Ketamine-Propofol Versus Propofol Alone for Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Continuous Capnography for Early Detection of Respiratory Compromise During Gastroenterological Procedural Sedation and Analgesia

Gastroenterology nurses working across a variety of clinical settings are responsible for periprocedural monitoring during moderate to deep procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) to identify signs of respiratory compromise and intervene to prevent cardiorespiratory events. Pulse oximetry is the standard of care for respiratory monitoring, but it may delay or fail to detect abnormal ventilation during PSA. Continuous capnography, which measures end-tidal CO2 as a marker of alveolar ventilation, has been endorsed by a number of clinical guidelines. Large clinical trials have demonstrated that the addition of continuous capnography to pulse oximetry during PSA for various gastroenterological procedures reduces the incidence of hypoxemia, severe hypoxemia, and apnea. Studies have shown that the cost of adding continuous capnography is offset by the reduction in adverse events and hospital length of stay. In the postanesthesia care unit, continuous capnography is being evaluated for monitoring opioid-induced respiratory depression and to guide artificial airway removal. Studies are also examining the utility of continuous capnography to predict the risk of opioid-induced respiratory depression among patients receiving opioids for primary analgesia. Continuous capnography monitoring has become an essential tool to detect early signs of respiratory compromise in patients receiving PSA during gastroenterological procedures. When combined with pulse oximetry, it can help reduce cardiorespiratory adverse events, improve patient outcomes and safety, and reduce health care costs.

Association of ketamine use during procedural sedation with oxygen desaturation and healthcare utilisation: a multicentre retrospective hospital registry study

BACKGROUND

We investigated the effects of ketamine on desaturation and the risk of nursing home discharge in patients undergoing procedural sedation by anaesthetists.

METHODS

We included adult patients who underwent procedures under monitored anaesthetic care between 2005 and 2021 at two academic healthcare networks in the USA. The primary outcome was intraprocedural oxygen desaturation, defined as oxygen saturation <90% for ≥2 consecutive minutes. The co-primary outcome was a nursing home discharge.

RESULTS

Among 234,170 included patients undergoing procedural sedation, intraprocedural desaturation occurred in 5.6% of patients who received ketamine vs 5.2% of patients who did not receive ketamine (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.29, P<0.001; adjusted absolute risk difference [ARDadj] 1%, 95% CI 0.7-1.3%, P<0.001). The effect was magnified by age >65 yr, smoking, or preprocedural ICU admission (P-for-interaction <0.001, ORadj 1.35, 95% CI 1.25-1.45, P<0.001; ARDadj 2%, 95% CI 1.56-2.49%, P<0.001), procedural risk factors (upper endoscopy of longer than 2 h; P-for-interaction <0.001, ORadj 2.91, 95% CI 1.85-4.58, P<0.001; ARDadj 16.2%, 95% CI 9.8-22.5%, P<0.001), and high ketamine dose (P-for-trend <0.001, ORadj 1.61, 95% CI, 1.43-1.81 for ketamine >0.5 mg kg-1). Concomitant opioid administration mitigated the risk (P-for-interaction <0.001). Ketamine was associated with higher odds of nursing home discharge (ORadj 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.21, P=0.012; ARDadj 0.25%, 95% CI 0.05-0.46%, P=0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine use for procedural sedation was associated with an increased risk of oxygen desaturation and discharge to a nursing home. The effect was dose-dependent and magnified in subgroups of vulnerable patients.

Effect of three modalities on emergence agitation among post-traumatic stress disorder patients undergoing laparoscopy: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Emergence agitation (EA) after general anesthesia is common in patients with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Due to the recent worldwide events such as the Covid-19 pandemic and wars, PTSD is not rare. Accordingly, a reliable, cost-effective anesthetic protocol to lower the incidence of EA is crucial. Therefore, we aimed to compare three different interventions for avoiding EA in PTSD patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Participants were divided into four groups: 1: performing pre-operative relaxation techniques (deep breathing exercise and progressive muscle relaxation [PMR]); 2: administrating intra-operative Ketamine; 3: applying both previously mentioned strategies and 4 as controls.

METHODS

This study was carried out on 144 adult women scheduled for gynecological laparoscopy, randomly allocated into four groups: three intervention groups and a control group (36 each). Women aged 18-45 years old, with a diagnosis of PTSD were included in the study. Patients with a positive history of major neurological, cardiovascular, metabolic, respiratory, or renal disease were excluded. Any patient who reported the use of psychiatric drugs were also excluded from the study. Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics software version 26. Kolmogorov- Smirnov was used to verify the normality of the distribution of variables. Odds ratio was calculated to clarify the strength and direction of the association between intervention groups and control. Data was deemed significant at a p-value ≤0.05.

RESULTS

Heart rate (HR) and Mean Arterial Blood Pressure (MABP) intra-operative and post-operative till 24 hours were significantly lower in groups 1, 2, and 3 compared to group 4 (p<0.001). There was a significant statistical difference in the intraoperative HR percentage decrease. MABP percentage decrease post-operative was higher in all the intervention groups with no statistically significant difference, except for group 1 compared to group 4, which was statistically significant (12.28 ± 11.77 and 6.10 ± 7.24, p=0.025). Visual Analogue Scale measurements were significantly less in the intervention groups 1, 2, and 3 compared to group 4. On Riker sedation-agitation scores, group 1 was 85 times more likely to be non-agitated (85 (15.938 - 453.307), p<0.001), group 2 was 175 times more likely to be non-agitated (175 (19.932-1536.448), p<0.001) and group 3 was protected against agitation.

CONCLUSION

Pre-operative relaxation techniques (breathing exercises and PMR) significantly lowered HR, MABP, VAS score, and EA than controls. These effects were not significantly different from intra-operative ketamine injection or the combination of both (relaxation techniques and ketamine). We recommend routine pre-operative screening for PTSD and the application of relaxation techniques (breathing exercises and PMR) in the pre-operative preparation protocol of PTSD-positive cases as well as routine practical application of preoperative relaxation techniques. Further studies on using pre-operative relaxation techniques in general could be cost-effective.

The Modulation by Anesthetics and Analgesics of Respiratory Rhythm in the Nervous System

Rhythmic eupneic breathing in mammals depends on the coordinated activities of the neural system that sends cranial and spinal motor outputs to respiratory muscles. These outputs modulate lung ventilation and adjust respiratory airflow, which depends on the upper airway patency and ventilatory musculature. Anesthetics are widely used in clinical practice worldwide. In addition to clinically necessary pharmacological effects, respiratory depression is a critical side effect induced by most general anesthetics. Therefore, understanding how general anesthetics modulate the respiratory system is important for the development of safer general anesthetics. Currently used volatile anesthetics and most intravenous anesthetics induce inhibitory effects on respiratory outputs. Various general anesthetics produce differential effects on respiratory characteristics, including the respiratory rate, tidal volume, airway resistance, and ventilatory response. At the cellular and molecular levels, the mechanisms underlying anesthetic-induced breathing depression mainly include modulation of synaptic transmission of ligand-gated ionotropic receptors (e.g., γ-aminobutyric acid, N-methyl-D-aspartate, and nicotinic acetylcholine receptors) and ion channels (e.g., voltage-gated sodium, calcium, and potassium channels, two-pore domain potassium channels, and sodium leak channels), which affect neuronal firing in brainstem respiratory and peripheral chemoreceptor areas. The present review comprehensively summarizes the modulation of the respiratory system by clinically used general anesthetics, including the effects at the molecular, cellular, anatomic, and behavioral levels. Specifically, analgesics, such as opioids, which cause respiratory depression and the "opioid crisis", are discussed. Finally, underlying strategies of respiratory stimulation that target general anesthetics and/or analgesics are summarized.

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol: An effective combination with ketamine for adult procedural sedation: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Recently, drug combination protocols have been preferred over single drugs in procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA). This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and hemodynamic profile of ketamine-dexmedetomidine (ketodex) and ketofol as drug combinations with ketamine as a single medication for PSA in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial was performed among adult patients (≥18 years) requiring PSA for a painful procedure in the ED. 135 patients were enrolled and assigned into three equal groups to receive either ketodex, ketofol, or ketamine. Additional ketamine was used as a rescue agent for inadequate sedation in three groups. Oxygen saturation, heart rate, and blood pressure were recorded from baseline until 120 min after induction of PSA. Adverse events, hemodynamic variables, induction, and recovery time were recorded and compared between groups.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 38.16 ± 19.09 years and no differences were observed between the three groups in terms of demographic variables, pain scores, and procedures between the three groups. Respiratory events had similar incidences between the three groups. The O2 reduction was less in the Ketodex group in comparison with Ketofol and Ketamine groups (1.9%, 6.5%, and 3.8%, P = 0.015). No patient needed endotracheal intubation. Changes in mean arterial pressure from the baseline in Ketamine and Ketofol groups compared to Ketodex was higher (difference was 12.9 mmHg [95% CI, 9.5 to 20.3] and 8.6 mmHg [95% CI, 3.4 to 13.7]. Tachycardia in the Ketamine group had a significantly higher incidence. The recovery time was statistically shorter in the Ketofol group in comparison with other groups. The differences between Ketofol with Ketamine and Ketodex groups were 9.8 min (95% CI, [2.5 to 17.1]) and 8.3 min (95% CI, [1.5 to 15.1]).

CONCLUSION

Ketodex, as well as ketofol, were effective and safe combinations with good recovery profiles and hemodynamic stability for adult PSA in ED.

Low-dose ketamine or opioids combined with propofol for procedural sedation in the emergency department: a systematic review

Procedural sedation is routinely performed for procedures in the emergency department (ED). Propofol is a commonly used sedative, frequently combined with an opioid or low-dose ketamine as an analgesic. However, there is still controversy on the optimal combination of agents in current guidelines. The objective of this systematic review is to identify and present studies comparing low-dose ketamine to opioids when combined with propofol for procedural sedation in the ED and to describe the dosing regimen, observed efficacy, and side effects. For this systematic review, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, EMBASE and PubMed databases were searched. Studies comparing propofol with opioids versus propofol with low-dose (es)ketamine in patients undergoing procedural sedation for procedures in the ED were included. Analyses were descriptive because of the high heterogeneity among included studies. The outcomes were dosing regimen, efficacy of analgesia, efficacy of sedation depth, efficacy of recovery and (adverse) events. We included four out of 2309 studies found in the literature search. Overall, the studies had a low risk of bias, but the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation evidence profile was downgraded due to the imprecision and inconsistency of the studies. All studies compared low-dose ketamine with fentanyl. Dosing ranged from 0.3 to 1.0 mg/kg (ketamine), 1.0-1.5 μg/kg (fentanyl) and 0.4-1.0 mg/kg (propofol). The efficacy of analgesia was measured by two studies, one favoring the fentanyl group, and one favoring the ketamine group. The efficacy of sedation depth was measured by one study, with the fentanyl group having a deeper sedation score. Two studies showed shorter recovery time with low-dose ketamine. One study showed a higher incidence of cardio-respiratory clinical events and interventions in the fentanyl group. Two studies showed significant differences of overall sedation events in the fentanyl group. One study did not find any significant differences of the incidence of sedation events. This systematic review did not provide sufficient evidence that the combination of low-dose ketamine and propofol is associated with a shorter recovery time and fewer sedation events compared to the combination of opioids and propofol.

Inducción Anestésica: Propofol, Ketamina o Ketofol ¿Cuándo utilizarlos?

Introducción: La anestesia general se subdivide en diferentes etapas donde una de las más importantes es la etapa de la inducción anestésica y los fármacos que se utilizan en ella, siendo el Propofol y la Ketamina los más nombrados Objetivo: Realizar una revisión de las propiedades farmacocinéticas y farmacodinámicas de estos dos medicamentos, para la toma de decisiones sobre en qué situaciones debería usarse cada uno de ellos o de forma concomitante Materiales y métodos: Se realizaron 4 búsquedas separadas en la base de datos de PUBMED, obteniendo un total de 27 bibliografías utilizadas para la revisión. Resultados: El propofol es un agente hipnótico útil para procedimientos cortos, en pacientes estables hemodinámicamente. La ketamina tiene un perfil farmacodinámico ideal para pacientes con inestabilidad hemodinámica. El ketofol es una alternativa que logra adecuado sinergismo permitiendo mantener los beneficios de cada uno de estos medicamentos y disminuyendo la probabilidad de efectos adversos. Conclusión: Dependiendo de la cirugía que se vaya a realizar y de la estabilidad hemodinámica de cada paciente se puede preferir un medicamento sobre otro.

Sedative effect and safety of different doses of S-ketamine in combination with propofol during gastro-duodenoscopy in school-aged children: a prospective, randomized study

Background

Propofol combined with opioids can reduce the dosage of propofol and improve the safety of endoscopy. However, there are few studies on propofol combined with S-ketamine in children undergoing gastro-duodenoscopy. We aim to determine the sedative effect and safety of different doses of S-ketamine in combination with propofol in school-aged children undergoing gastro-duodenoscopy.

Methods

This is a prospective, randomized trial. Totally, 120 school-aged children who underwent gastro-duodenoscopy were randomly allocated into Group P, Group S0.3, Group S0.5 and Group S0.7. During induction, children in Group P, Group S0.3, Group S0.5 and Group S0.7 received 0, 0.3 mg.kg−1, 0.5 mg.kg−1 and 0.7 mg.kg−1 S-ketamine, respectively, following 3 mg.kg−1 propofol injection. During gastro-duodenoscopy, 1 mg.kg−1 of propofol was added according to the condition of the children and the BIS (bispectral index) value. The primary outcome was smooth placement rate of the first endoscope insertion. The secondary outcome was the times of additional propofol, the total amount of propofol, adverse events, recovery time, length of PACU (post anesthesia care unit) stay and endoscopist satisfaction.

Results

The smooth placement rate of the first endoscope insertion in Group P, Group S0.3 and Group S0.5 was significantly lower than that in Group S0.7 (16.70%, 34.50%, 50.00% vs. 83.30%, respectively, P < 0.001). The times of additional propofol in Group S0.3 (P = 0.018), Group S0.5 (P = 0.014) and Group S0.7 (P = 0.001) were significantly less than Group P. The total amount of propofol in Group S0.7 was significantly less than Group P (P < 0.001). The incidence of intraoperative hypotension in Group S0.5 and Group S0.7 was low. Group S0.7 had significantly higher incidence of postoperative dizziness (P = 0.003), longer PACU stay (P = 0.018) and higher endoscopist satisfaction (P = 0.001) than Group P. There was no difference in the recovery time among groups.

Conclusion

S-ketamine (0.7 mg.kg−1) in combination with propofol can provide satisfactory sedative effect and reduce the dosage of propofol in school-aged children undergoing gastro-duodenoscopy, but there are higher incidence of postoperative dizziness and longer PACU stay.

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.

Sedation-analgesia techniques for nonoperating room anesthesia: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There has been a substantial increase in nonoperating room anesthesia procedures over the years along with an increase in the complexity and severity of cases. These procedures pose unique challenges for anesthesia providers requiring meticulous planning and attention to detail. Advancements in the delivery of sedation and analgesia in this setting will help anesthesia providers navigate these challenges and improve patient safety and outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been a renewed interest in the development of newer sedative and analgesic drugs and delivery systems that can safely provide anesthesia care in challenging situations and circumstances.

SUMMARY

Delivery of anesthesia care in nonoperating room locations is associated with significant challenges. The advent of sedative and analgesic drugs that can be safely used in situations where monitoring capabilities are limited in conjunction with delivery systems, that can incorporate unique patient characteristics and ensure the safe delivery of these drugs, has the potential to improve patient safety and outcomes. Further research is needed in these areas to develop newer drugs and delivery systems.

An Analytical Comparison Between Ketamine Alone and a Combination of Ketamine and Propofol (Ketofol) for Procedural Sedation and Analgesia From an Emergency Perspective: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is a treatment approach involving treating patients with agents with dissociative, sedative, or analgesic properties to suppress their consciousness to variable levels. Ketamine and propofol have been used historically for PSA. Because they each have their demerits, it was postulated that combining both drugs (ketofol) would result in a mixture with additive properties and lessen or eliminate the demerits attributed to each drug. The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare ketamine alone and a combination of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) for procedural sedation and analgesia from an emergency perspective.

A systematic search was conducted on published studies from the databases of Scopus, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, APA PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial (CENTRAL) until July 2022. The articles that were published on the online databases were authored between January 2007 and 2018. The selected papers were scanned and examined to check whether they met the eligibility criteria for the study.

The search produced six articles that were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. All six articles that passed the eligibility criteria were viable for the analysis. All the trials focused on the effectiveness of ketofol versus ketamine for PSA from an emergency perspective.

Ketofol was found to be safe and more effective in comparison to ketamine for PTA.

The Impact of a Dedicated Sedation Team on the Incidence of Complications in Pediatric Procedural Analgosedation

The number of pediatric procedural sedations for diagnostic and minor therapeutic procedures performed outside the operating room has increased. Therefore, we established a specialized interdisciplinary team of pediatric anesthesiologists and intensivists (Children’s Analgosedation Team, CAST) at our tertiary-care university hospital and retrospectively analyzed the first year after implementation of the CAST. Within one year, 784 procedural sedations were performed by the CAST; 12.2% of the patients were infants <1 year, 41.9% of the patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade III or IV. Most children received propofol (79%) and, for painful procedures, additional esketamine (48%). Adverse events occurred in 51 patients (6.5%), with a lack of professional experience (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.42−0.81) and increased propofol dosage (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.17−1.55) being significant predictors. Overall, the CAST enabled safe and effective procedural sedation in children outside the operating room.

A Safety Comparison of Single-Agent Methohexital, Ketamine, or Propofol for Musculoskeletal Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

The use of sedative and analgesic agents is required for procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED). Agents such as ketamine and propofol are commonly used for procedural sedation. This is likely due to clinical experience with these agents, as well as optimal pharmacologic properties when used in combination with one another. Methohexital, a barbiturate, is less frequently used due to concerns for adverse events associated with this drug class.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety of methohexital in comparison with ketamine and propofol when used for procedural sedation in musculoskeletal procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted to evaluate adult ED patients who received ketamine, propofol, or methohexital for procedural sedation from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2020.

RESULTS

Overall, a total of 43 procedures were included in the study. Procedures included shoulder relocation, elbow relocation, hip relocation, ankle reduction, radius/ulnar reduction, mandibular relocation, patellar relocation, and wrist reduction. There was a 90.6% overall procedural success rate, which was similar between groups. Overall adverse events occurred in 34.8% of patients. Respiratory depression occurred in 9.3% of patients. No incidence of respiratory depression was observed in the methohexital group, compared with 2 patients receiving ketamine and 4 receiving propofol (p = 0.44).

CONCLUSION

Methohexital is a safe and effective option for procedural sedation for musculoskeletal procedures in the ED when compared with ketamine and propofol.

Procedural Sedation With Dexmedetomidine in Combination With Ketamine in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is an alternative agent for procedural sedation in the emergency department thanks to its ability to maintain hemodynamic and respiratory stability. Dexmedetomidine must, however, be combined with a powerful analgesic.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to evaluate the quality and safety of procedural sedation using the combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine for patients undergoing painful procedures in the emergency department.

METHODS

This prospective interventional single-center study was conducted in an academic emergency department of an urban hospital in Brussels, Belgium. Patients received a bolus injection of 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine over 10 min and then a continuous infusion of 0.6 µg/kg/h followed by a bolus of 1 mg/kg ketamine. The painful procedure was carried out 1 min later. The level of pain was evaluated with a numerical rating scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximal pain). The level of patient comfort for the procedure was measured using a comfort scale.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were included. Overall, 90% of patients felt little or no pain (n = 29 of 30) or discomfort (n = 28 of 30) during the procedure. One patient experienced apnea with desaturation, which was resolved by a jaw-thrust maneuver. Although 23% of patients had significant arterial hypertension, none required drug treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine provides conscious sedation, bringing comfort and pain relief to patients in optimal conditions for respiratory and hemodynamic safety. However, sedation and recovery times are longer than with conventional drug combinations. The dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination should therefore be recommended for nonurgent procedures and fragile patients.

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.

Evaluation of anesthesia quality with three methods: "propofol + fentanyl" vs. "propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine" vs. "propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine + ketamine" in patients referred to the scoping ward

Introduction:

Toleration of the complexity and pain of interventions such as endoscopy and colonoscopy is highly difficult for patients. Considering the disagreement on the method of injection of propofol, this study was performed to evaluate the quality of anesthesia using the three methods of propofol + fentanyl, propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine, and propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine + ketamine.

Methods:

This one-way blind clinical trial study included 99 patients who were admitted in three groups by block randomization method. In a group of patients that were sedated with propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine + ketamine, the dose of all drugs is reduced by half the amount of the other groups. Variables included age, sex, frequency of cough, apnea, need for jaw thrust maneuver, O₂ saturation, duration of recovery, and procedural satisfaction. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20.0. P value of < 0.05 was considered to be significant.

Results:

The three groups were similar in terms of demographic characteristics. The effects of the three sedation protocols on the variables showed that patient’s apnea, cough, O₂ saturation, and also proceduralist satisfaction in the group of the patient that sedated with four drugs was significantly higher (P < 0.05) than other groups. But there was no significant difference between the three groups when comparing the recovery time and need for jaw thrust during the procedure.

Conclusion:

The findings of the present study showed that the use of combination of “propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine + ketamine” with lower doses, significantly results in higher quality sedation compared with higher doses of “propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine” or “propofol + fentanyl” for scoping procedures.

Procedural Sedation Using Two Different Proportions of Ketamine-Propofol Combination in Short Gynecological Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Procedural sedation with a combination of propofol and ketamine for short-duration surgeries is a convenient technique of anesthesia as it has a faster recovery avoiding the side effects of general anesthesia. The aim of this study was to compare the sedative and analgesic effects of two different proportions of ketamine and propofol combination in patients undergoing short gynecological procedures.

Methods: A randomized double-blind study was conducted in 140 patients posted for elective gynecological procedures with a duration equal to or less than 30 minutes. After premedication of all participants, sedation was induced with bolus administration (0.1 mL/kg) of the study drugs to achieve desired Ramsay sedation score (RSS) of 6, followed by infusion at 0.3 mL/kg/h (Group A, ketamine:propofol in the ratio of 1:4 and Group B, ketamine:propofol in the ratio of 1:2). The adequacy of sedation, volume of drug to induce the patient, time to achieve desired RSS, time for first bolus dose, the total volume of the drugs, hemodynamic variables, awakening time, and side effects were observed.

Results: The incidence of movement of lower extremities was found to be significantly lower in the higher concentration ketamine group (Group B, P - 0.028). The volume of a drug for induction and the duration to reach RSS of 6 were significantly lower in Group B with P-values of 0.002 and <0.001, respectively. Hemodynamic variables, awakening time, and side effects were not statistically significant between the two groups.

Conclusion: Ketamine-propofol combination in the ratio 1:2 provides better sedation and analgesia with no increased side-effects compared to ketamine-propofol in the ratio 1:4 for short outpatient gynecological procedures.

Endotracheal intubation sedation in the intensive care unit

Endotracheal intubation is one of the most common, yet most dangerous procedure performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). Complications of ICU intubations include severe hypotension, hypoxemia, and cardiac arrest. Multiple observational studies have evaluated risk factors associated with these complications. Among the risk factors identified, the choice of sedative agents administered, a modifiable risk factor, has been reported to affect these complications (hypotension). Propofol, etomidate, and ketamine or in combination with benzodiazepines and opioids are commonly used sedative agents administered for endotracheal intubation. Propofol demonstrates rapid onset and offset, however, has drawbacks of profound vasodilation and associated cardiac depression. Etomidate is commonly used in the critically ill population. However, it is known to cause reversible inhibition of 11 β-hydroxylase which suppresses the adrenal production of cortisol for at least 24 h. This added organ impairment with the use of etomidate has been a potential contributing factor for the associated increased morbidity and mortality observed with its use. Ketamine is known to provide analgesia with sedation and has minimal respiratory and cardiovascular effects. However, its use can lead to tachycardia and hypertension which may be deleterious in a patient with heart disease or cause unpleasant hallucinations. Moreover, unlike propofol or etomidate, ketamine requires organ dependent elimination by the liver and kidney which may be problematic in the critically ill. Lately, a combination of ketamine and propofol, “Ketofol”, has been increasingly used as it provides a balancing effect on hemodynamics without any of the side effects known to be associated with the parent drugs. Furthermore, the doses of both drugs are reduced. In situations where a difficult airway is anticipated, awake intubation with the help of a fiberoptic scope or video laryngoscope is considered. Dexmedetomidine is a commonly used sedative agent for these procedures.

Use of intravenous lidocaine for dose reduction of propofol in paediatric colonoscopy patients: a randomised placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Propofol, a widely used sedative in endoscopic procedures, sometimes causes cardiopulmonary complications. Intravenous lidocaine can diminish visceral pain and decrease the dose of propofol. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine in reducing propofol dosage during paediatric colonoscopy.

METHODS

Forty children who underwent colonoscopy were divided into two groups. Lidocaine hydrochloride (1.5 mg/kg induction and 2 mg/kg/h maintenance) was given intravenously to the lidocaine group, and the same amount of saline was given to the control group after they received lidocaine induction. Propofol initial plasma concentration of 5 μg/mL was targeted, and the procedure was performed after the bispectral index value reached 55. The primary outcome was propofol requirement.

RESULTS

The propofol requirement in the lidocaine group was decreased by 35.5% (128.6 ± 30.4 mg vs. 199.4 ± 57.6 mg; p < 0.001; 95%CI: - 100.60, - 41.02). The incidence of involuntary body movements was significantly lower in the lidocaine group (p = 0.028; OR = 0.17; 95%CI: 0.03, 0.92). The awakening time (p < 0.001; 95%CI: - 7.67, - 5.13) and recovery times (p < 0.001; 95%CI: - 7.45, - 4.35) were significantly lower in the lidocaine group. Pain was significantly less at 30 min and 60 min after the procedure in the lidocaine group (0 [0-4] vs. 3 [0-5], p < 0. 001; 0 [0-2] vs. 1 [0-3], p = 0.001). There was no difference in the incidence of bradycardia, hypotension, or hypoxia between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For colonoscopy procedures in paediatric patients, intravenous lidocaine reduces the amount of propofol needed, provides better sedation and postprocedural pain management, as well as a reduction in recovery time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered on November 6, 2020 at China Clinical Trials Registration Center ( www.chictr.org.cn ) ref.: ChiCTR 2,000,039,706.

Continuous infusion of lidocaine in pediatric colonoscopy: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Propofol is commonly used for providing procedural sedation during pediatric colonoscopy. Intravenous (i.v.) lidocaine can mitigate visceral pain and reduce propofol requirements during surgery. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of i.v. lidocaine on perioperative propofol and sufentanil dose, pulse oxygen saturation, postoperative pain score, and recovery time during pediatric colonoscopy.

METHODS

We designed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study and enrolled 40 children aged from 3 to 10 years who underwent colonoscopy. After titration of propofol to achieve unconsciousness, the patients were given i.v. lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg later 2 mg/kg^/hour) or the same volume of saline. Sedation was standardized and combined propofol with sufentanil. The primary outcome variables were intraoperative propofol and sufentanil requirements, and the number of oxygen desaturation episodes. Secondary outcome variables were recovery time after colonoscopy and post-colonoscopy pain.

RESULTS

Lidocaine infusion resulted in a significant reduction in propofol requirements: (median (quartile) 1.8 (1.5-2.0) vs. 3.0 (2.8-3.3) mg/kg respectively; P < 0.001) and sufentanil requirements: (median (quartile) 0.06 (0.05-0.08) vs. 0.1 (0.1-0.1) μg/kg respectively; P < 0.001). The number of subjects who experienced oxygen desaturation below 95% in the lidocaine group was also significantly less than that in the control group: 1 vs. 6 (P = 0.04). The mean (SD) recovery time was significantly shorter in the lidocaine group: (19.2 (2.6) vs. 13.3 (2.6) min respectively; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in post-colonoscopy pain.

CONCLUSION

Continuous infusion of lidocaine resulted in reduction of propofol and sufentanil requirements, recovery time, and risk of hypoxemia during pediatric colonoscopy.

Clinical Knowledge and Practice of "Ketofol" at University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital

Background: Ketamine and propofol in a single syringe are reported to create an admixture used for balancing cardiorespiratory effects during induction of general anesthesia. This study aimed to assess the clinical practice and knowledge of “ketofol” among anesthesia providers.

Methods: A cross-sectional institutional-based study was conducted among anesthesia providers. Data abstracted format was prepared and distributed to senior anesthetists, junior anesthetist postgraduate students, and undergraduate students. The study was conducted from January 1, 2019, to January 30, 2019. Descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression were performed for frequency distribution and to determine the association, respectively.

Result: From a total of 133 participants included in the study, the majority, 88 (66.2%), were men and 75 (56.9%) had 0–2 years of experience. More than two-thirds of participants, 105 (78.9%), have never had a seminar or educational session about combined use. Lack of experience among 11 participants (8.3%) was one of the reasons for not using “ketofol” followed by lack of knowledge among three (2.3%) participants. The majority of participants, 112 (84.2%), prefer ketamine and propofol to be administered one right after the other with separate syringes and the ratio to be 1:2, 64 (48.2). There was no significant association observed between sociodemographic and other characteristics and the practice of “ketofol.”

Conclusion: In this study, nearly half of the participants rated their knowledge at the average level, and the study identifies that there is clinical knowledge and practice gap among anesthesia providers working in the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital (UOGCSH). Preparing educational sessions regarding “ketofol” for addressing identified barriers is among the recommendations forwarded to UOGCSH.

Implementation of a protocol using ketamine-propofol ('ketofol') in a 1 to 4 ratio for procedural sedation in adults at a university hospital emergency department - report on safety and effectiveness

Objectives: To test the feasibility of an evidence-based protocol for procedural sedation in adults at our emergency department, using a mixture of ketamine and propofol ('ketofol') in a 1 to 4 ratio. We hypothesize that the protocol is safe and effective and can facilitate procedural sedation.Methods: During 14 months, adults in need of procedural sedation at our university hospital emergency department were included in a prospective convenience sample study. Patients with important comorbidity were discussed with the anaesthesiology department for feasibility of sedation in the emergency department setting. Outcome measures were procedural success, respiratory and hemodynamic events, vomiting, agitation or hallucinations, recall and physician's satisfaction.Results: Sixty-one patients between 18 and 89 years were included. All but one procedure were successful. Six respiratory events were registered in 6 patients (9.8%). These consisted of airway obstruction alleviated by airway repositioning and without influence on vital signs except for one brief episode of desaturation. Neither hemodynamic events nor vomiting were reported. Five patients (8.2%) experienced pleasant hallucinations and one patient (1.6%) became agitated upon awakening but recovered rapidly without medication. Three patients (4.9%) had recall and physician satisfaction rate was 93.4%.Conclusion: A feasibility trial of an implemented protocol for ketofol procedural sedation in adults showed only minor respiratory events, a low incidence of agitation or hallucinations, minimal recall and a high success and physician satisfaction rate. Despite a non-consecutive and limited sample used, ketofol in a 1 to 4 ratio appears safe and effective for use in the emergency department.

A comparative study of dexmedetomidine and propofol to prevent recovery agitation in adults undergoing procedural sedation with ketamine: A randomized double-blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The present study was designed to evaluate the effect of dexmedetomidine and propofol on ketamine-induced recovery agitation in adults when used as co-administration with ketamine.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, and double-blind clinical trial, 93 patients aged 18 years or older who were candidates for painful procedures in the emergency department (ED) were enrolled and assigned into three equal groups to receive either ketadex (dexmedetomidine 0.7 μg/kg and ketamine 1 mg/kg), ketofol (propofol 0.5 mg/kg and ketamine 0.5 mg/kg) or ketamine alone (1 mg/kg) intravenously. Incidence and severity of recovery agitation were evaluated using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and compared between groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics, procedures, pain scores, pre-sedation agitation, and duration of procedure between the three groups. The incidence of recovery agitation was 26% in the Ketadex group, 29% in the Ketofol group, and 58% in the Ketamine group. The difference in incidence of recovery agitation between Ketadex group and Ketamine group was 32% (95% confidence interval (CI), 9 to 56]) and between Ketofol group and Ketamine group was 29% (95% CI, 6 to 53). The severe agitation was significantly higher in Ketamine group, with a difference between Ketamine and Ketadex group of 19% (95% CI, 6 to 33), and a difference between Ketamine and Ketofol group of 16% (95% CI, 1 to 31).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, a combination of ketamine-dexmedetomidine and ketamine-propofol reduced the incidence and severity of ketamine-induced recovery agitation in adults undergoing procedural sedation in the ED.

Safety and Efficacy of the Combination of Propofol and Ketamine for Procedural Sedation/Anesthesia in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Drugs such as propofol and ketamine are used alone or in combination to provide sedation for medical procedures in children. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the safety and effectiveness of propofol and ketamine to other drug regimens.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Web of Science, and the grey literature (meta-Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar) for randomized controlled studies comparing intravenous propofol and ketamine to any other single or combination drug regimen administered to children undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. Meta-analyses were performed for primary (hemodynamic and respiratory adverse events) and secondary outcomes using RevMan 5.3. We assessed the risk of bias and the certainty (quality) evidence for all outcomes using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included for analysis. Based on low-to-moderate quality evidence, we concluded that the use of propofol and ketamine may result in a slight-to-small reduction in the risk of hypotension, bradycardia, and apnea, and a slight increase in the risk of tachycardia, hypertension, and other respiratory adverse events, such as cough or laryngospasm. The ratio of propofol to ketamine and comparator drug regimen subgroups effects were important for desaturation and some secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of propofol and ketamine had a minimal effect on the incidence of adverse events and other secondary outcomes. Large-scale studies are required to more accurately estimate adverse event rates and the effects of propofol and ketamine on patient-important outcomes.

Impact of concurrent remifentanil on the sedative effects of remimazolam, midazolam and propofol in cynomolgus monkeys

Drug-drug interactions can substantially change pharmacological effects of the individual substances involved. For the use of sedatives or anaesthetics, having knowledge of the extent and characteristics of such interactions is crucial for ensuring the proper protection of patients undergoing any kind of sedation. Remimazolam is a new ultra-short acting benzodiazepine that is currently under development for intravenous use in procedural sedation and general anaesthesia. It exhibits a fast onset and fast offset which enables a more rapid recovery than currently available drugs in that class, such as midazolam. The purpose of this study was to more closely investigate the sedative properties and pharmacodynamic drug-drug interaction potential of remimazolam with the opioid analgesic remifentanil and compare it with other commonly used sedatives - midazolam and propofol. For this purpose, six Cynomolgus monkeys received escalating doses of remimazolam, propofol, and midazolam intravenously without or with concurrent remifentanil. Sedation was evaluated using a general sedation scale that included monitoring exploratory and avoidance behaviour, responses to sensory stimuli, posture and gait, and eyelid position as endpoints. Based on the results, sedative doses were calculated to allow evaluation of pharmacological drug-drug interaction with remifentanil. Remimazolam induced dose-dependent and consistent sedative effects in each endpoint tested and showed a high degree of synergism with remifentanil. Midazolam showed a comparable synergism while the interaction between propofol and remifentanil was less pronounced.

Ketofol performance to reduce postoperative emergence agitation in children undergoing adenotonsillectomy

Background: Emergence agitation is a reformed state of mindfulness, which starts with a sudden form of anesthesia and progresses through the early repossession age. Thus, the purpose of this study is to evaluate 1:3 ketofol performance on children 3–15 years old undergoing adenotonsillectomy.Methods: A total of 60 children aged 3–15 years undergoing adenotonsillectomy were randomly allocated to receive low-dose ketamine 0.15 mg/kg followed by propofol 0.45 mg/kg i.v. ketofol (1:3) about 10 min before the end of surgery in comparison to 60 children aged 3–15 years who received only normal saline and dextrose. Anesthesia was induced and maintained with sevoflurane. Postoperative pain and EA were assessed with objective pain score (OPS) and the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) scale, respectively. EA was defined as a PAED 10 points. Recovery profile and postoperative complications were also recorded.Results: The incidence and severity of EA were found significantly lower in the ketofol group in comparison to the control group with a percentage of (13.33% vs 48.33%) (8% vs 15%) respectively (P < 0.05). Also, the time for interaction from anesthetic tainted to extubating in the ketofol set was significantly less than in the control group (P < 0.05). Interestingly, there are no opposing events such as nausea, laryngospasm, bronchospasm, hypotension, bradycardia, bleeding, or postoperative respiratory depression (respiratory rate: <16) were noticed in the ketofol supervision (P > 0.05). Moreover, the heart rate was meaningfully higher in the control group starting at the time of tracheal extubating in comparison to the children undergone ketofol (P < 0.05). Alert score and time from painkilling tainted till liberation from PACU showed substantial significant changes at ketofol set (P < 0.05).Conclusion: Ketofol (1:3) shows significant performance to reduce postoperative agitation in the children undergone adenotonsillectomy.

Ketamine-propofol (Ketofol) for procedural sedation and analgesia in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

The aim of this review is to elucidate the efficacy and side effects of ketofol in comparison to other anaesthetic agents during procedural sedation and analgesia.

Method

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1996 to Feb 2019) and MEDLINE (1966 to Feb 2019) were searched, including the related randomised control trials and reviewed articles to find unpublished trials or trials not obtained via electronic searches. Inclusion criteria for the studies included comparing recovery time, recording clinician satisfaction, and assessing the adverse effects of ketofol.

Results

Eleven trials consisting of a total of 1274 patients met our criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Five trials compared ketofol with a single agent, while six trials compared ketofol with combined agents. While comparing between ketofol and a single agent (either ketamine or propofol), ketofol showed significant effect on recovery time (MD: -9.88, 95% CI: − 14.30 to − 5.46; P = 0.0003; I² = 92%). However, no significant difference was observed while comparing ketofol with combined agents (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: − 6.24 to 7.74; P < 0.001; I² = 98%). During single-agent comparison, ketofol showed no significant differences in terms of clinician satisfaction (RR: 2.86, 95% CI: 0.64 to 12.69; P = 0.001; I² = 90%), airway obstruction (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 11.48; P = 0.81; I² = 0%), apnoea (RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.33 to 2.44; P = 0.88; I² = 0%), desaturation (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.94; P = 0.28; I² = 21%), nausea (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.41; P = 0.2; I² = 38%), and vomiting (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.61; P = 0.18; I² = 42%). During comparison with combined agents, ketofol was more effective in reducing hypotension (RR: 4.2, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.85; P = 0.76; I² = 0%), but no differences were observed in terms of bradycardia (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.14 to 03.63; P = 0.09; I² = 53%), desaturation (RR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.15 to 23.6; P = 0.11; I² = 61%), and respiratory depression (RR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.18 to 21.94; P = 0.12; I² = 59%).

Conclusion

There is low certainty of evidence that ketofol improves recovery time and moderate certainty of evidence that it reduces the frequency of hypotension. There was no significant difference in terms of other adverse effects when compared to other either single or combined agents.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42019127278.

Total intravenous anaesthesia with tumescent infiltration anaesthesia without definitive airway for early excision and skin grafting in a major burn - A prospective observational study

Background and Aims:

Patients with major burns posted for early tangential excision and skin grafting pose peculiar challenges for anaesthesiologists. The purpose of the study was to assess safety and efficacy of total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) with tumescent infiltration anaesthesia (TIA) for these burn procedures.

Methods:

This observational single-arm study was conducted on 48 cases of a tertiary centre burn unit, requiring early tangential excision and skin grafting between third and fifth days of burn injury. TIVA was administered using a combination of intravenous (iv) infusion of injection dexmedetomidine and iv boluses of fentanyl, ketamine, propofol, midazolam and paracetamol. TIA was administered in burn wounds after aseptic preparation. Spontaneous breathing was maintained with oxygen supplementation. Haemodynamic and respiratory monitoring was done intraoperatively every 15 minutes and for 6 hours postoperatively. Modified Aldrete's score was calculated at 10 minutes after completion of surgery. Statistical analysis was done using statistical package for the social science software (version 16). Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative variables.

Results:

Baseline mean HR was 106.95 ± 11.17 bpm (beats per minute). HR settled at 73.17 ± 6.97 bpm during the intraoperative period. The baseline mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 82.42 ± 10.04 mmHg was maintained at 81 ± 7.32 mmHg during the intraoperative period. In all, 95.8% achieved early recovery with mean modified Aldrete's score of ≥9 at 10 minutes post-surgery. There was no episode of apnoea or desaturation.

Conclusion:

TIVA in combination with TIA minimally interferes with homeostasis and promotes early recovery in patients undergoing early excision and grafting in major burns.

The KEEP SIMPLEST Study: Improving In-House Delays and Periinterventional Management in Stroke Thrombectomy-A Matched Pair Analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Although the treatment window for mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has been extended in recent years, it has been proven that recanalizing treatment must be administered as soon as possible. We present a new standard operating procedure (SOP) to reduce in-house delay, standardize periinterventional management and improve patient safety during MT.

METHODS

KEep Evaluating Protocol Simplification In Managing Periinterventional Light Sedation for Endovascular Stroke Treatment (KEEP SIMPLEST) was a prospective, single-center observational study aimed to compare aspects of periinterventional management in AIS patients treated according to our new SOP using a combination of esketamine and propofol with patients having been randomized into conscious sedation (CS) in the Sedation versus Intubation for Endovascular Stroke TreAtment (SIESTA) trial. Primary outcome was early neurological improvement at 24h using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and secondary outcomes were door-to-recanalization, recanalization grade, conversion rate and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 3 months.

RESULTS

Door-to-recanalization time (128.6 ± 69.47 min vs. 156.8 ± 75.91 min; p = 0.02), mean duration of MT (92.01 ± 52 min vs. 131.9 ± 64.03 min; p < 0.001), door-to-first angiographic image (51.61 ± 31.7 min vs. 64.23 ± 21.53 min; p = 0.003) and computed tomography-to-first angiographic image time (31.61 ± 20.6 min vs. 44.61 ± 19.3 min; p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the group treated under the new SOP. There were no differences in early neurological improvement, mRS at 3 months or other secondary outcomes between the groups. Conversion rates of CS to general anesthesia were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

An SOP using a novel sedation regimen and optimization of equipment and procedures directed at a leaner, more integrative and compact periinterventional management can reduce in-house treatment delays significantly in stroke patients receiving thrombectomy in light sedation and demonstrated the safety and feasibility of our improved approach.

Effect of Ketamine/Propofol Admixture on Peri-Induction Hemodynamics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To evaluate the effectiveness of an admixture of ketamine and propofol on peri-induction hemodynamics during airway manipulation, we searched electronic databases of randomized controlled trials from January 1, 2000, to October 17, 2018. Trial screening, selection, and data extraction were done independently by two reviewers with outcomes pooled across included trials using the random-effects model. We included 10 randomized trials (722 patients, mean age of 53.99 years, 39.96% female). American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status was reported in 9 trials with classes I and II representing the majority. Ketamine/propofol admixture was associated with a nonsignificant increase in heart rate (weighted mean difference, 3.36 beats per minute (95% CI, -0.88, 7.60), I 2 = 88.6%), a statistically significant increase in systolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference, 9.67 mmHg (95% CI, 1.48, 17.86), I 2 = 87.2%), a nonsignificant increase in diastolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference, 2.18 mmHg (95% CI, -2.82, 7.19), I 2 = 73.1%), and a nonsignificant increase in mean arterial pressure (weighted mean difference, 3.28 mmHg (95% CI, -0.94, 7.49), I 2 = 69.9%) compared to other agents. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was low. In conclusion, among patients undergoing airway manipulation and needing sedation, the use of a ketamine/propofol admixture may be associated with better hemodynamics compared to nonketamine/propofol sedation. This trial is registered with CRD42019125725.

The Equivalence of Video Self-review Versus Debriefing After Simulation: Can Faculty Resources Be Reallocated?

INTRODUCTION

Traditional simulation debriefing is both time- and resource-intensive. Shifting the degree of primary learning responsibility from the faculty to the learner through self-guided learning has received greater attention as a means of reducing this resource intensity. The aim of the study was to determine if video-assisted self-debriefing, as a form of self-guided learning, would have equivalent learning outcomes compared to standard debriefing.

METHODS

This randomized cohort study consisting of 49 PGY-1 to -3 emergency medicine residents compared performance after video self-assessment utilizing an observer checklist versus standard debriefing for simulated emergency department procedural sedation (EDPS). The primary outcome measure was performance on the second EDPS scenario.

RESULTS

Independent-samples t-test found that both control (standard debrief) and intervention (video self-assessment) groups demonstrated significantly increased scores on Scenario 2 (standard-t(40) = 2.20, p < 0.05; video-t(45) = 3.88, p < 0.05). There was a large and significant positive correlation between faculty and resident self-evaluation (r = 0.70, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between faculty and residents self-assessment mean scores (t(24) = 1.90, p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Residents receiving feedback on their performance via video-assisted self-debriefing improved their performance in simulated EDPS to the same degree as with standard faculty debriefing. Video-assisted self-debriefing is a promising avenue for leveraging the benefits of simulation-based training with reduced resource requirements.

Effects of the addition of low-dose ketamine to propofol anesthesia in the dental procedure for intellectually disabled patients

Background

This study aimed to examine whether the combination of low-dose ketamine and propofol in deep sedation is clinically useful in controlling the behavior in intellectually disabled patients who are typically extremely noncooperative during dental procedures.

Methods

A total of 107 extremely noncooperative intellectually disabled adult patients were analyzed. In all patients, deep sedation was performed using either propofol alone (group P) or using a combination of propofol and 0.2 mg/kg or 0.4 mg/kg ketamine (groups PK0.2 and PK0.4, respectively). The procedures were performed in the order of insertion of nasal cannula into the nostril, attachment of mouth gag, and mouth cleaning and scaling. The frequency of patient movement during the procedures, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, recovery time, discharge time, and postoperative nausea and vomiting were examined.

Results

The three groups were significantly different only in the frequency of patient movement upon stimulation during single intravenous injection of propofol and scaling.

Conclusion

For propofol deep sedation, in contrast to intravenous injection of propofol alone, prior intravenous injection of low-dose ketamine (0.4 mg/kg) is clinically useful because it neither affects recovery, nor causes side effects and can suppress patient movement and vascular pain during procedures.

Procedural Sedation Using a Propofol-Ketamine Combination (Ketofol) vs. Propofol Alone in the Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP): A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Although the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) is a brief procedure, it can cause severe pain and discomfort to patients in the absence of adequate sedation. An admixture of ketamine with propofol (ketofol), may reduce patient movement due to insufficient sedation while providing hemodynamic and respiratory stability. This study evaluated the ability of two ratios of a propofol–ketamine combination, compared with propofol alone, to reduce patient movement during procedural sedation for LEEPs. Methods: One hundred and twenty women scheduled for a LEEP were randomly assigned to three groups. Anesthesia was induced with 1 mg/kg propofol (group P), 1 mg/kg propofol and 0.33 mg/kg ketamine (group K1), or 1 mg/kg propofol and 0.66 mg/kg ketamine (group K2). The primary outcome was the incidence of adduction motion in the lower extremities during the procedure. The requirements for respiratory interventions, changes in vital signs, sedation score, additional anesthetic usage, and surgeon and patient satisfaction were also evaluated. Results: The incidence of adduction motion was significantly lower in groups K1 and K2 than in group P (overall p-value <0.001) but did not differ significantly in groups K1 and K2. Group K2 needed more jaw thrust maneuvers than group K1. Additional propofol usage was lower and surgeon satisfaction scores higher in groups K1 and K2 than in group P. Conclusion: A propofol–ketamine combination is more effective than propofol alone in reducing procedural interference during LEEPs. However, increasing the dose of ketamine showed no additional benefit.

Sedation Strategies for Procedures Outside the Operating Room

With the rapid development of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures performed outside the operating room (OR), the need for appropriate sedation care has emerged in importance to ensure the safety and comfort of patients and clinicians. The preparation and administration of sedatives and sedation care outside the OR require careful attention, proper monitoring systems, and clinically useful sedation guidelines. This literature review addresses proper monitoring and selection of sedatives for diagnostic and interventional procedures outside the OR. As the depth of sedation increases, respiratory depression and cardiovascular suppression become serious, necessitating careful surveillance using appropriate monitoring equipment.

Efficacy and Safety of Sufentanil-Propofol Versus Remifentanil-Propofol as Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Craniotomy: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sufentanil-propofol (SF) versus remifentanil-propofol (RF) as maintenance therapy for anesthesia in patients undergoing craniotomy.

METHODS

Randomized controlled studies on SF and RF as anesthesia for craniotomy were searched in electronic databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang Data. All studies were published up to December 31, 2017. The primary outcomes were wake-up time, extubation time, and pain score. The secondary outcomes were heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and adverse reactions.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, 14 studies involving 927 patients were investigated. Compared with the SF group, RF could significantly reduce the wake-up time and extubation time after craniotomy (P = 0.02, standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-2.18; P = 0.0001; SMD, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.90-2.83, respectively). Meanwhile, SF had better efficacy to alleviate postoperative pain than RF (P = 0.001; SMD, 2.10; 95% CI, -3.37 to -0.82). However, there were no obvious differences in improving heart rate and MAP between the 2 groups (P = 0.46; SMD, 0.17; 95% CI, -0.28 to 0.62; P = 0.43; SMD, 0.16; 95% CI, -0.54 to 0.23, respectively). Moreover, there were no significant differences in the incidents of nausea and vomiting, shivering, fidgeting, and respiratory depression between the SF and RF groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RF as anesthesia for craniotomy had better effects in reducing the time of postoperative wake-up and extubation and significantly alleviating pain. Moreover, there were no significant differences in the incidence of adverse reactions between the 2 groups. The findings will prove beneficial for the rational use of clinical anesthetic drugs in the future.

Using continuous quantitative capnography for emergency department procedural sedation: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

End-tidal CO₂ has been advocated to improve safety of emergency department (ED) procedural sedation by decreasing hypoxia and catastrophic outcomes. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of routine use of continuous waveform quantitative end-tidal CO₂ monitoring for ED procedural sedation in prevention of catastrophic events. Markov modeling was used to perform cost-effectiveness analysis to estimate societal costs per prevented catastrophic event (death or hypoxic brain injury) during routine ED procedural sedation. Estimates for efficacy of capnography and safety of sedation were derived from the literature. This model was then applied to all procedural sedations performed in US EDs with assumptions selected to maximize efficacy and minimize cost of implementation. Assuming that capnography decreases the catastrophic adverse event rate by 40.7% (proportional to efficacy in preventing hypoxia), routine use of capnography would decrease the 5-year estimated catastrophic event rate in all US EDs from 15.5 events to 9.2 events (difference 6.3 prevented events per 5 years). Over a 5-year period, implementing routine end-tidal CO₂ monitoring would cost an estimated $2,830,326 per prevented catastrophic event, which translates into $114,007 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analyses suggest that reasonable assumptions continue to estimate high costs of prevented catastrophic events. Continuous waveform quantitative end-tidal CO₂ monitoring is a very costly strategy to prevent catastrophic complications of procedural sedation when applied routinely in ED procedural sedations.

Adverse Events With Ketamine Versus Ketofol for Procedural Sedation on Adults: A Double-blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

The goal of our study was to compare the frequency and severity of recovery reactions between ketamine and ketamine-propofol 1:1 admixture ("ketofol").

METHODS

We performed a multicentric, randomized, double-blind trial in which adult patients received emergency procedural sedations with ketamine or ketofol. Our primary outcome was the proportion of unpleasant recovery reactions. Other outcomes were frequency of interventions required by these recovery reactions, rates of respiratory or hemodynamic events, emesis, and satisfaction of patients as well as providers.

RESULTS

A total of 152 patients completed the study, 76 in each arm. Compared with ketamine, ketofol determined a 22% reduction in recovery reactions incidence (p < 0.01) and less clinical and pharmacologic interventions required by these reactions. There was no serious adverse event in both groups. Rates in hemodynamic or respiratory events as well as satisfaction scores were similar. Significantly fewer patients experienced emesis with ketofol, with a threefold reduction in incidence compared with ketamine.

CONCLUSION

We found a significant reduction in recovery reactions and emesis frequencies among adult patients receiving emergency procedural sedations with ketofol, compared with ketamine.

Sedation and analgesia for procedures in the pediatric emergency room

OBJECTIVE

Children and adolescents often require sedation and analgesia in emergency situations. With the emergence of new therapeutic options, the obsolescence of others, and recent discoveries regarding already known drugs, it became necessary to review the literature in this area.

DATA SOURCES

Non-systematic review in the PubMed database of studies published up to December 2016, including original articles, review articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. References from textbooks, publications from regulatory agencies, and articles cited in reviews and meta-analyses through active search were also included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Based on current literature, the concepts of sedation and analgesia, the necessary care with the patient before, during, and after sedoanalgesia, and indications related to the appropriate choice of drugs according to the procedure to be performed and their safety profiles are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of sedoanalgesia protocols in procedures in the pediatric emergency room should guide the professional in the choice of medication, the appropriate material, and in the evaluation of discharge criteria, thus assuring quality in care.

A randomized clinical trial comparing hemodynamic responses to ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol) versus etomidate during anesthesia induction in patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery

INTRODUCTION

Anesthesia induction is often accompanied by a period of hemodynamic instability, which could be a significant problem in patients with compromised ventricular function. The aim of this study is to compare the hemodynamic responses to etomidate versus a combination of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) for anesthetic induction in patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a double-blind randomized clinical study, a total of 84 patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction (EF < 40%) were randomly assigned to two groups (A and B). Patients in group A received etomidate 0.2 mg/kg and a placebo (normal saline); group B received a combination of ketamine (1 mg/kg) and propofol (1.5 mg/kg) at the induction of anesthesia. Two minutes after induction, hemodynamic variables, including systolic, diastolic, mean arterial pressure (SAP, DAP, MAP) and heart rate (HR), were measured immediately before and after the laryngoscopy, and before intubation and post-intubation at 1, 2, and 3 min.

RESULTS

The decrease in all hemodynamic parameters (SBP, DBP, MAP and HR) from induction time to laryngoscopy was greater in the ketofol group (group B) than in the etomidate group (group A) (p < 0.05). The ephedrine prescription rate due to hemodynamic changes was 24.4% (10 patients) and 5% (2 patients) in group B and group A, respectively (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that etomidate provides superior hemodynamic stability as compared to ketofol in patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing CABG surgery under general anesthesia.

Comparison of propofol alone and in combination with ketamine or fentanyl for sedation in endoscopic ultrasonography

Background

We evaluated whether the addition of a small dose of ketamine or fentanyl would lead to a reduction in the total dose of propofol consumed without compromising the safety and recovery of patients having endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS).

Methods

A total of 210 adult patients undergoing elective EUS under sedation were included in the study. Patients were randomized into three groups. Patients were premedicated intravenously with normal saline in group 1, 50 µg fentanyl in group 2, and 0.5 mg/kg ketamine in group 3. All patients received intravenous propofol for sedation. Propofol consumption in mg/kg/h was noted. The incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, desaturation, and coughing was noted. The time to achieve a Post Anesthesia Discharge Score (PADS) of 10 was also noted.

Results

There were 68 patients in group 1, 70 in group 2, and 72 in group 3. The amount of propofol consumed was significantly higher in group 1 (9.25 [7.3–13.2]) than in group 2 (8.8 [6.8–12.2]) and group 3 (7.6 [5.7–9.8]). Patient hemodynamics and oxygenation were well maintained and comparable in all groups. The time to achieve a PADS of 10 was significantly higher in group 3 compared to the other two groups.

Conclusions

The use of 50 µg fentanyl or 0.5 mg/kg ketamine in a single dose during EUS reduces the dose of propofol required for sedation. However, unlike the addition of fentanyl, the addition of ketamine increased the time to recovery. Thus, 50 µg fentanyl is a good additive to propofol infusion for sedation during EUS to reduce the requirement for propofol without affecting the time to recovery.