Comparison of etomidate–remifentanil and propofol–remifentanil sedation in patients scheduled for colonoscopy:

Effectiveness and safety of remimazolam combined with alfentanil in hysteroscopic examination: A prospective, randomized, single-blind trial

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a novel, ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam and propofol for hysteroscopic examination, to determine the optimal dose of remimazolam combined with alfentanil for painless hysteroscopy, and to calculate its median effective dose (ED50).

METHODS

Step 1: A total of 208 patients undergoing hysteroscopic examination were prospectively included in this study. Patients were randomized into 4 groups: 0.2 mg/kg remimazolam (group A), 0.25 mg/kg remimazolam besylate (group B), 0.3 mg/kg remimazolam (group C), and 2 mg/kg propofol (group D), with 52 patients in each group. One minute after losing consciousness, patients received an intravenous injection of alfentanil at 5 µg/kg, followed by a continuous infusion of alfentanil at 0.5 µg/kg/min. If patients showed frowning, movement, or MOAA/S > 1, sedatives were added: 0.05 mg/kg/dose of remimazolam for groups A, B, and C, and 0.5 mg/kg/dose of propofol for group D. Step 2: Dixon's up-and-down method was used to calculate the ED50 of remimazolam combined with alfentanil during hysteroscopic examination.

MAIN RESULTS

The sedation success rates of the remimazolam groups were 88.46%, 94.23%, and 98.08%, respectively, compared to 96.15% in the propofol group, with no significant difference (P = .175). MAP in groups A and B was higher than in group D (P < .05), and significantly higher in group C than in group D (P = .0016). SpO2 values in groups A, B, and C were higher than in group D at T2 to T3 (P < .001). HR in groups A, B, and C was significantly higher than in group D (P < .001). The ED50 of remimazolam combined with alfentanil in hysteroscopy was 0.244 mg/kg, 95%CI (0.195-0.22) and ED95 was 0.282 mg/kg, 95%CI (0.261-1.619).

CONCLUSION

In hysteroscopy, the sedative effect of remimazolam is like that of propofol, with 0.25 mg/kg remimazolam showing better safety and efficacy, and less impact on the respiratory and circulatory systems. Additionally, under the influence of alfentanil, the ED50 of remimazolam in hysteroscopy is 0.244 mg/kg, with no severe adverse reactions observed.

Etomidate versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes

BACKGROUND

Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, owing to its side effects, an alternative drug is needed. We aimed to compare the safety, satisfaction, and efficacy outcomes of etomidate versus propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy, including advanced endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL (via EBSCO), China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Web of Science (1946-April 2020) databases for randomized controlled trials of gastrointestinal endoscopy (upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colonoscopy, and advanced endoscopy) using etomidate or propofol as sedatives. We pooled odds ratios (ORs) for the safety profile and patient and anesthesiologist satisfaction using mixed-effects conditional logistic models and standardized mean differences for efficiency outcomes using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies involving 3875 patients were included. Compared with propofol, etomidate resulted in significantly reduced apnea (OR: 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.37; P < .001), hypoxemia (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.35-0.54; P < .001), hypotension (OR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.11-0.36; P < .001), and bradycardia (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30-0.91; P = .02) but led to increased myoclonus (OR: 8.54; 95% CI: 5.20-14.01; P < .001) and lowered anesthesiologist satisfaction (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.39-0.91; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Etomidate may be a good alternative to propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially advanced endoscopy. Etomidate appears to be safe as an inducer for hemodynamically unstable patients or older adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

New sedatives and analgesic drugs for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Procedural sedation has become increasingly common in endoscopy. Sedatives and analgesics induce anxiolysis and amnesia. In addition, an appropriate level of sedation is necessary for safe procedures including therapeutic endoscopy. Midazolam and propofol are the most commonly used drugs in sedative endoscopy. In recent years, the need to ascertain the safety and effectiveness of sedation has increased in practice. Therefore, new sedatives and analgesic drugs for optimal sedative endoscopy, have recently emerged. This article reviews the characteristics of sedatives and analgesics, and describes their clinical use in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Hypotension during propofol sedation for colonoscopy: an exploratory analysis

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative and postoperative hypotension occur commonly and are associated with organ injury and poor outcomes. Changes in arterial blood pressure (BP) during procedural sedation are not well described.

METHODS

Individual patient data from five trials of propofol sedation for colonoscopy and a clinical database were pooled and explored with logistic and linear regression. A literature search and focused meta-analysis compared the incidence of hypotension with propofol and alternative forms of procedural sedation. Hypotensive episodes were characterised by the original authors' definitions (typically systolic BP <90 mm Hg).

RESULTS

In pooled individual patient data (n=939), 36% of procedures were associated with episodes of hypotension. Longer periods of propofol sedation and larger propofol doses were associated with longer-lasting and more-profound hypotension. Amongst 380 patients for whom individual BP measurements were available, 107 (28%) experienced systolic BP <90 mm Hg for >5 min, and in 89 (23%) the episodes exceeded 10 min. Meta-analysis of 18 RCTs identified an increased risk ratio for the development of hypotension in procedures where propofol was used compared with the use of etomidate (two studies; n=260; risk ratio [RR] 2.0 [95% confidence interval: 1.37-2.92]; P=0.0003), remimazolam (one study; n=384; RR 2.15 [1.61-2.87]; P=0.0001), midazolam (14 studies; n=2218; RR 1.46 [1.18-1.79]; P=0.0004), or all benzodiazepines (15 studies; n=2602; 1.67 [1.41-1.98]; P<0.00001). Hypotension was less likely with propofol than with dexmedetomidine (one study; n=60; RR 0.24 [0.09-0.62]; P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Hypotension is common during propofol sedation for colonoscopy and of a magnitude and duration associated with harm in surgical patients.

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.

Neurologic Safety of Etomidate-Based Sedation during Upper Endoscopy in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis Compared with Propofol: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

(1) Background: Although etomidate-based sedation is an effective and safe protocol in endoscopic procedures, there is a lack of evidence regarding the safety of etomidate in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC). This study aimed to compare the neurologic safety and efficacy of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation in patients with LC. (2) Methods: From December 2017 to December 2019, consecutive cirrhotic patients who underwent sedative endoscopy using either etomidate or propofol were randomly recruited. The primary endpoint was the number connection test (NCT), and the secondary endpoints included factors for the safety of sedatives during endoscopy. (3) Results: 63 patients were enrolled in each of the etomidate and propofol groups. The NCT times were significantly lower in the etomidate group than in the propofol group. Furthermore, severe or very severe degree of encephalopathy was higher in the propofol group but was not significantly different. Pharmacological properties and the overall incidence of respiratory and cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between the groups. (4) Conclusion: Etomidate-based sedation exacerbates neither subclinical nor overt hepatic encephalopathy. It guarantees efficacies similar to those of propofol regarding rapid sedation, fast recovery, and early discharge, with no increased risk of adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events in patients with LC.

Using Etomidate and Midazolam for Screening Colonoscopies Results in More Stable Hemodynamic Responses in Patients of All Ages

Background/Aims

Recent studies have demonstrated that etomidate is a safe sedative drug with noninferior sedative effects. In our recent study, we revealed that etomidate/midazolam was more hemodynamically stable than propofol/midazolam in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopies. We aimed to investigate whether compared with propofol/midazolam, etomidate/midazolam causes fewer cardiopulmonary adverse events with noninferior efficacy for screening colonoscopies in patients of all ages.

Methods

In this single-center, randomized, double-blind study, we prospectively enrolled 200 patients. The patients were divided into etomidate and propofol groups. The primary outcome was the occurrence of cardiopulmonary adverse events. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with fluctuations in vital signs (oxygen desaturation and transient hypotension), adverse events interrupting the procedure, and sedation-related outcomes.

Results

Adverse cardiopulmonary events were more common in the propofol group than the etomidate group (65.0% vs 51.0%, respectively; p=0.045). Forty-six patients (46.0%) in the propofol group and 29 (29.0%) in the etomidate group experienced fluctuations in their vital signs (p=0.013). The proportions of patients experiencing adverse events that interrupted the procedure, including myoclonus, were not significantly different between the two groups (etomidate: 20.0% vs propofol: 11.0%; p=0.079). Both groups had similar sedation-related outcomes. Multivariate analysis revealed that compared with the propofol groups, the etomidate group had a significantly lower risk of fluctuations in vital signs (odds ratio, 0.427; 95% confidence interval, 0.230 to 0.792; p=0.007).

Conclusions

Compared with using propofol/midazolam, using etomidate/midazolam for screening colonoscopies results in more stable hemodynamic responses in patients of all ages; therefore, we recommend using etomidate/midazolam for colonoscopies in patients with cardiovascular risk factors.

Effects of Bispectral Index-controlled Use of Magnesium on Propofol Consumption and Sedation Level in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy

Objective

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of bispectral index-controlled use of magnesium on propofol consumption, periprocedural hemodynamic response and patient comfort.

Material

A total of 60 patients were enrolled in the study. In Group 1 (magnesium), a single dose 50 mg/kg magnesium sulfate diluted with 100 mL 0.9% NaCl was administered 10 minutes before the beginning of the procedure. Initially bolus dose of 0.5 mg/kg propofol was applied. The maintenance dose of propofol was 60 mcg/kg/min. During the procedure, the propofol infusion was increased by titration until the bispectral index (BIS) value of 70 was achieved. In Group 2 (saline), 100 ml 0.9% NaCl was administered 10 minutes before the beginning of the procedure. The bolus and maintenance doses of propofol, and target BIS values were the same as those in Group 1.

Results

When BIS values were compared between the groups, the initial BIS values in the magnesium group (Group 1) were significantly higher than those of the saline group (Group 2) (p<0.05). The time to reach BIS 70 was significantly shorter in the magnesium group (p<0.05). Propofol consumption was greater in Group 2 than in Group 1 (p<0.05). The time to reach BIS 70 was significantly shorter in Group 1 (p<0.05). No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of patient- and endoscopist-satisfaction (p<0.05).

Conclusion

The use of magnesium in addition to propofol may be an efficient and reliable option to reduce the drug consumption during colonoscopic interventions.

Comparison of the Sedation Quality of Etomidate, Propofol, and Midazolam in Combination with Fentanyl During Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled, Clinical Trial

Background

According to the favorable effects of combination therapy to provide better sedation during phacoemulsification and lack of any studies investigating the sedative effect of etomidate, propofol, and midazolam in combination with fentanyl during the procedure.

Objectives

The current study aimed at comparing the sedative properties of the mentioned three combination therapies in this field.

Methods

The current double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted on patients referred for elective phacoemulsification surgery under sedation. They were randomly allocated to the three groups to receive fentanyl plus one of the following medications: Propofol, midazolam, and etomidate. Demographic characteristics, medical condition, and hemodynamic parameters before, during, and after surgery, sedation level, anesthetic complications, sedation-related adverse events, and patients' and surgeons' satisfaction were evaluated and recorded by the anesthesiologist and compared in the three studied groups.

Results

In the current study, out of 150 enrolled patients, 98 completed the study. Frequency of different levels of Ramsay scores was not significantly different between the groups (P = 0.41). Frequency of Ramsay scores 3 and 4 was 92%, 79.4%, and 88.2% in etomidate, midazolam and propofol groups, respectively (P = 0.32). The median recovery time was significantly higher in the midazolam group than the propofol group (P = 0.04); intergroup comparisons indicated that the patients' mean score of satisfaction in the propofol group was significantly higher than that of the etomidate group (P = 0.006).

Conclusions

The current study findings indicated that though the quality of sedation during phacoemulsification cataract surgery was acceptable in the three agents and the results had no significantly differences among the groups, and considering other factors including recovery time, hemodynamic evaluation, sedation-related complications, and patients' satisfication scores, it is suggested that propofol was superior to the other two agents.

Etomidate Sedation for Advanced Endoscopic Procedures

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

Although propofol is widely used for sedation for endoscopic procedures, concerns remain regarding cardiopulmonary adverse events. Etomidate has little effect on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, but patient satisfaction analysis is lacking. We compared the efficacy and safety of balanced propofol and etomidate sedation during advanced endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

As a randomized noninferiority trial, balanced endoscopic sedation was achieved using midazolam and fentanyl, and patients were randomly assigned to receive propofol (BPS) or etomidate (BES) as add-on drug. The main outcomes were sedation efficacy measured on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) and safety.

RESULTS

In total, 186 patients (94 in the BPS group and 92 in the BES group) were evaluated. BES did not show noninferiority in terms of overall patient satisfaction, with a difference in VAS score of -0.35 (97.5 % confidence interval -1.03 to ∞, p = 0.03). Among endoscopists and nurses, BES showed noninferiority to BPS, with differences in VAS scores of 0.06 and 0.08, respectively. Incidence of cardiopulmonary adverse events was lower in the BES group (27.7 versus 14.1 %, p = 0.023). Hypoxia occurred in 5.3 and 1.1 % of patients in the BPS and BES group (p = 0.211). Myoclonus occurred in 12.1 % (11/92) in the BES group. BES had lower risk of overall cardiopulmonary adverse events (odds ratio 0.401, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

BES was not noninferior to BPS in terms of patient satisfaction. However, BES showed better safety outcomes in terms of cardiopulmonary adverse events.

Etomidate versus propofol sedation for electrical external cardioversion: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of etomidate vs propofol sedation for electrical cardioversion.

METHODS

The authors searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Koreamed, and KMBASE databases to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared etomidate and propofol sedation for cardioversion in adult patients. Induction and recovery time, success rate, number of shocks, and cumulative energy were evaluated. Adverse effects, including respiratory and cardiovascular complications, myoclonus, and nausea and vomiting, were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies, involving a total of 430 patients, were included. Induction and recovery time, success rate, number of shocks, and cumulative energy were similar. The incidences of hypotension and respiratory depression were significantly higher in the propofol group than in the etomidate group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.02-0.74, I² = 0%; RR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.32-0.77, I² = 47%, respectively). The incidences of myoclonus and nausea or vomiting were significantly higher in the etomidate group than in the propofol group (RR = 8.89, 95% CI  =  4.59-17.23, I² = 9%; RR = 5.13, 95% CI = 1.72-15.31, I² = 31%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Issues affecting efficacy, including induction and recovery time, success rate, number of shocks, and cumulative energy, were comparable between etomidate and propofol sedation. Regarding safety issues, propofol sedation resulted in hypotension and respiratory depression more frequently; however, initiation of positive pressure ventilation was comparable. Etomidate sedation caused myoclonus and nausea or vomiting more frequently.

Efficacy and safety of etomidate-based sedation compared with propofol-based sedation during ERCP in low-risk patients: a double-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Etomidate is a short-acting intravenous hypnotic with a safety profile that is superior to alternative drugs such as propofol. However, there is a lack of evidence on the safety of etomidate in ERCP. The objective of this study was to compare efficacy and safety profiles of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation.

METHODS

This single-center, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial included patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I to II who had been scheduled for ERCP. All patients received .05 mg/kg midazolam intravenously as pretreatment before receiving etomidate or propofol. Either etomidate or propofol was then administered according to group allocation. The primary endpoint was an overall respiratory event. A noninferiority margin of 10% was assumed.

RESULTS

Sixty-three and 64 patients were enrolled in the etomidate and propofol groups, respectively. Respiratory events were identified in 10 patients (15.6%) in the etomidate group and 16 patients (25.4%) on the propofol group, with a rate difference of -9.8% (1-sided 97.5% confidence interval, -∞ to 4.2%). The overall incidence of cardiovascular events tended to be higher in the etomidate group (67.2% vs 50.8%, P = .060). In particular, tachycardia (heart rate > 100 beats/min) was more common in the etomidate group than in the propofol group (64.1% vs 34.9%, P = .001). Transient hypotension tended to be less common in the etomidate group (6.3 vs 15.9%, P = .084).

CONCLUSIONS

Etomidate-based sedation during ERCP was noninferior to propofol-based sedation in terms of the overall incidence of respiratory events in patients with ASA physical status I to II. (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform number: KCT0001926.).

Etomidate versus propofol sedation for complex upper endoscopic procedures: a prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although a growing body of evidence demonstrates that propofol-induced deep sedation can be effective and performed safely, cardiopulmonary adverse events have been observed frequently. Etomidate is a new emerging drug that provides hemodynamic and respiratory stability, even in high-risk patient groups. The objective of this study was to compare safety and efficacy profiles of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation.

METHODS

A total of 128 patients undergoing EUS were randomized to receive either etomidate or propofol blinded administered by a registered nurse. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with any cardiopulmonary adverse events.

RESULTS

Overall cardiopulmonary adverse events were identified in 22 patients (34.38%) of the etomidate group and 33 patients (51.56%) of the propofol group, without significant difference (P = .074). However, the incidence of oxygen desaturation (4/64 [6.25%] vs 20/64 [31.25%]; P =.001) and respiratory depression (5/64 [7.81%] vs 21/64 [32.81%]; P =.001) was significantly lower in the etomidate group than in the propofol group. The frequency of myoclonus was significantly higher in the etomidate group (22/64 [34.37%]) compared with the propofol group (8/64 [12.50%]) (P =.012). Repeated measure analysis of variance revealed significant effects of sedation group and time on systolic blood pressure (etomidate group greater than propofol group). Physician satisfaction was greater in the etomidate group than in the propofol group.

CONCLUSIONS

Etomidate administration resulted in fewer respiratory depression events and had a better sedative efficacy than propofol; however, it was more frequently associated with myoclonus and increased blood pressure during endoscopic procedures. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0001701.).

Unrepaired Tetralogy of Fallot-related Pathophysiologic Changes Reduce Systemic Clearance of Etomidate in Children

BACKGROUND

Pathophysiologic changes in children with congenital heart disease may alter the effect of drugs by influencing the pharmacokinetics (PK). Considering the limited literature that describes the PK of etomidate in pediatric patients, especially in those with tetralogy of Fallot (TOF), our aim was to characterize the PK of etomidate and explore the effects of TOF.

METHODS

Twenty-nine pediatric patients (15 with TOF and 14 with normal cardiac anatomy) scheduled to undergo elective surgery under general anesthesia were recruited in the study. All children received etomidate 60 μg/kg/min intravenously until a bispectral index of ≤50 was reached for 5 seconds during anesthesia induction. Arterial blood samples were drawn and analyzed. Population analysis was performed by using NONMEM to define PK characteristics. The estimates were standardized to a 70-kg adult using a per-kilogram model.

RESULTS

Data consisting of 244 samples from 29 children with a mean age of 236 days (range, 86-360 days) were used, including a TOF group with a mean age of 250 days (range, 165-360 days) and a normal cardiac anatomy group with a mean age of 221 days (range, 86-360 days). A 3-compartment disposition model was best fitted to describe the PK of etomidate. The introduction of TOF as a covariate for systemic clearance (Cl1) improved the model and resulted in a significant reduction of objective function (Δobjective function = -7.33; P = .0068), which means that TOF was a significant covariate of Cl1, and the etomidate Cl1 in children with TOF (1.67 × (weight [WT]/70 kg) L/min) was lower than those with normal cardiac anatomy (2.28 × (WT/70 kg) L/min). Other PK parameter values were as follows: V1 = 8.05 × (WT/70 kg) L; V2 = 13.7 × (WT/70 kg) L; V3 = 41.3 × (WT/70 kg) L; Cl2 = 3.35 × (WT/70 kg) L/min; Cl3 = 0.563 × (WT/70 kg) L/min.

CONCLUSIONS

A decreased systemic clearance for etomidate in children with TOF resulted in a lower required infusion rate and variation with time to achieve the same plasma concentration and maintain an equivalent target concentration or have longer sedation and recovery times after bolus or continuous infusion than normal children.

The Comparison of Etomidate and Propofol Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Etomidate and propofol played an important role in the sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare their efficacy and safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of etomidate versus propofol for the anesthesia of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were included. Two investigators independently searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. The primary outcomes were anesthesia duration and recovery time. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect model.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials involving 1115 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with propofol, etomidate resulted in comparable anesthesia duration [standard mean difference (Std. MD)=-0.03; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.16 to 0.10; P=0.66], recovery time (Std. MD=0.25; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.92; P=0.47), mean arterial pressure at intubation (Std. MD=0.44; 95% CI, -0.26 to 1.15; P=0.21), heart pulse at intubation (Std. MD=0.93; 95% CI, -0.69 to 2.55; P=0.26), SPO2 at intubation (Std. MD=-0.52; 95% CI, -1.04 to 0.01; P=0.05), patient satisfaction [odds risk (OR)=0.42; 95% CI, 0.11-1.66; P=0.22], hypotension (OR=0.14; 95% CI, 0.02-1.22; P=0.07), changes of heart rate (OR=0.97; 95% CI, 0.61-1.53; P=0.88), nausea-vomiting (OR=2.02; 95% CI, 0.73-5.57; P=0.17), and the reduction in apnea or hyoxemia (OR=0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.64; P=0.0002), and injection pain (OR=0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08; P<0.00001), but the increase in myoclonus (OR=8.54; 95% CI, 3.14-23.20; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Between etomidate and propofol, no significant difference was revealed regarding anesthesia duration, recovery time, mean arterial pressure at intubation, heart pulse at intubation, SPO2 at intubation, patient satisfaction, hypotension, changes of heart rate and nausea-vomiting. Compared with propofol, etomidate showed reduced apnea or hyoxemia, and injection pain, but with an increased myoclonus.

On the Horizon: The Future of Procedural Sedation

Sedation plays an integral part in endoscopy. By achieving patient comfort, it allows for a better examination and enhances patient satisfaction. Various medications have been used, propofol being the current favorite. With emphasis on patient safety and quality of endoscopy, various new medications in different combinations are being used to achieve adequate sedation and not escalate the cost of the procedure. With the advent of newer medications and newer modalities to administer these medications, there is need for more specialized training for the endoscopist to feel comfortable while using these medications.

Cardioversion: What to choose? Etomidate or propofol

Context:

Electrical cardioversion is a short painful procedure to regain normal sinus rhythm requiring anaesthesia for haemodynamic stability, sedation, analgesia and early recovery.

Aims:

To compare propofol and etomidate as sedatives during cardioversion.

Settings and Design:

Single centred, prospective and randomized single blind study comprising 60 patients.

Subjects and Methods:

Patients more than 18 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists I/II/III grades undergoing elective cardioversion, randomly divided to receive propofol 1 mg/kg intravenous (IV) bolus followed by 0.5 mg/kg (Group P, n = 30) or etomidate (Group E, n = 30) 0.1 mg/kg followed by 0.05 mg/kg. All patients received IV fentanyl (1 μg/kg) before procedure. Heart rate, blood pressure (BP) (systolic BP [SBP], diastolic BP [DBP], mean arterial pressure), respiratory rate, Aldrete recovery score (ARS) and Ramsay sedation score (RSS) were assessed at 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 min post cardioversion. Incidence of hypotension, respiratory depression and side effects were compared.

Statistical analysis used:

Student's unpaired t-test, Chi-square test and Mann–Whitney test. P < 0.05 was taken as significant.

Results:

Group P showed significant fall in SBP, DBP, and mean BP at 2 min after cardioversion. Hypotension (33.3% Group P vs. 16.65% Group E) occurred more with propofol (P < 0.05). Group E showed better ARS at 1, 2, 5, 10, 15 and 20 min. Time required to attain RSS = 2 (659.1 s Group P and 435.7 s Group E) indicated longer recovery with propofol. Left atrial size (35.5-42.5 mm) did not affect success rate of cardioversion (80% Group P vs. 83.3% Group E). Incidence of myoclonus (Group E 26.67% vs. Group P 0%) showed significant difference.

Conclusions:

Etomidate/fentanyl is superior over propofol/fentanyl during cardioversion for quick recovery and haemodynamic stability.

Effects of continuous infusion of etomidate at various dose rates on adrenal function in dogs

BACKGROUND

Etomidate is a commonly used sedative in intravenous anesthesia. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of various etomidate doses administered by continuous infusion on adrenal function in dogs under general anesthesia.

METHODS

Thirty-six healthy adult male dogs were randomly divided into six groups. Sodium pentobarbital alone was administered to the control group (group C); five experimental groups (E1, E2, E3, E4, and E5) were also given etomidate at doses of 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 μg · kg(-1) · min(-1), respectively, to maintain anesthesia. Heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and bispectral index (BIS) were monitored. Serum cortisol, aldosterone, adrenaline, and noradrenaline levels were measured, and HR, MAP, and BIS values recorded, before intubation (T0), and at 1 h, 2 h, and 3 h after intubation (T1-3).

RESULTS

Cortisol and aldosterone levels in groups E1-5 decreased as the doses and times of continuous infusion of etomidate increased. The cortisol level was significantly decreased compared with baseline at T3 in group E1 and at T1-3 in groups E2-5 (P < 0.05). Compared with the corresponding levels in group C, cortisol levels were significantly lower than T0 values at T3 in group E1 and at T1-3 in groups E2-5 (P < 0.05). The aldosterone level was significantly lower at T3 in group E2 and at T1-3 in groups E3-5 (P < 0.05). Significant reductions in cortisol levels at T2-3 in group E2 and at T1-3 in groups E3-5 compared with group C were also observed (P < 0.05). The plasma adrenaline and noradrenaline levels, HR, MAP, and BIS in groups E1-5 were within the normal range at the different times and with the different doses (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Cortisol and aldosterone levels decreased with time and continuous infusion of etomidate; there were no significant changes in adrenaline and noradrenaline levels, HR, MAP, and BIS in any group.

Etomidate Anesthesia during ERCP Caused More Stable Haemodynamic Responses Compared with Propofol: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol may result in hypotension and respiratory depression, while etomidate is considered to be a safe induction agent for haemodynamically unstable patients because of its low risk of hypotension. We hypothesized that etomidate anesthesia during ERCP caused more stable haemodynamic responses compared with propofol. The primary endpoint was to compare the haemodynamic effects of etomidate vs. propofol in ERCP cases. The secondary endpoint was overall survival.

METHODS

A total of 80 patients undergoing ERCP were randomly assigned to an etomidate or propofol group. Patients in the etomidate group received etomidate induction and maintenance during ERCP, and patients in the propofol group received propofol induction and maintenance. Cardiovascular parameters and procedure-related time were measured and recorded during ERCP.

RESULTS

The average percent change to baseline in MBP was -8.4±7.8 and -14.4±9.4 with P = 0.002, and in HR was 1.8±16.6 and 2.4±16.3 with P = 0.874 in the etomidate group and the propofol group, respectively. MBP values in the etomidate group decreased significantly less than those in the propofol group (P<0.05). The ERCP duration and recovery time in both groups was similar. There was no significant difference in the survival rates between groups ( p = 0.942).

CONCLUSIONS

Etomidate anesthesia during ERCP caused more stable haemodynamic responses compared with propofol.

Addition of low-dose ketamine to midazolam-fentanyl-propofol-based sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of low-dose ketamine on midazolam-fentanyl-propofol-based sedation for outpatient colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Gastroenterology unit at a practice and clinical research center.

SUBJECTS

Ninety-seven healthy American Society of Anesthesiology physical status 1 volunteers.

INTERVENTIONS

Subjects were randomized to receive midazolam (0.02 mg/kg), fentanyl (1 μg/kg), and ketamine (0.3 mg/kg) and midazolam (0.02 mg/kg), fentanyl (1 μg/kg), and placebo (0.9% sodium chloride) in group K and group C, respectively. In both groups, incremental doses of propofol were used to maintain a Ramsay sedation score of 3 to 4.

MEASUREMENTS

Values of heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate were measured. Procedure times, recovery times, drug doses used, complications associated with the sedation, and physician and patient satisfaction were also recorded.

MAIN RESULTS

In group K, mean amount of propofol used and mean induction time (P < .001), the need for the use of jaw thrust maneuver and mask ventilation, and the incidence of disruptive movements were significantly lower (P < .05) and gastroenterologist satisfaction at the beginning of the procedure was significantly superior (P < .05). Mean systolic blood pressures at 4, 6, 8, and 10 minutes (P < .01); diastolic blood pressures at 4, 6, and 8 minutes (P < .05); respiratory rates at 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 20, and 25 minutes (P < .01); and oxygen saturation at 6, 8, 10, 15, and 20 minutes (P < .05) were significantly lower in group C. Patient satisfaction scores, recovery times, and discharge times were similar. No patient in either group experienced unpleasant dreams or hallucination in the postanesthesia care unit and on the first postoperative day.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of low-dose ketamine to midazolam-fentanyl-propofol-based sedation for outpatient colonoscopy resulted in more rapid and better quality of sedation, less propofol consumption, more stable hemodynamic status, and less adverse effects with similar recovery times in adult patients.

Anesthesia for stem cell transplantation in autistic children: A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of propofol and etomidate following sevoflurane inhalation

The objective of the present study was to comparatively investigate the feasibility and safety of etomidate and propofol use following sevoflurane inhalation in autistic children during the intrathecal transplantation of stem cells. The patients selected were 60 autistic children with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I, who were aged between two and 12 years and scheduled for stem cell transplantation. The children received an inhalation induction of 8% sevoflurane, followed by intravenous injection of etomidate (0.2 mg/kg) in group E and propofol (2 mg/kg) in group P (n=30/group). Supplemental doses of 0.1 mg/kg etomidate or 1 mg/kg propofol were used until a deep sedation was obtained. The heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, Ramsay sedation score (RSS) and recovery time were monitored continuously. Following anesthesia, blood pressure and HR measurements were significantly decreased in group P compared with the baseline (P<0.01) and group E values at the same time-points (P<0.05). The occurrence of adverse effects, such as respiratory depression, bradycardia, hypotension and pain on injection, was significantly higher in group P than that in group E, whereas the incidence of myoclonus in group E was significantly higher than that in group P (P<0.01). No significant differences in anesthesia induction, surgery duration, recovery time, RSS and physician satisfaction were observed between the two groups. In conclusion, sevoflurane-etomidate combinations resulted in more stable hemodynamic responses and relatively fewer adverse effects compared with propofol injection following sevoflurane inhalation and may therefore be more suitable for the induction of short-term anesthesia in autistic children during stem cell transplantation.

Propofol alternatives in gastrointestinal endoscopy anesthesia

Although propofol has been the backbone for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy, both anesthesiologists and endoscopists are faced with situations where an alternative is needed. Recent national shortages forced many physicians to explore these options. A midazolam and fentanyl combination is the mainstay in this area. However, there are other options. The aim of this review is to explore these options. The future would be, invariably, to move away from propofol. The reason is not in any way related to the drawbacks of propofol as a sedative. The mandate that requires an anesthesia provider to administer propofol has been a setback in many countries. New sedative drugs like Remimazolam might fill this void in the future. In the meantime, it is important to keep an open eye to the existing alternatives.

Sedation-analgesia in elective colonoscopy: propofol-fentanyl versus propofol-alfentanil

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Sedation-analgesia is recommended for comfortable colonoscopy procedures, which are invasive and can be painful. This study aimed to compare the combinations of propofol-alfentanil and propofol-fentanyl for sedation-analgesia in elective colonoscopy patients.

METHODS

This prospective and randomized study was planned in ASA I-II groups and included 80 patients between the ages of 18 and 65 years. Sedation-analgesia induction was performed as 1 μg.kg-1 fentanyl, 1 mg.kg-1 propofol in the propofol-fentanyl group (Group PF) and 10 μg.kg-1 alfentanil, 1 mg.kg-1 propofol in the propofol-alfentanil group (Group PA). Patients’ scores were limited to 3-4 values on the Ramsey Sedation Scale (RSS) by 0.5 mg.kg-1 bolus additional doses of propofol in sedation-analgesia maintenance. We recorded demographical data, heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), oxygen saturation of hemoglobin (SpO2), RSS value, colonoscopy time, total dose of propofol, complications, recovery time, and discharge time, as well as colonoscopist and patient satisfaction scores.

RESULTS

MAP at the 15th minute in Group PA was signifi cantly higher than in Group PF (p = 0.037). Group PA’s beginning mean heart rate was higher than the mean heart rate at subsequent readings (p = 0.012, p = 0.002). The mean total propofol dose of Group PA was signifi cantly higher than the total dose of Group PF (p = 0.028). The mean recovery time of Group PA was signifi cantly longer than that of Group PF (p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

Fentanyl provides better operative conditions and reduces the need for additional propofol doses. These advantages cause a shorter recovery time. Therefore, propofol-fentanyl is superior to the propofol-alfentanil for sedation-analgesia in colonoscopy.

Sedation-analgesia in elective colonoscopy: propofol-fentanyl versus propofol-alfentanil

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Sedation-analgesia is recommended for comfortable colonoscopy procedures, which are invasive and can be painful. This study aimed to compare the combinations of propofol-alfentanil and propofol-fentanyl for sedation-analgesia in elective colonoscopy patients.

METHODS

This prospective and randomized study was planned in ASA I-II groups and included 80 patients between the ages of 18 and 65 years. Sedation-analgesia induction was performed as 1 μg.kg(-1) fentanyl, 1mg.kg(-1) propofol in the propofol-fentanyl group (Group PF) and 10 μg.kg(-1) alfentanil, 1mg.kg(-1) propofol in the propofol-alfentanil group (Group PA). Patients' scores were limited to 3-4 values on the Ramsey Sedation Scale (RSS) by 0.5mg.kg(-1) bolus additional doses of propofol in sedation-analgesia maintenance. We recorded demographical data, heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), oxygen saturation of hemoglobin (SpO2), RSS value, colonoscopy time, total dose of propofol, complications, recovery time, and discharge time, as well as colonoscopist and patient satisfaction scores.

RESULTS

MAP at the 15(th) minute in Group PA was significantly higher than in Group PF (p = 0.037). Group PA's beginning mean heart rate was higher than the mean heart rate at subsequent readings (p = 0.012, p = 0.002). The mean total propofol dose of Group PA was significantly higher than the total dose of Group PF (p = 0.028). The mean recovery time of Group PA was significantly longer than that of Group PF (p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

Fentanyl provides better operative conditions and reduces the need for additional propofol doses. These advantages cause a shorter recovery time. Therefore, propofol-fentanyl is superior to the propofol-alfentanil for sedation-analgesia in colonoscopy.

Sedation for short hemato-oncologic invasive procedures in children: comparison of propofol-remifentanil and propofol-fentanyl

INTRODUCTION

Short hemato-oncologic procedures are often painful in children, and sedation should be performed outside the operating room.

AIM

: The study aims to compare the effects of remifentanil with those of fentanyl administered during short hemato-oncologic interventions in children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, randomized study was planned for 29 ASA I to III children (aged, 2 to 18 y) to undergo a total of 60 short oncologic interventions. The patients were placed into 2 groups: propofol-remifentanil (group PR) and propofol-fentanyl (group PF). Group PR was first administered propofol (2 mg/kg) and then remifentanil bolus (0.5 μg/kg). Group PF was first administered propofol (2 mg/kg) and then fentanyl bolus (0.5 μg/kg). Systolic arterial pressure, diastolic arterial pressure, mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, and heart rate were recorded every 3 minutes during the intervention and every 5 minutes after the operation. Postanesthetic recovery scores, eye-opening time to speech, and recovery time were recorded.

RESULTS

Comparison of diastolic arterial pressure in groups at minute 3 of the procedure showed significant difference (P<0.05). Eye-opening to speech (P=0.043) and recovery times (P=0.002) were shorter in group PR.

CONCLUSIONS

During short hemato-oncologic interventions in children, the PR combination is a suitable one for early recovery.