Review of propofol and auxiliary medications used for sedation

Ciprofol versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Painless gastrointestinal endoscopy is being increasingly practised in the clinical field. The management and choice of sedation are important during the endoscopy procedure to reduce patient discomfort and facilitate high disease detection rates. Ciprofol is principally an agonist of the γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptor; it comprises the active ingredient HSK3486, which is similar to the currently used intravenous anaesthetic propofol in clinical practice. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ciprofol and propofol will be conducted to assess their efficacy and safety during endoscopy. Before starting the study, we describe the specific protocol of this systematic review.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol was prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols 2015. The following databases will be searched: Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database and a clinical trial registry. The database search strategy will adopt a combination of subject words and free words. Randomised controlled trials related to ciprofol use for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy will also be included. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two researchers will independently screen the articles and extracted data. Following the qualitative evaluation of each study, analysis will be conducted using Review Manager software.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis involves no individual patient data; thus, ethical approval is not required. This will be the first meta-analysis to assess the sedation efficacy of ciprofol and provide evidence to clinicians for decision-making. The results will be disseminated through conference presentations and publications in peer-review journals related to this field.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022370047.

Propofol Suppresses Glioma Tumorigenesis by Regulating circ_0047688/miR-516b-5p/IFI30 Axis

Propofol has recently attracted increasing attention for its anti-tumor property in cancers, including glioma. Circular RNAs (circRNAs) can act as key regulators in various cancers. However, the relationship between propofol and circ_0047688 in glioma is still unclear. Cell proliferation was evaluated by Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8), 5-ethynyl-2'-deoxyuridine (EdU), and colony formation assays. Cell migration and invasion were determined using transwell assay. Cell apoptosis was detected by flow cytometry. Protein levels and RNA levels were detected by western blot assay and real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT‑qPCR), respectively. The intermolecular interaction was predicted by bioinformatics analysis and verified by dual-luciferase reporter assay. A mouse xenograft model was established for in vivo experiments. Propofol inhibited cell proliferation, migration, and invasion and accelerated apoptosis in glioma cells. Circ_0047688 was upregulated in glioma tissues and cells, and propofol downregulated circ_0047688 in a dose-dependent manner. Circ_0047688 knockdown inhibited glioma cell progression and its overexpression abated the anti-tumor role of propofol in glioma cells. Moreover, miR-516b-5p was a direct target of circ_0047688, and circ_0047688 promoted glioma cell progression by sponging miR-516b-5p. In addition, IFI30 was a direct target of miR-516b-5p, and miR-516b-5p inhibited glioma cell malignant behaviors by targeting IFI30 in propofol-treated cells. Furthermore, circ_0047688 overexpression could weaken the anti-tumor role of propofol in vivo. Propofol inhibited glioma progression via modulating circ_0047688/miR-516b-5p/IFI30 axis, providing a potential therapeutic strategy for treatment of glioma.

Clinical Features and Management of Seizure After Percutaneous Endoscopic Spine Surgery: A Retrospective Case Series Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To describe the perioperative clinical features, management, and outcomes of patients with seizure after percutaneous endoscopic spine surgery (PESS).

METHODS

Patients who experienced seizure after PESS in a tertiary orthopedic hospital between January 2016 and June 2022 were retrospectively recruited, and patient charts were reviewed.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients were recruited, and the incidence of seizure after PESS was 0.52%. The operation time was 110.0 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 82.5-235.0 minutes) and the irrigation speed was 109.0 mL/minute (IQR, 86.5-145.5 mL/minute). Definitive dural tears were reported in 15 patients (51.7%). In addition to agitation and myotonia, significant increased respiratory rate (29.9 ± 6.5 breaths/minute), tachycardia (112.1 ± 20.6 beats/minute), and hypertension (systolic, 189.5 ± 21.9 mm Hg; diastolic, 98.3 ± 10.6 mm Hg) were observed. Arterial blood gas analysis showed hypocapnia, metabolic acidosis, and hyperlactatemia. All patients received analgesia and sedation as well as hyperosmolar therapy. The estimated duration of seizure was 3.0 hours (IQR, 2.5-4.0 hours) and the postoperative length of hospital stay was 3.0 (IQR, 3.0-5.5) days. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association score and visual analog scale score improved markedly within 6 months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the low incidence and short duration, seizure after PESS should be considered a critical and urgent syndrome. Management strategies for seizure mainly involve intensive care, securing the airway, analgesia and sedation, hyperosmolar therapy, and negative fluid balance. No significant adverse effects of seizure on clinical outcomes were observed during 6 months of follow-up.

Anesthetic management for medialization laryngoplasty using concurrent infusions of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and propofol versus controls

PURPOSE

Medialization laryngoplasty (ML) ± arytenoid adduction (AA) surgery poses a unique anesthetic challenge that requires periods of deep sedation and patient cooperation with phonation to assess voice function. The purpose of this study was to assess if the protocolized administration of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and propofol (DRP) is associated with reduced procedural duration and administration of other sedating medications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective 2:1 case matched study design; matched on age, sex, body mass index, AA, and surgical revision status. Data was obtained from the electronic medical record of a tertiary referral center. Cases underwent ML ± AA using DRP. Control subjects underwent surgery ML ± AA without DRP.

RESULTS

58 DRP cases (43.1% AA) were matched with 116 control patients (44.8% AA). DRP was associated with decreases in fentanyl dose (50 [25, 100] vs. 100 [50, 150] mcg; p < 0.01), incidence and dose of midazolam (4 [6.9%] vs. 70 [60.3%]; p < 0.01; 1 [1, 1] vs. 2 [2, 2]; p < 0.02), operative duration (131 ± 33 vs. 160 ± 50 min; p < 0.01), and anesthetic duration (182 ± 35 vs. 219 ± 60.3 min; p < 0.01). When adjusted for timeline, it was observed that case duration was declining prior to DRP introduction; this trend persisted after DRP introduction. Hypopnea was more common with DRP (14 [24.1%] vs. 7 [6.0%]; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

DRP was associated with a substantial decrease in opioid and benzodiazepine administration. A reduction in procedural duration over time was also observed.

Propofol suppresses growth, migration and invasion of A549 cells by down-regulation of miR-372

BACKGROUND

Propofol, a commonly used intravenous anesthetic during cancer resection surgery, has been found to exhibit tumor inhibitory effects in vitro and in vivo. The role of propofol in lung cancer has been previously reported, whereas its action mechanism remains unclear. This study further investigated the effects of propofol on lung cancer A549 cell growth, migration and invasion, as well as the underlying mechanisms.

METHODS

Cell viability, proliferation, migration, invasion and apoptosis were assessed by CCK-8 assay, BrdU assay, two chamber transwell assay and flow cytometry, respectively. The regulatory effect of propofol on microRNA-372 (miR-372) expression in A549 cells was analyzed by qRT-PCR. Cell transfection was used to change the expression of miR-372. The protein expression of key factors involving in cell proliferation, apoptosis, migration and invasion, as well as Wnt/β-catenin and mTOR pathways were analyzed by western blotting.

RESULTS

Propofol inhibited lung cancer A549 cell viability, proliferation, migration, and invasion, but promoted cell apoptosis. Moreover, miR-372 was down-regulated in propofol-treated A549 cells. Overexpression of miR-372 abrogated the effects of propofol on proliferation, migration, invasion and apoptosis of A549 cells. Knockdown of miR-372 had opposite effects. Furthermore, propofol suppressed Wnt/β-catenin and mTOR signaling pathways by down-regulating miR-372.

CONCLUSION

Propofol inhibits growth, migration and invasion of lung cancer A549 cells at least in part by down-regulating miR-372 and then inactivating Wnt/β-catenin and mTOR pathways.

Propofol-Based Palliative Sedation to Treat Antipsychotic-Resistant Agitated Delirium

Delirium is a common problem in terminally ill patients that is associated with significant distress and, hence, considered a palliative care emergency. The three subtypes of delirium are hyperactive, hypoactive, and mixed, depending on the level of psychomotor activity and arousal disturbance. When agitated delirium becomes refractory in the setting of imminent dying, the agitation may be so severe that palliative sedation (PS) is required. Palliative sedation involves the administration of sedative medications with the purpose of reducing level of consciousness for patients with refractory suffering in the setting of a terminal illness. Propofol is a sedative that has a short duration of action and a very rapid onset. These characteristics make it relatively easy to titrate. Reported doses range from 50 to 70 mg per hour. The authors present a case of antipsychotic-resistant agitated delirium treated with a propofol intravenous infusion.