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

Optimizing sedation in gastroscopy: a study on the etomidate/propofol mixture ratio

Objective

Propofol and etomidate are the most commonly used sedative agents in procedural sedation, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. However, there remains considerable controversy regarding the optimal ratio for the mixture of these two drugs, warranting further investigation. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the optimal ratio for combining propofol and etomidate during gastroscopy.

Methods

This study is a prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial. One hundred and sixty-two patients from July 2019 to December 2022 were evenly classified into three groups using a random number table as follows: (1) P group (propofol); (2) EP1 group (5 mL etomidate +10 mL propofol); (3) EP2 group (10 mL etomidate +10 mL), 54 patients per group. The medications, including a pre-sedation dose of 50 μg/kg dezocine followed by sedatives, ceasing when the patient's eyelash reflex vanished, indicating adequate sedation. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) measurements taken before anesthesia (T1), immediately after the administration of sedatives (T2), immediately gastroscopic insertion (T3) and immediately recovery (T4) were determined. Additional, perioperative related outcomes and adverse events were also recorded.

Results

The EP2 group exhibited a higher MAP at T2 compared to the P and EP1 groups (p < 0.05). Calculated decreases in MAP revealed values of 19.1, 18.8, and 13.8% for the P, EP1, and EP2 groups at T2, respectively. Adverse events: Group EP2 exhibited a significantly lower hypotension incidence (11.1%) compared to the Propofol group (50%) and EP1 (31.5%). Concerning injection pain, Group EP2 also showing a significant decrease in comparison to P and EP1 groups (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The use of a mixture of 10 mL etomidate and 10 mL propofol (at a 1:1 ratio) combined with dezocine for painless gastroscopy demonstrates hemodynamic stability, a low incidence of adverse reactions.

Clinical Trial Registration

https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=39874.

Comparison of remimazolam and propofol combined with low dose esketamine for pediatric same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy: a randomized, controlled clinical trial

Background: Remimazolam has shown similar or even superior properties to propofol in procedural sedation in adults, but few studies have been conducted in pediatric populations. Thus, we aimed to compare the effect and safety of remimazolam and propofol combined with low dose esketamine for pediatric same-day bidirectional endoscopy (BDE). Methods: Pediatrics <18 years scheduled for elective BDE under sedation were included and randomly assigned to remimazolam group (R group) or propofol group (P group). The primary outcome was the success rate of sedation. Secondary outcomes include sedation-related information and adverse events. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and perfusion index (PI) were recorded during sedation. Results: A total of 106 patients were enrolled and analyzed. The success rate of sedation was 100% in both groups. Compared with the P group, the induction time of the R group was significantly prolonged (p < 0.001), and the incidence of injection pain, intraoperative respiratory depression, hypotension and bradycardia was significantly lower (p < 0.001). The changes in MAP, HR and PI were relatively stable in the R group compared with the P group. Additionally, awake time significantly decreased with age by approximately 1.12 index points for each increase in age in the P group (p = 0.002) but not in the R group (p > 0.05). Furthermore, the decline in PI and PI ratio during BDE was related to body movement in the P group. Conclusion: Remimazolam combined with low dose esketamine has a non-inferior sedative effect than propofol for pediatric BDE, with no injection pain, less respiratory depression, more stable hemodynamics. Moreover, early detection of the decline in PI may avoid harmful stimulation under light anesthesia. Clinical trial registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05686863?id=NCT05686863&rank=1, NCT05686863.

The effects of esketamine on blood pressure and hypotension incidence during induction of bariatric surgery: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of obesity is high. Bariatric surgery is an effective treatment for severe obesity; however, the induction phase of anesthesia in these patients poses a risk of hypotension. Esketamine, known for its sympathetic nervous system stimulation, may stabilize blood pressure during induction. This study aimed to investigate the effects of esketamine on blood pressure in bariatric surgery patients.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial included 145 patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive esketamine or a control intervention during induction. Blood pressure and other vital signs were measured and compared between the 2 groups using statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Administration of esketamine increased blood pressure before intubation (T2). The incidence of hypotension was lower in the esketamine group at multiple time points during induction. Postoperatively, the esketamine group exhibited lower pain scores at 24 hours and a reduced need for rescue analgesics.

CONCLUSION

A single dose of 0.2 mg/kg esketamine during the induction phase of bariatric surgery can improve blood pressure stability and decrease the incidence of hypotension. Furthermore, it is associated with reduced postoperative pain. Future studies could explore the effects of higher esketamine doses and validate these findings in a larger and more diverse patient population.

Effect of ice popsicle treatment on emergence agitation in children undergoing oral surgery with sevoflurane anaesthesia: A prospective randomized controlled study

PURPOSE

Emergence agitation is a common postoperative complication during recovery in children. The purpose of this study is to explore whether the use of ice popsicle could prevent emergence agitation in children undergoing oral surgery with sevoflurane anaesthesia.

DESIGN AND METHODS

In this prospective randomized controlled study, 100 children undergoing oral surgery were randomly assigned to Group 1 which received ice popsicle after emergence (intervention, n = 50) or Group 2 which received verbal encouragement from their parents (control, n = 50). The primary outcome was the 2-hour postoperative incidence of EA.

RESULTS

Group 1 had a significant lower incidence of emergence agitation (22% vs 58%, P < 0.001) compared with Group 2. The mean agitation score was significantly lower in Group 1 vs Group 2 at 10  minutes (1.64 vs 2.12, P = 0.024) and 20 min (1.60 vs 2.14, P = 0.004) after emergence. The peak agitation and pain scores were significantly lower in Group 1 than in Group 2 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study suggest that ice popsicle is an effective, cheap, pleasurable, and easily administered method for alleviating emergence agitation in paediatric patients after oral surgery under general anaesthesia. These results are worthy of confirmation in other surgeries.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This approach is highly accepted by both children and their parents, and our findings support the effectiveness of ice popsicle in relieving emergence agitation and pain after oral surgery in children.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1800015634.

Effect of intravenous induction with different doses of Esketamine combined with propofol and sufentanil on intraocular pressure among pediatric strabismus surgery: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

It is well-established that maintaining stable intraocular pressure (IOP) within the normal range during ophthalmic surgery is important. Esketamine is a commonly used drug in pediatric general anesthesia due to its good analgesic and sedative effects. However, its application in ophthalmic surgery is limited because it can increase IOP. The effect of esketamine combined with other common anesthetics on IOP has been underinvestigated. This study aimed to investigate the effect of different doses of esketamine combined with propofol and sufentanil on IOP during intravenous induction of general anesthesia for pediatric strabismus surgery.

METHODS

A total of 181 children with strabismus undergoing unilateral eye surgery under general anesthesia were recruited. Intravenous induction included the use of sufentanil 0.1 µg/kg, propofol 3 mg/kg, and esketamine. Base on the dosage of esketamine, the patients were randomly allocated into three groups: esketamine low (EL) group with 0.25 mg/kg (n = 62), esketamine high (EH) group with 0.5 mg/kg (n = 60), and normal saline (NS) group (n = 59). Hemodynamic parameters, respiratory parameters, and IOP of the non-surgical eye were recorded and compared among the three groups at different time points: before induction (T0), 1 min after induction but before laryngeal mask insertion (T1), immediately after laryngeal mask insertion (T2), and 2 min after laryngeal mask insertion (T3).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and respiratory parameters among the three groups at T0. The IOP at T1, T2, and T3 was lower than that at T0 in all three groups. The EH group (12.6 ± 1.6 mmHg) had a significantly higher IOP than the EL group (12.0 ± 1.6 mmHg) and the NS group (11.6 ± 1.7 mmHg) at T1. However, no difference was found between the EL and NS groups at any time point. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and heart rate (HR) at T1, T2, and T3 were lower than at baseline, and SBP and HR were higher at T2 than at T1. Additionally, the EH group had a significantly higher HR at T1 than the other two groups. There was no significant difference in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) among the three groups at any time point.

CONCLUSION

Propofol combined with sufentanil significantly decreased IOP during the induction of general anesthesia. Although a dose of 0.5 mg/kg esketamine elevated IOP compared to the low-dose and control groups after induction, the IOP remained lower than baseline. 0.25 mg/kg esketamine combined with propofol and sufentanil had little effect on IOP. Therefore, we advocate that a maximum dose of 0.5 mg/kg esketamine combined with propofol and sufentanil will not elevate IOP compared to baseline in pediatric strabismus surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The registration number is ChiCTR2200066586 at Chictr.org.cn. Registry on 09/12/2022.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Clinical trial registration

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPREO registration number: CRD 42022368966.

Safety and efficacy of the combination of esketamine and propofol in procedural sedation/analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the side effects and efficacy of esketamine combined with propofol in procedural sedation and analgesia.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies occurring between their inceptions and September 2022. The primary outcome was the incidence of sedation-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, total consumption of propofol and body movement.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Data from a total of seven RCTs enrolling 808 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooling of data showed that compared with other drug regimens, the esketamine and propofol combination was associated with a reduction in the risk of hypotension (relative risk [RR]: 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25 to 0.56) and bradycardia (RR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.80) as well as an increase in the risk of agitation (RR: 6.29, 95% CI: 1.15 to 34.32). The results also indicated a decrease in propofol consumption (standardized mean difference: -1.45, 95% CI: -2.39 to -0.50) with the use of the esketamine and propofol combination. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in respiratory depression, nausea/vomiting, recovery time or body movement.

CONCLUSIONS

Esketamine combined with propofol has an advantage in reducing the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia during procedural sedation and analgesia, but it may increase the risk of agitation in the recovery phase. More studies of high quality are needed before the widespread adoption of the combination of esketamine and propofol.

Efficacy and safety of esketamine for sedation among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients who undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy often require propofol-based sedation combined with analgesics. At present, the efficacy and safety of esketamine as an adjunct to propofol for sedation during endoscopic procedures in patients remains controversial. Moreover, there is no universal agreement regarding the appropriate dose of esketamine supplementation. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of esketamine as an adjunct to propofol for sedation during endoscopic procedures in patients.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases and three clinical trial registry platforms were searched and the deadline was February 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of esketamine for sedation were included by two reviewers. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate the pooled risk ratio or standardized mean difference.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with 1962 esketamine participants were included in the analysis. As an adjunct to propofol, the administration of esketamine reduced the recovery time compared to normal saline (NS). However, there was no significant difference between the opioids group and ketamine group. For propofol dosage, the administration of esketamine required a lower propofol dosage compared to the NS group and opioids group].For complications, the esketamine group had fewer complications compared to the NS group and opioid group in patients, but there were no significant differences between the esketamine group and ketamine group. Notably, the coadministration of esketamine was associated with a higher risk of visual disturbance compared to the NS group. In addition, we used subgroup analysis to investigate whether 0.2-0.5 mg/kg esketamine was effective and tolerable for patients.

CONCLUSION

Esketamine as an adjunct to propofol, is an appropriate effective alternative for sedation in participants undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, considering the possibility of its psychotomimetic effects, esketamine should be used with caution.

Dexmedetomidine-Oxycodone combination for conscious sedation during colonoscopy in obese patients: A randomized controlled trial

Background

Obesity is a risk factor for sedation-related respiratory depression during colonoscopy. In a colonoscopy, propofol is frequently used because of its strong sedative and hypnotic properties. However, propofol is associated with marked respiratory depression. The objective of this trial was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine plus oxycodone for conscious sedation during colonoscopy in obese patients.

Methods

A total of 120 patients had colonoscopies, and they were divided into two groups at random: Dexmedetomidine and oxycodone were used to sedate group Dex + oxy; while group Pro + oxy received anesthesia with propofol plus oxycodone. Parameters including blood pressure, heart rate, respiration, blood oxygen saturation, injection pain, and recovery time were recorded for both groups.

Results

The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly reduced in group Dex + oxy compared with group Pro + oxy (4.9% vs 20.3%, P = 0.011). Blood pressure was lower, and heart rate was higher in group Pro + oxy compared with group Dex + oxy (P < 0.05). In addition, group Dex + oxy showed a significantly shorter caecal insertion time, recovery time to orientation, and recovery time to walking than group Pro + oxy (P < 0.05). Endoscopist satisfaction scores were significantly higher in group Dex + oxy compared with group Pro + oxy (P = 0.042).

Conclusion

For obese patients, dexmedetomidine plus oxycodone effectively sedate them with few adverse effects, while also reducing colonoscopy operation difficulty by allowing obese patients to reposition. Thus, dexmedetomidine plus oxycodone could be used safely as a conscious sedation method for colonoscopy in obese patients.

Trial registration

The protocol was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR1800017283, July 21, 2018).

The median effective concentration of propofol in combination with different doses of esketamine during gastrointestinal endoscopy in adults

We designed a four-arm randomized controlled trial to investigate the median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol in combination with different doses of esketamine inducing appropriate depth of anaesthesia during gastrointestinal endoscopy in adults. One hundred patients aged 18-65 years planning for gastrointestinal endoscopy were divided into four groups randomly: esketamine 0, 0.15, 0.25 and 0.5 mg/kg groups (n = 25). Propofol doses followed the Dixon and Massey up-and-down method with different starting between groups. The primary endpoint was the EC50 of propofol. Secondary outcomes included the cumulative dose of propofol, the duration of the procedure, recovery time, and adverse effects. The EC50 (median, 95% confidence interval) of propofol was significantly less in the esketamine 0.5 mg/kg group compared with the esketamine 0, 0.15, and 0.25 mg/kg groups [1.34 (1.15, 1.54) vs. 3.48 (3.25, 3.71), 2.82 (2.58, 3.07), and 2.36 (2.11, 2.61), respectively; p < 0.001]. The total dose of propofol (mean ± SD) required for the whole procedure was significantly less in the esketamine 0.5 mg/kg group compared with the esketamine 0, 0.15, and 0.25 mg/kg groups [95.5 ± 43.1 vs. 277.4 ± 49.0, 207.8 ± 31.6, and 135.1 ± 27.7, respectively; p < 0.001]. The recovery time was significantly longer in esketamine 0 and 0.5 mg/kg group compared with other two groups (p < 0.001). More patients in the esketamine 0.5 mg/kg group experienced visual disturbance compared with the other groups (p = 0.016). Additionally, the incidence of hypotensionin the esketamine 0 mg/kg group after inducation was higher compared with other groups (p < 0.001). In summary, the administration of esketamine significantly and dose-dependently reduced the dose of propofol required to accomplish procedures.

Effects of Remimazolam Combined with Esketamine Anesthesia on Circulatory and Respiratory Function during Painless Gastroenteroscopy

Objective

To investigate the effect of applying remimazolam combined with esketamine for anesthesia in painless gastroenteroscopy on patients' circulatory and respiratory function.

Method

In this study, 106 patients who had undergone painless gastroenteroscopy in Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC) Hospital between July 2021 and January 2022 were selected as study subjects, which were grouped according to the anesthetic drugs used in the surgery and divided into control group (n = 53 cases) and observation group (n = 53 cases), while those who were anesthetized with propofol + sufentanil during the operation were the control group and those who were anesthetized with remimazolam + esketamine were the observation group. To compare the induction time of anesthesia, patient awakening and recovery time of orientation, circulatory and respiratory function, intraoperative adverse effects, and postoperative complications in the two study groups.

Results

There was no statistical difference in induction of anesthesia, patient awakening, and recovery time of orientation between the two groups (P > 0.05) and no statistical difference in postoperative complications (P > 0.05). The observation group had a better occurrence of local pain at the injection site, circulatory and respiratory function of patients after anesthesia, and intraoperative adverse reactions than the control group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Remimazolam combined with esketamine anesthesia has the same advantages of rapid awakening compared with propofol anesthesia. Moreover, it has fewer side effects on patients' circulatory and respiratory functions with fewer adverse effects, as a suitable anesthetic method for painless gastroenteroscopy.