedures.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Identifier: ChiCTR-ChiCTR2200055938).

ED50 and ED95 of propofol combined with different doses of esketamine for children undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A prospective dose-finding study using up-and-down sequential allocation method

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol and esketamine are routine anaesthetics used in sedation or general anaesthesia for paediatric procedures. Coadministration could reduce the dose of either propofol or esketamine required and lower the incidence of drug-related adverse events. We designed a four-arm randomized controlled trial in children undergoing diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy to investigate the dose of propofol with different doses of esketamine inducing appropriate depth of anaesthesia in 50% patients (median effective dose, ED₅₀ ).

METHODS

After getting the approval of the research ethics committee and informed consent, 92 paediatric patients planning for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were divided into four groups randomly: esketamine 0, 0.25, 0.5 and 1 mg/kg groups (n = 23/group). Propofol doses followed the Dixon and Massey up-and-down method with different starting and interval doses between groups. During the first attempt of endoscope insertion, if patients' reactions prevented the insertion, it would be considered as a failure. The awakening time, total propofol doses, as well as the perioperative and post-procedure adverse events were evaluated and recorded for each patient.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The ED₅₀ (median, 95% confidence interval) of propofol was significantly greater in esketamine 0 and 0.25 mg/kg groups in comparison with the esketamine 0.5 and 1 mg/kg groups (4.1 [3.3-4.9]; 3.1 [2.5-3.8] mg/kg vs. 1.8 [1.1-2.4]; 0.8 [0.2-1.3] mg/kg, respectively, p < .05). The total doses of propofol in esketamine 0.5 and 1 mg/kg groups were statistically lower than these in esketamine 0 and 0.25 mg/kg group (p < .01). The mean blood pressure was lower in the esketamine 0 mg/kg group than that in 1 mg/kg group after administration and during the procedure (p < .01). The esketamine 1 mg/kg group showed a higher incidence of vomiting and visual disturbances than the other three groups (p < .001).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

In children who accomplished diagnostic paediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation/anaesthesia, the total dosage of propofol needed was reduced significantly in esketamine 0.5 and 1 mg/kg groups with a corresponding reduce in propofol-related hemodynamic changes. However, a higher incidence of esketamine-related adverse effects was found in esketamine 1 mg/kg group.

Comparison of the innovative endoscopic oropharyngeal airway and the conventional mouthpiece in elderly outpatients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy under sedation: a prospective and randomized study

Background

Undesirable outcomes may appear for elderly patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) under sedation, such as hypoxia and hypotension. The aim of our study was to investigate the ability of the innovative endoscopic oropharyngeal airway to reduce the frequency of hypoxia during EGD under sedation in elderly patients.

Methods

In this trial, aged patients undergoing EGD were randomized into airway group and mouthpiece group. The primary outcome was the incidence of the minimum pulse oxygen saturation < 90% and minimum pulse oxygen saturation. In addition, sedation dose, recovery time, emergency management and adverse reactions were recorded.

Results

360 patients completed the study (180 in each groups). The minimum pulse oxygen saturation during EGD was significantly higher in airway group (97.66 ± 2.96%) than in mouthpiece group (95.52 ± 3.84%, P < 0.001). The incidence of pulse oxygen saturation of 85–89% of airway group (5.0%, 9/180) was lower than mouthpiece group (10.6%, 19/180, P = 0.049). The endoscopy entry time in airway group was 3 (2, 4) seconds and in mouthpiece group was 5 (4, 6) (P < 0.001). Propofol total dose and awakening time were significantly lower in the airway group than in the mouthpiece group (P = 0.020 and P = 0.012, respectively). Furthermore, the incidence rate of hypotension was significantly higher in mouthpiece group (12.2%) than in airway group (5.0%) (P = 0.015). By comparison with the mouthpiece group, the satisfaction of endoscopists was higher in airway group (P = 0.012).

Conclusion

Elderly patients undergoing EGD, Endoscopy Protector was associated with a significantly lower incidence of hypoxia, shortened endoscopy entry time and more stable hemodynamics.

Trial registration: ChiCTR, ChiCTR2000031998, 17/04/2020. http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx

Comparing the efficacy and safety of Dexmedetomidine/Ketamine with Propofol/Fentanyl for sedation in colonoscopy patients: A double-blinded randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

In this double-blinded randomized clinical trial, we aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine [DK] with propofol and fentanyl [PF] for sedation in colonoscopy patients.

METHODS

In this study, 64 patients who underwent colonoscopy were randomized into two groups: 1) A, which received PF, and 2) B, which received DK for sedation. Among 64 patients, 31 patients were included in PF, and 33 patients were included in the DK group. Both groups were similar in terms of demographics. Patients' sedation score (based on Ramsay sedation scale) and vital signs were recorded at 2, 5, 10, and 15 minutes. Complications including apnea, hypotension, hypoxia, nausea, and vomiting, along with gastroenterologist satisfaction and patients' pain score (based on Wong-Baker faces pain assessment scale), were recorded by a checklist. Data were analyzed by SPSS v.18 software, using chi-square, independent t-tests, and repeated measures analysis with p<0.05 as the criterion for significant differences.

RESULTS

The mean score of sedation was 4.82±0.49 in the DK group and 5.22±0.45 in the PF group [p value=0.001]. Serious complications, including hypotension [p value=0.005] and apnea [p value=0.10] were significantly higher in the PF group. Satisfaction of gastroenterologist [p value= 0.400] and patients' pain score [p value = 0.900] were similar among groups.

CONCLUSION

Combination of DK provides sufficient sedation with fewer complications in comparison with PF in colonoscopy patients.

Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Relevant studies comparing dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

Seven relevant studies (dexmedetomidine group, n = 238; propofol group, n = 239) met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the induction time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.95-7.88, I2 = 99%) and recovery time (WMD = 2.74, 95% CI = -2.72-8.19, I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.25-1.22) and nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.46-2.22) between the drugs, whereas dexmedetomidine carried a lower risk of hypoxia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.11-0.63) and higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.38-6.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine had similar efficacy and safety profiles as propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Management of Non-Variceal Upper GI Bleeding in the Geriatric Population: An Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the geriatric (age > 65 years) population and presents a unique management challenge in the context of multiple medical comorbidities, polypharmacy, and increased risk of adverse outcomes and is confounded by an increased prevalence of obscure GI bleeds. A review of relevant guidelines, literature, and personal observations will enhance management strategies in the elderly.

RECENT FINDINGS

Non-variceal bleeding represents a significant proportion of upper GI bleeding (UGIB) in geriatric patients. Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) remains the most common cause in geriatric patients hospitalized for UGIB, but its incidence is decreasing. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is the gold standard for treating UGIB in geriatrics with a therapeutic yield of approximately 75%. Scoring systems such as Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) and AIMS-65 may be useful for risk stratification but are not validated in trials. Obscure bleeds account for up to 30% of hospitalizations and must be considered during triage and management. Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) technology is efficacious for detecting obscure jejunal bleeding after failed EGD and may enhance the yield of balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE). The most significant factor for the increased morbidity and mortality in the geriatric population is the presence of multiple medical comorbidities and polypharmacy. An EGD should be done within 24 h of hospital presentation. If non-diagnostic, VCE may be a viable option for diagnosing an obscure small-bowel bleed, representing up to 30% of GI bleeds in this population.

Evaluation of analgesic and sedative effects of remifentanil-based fast-track anesthesia in children undergoing transthoracic device closure of ventricular septal defects

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the analgesic and sedative effects of remifentanil-based fast-track cardiac anesthesia in children undergoing transthoracic device closure of ventricular septal defects (VSDs).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 62 children who underwent transthoracic device closure of VSDs from May 2019 to August 2019. The patients were divided into two groups based on the anesthesia methods: group F was given remifentanil-based fast-track cardiac anesthesia, and Group C was given conventional anesthesia. Patient-related clinical data, postoperative analgesia scores, and sedation scores were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in intraoperative hemodynamic changes, bispectral index values, postoperative analgesia scores, sedation scores, or the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. Compared with Group C, the duration of mechanical ventilation and the length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay in group F were significantly lower.

CONCLUSION

Remifentanil-based fast-track anesthesia can be safely applied in children undergoing transthoracic device closure of VSDs, with acceptable postoperative analgesia and sedation effects and shorter mechanical ventilation times and ICU and hospital stays compared with conventional anesthesia.

Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine in Acutely Ill Adults Requiring Noninvasive Ventilation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Although clinical studies have evaluated dexmedetomidine as a strategy to improve noninvasive ventilation (NIV) comfort and tolerance in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF), their results have not been summarized.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does dexmedetomidine, when compared with another sedative or placebo, reduce the risk of delirium, mortality, need for intubation and mechanical ventilation, or ICU length of stay (LOS) in adults with ARF initiated on NIV in the ICU?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We electronically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception through July 31, 2020, for randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with the corresponding 95% CIs using a random-effect model.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs were included in our final analysis (n = 738 patients). The use of dexmedetomidine, compared with other sedation strategies or placebo, reduced the risk of intubation (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.71; moderate certainty), delirium (RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22-0.54; moderate certainty), and ICU LOS (MD, -2.40 days; 95% CI, -3.51 to -1.29 days; low certainty). Use of dexmedetomidine was associated with an increased risk of bradycardia (RR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.92-4.07; moderate certainty) and hypotension (RR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.32-2.98; moderate certainty).

INTERPRETATION

Compared with any sedation strategy or placebo, dexmedetomidine reduced the risk of delirium and the need for mechanical ventilation while increasing the risk of bradycardia and hypotension. The results are limited by imprecision, and further large RCTs are needed.

TRIAL REGISTRY

PROSPERO; No.: 175086; URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition)

Sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy has become an important medical option in routine clinical care. Here, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society and the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists together provide the revised "Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy" as a second edition to address on-site clinical questions and issues raised for safe examination and treatment using sedated endoscopy. Twenty clinical questions were determined and the strength of recommendation and evidence quality (strength) were expressed according to the "MINDS Manual for Guideline Development 2017." We were able to release up-to-date statements related to clinical questions and current issues relevant to sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (henceforth, "endoscopy"). There are few reports from Japan in this field (e.g., meta-analyses), and many aspects have been based only on a specialist consensus. In the current scenario, benzodiazepine drugs primarily used for sedation during gastroenterological endoscopy are not approved by national health insurance in Japan, and investigations regarding expense-related disadvantages have not been conducted. Furthermore, including the perspective of beneficiaries (i.e., patients and citizens) during the creation of clinical guidelines should be considered. These guidelines are standardized based on up-to-date evidence quality (strength) and supports on-site clinical decision-making by patients and medical staff. Therefore, these guidelines need to be flexible with regard to the wishes, age, complications, and social conditions of the patient, as well as the conditions of the facility and discretion of the physician.

Oliceridine and its potential to revolutionize GI endoscopy sedation

Providing sedation to patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is a controversial and emotive issue. The mainstay of sedation is propofol, whose administration is within the sole jurisdiction of anesthesia providers, at least in the USA. Attempts have been made to seize the authority by the GI community. One of the first attempts was the use of the prodrug of propofol -fospropofol. However, as the drug has a similar adverse effect profile as propofol in terms of respiratory depression, the FDA did not approve its use by providers other than those trained in airway management. Sedasys® was the next attempt, which was a computer-assisted personalized sedation system. As a result of insufficient sedation that could be provided with the device, although very successful in research settings, it was not a commercial success. It seems that remimazolam is the next effort in this direction. It is likely to fail in this regard unless its respiratory depressant properties and failure rates could be addressed. G protein-biased μ-receptor agonists are a new class of opioids exhibiting analgesic properties similar to morphine without equivalent respiratory depressant properties. Oliceridine is the prototype. As a result, the drug can be additive to midazolam or remimazolam and allow screening colonoscopy to be comfortably completed without the need for propofol. For an anesthesia provider, the administration of oliceridine can eliminate the need for drugs such as fentanyl that add to the respiratory depressant properties of propofol. As a result, oliceridine has the potential to render the sedation for GI endoscopy procedures both safe and cost-effective.

The Effectiveness of Low-dose Dexmedetomidine Infusion in Sedative Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Retrospective Analysis

Background and objectives: Flexible bronchoscopy has been widely used for diagnosis and intervention, while various drugs are used for sedation during bronchoscopy. We examined two regular standardized sedation options (with or without dexmedetomidine) regularly used in our regional hospital. The aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine on conscious sedation under bronchoscopy. Materials and Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted from April 2017 to March 2018. All patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy with moderate sedation were enrolled. Patients having received dexmedetomidine-propofol-fentanyl were defined as group D, and those having received midazolam-propofol-fentanyl were defined as group M. The primary outcome was a safety profile during the procedure, including the incidence of procedural interference by patient cough or movement, transient hypoxemia, and hypotension. The secondary outcome was measured by the recovery profile (awake and ambulation time). Results: Thirty-five patients in group D and thirty-three in group M were collected in this retrospective study. All patients underwent the procedure successfully. Group D showed higher safety with fewer procedural interference incidences by cough or body movement than Group M (3.3% versus 36.3%, p < 0.001) and minor respiratory adverse effects. Patients in group D showed faster recovery in a shorter ambulation time than group M (24.9 ± 9.7 versus 31.5 ± 11.9, p = 0.02). In group D, bronchoscopist satisfaction to sedation was higher than group M (p = 0.01). More transient bradycardia episodes were noted in patients receiving dexmedetomidine (p < 0.05), but all recovered without atropine intervention. Overall post-procedural adverse events and satisfaction were comparable in the two groups. Conclusions: The co-administration of dexmedetomidine met the safety and recovery demands of flexible bronchoscopy. Compared to the conventional midazolam-propofol-fentanyl regimen, the application of dexmedetomidine improved sedative effectiveness with less procedural interruptions, shorter time to ambulation and higher bronchoscopist satisfaction.