Efficacy of sedation with dexmedetomidine plus propofol during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of sedation with DEX during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with a view to providing evidence-based references for clinical decision-making. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DEX with different sedatives comparators (such as propofol, midazolam, and ketamine) for sedation in a variety of adult gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 1 July 2022. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI were used for continuous outcomes or dichotomous outcomes, respectively, and a random-effect model was selected regardless of the significance of the heterogeneity. Results: Forty studies with 2,955 patients were assessed, of which 1,333 patients were in the DEX group and 1,622 patients were in the control (without DEX) group. The results suggested that the primary outcomes of sedation level of DEX are comparable to other sedatives, with similar RSS score and patient satisfaction level, and better in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of body movements or gagging (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.97; p = 0.04; I2 = 68%), and a reduced additional requirement for other sedatives, and increased endoscopist satisfaction level (SMD: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.77; p = 0.03; I2 = 86%). In terms of secondary outcomes of adverse events, DEX may benefit patients in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of hypoxia (RR:0.34; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.55; p < 0.0001; I2 = 52%) and cough (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54; p = 0.0004; I2 = 0%), no significant difference in the risk of hypotension, while an increased risk of bradycardia (RR: 3.08; 95% CI: 2.12 to 4.48; p < 0.00001; I2 = 6%). Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that DEX is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy because of its benefits for patients in some clinical outcomes. Remarkably, DEX is comparable to midazolam and propofol in terms of sedation level. In conclusion, DEX provides an additional option in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced.

Efficacy of lidocaine injection method for esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection: single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative body movements are one of the causes of difficulty in performing esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) under conscious sedation. The use of local anesthetics as local injection materials during ESD may overcome this difficulty. We clinically evaluated the lidocaine injection method (LIM) in the submucosa during esophageal ESD.

METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Patients who underwent esophageal ESD under conscious sedation from June 2018 to May 2021 were included in this study. In the LIM group, lidocaine was used for submucosal injection during ESD; in the control group, ESD was performed without lidocaine. The primary outcome was the presence of body movements.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were enrolled and randomized in a 1:1 ratio in two groups. The incidence of body movements was significantly lower in the LIM group (12% [3/25]) than in the control group (48% [12/25]; P = 0.01). The median additional dose of midazolam was 2 mg (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.5-4 mg) in the LIM group and 4 mg (IQR: 3-6 mg) in the control group, which was significantly lower in the LIM group (P < 0.01). The median visual analog scale score for endoscopist satisfaction was 7 (IQR: 5-8) in the LIM group and 5 (IQR: 4-6.5) in the control group, which was significantly higher in the LIM group.

CONCLUSIONS

LIM during esophageal ESD reduced body movements while decreasing the level of sedation. Therefore, LIM during esophageal ESD is an option for maintaining good sedation (UMIN000032804).

Comparing general anaesthesia versus sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an advanced endoscopic procedure for management of gastrointestinal tumours. ESD is usually performed under sedation. However, the use of general anaesthesia (GA) has been hypothesised to improve ESD outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare GA against sedation in ESD. A systematic literature search was performed on Cochrane Library, EMBASE and MEDLINE using the terms "General Anaesthesia", "Sedation" and "Endoscopic submucosal dissection". Original articles comparing GA versus sedation in ESD were included. The risk of bias and level of evidence were assessed by validated methods. This review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021275813). 176 articles were found in the initial literature search, and 7 articles (comprising 518 patients receiving GA and 495 receiving sedation) were included. Compared with sedation, GA was associated with higher en-bloc resection rates in oesophageal ESD (RR 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00-1.10; I 2 = 65%; P = 0.05). GA patients also trended towards lower rates of gastrointestinal perforation in all ESD procedures (RR 0.62; 95% CI: 0.21-1.82; I 2 = 52%; P = 0.06). Rates of intra- procedural desaturation and post-procedural aspiration pneumonia were lower in GA patients than in patients under sedation. The included studies had a moderate to high risk of bias, and the overall level of evidence was low. GA appears safe and feasible for ESD, yet high-quality trials will be required before GA can be regularly implemented for ESD.

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol-remifentanil versus propofol-remifentanil during fiberoptic bronchoscopy: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial

Objective: Ciprofol is a novel 2,6-disubstituted phenol derivative that has improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties compared with propofol. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol-remifentanil versus propofol-remifentanil for patients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Methods: Overall, 92 patients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy were included in this prospective, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial and were equally divided into two groups (n = 46 each). Fentanyl (50 μg) was given 2 min before the intravenous infusion of 0.3 mg/kg of ciprofol or 1.2 mg/kg of propofol over a time period of 30 s. During anesthesia maintenance, 0.05-0.2 μg/kg/min of remifentanil combined with one-third to one-fourth of the initial dose of ciprofol or propofol was repeated at 2-min intervals, as required, to maintain a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) scale score <3. The primary outcome was the successful rate of fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Secondary outcomes included demographic characteristics, time metrics, hemodynamics, coughing severity, intubating conditions, lowest oxygen saturation, utilization of study drug doses, number of remedies (lidocaine and vasoactive drugs) used, satisfaction scores of both patients and the endoscopist, occurrence of intraoperative awareness, patients' willing to repeat fiberoptic bronchoscopy, and occurrence and severity of adverse events. Results: The successful completion rate of fiberoptic bronchoscopy was 91.30% (42 of 46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.80%-99.80%) in the ciprofol-remifentanil group and 89.13% (41 of 46; 95% CI: 79.80%-98.50%) in the propofol-remifentanil group. Though the clinically acceptable intubating condition was improved in the ciprofol-remifentanil group, this difference has no clinical statistical difference (p > 0.05). No significant differences were noted between the two groups with respect to time metrics, consumption of fentanyl and remifentanil, or number of remedies (lidocaine and vasoactive drugs). Patients' willingness to repeat fiberoptic bronchoscopy and the satisfaction of both patients and endoscopist were significantly higher in the ciprofol-remifentanil than in the propofol-remifentanil group (p < 0.05). Compared with patients in the propofol-remifentanil group, patients in the ciprofol-remifentanil group had more stable hemodynamics. The lowest oxygen saturation was significantly higher in the ciprofol-remifentanil than in the propofol-remifentanil group (p < 0.05). The numbers of patients who experienced pain on injection in the ciprofol-remifentanil group was significantly lower than the number in the propofol-remifentanil group (p < 0.01). Severity of coughing, clinically acceptable severity of coughing, incidence of intraoperative awareness, and other adverse events were all similar between the two groups (p > 0.05). Only four patients experienced grade 2 adverse events (severe hypotension in one patient in the ciprofol-remifentanil group and three patients in the propofol-remifentanil group; p > 0.05); they were treated with noradrenaline. Conclusion: Ciprofol-remifentanil was non-inferior to propofol-remifentanil with regard to successful sedation for flexible bronchoscopy, when used with pre-intravenous administration of 50 μg of fentanyl. At the same time, patients' willingness to repeat flexible bronchoscopy and the satisfactions were all significantly improved.

Dexmedetomidine inhibits the growth and metastasis of esophageal cancer cells by down-regulation of lncRNA MALAT1

This study aims to evaluate the effect of dexmedetomidine (DEX)-on esophageal cancer (EC) via regulating long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) metastasis-associated lung adenocarcinoma transcript 1 (MALAT1). The effect of DEX on MALAT1 expression and EC cell viability was detected. EC cells were divided into Blank, DEX, scrambled/MALAT1 siRNA, and DEX + control/MALAT1 groups, followed by a series of experiments including quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR), western blotting, 3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5 diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT), Annexin V-FITC/PI staining, wound healing, and Transwell assays. Additionally, mice were subjected to the subcutaneous injection of Eca109 cells transfected by control/MALAT1 activation lentiviral vector to construct EC models with the DEX treatment, and then the tumor volume and the expression of Ki-67 and active caspase-3 were determined. DEX reduced the expression of MALAT1 in EC cells in a dose-dependent manner. DEX inhibited the viability of EC cells, but increased the cell apoptosis, which, however, was reversed by MALAT1 overexpression. Moreover, MALAT1 overexpression abolished the inhibitory effect of DEX on the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) of EC cells, with enhanced migration and invasion. Furthermore, DEX succeeded in decreasing the tumor volume with the down-regulation of MALAT1. In comparison with the DEX group, mice in the DEX + MALAT1 group had larger tumors, with the up-regulation of Ki-67 and the down-regulation of active caspase-3. DEX can reduce the expression of MALAT1 in EC cells, thereby inhibiting the proliferation, invasion and migration, as well as EMT, and promoting the apoptosis of EC cells.