Analgesic comparison of dezocine plus propofol versus fentanyl plus propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis

Efficacy and safety of alfentanil plus propofol versus propofol only in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of alfentanil plus propofol versus propofol only for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, China Biology Medicine, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials on alfentanil combined with propofol versus propofol only for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy from the inception of the database to August 2022. The Rev Man 5.4 software was used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 1762 patients were identified as eligible for this study. The meta-analysis showed that compared with propofol, alfentanil combined with propofol had a more stable mean arterial pressure [mean difference (MD) = 5.38, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.97-8.80; P = .002], heart rate (MD = 3.78, 95% CI: 1.30-6.26; P = .003) and pulse oxygen saturation (MD = 1.90, 95% CI: 0.93-2.78; P = .0001); a lower propofol dose (standard mean difference = -2.82, 95% CI: -3.70 to -1.94; P < .00001), lower awakening time (MD = -3.23, 95% CI: -4.01 to -2.45; P < .00001) and lower directional force recovery time (MD = -3.62, 95% CI: -4.22 to -3.03; P < .00001); a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting (relative risk [RR] = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.14-0.71; P = .005), body movement (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13-0.54; P = .0002), hypotension (RR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; P < .0001), respiratory depression (RR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.15-0.89; P = .03) and cough reflex (RR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.12-0.89; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

This meta-study found that current evidence indicates that alfentanil plus propofol is better than propofol alone for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy and is associated with a lower incidence of adverse reactions. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to validate these above conclusions.

Comparison of propofol-esketamine versus propofol for anesthesia in gastroscopy: a double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial

Objective

To compare the effects of propofol-esketamine and propofol in gastroscopy in adults.

Methods

This randomized controlled clinical trial was performed from January 2021 to March 2021. Eighty patients were enrolled and allocated into normal saline group (group N) and esketamine group (group E). The primary outcome was total amount of propofol. Secondary outcomes included incidences of injection pain, involuntary movement, hemodynamic and respiratory adverse events during examination, total examination time, recovery time and postoperative adverse effects.

Results

Total amount of propofol was significantly smaller in group E (101.64 ± 32.64 mg) than in group N (129.55 ± 36.34 mg, p = 0.001). Incidences of injection pain, involuntary movement and hypotension was significantly lower in group E than in group N. Incidences of hypertension and tachycardia was higher in group E than in group N. There was no significant difference in incidences of laryngospasm or hypoxemia, total examination time, recovery time, incidences of postoperative adverse effects between two groups.

Conclusion

Combination of propofol with 0.2 mg/kg esketamine reduced total amount of propofol, provided a more stable hemodynamic status and did not affect recovery time in gastroscopy.

Clinical trial registration

http://www.chictr.org, identifier ChiCTR2100042406.

Analysis of the efficacy of subclinical doses of esketamine in combination with propofol in non-intubated general anesthesia procedures - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The number of non-intubated general anesthesia outside the operating room is growing as the increasing demand for comfort treatment. Non-intubated general anesthesia outside the operating room requires rapid onset of anesthesia, smoothness, quick recovery, and few postoperative complications. Traditional anesthetic regimens (propofol alone or propofol and opioids/dezocine/midazolam, etc.) have severe respiratory and circulatory depression and many systemic adverse effects. In this paper, we compare the effectiveness and safety of propofol and subclinical doses of esketamine with other traditional regimens applied to non-intubated general anesthesia through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and Sinomed databases for the period from January 2000 to October 2022. We rigorously screened the literature according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, while risk assessment of the studies was performed using The Cochrane Collaboration's tool, and statistical analysis of the data was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. The main outcome indicators we evaluated were the various hemodynamic parameters and incidence of various adverse effects between the experimental and control groups after induction of anesthesia.

RESULTS

After a rigorous screening process, a total of 14 papers were included in the final meta-analysis. After risk bias assessment, three of the papers were judged as low risk and the others were judged as having moderate to high risk. Forest plots were drawn for a total of 16 indicators. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in HR' WMD 3.27 (0.66, 5.87), MAP' WMD 9.68 (6.13, 13.24), SBP' WMD 5.42 (2.11, 8.73), DBP' WMD 4.02 (1.15, 6.88), propofol dose' SMD -1.39 (-2.45, -0.33), hypotension' RR 0.30 (0.20, 0.45), bradycardia' RR 0.33 (0.14, 0.77), hypoxemia or apnea' RR 0.45 (0.23, 0.89), injection pain' RR 0.28 (0.13, 0.60), intraoperative choking' RR 0.62 (0.50, 0.77), intraoperative body movements' RR 0.48 (0.29, 0.81) and overall incidence of adverse reactions' RR 0.52 (0.39, 0.70).The indicators that were not statistically different were time to wake up' WMD - 0.55 (-1.29, 0.19), nausea and vomiting 0.84' RR (0.43, 1.67), headache and dizziness' RR 1.57 (0.98, 2.50) and neuropsychiatric reaction' RR 1.05 (0.28, 3.93). The funnel plot showed that the vast majority of studies fell within the funnel interval, but the symmetry was relatively poor.

CONCLUSION

In non-intubated general anesthesia, the combination of subclinical doses of esketamine and propofol did reduce circulatory and respiratory depression, injection pain, and other adverse effects, while the incidence of esketamine's own side effects such as neuropsychiatric reactions did not increase, and the combination of the two did not cause the occurrence of new and more serious adverse reactions, and the combination of the two was safe and effective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPREO registration number: CRD 42022368966.

Median Effective Dose of an Etomidate-Propofol Mixture with Dezocine in Inhibiting the Response to Gastroscope Insertion: Gender Differences in a Randomized Controlled Study Using Dixon’s Up-and-Down Method

What Is Known and Objective. Appropriate doses of sedatives are crucial for a successful, painless upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Hence, we conducted a randomized controlled study to explore the effects of dezocine on the median effective dose (ED50) of the etomidate-propofol (E-P) mixture in prohibiting response to gastroscope insertion in patients of different genders. Methods. Patients aged 18–65 years enrolled in the study of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) with physical status I or II undergoing elective gastroscopy were included. Patients were randomly assigned to the male normal saline group (MS group), male dezocine group (MD group), female normal saline group (FS group), and female dezocine group (FD group). All patients were anesthetized with an E-P mixture of 1 : 1. The FD and MD groups were intravenously injected (i.v.) 50 µg/kg dezocine 5 min before anesthesia, while the FS and MS groups were injected with an equal volume of normal saline 5 min before anesthesia. According to the preexperiment, the initial dose of the E-P mixture for the FD and MD groups was 0.4 and 0.3 mL/kg for the FS and MS groups. The variation proportion was set as 0.9 between dosages. Dixon’s up-and-down method was adopted to confirm the dose of the E-P mixture for the next patient, which was reduced if the insertion was performed successfully; otherwise, the dose was increased. Centered isotonic regression was employed to determine the ED50 and 90% confidence interval (CI) values of the E-P mixture in the four groups. The total amount of E-P mixture consumed was recorded as well as the adverse events of patients. Results. The ED50 and 90% CI of the MS, MD, FS, and FD groups were 0.315 (0.285–0.349), 0.206 (0.175–0.237), 0.329 (0.305–0.355), and 0.207 (0.188–0.227) mL/kg, respectively. The MD group was <MS group ( $P\le 0.001$ ), and the FD group was <FS group ( $P\le 0.001$ ); no statistical difference was observed between the MS and FS groups and MD and FD groups. Dezocine reduced the total amount of E-P mixture consumed and the overall incidence of adverse events. What Is New and Conclusion. Dezocine significantly decreased the ED50 of the E-P mixture in inhibiting the response of patients to gastroscope insertion and the occurrence rate of adverse events. Further, gender had no impact on the ED50 of the E-P mixture.

Clinical application of dexmedetomidine combined with dezocine in local anesthesia for endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical effect of dexmedetomidine combined with dezocine in local anesthesia for endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR).

METHODS

Ninety patients undergoing elective endoscopic DCR were randomly divided into two groups, local anesthesia group (LA group n = 45) and general anesthesia group (GA group, n = 45). These subjects were all American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)-Physical Status I-II patients. The changes of mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were observed and recorded before anesthesia (T0), after anesthesia (T1), at the beginning of surgery (T2), and at the end of surgery (T3). The visual analogue scale (VAS) score was observed and recorded immediately after awakening from anesthesia and at 1, 2, 6, and 12 h after surgery. Additionally, the occurrence of adverse reactions after surgery and the sedation-agitation scale (SAS) score after awakening were recorded.

RESULTS

Compared with the LA group, the MAP and HR of the GA group were significantly lower at T1 and T2, but significantly higher at T3. Local anesthesia was associated with lower VAS score immediately after awakening and at 1, 2, 6, and 12 h after surgery. Also, local anesthesia caused a lower incidence of postoperative agitation, nausea, and vomiting. The SAS score in the LA group was markedly higher than that in the GA group.

CONCLUSION

Local anesthesia with dexmedetomidine and dezocine as adjuvants in endoscopic DCR has more stable hemodynamics and reduces the stress response during perioperative period. Also, this anesthesia achieves better postoperative sedation and analgesia effects, reduces postoperative complications, and improves the quality of awakening from anesthesia. Collectively, local anesthesia is a comfortable and safe option for patients with high risks of general anesthesia and those unwilling to receive general anesthesia.

The effectiveness of esketamine and propofol versus dezocine and propofol sedation during gastroscopy: A randomized controlled study

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol is widely used in painless gastroscopy. However, sedation with propofol alone might increase the risk of respiratory and circulatory complications. This randomized clinical study compares the efficacy and safety of esketamine or dezocine combined with intravenous (IV) propofol in patients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

A total of 102 patients were enrolled in this study and randomized into two groups. All patients were adults aged 18-64 years who underwent upper gastrointestinal gastroscopy. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups to receive esketamine (0.3 mg/kg) combined with propofol (group E) or dezocine (0.05 mg/kg) combined with propofol (group D). In both groups, the drugs were administered intravenously. The primary outcome was the dose of propofol which provided a satisfactory sedative effect, both to the endoscopist and the patients. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, side effects (such as hypotension, nausea and vomiting and agitation), and the number of adverse circulatory and respiratory events.

RESULTS

Data of 83 patients were analysed in the present study. Dosage of propofol required in group E (1.44 mg/kg ± 0.67 mg/kg) was significantly lower compared with that in group D (2.12 mg/kg ± 0.37 mg/kg) (p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in recovery time, side effects, and the frequency of sedation-related adverse events between the two groups.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The study indicates that intravenous injection of propofol and esmketamine is more effective for gastroscopy. Use of esketamine reduces the total amount of propofol required in ASA I-II patients undergoing gastroscopy compared with single use of dezocine. It also provides more stable hemodynamics, without affecting the recovery time and side effects such as respiratory and circulatory adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (www.chictr.org.cn; registration number: ChiCTR2100051814) on 05/10/2021.