Estimation of effective dose of propofol mono-sedation for successful insertion of upper gastrointestinal endoscope in healthy, non-obese Chinese adults

Comparison of the bispectral indices of patients receiving remimazolam and propofol for general anesthesia: a randomized crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a safe and effective new benzodiazepine sedative that has unique advantages in anesthesia induction and maintenance. The differences in the electroencephalogram bispectral index (BIS) during general anesthesia between propofol and remimazolam deserve further exploration.

METHODS

Single-center randomized crossover study. Patients who required multiple hysteroscopic surgery were randomly assigned to use remimazolam (0.27 mg/kg for induction and 1 mg/kg/h for maintenance) first and then propofol (2.0 mg/kg for induction and 6 mg/kg/h for maintenance) during hysteroscopic surgery again 3 months later, or in the opposite order. Both drugs were used at the latest ED95 for unconsciousness. The BIS values (primary endpoint), intraoperative conditions, and incidence of adverse reactions (secondary endpoints) were compared at each time point. BIS values were analyzed with a mixed model of repeated measurements (MMRM).

RESULTS

Seventeen patients completed the study. The lowest BIS value in the remimazolam regimen was significantly higher than that in the propofol regimen (p = 0.001). The MMRM analysis of the BIS values revealed significant differences between the regimens at each time point (p < 0.001). The intraoperative diastolic blood pressure and heart rate changes were smaller, the recovery was faster, and there were fewer adverse reactions and less injection pain, but a greater incidence of intraoperative body movement and hiccups, in the remimazolam regimen.

CONCLUSION

The trial indicated that remimazolam maintained a higher BIS level than propofol. The correlation between the BIS and the depth of anesthesia induced by remimazolam needs to be further studied.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: ChiCTR2200064551.

Effect of esketamine on the ED50 of propofol for successful insertion of ureteroscope in elderly male patients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol is effective and used as a kind of routine anesthetics in procedure sedative anesthesia (PSA) for ureteroscopy. However, respiratory depression and unconscious physical activity always occur during propofol-based PSA, especially in elderly patients. Esketamine has sedative and analgesic effects but without risk of cardiorespiratory depression. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether esketamine can reduce the propofol median effective dose (ED50) for successful ureteroscope insertion in elderly male patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

49 elderly male patients undergoing elective rigid ureteroscopy were randomly divided into two groups: SK Group (0.25 mg/kg esketamine+propofol) and SF Group (0.1 µg/kg sufentanil+propofol). Patients in both two groups received propofol with initial bolus dose of 1.5 mg/kg after sufentanil or esketamine was administered intravenously. The effective dose of propofol was assessed by a modified Dixon's up-and-down method and then was adjusted with 0.1 mg/kg according to the previous patient response. Patients' response to ureteroscope insertion was classified as "movement" or "no movement". The primary outcome was the ED50 of propofol for successful ureteroscope insertion with esketamine or sufentanil. The secondary outcomes were the induction time, adverse events such as hemodynamic changes, hypoxemia and body movement were also measured.

RESULT

49 patients were enrolled and completed this study. The ED50 of propofol for successful ureteroscope insertion in SK Group was 1.356 ± 0.11 mg/kg, which was decreased compared with that in SF Group, 1.442 ± 0.08 mg/kg (P = 0.003). The induction time in SK Group was significantly shorter than in SF Group (P = 0.001). In SK Group, more stable hemodynamic variables were observed than in SF Group. The incidence of AEs between the two groups was not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

The ED50 of propofol with esketamine administration for ureteroscope insertion in elderly male patients is 1.356 ± 0.11 mg/kg, significantly decreased in comparsion with sufentanil.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, No: ChiCTR2300077170. Registered on 1 November 2023. Prospective registration. http://www.chictr.org.cn .

Comparison of 95% effective dose of remimazolam besylate and propofol for gastroscopy sedation on older patients: A single-centre randomized controlled trial

AIMS

Advanced age is an important risk factor for adverse events during procedural sedation. Remimazolam is safe and effective in gastroscopic sedation. However, the ideal dose and application for older patients are not well known. We aim to investigate its 95% effective dose (ED95) for older patients undergoing gastroscopy and to assess its safety and efficacy, with propofol as the comparison.

METHODS

The trial consists of 2 parts, patients aged >65 years and scheduled for outpatient painless gastroscopy were enrolled. In the first part, Dixon's up-and-down methodology was used to determine the ED95 of remimazolam besylate and propofol for gastroscopic insertion, in combination with 0.2 μg/kg remifentanil. In the second part, patients in each group received 0.2 μg/kg remifentanil and ED95 dose of the study drugs for sedation induction, supplemental doses were added to maintain sedation depth when necessary. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse events. The secondary outcome was the recovery time.

RESULTS

The ED95 of remimazolam besylate and propofol induction were 0.2039 (95% confidence interval 0.1753-0.3896) mg/kg and 1.9733 (95% confidence interval 1.7346-3.7021) mg/kg respectively. Adverse events were reported in 26 (40.6%) patients in the remimazolam group and 54 (83.1%) in the propofol group (P < .0001), whereas the remimazolam group presented a higher incidence of hiccups (P = .0169). Besides, the median time to awakening was approximately 1 min shorter with remimazolam than with propofol (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

For older patients undergoing gastroscopy, the ED95 dose of remimazolam is a safer alternative than propofol when inducing the same sedation depth.

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on the ED50 of propofol for inserting gastroscope without body movement in adult patients: a randomized, controlled study

Background

Circulatory and respiratory depression are common  problems that occur in propofol alone sedation during gastroscopy. As a widely used analgesic adjuvant, intravenous lidocaine can reduce the consumption of propofol during Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or colonoscopy. However, it is still unknown the median effective dose (ED₅₀) of propofol when combined with lidocaine intravenously. This study aimed to compare the ED₅₀ of propofol with or without intravenous lidocaine for inserting gastrointestinal endoscope successfully.

Methods

Fifty nine patients undergoing gastroscopy or gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy were randomly divided into control group (Group C, normal saline + propofol) or lidocaine group (Group L, lidocaine + propofol). Patients were initially injected a bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine in Group L, whereas equivalent volume of 0.9% saline in Group C. Anaesthesia was then induced with a single bolus of propofol in all subjects. The induction dose of propofol was determined by the modified Dixon’s up-and-down method, and the initial dose was 1.5 mg/kg in both groups. The primary outcome was the ED₅₀ of propofol induction dose with or without intravenous lidocaine. The secondary outcomes were the induction time, the first propofol bolus time (FPBT: from MOAA/S score ≤ 1 to first rescue bolus propofol), and adverse events (AEs: hypoxemia, bradycardia, hypotension, and body movements).

Results

Totally, 59 patients were enrolled and completed this study. The ED₅₀ of propofol combined with lidocaine was 1.68 ± 0.11 mg/kg, significantly reduced compared with the normal saline group, 1.88 ± 0.13 mg/kg (P = 0.002). There was no statistical difference in induction time (P = 0.115) and the FPBT (P = 0.655) between the two groups. There was no significantly difference about the AEs between the two groups.

Conclusion

The ED₅₀ of propofol combined with intravenous lidocaine for successful endoscope insertion in adult patients, was 1.68 ± 0.11 mg/kg significantly reduced compared with the control group.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, No: ChiCTR2200059450. Registered on 29 April 2022. Prospective registration. http://www.chictr.org.cn.

Long-term high-risk drinking does not change effective doses of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope in Chinese male patients

Background

Available literature indicates that long-term drinkers demand a higher dose of propofol for induction of anesthesia than non-drinkers. However, there is no study having assessed the influence of long-term high-risk drinking (LTHRD) on the effective doses of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope with sedation. This study was designed to compare the effective doses of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope between LTHRD and non-drinking (ND) Chinese male patients.

Methods

Thirty-one LTHRD patients and 29 ND male patients undergoing elective gastroscopy with propofol sedation were enrolled. The modified Dixon’s up-and-down method was applied to determine the calculated median effective dose (ED₅₀) of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope. Furthermore, the isotonic regression analysis was used to establish the dose–response curve of propofol and assess the effective doses of propofol where 50% (ED₅₀) and 95% (ED₉₅) of gastroscope insertions were successful.

Results

The calculated ED₅₀ of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope was 1.55 ± 0.10 mg/kg and 1.44 ± 0.11 mg/kg in the LTHRD and ND patients. The isotonic regression analysis further showed that ED₅₀ and ED₉₅ of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope was 1.50 mg/kg (95%CI, 1.40–1.63) and 1.80 mg/kg (95%CI, 1.74–1.90) in the LTHRD patients, respectively; 1.40 mg/kg (95% CI, 1.27–1.57) and 1.60 mg/kg (95%CI, 1.56–1.65) in the ND patients. The ED₅₀ of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope was not significantly different between LTHRD and ND patients.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that the difference in the estimated ED₅₀ of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope between LTHRD and ND Chinese male patients was not statistically significant.

Trial registration

The study was registered on November 28, 2020 (ChiCTR2000040382) in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01725-2.

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.