Nonoperating room anaesthesia for elderly patients

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 .

Comparison of efficacy and safety of equivalent doses of remimazolam versus propofol for gastroscopy anesthesia in elderly patients

Remimazolam, a novel intravenous anesthetic, has been proven to be safe and efficacious in the gastroscopy setting among the elderly. However, reports comparing the effectiveness and safety of using equivalent doses of remimazolam with propofol have not been seen. The aim of this study was to compare the sedation efficacy and safety of the 95% effective doses (ED95) of remimazolam versus propofol combined with sufentanil in the gastroscopy setting among the elderly. In the first step of this two-step study, a modified up-and-down method was used to calculate the ED95 of remimazolam and propofol when combined with 0.1 µg/kg sufentanil in inhibiting body movement of elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy. In the second step, ED95 of both agents calculated in the first step were administered, endpoints of efficacy, safety, and incidence of adverse events were compared. A total of 46 individuals completed the first step. The ED95 of remimazolam was 0.163 mg/kg (95% CI 0.160-0.170 mg/kg), and that of propofol was 1.042 mg/kg (95% CI 1.007-1.112 mg/kg). In the second step, 240 patients completed the trial. The anesthetic effective rates of the remimazolam group and the propofol group were 78% and 83%, respectively, with no statistical difference (P = 0.312). Patients in the remimazolam group had more stable circulatory functions (P < 0.0001) and a lower incidence of pain on injection (3.3% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.0001). The incidence of hypotension was low in the remimazolam versus propofol group (15.6% vs. 39.0%, P < 0.0001). Overall adverse event was low in the remimazolam versus propofol group (21.3% vs. 62.7%, P < 0.0001).In this study, we found that when anesthesia was administered to elderly gastroscopy patients based on 95% effective doses of remimazolam and propofol, remimazolam was as effective as propofol, but was safer with a lower incidence of adverse events.Study registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000034234. Registered 29/06/2020, https://www.chictr.org.cn .

Systems, safety, and anaesthesia outside the operating room

An increasing number of patients are receiving sedation or anaesthesia in locations outside of the operating room. Compared with the operating room, anaesthesia providers working in a non-operating room anaesthesia (NORA) location report significantly lower perceived levels of safety, and higher levels of anxiety, stress, and workload. These results are likely to affect the well-being of staff in NORA locations and are clinically relevant in terms of patient safety.

Effect of Remimazolam Tosilate on Respiratory Depression in Elderly Patients Undergoing Gastroscopy: A Multicentered, Prospective, and Randomized Study

Background

Remimazolam tosilate (RT) is a new type of γ-aminobutyric acid subtype A (GABA_A) receptor agonist, having the possibility to be an ideal sedative drug for procedural sedation. At present, there are few studies on the effect of RT on respiratory depression in elderly patients. We aimed to evaluate the effect of RT on respiratory depression in elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy.

Methods

This prospective, randomized, single-blinded trial recruited patients from eight centers in China between May 2022 and July 2022. A total of 346 elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy were randomly divided into RT group (0.2 mg/kg) or propofol group (1.5 mg/kg), respectively. The primary outcome was the incidence of respiratory depression. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of sedative-related adverse events, the success rate of sedation, time to fully alert, time to loss of consciousness (LOC), time to ready for discharge, as well as the the patients, endoscopists and anethetists' satisfaction.

Results

The incidence of respiratory depression was significantly reduced in the RT group compared with the propofol group (9.8% vs 17.9%, P=0.042). The time of LOC and fully alert in the RT group were longer than that in the propofol group (P < 0.05). The incidences of hypotention (50.9% vs 32.4%, P=0.001) and hypotension requiring treatment (5.8% vs 1.7%, P=0.031) were significantly higher in the propofol group than that in the RT group. The incidence and severity of injection pain were more frequently recorded in the propofol group than that in the RT group (40.5% vs 12.1%, P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of sedation success rates, time to ready for discharge, endoscopists and anethetists' satisfaction and other sedative-related adverse events.

Conclusion

RT may be a suitable alternative sedative agent for elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy due to its safety profile.

Adoption of awake spine surgery - trends from a national registry over 14 years

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Awake spine surgery is growing in popularity, and may facilitate earlier postoperative recovery, reduced cost, and fewer complications than spine surgery conducted under general anesthesia (GA). However, trends in the adoption of awake (ie, non-GA) spine surgery have not been previously studied.

PURPOSE

To investigate temporal trends in non-GA spine surgery utilization and outcomes in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A retrospective observational study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients undergoing cervical or lumbar decompression or/and fusion from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database records dated 2005-2019.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the adoption trends of awake cervical and lumbar spine operations from 2005 to 2019. The secondary outcomes included the outcomes trends of 30-day complications, readmission rates, and length of stay in cervical and lumbar spine operations from 2005 to 2019.

METHODS

Patients were stratified into two groups: GA and non-GA (regional, epidural, spinal, monitored anesthesia care/intravenous sedation). Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact test and independent-sample t test were used to compare demographics between groups. Jonckheere-Terpstra test was used to determine whether trends and outcomes of non-GA operations from 2005 to 2019 were statistically significant. No non-GA spine operations were reported in the database from 2005 to 2006.

RESULTS

We included 301,521 patients who underwent cervical or lumbar spine operations from 2005 to 2019. GA was used in 294,903 (97.8%) operations; 6,618 (2.2%) operations were non-GA. Patients in the non-GA cohort were more likely to be younger (50.1 vs 57.2 years; p<.001), less likely to have American Society of Anesthesiologists classification ≥3 (39.7% vs 48.3%; p<.001), and to have lower BMI (27.8 vs 31.5 kg/m²; p<.001), outpatient admission status (10.8% vs 4.0%; p<.001), and fewer bleeding disorders (0.0% vs 1.2%; p<.001). The proportion of non-GA spine operations increased from nearly 0% in 2005 to 2.1% in 2019. The increase in non-GA operations was statistically significant in cervical (0.0%-1.1%) and lumbar (0.0%-2.9%) operations. For non-GA lumbar operations performed 2007-2019, 30-day complication rates, readmission rates, and mean length of stay all decreased (19.1%-5.4%, p<.05; 5.9%-2.8%, p<.05; 30.9 hours-24.9 hours, p<.05, respectively). Similarly, for non-GA cervical operations performed 2007-2019, 30-day complication rates, readmission rates, and mean length of stay all decreased (20.1%-6.1%, p<.05; 6.7%-3.7%, p<.05; 27.0-20.0 hours p<.05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our trends analysis revealed increasing utilization and improved outcomes of non-GA spine surgery from 2005 to 2019; however, the proportion of non-GA spine operations remains small. Future research should investigate the barriers to adoption of non-GA spine surgery.

Pain management of nalbuphine and sufentanil in patients admitted intensive care unit of different ages

Background

Pain relief for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) can improve treatment outcomes and reduce the burden on doctors and nurses. This study aims to report the clinical analgesic and sedative effects of nalbuphine and sufentanil on ICU patients.

Methods

This study retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 87 critically ill patients who received nalbuphine or sufentanil infusion in the ICU, including demographic data, diagnosis, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2). The primary outcomes of this study were CPOT and RASS scores. The secondary outcomes were hemodynamic changes, including systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, and SpO2. The adverse events recorded during pain management, such as hypoxemia, respiration depression and bradycardia, were also collected and analyzed.

Results

None of the patients in both groups experienced episode of hypoxemia, respiration depression and bradycardia. However, age-stratified analyses showed that nalbuphine has a better analgesic effect than sufentanil for patients aged ≤ 60 (P < 0.05). In contrast, sufentanil showed a better analgesic effect than nalbuphine for patients aged > 60 ( P < 0.05). Furthermore, nalbuphine has a significantly better sedative effect than sufentanil for patients aged ≤ 60 (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

ICU patients of different age groups may be suitable for different analgesics. For patients under the age of 60, nalbuphine has better analgesia and sedation than sufentanil, and does not cause respiratory depression and drastic hemodynamic changes.

The Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Tosilate versus Etomidate-Propofol in Elderly Outpatients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial

Objective

The optimal sedation regime during endoscopy remains controversial, especially for elderly outpatients. In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety between remimazolam tosilate (RT) and etomidate-propofol (EP) in elderly outpatients undergoing colonoscopy.

Methods

A total of 260 elderly outpatients undergoing sedative colonoscopy were randomized into two groups. Patients in the RT group received a 0.075-mg/kg maintenance dose of remimazolam following an initial dose of 0.15 mg/kg, whereas patients in the EP group (10 mL:20 mg etomidate plus 10 mL:100 mg propofol) received a 0.05-mL/kg maintenance dose following an initial dose of 0.1 mL/kg to maintain a Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score of ≤3 during the procedure. The primary endpoint was the success of the procedure. Secondary endpoints included time metrics, hemodynamics, consumption of fentanyl, etomidate, propofol, and remimazolam, intraoperative body movement, patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores, supplemental dose of sedative and fentanyl, and incidence and severity of adverse events.

Results

The procedure success rate was 96.52% in the RT group and 100% in the EP group. The difference in procedure success rate between the RT and EP groups was −3.48% (95% confidence interval: −6.81%, −0.15%). Four patients in the RT group required rescue midazolam. Compared with patients in the RT group, the onset time of the EP group was significantly lower (p < 0.05), whereas time to fully alert (p = 0.001), ready for discharge (p = 0.001), and hospital discharge (p = 0.002) were all significantly higher in the EP group. However, there were no significant differences in procedure time (p = 0.846) or cecal intubation time (p = 0.320) between the two groups. Although the frequency of intraoperative body movement was higher in the RT group, the difference was not significant (p = 0.508). There were no significant differences in patients’ demographic and baseline characteristics, supplemental doses of sedative and fentanyl, or patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores (p > 0.05). Muscular tremor and pain on injection were recorded more frequently in the EP group (p < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in hypoxia, respiratory depression, or incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The severity of adverse events was all mild (grade 1) across both groups.

Conclusion

RT may have non-inferior efficacy and a higher safety profile than EP in elderly outpatients undergoing colonoscopy, which suggests that RT may be more suitable for elderly outpatients undergoing colonoscopy.

Preoperative optimization of patients undergoing interventional procedures: infrastructure, logistics, and evidence-based medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients presenting for non-operating room procedures are often 'too sick' for surgery and require specific anesthesia care in remote areas with logistical and scheduling challenges.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increased complexity and scope of minimally invasive procedures have expanded this practice. In addition, the concept of therapeutic options other than conventional surgery is gaining traction.

SUMMARY

Our review of recent literature confirms the complexity and supports the safety of providing care in non-operating room anesthesia locations. Standard preanesthesia assessments and principles apply to these areas.