Subhypnotic doses of propofol possess direct antiemetic properties

Why sedative hypnotics often fail in development

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Drug development to support anaesthesia and sedation has been slow with few candidates emerging from preclinical discovery and limited innovation beyond attempted reformulation of existing compounds.

RECENT FINDINGS

The market is well supported by low-cost generic products and development compounds have not been shown to improve patient outcomes or possess other distinctive characteristics to justify the cost of development.

SUMMARY

To make progress in a large-volume, low margin and highly competitive environment requires meaningful advances in relevant basic science. Opportunities exist, but probably require bolder initiatives than further attempts at reformulation or fiddling with the structure of propofol. Extending development ambitions to include nonanaesthesiologist providers challenges professional boundaries but may facilitate cost-effective changes in patterns of care.

Effect of Propofol Infusion on Need for Rescue Antiemetics in Postanesthesia Care Unit After Volatile Anesthesia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are frequent after volatile anesthesia. We hypothesized that coadministration of propofol with volatile anesthetic compared to pure volatile anesthetics would decrease the need for postoperative antiemetic treatments and shorten recovery time in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU).

METHODS

We retrospectively identified adult patients who underwent procedures using general anesthesia with volatile agents, with or without propofol infusion, from May 2018 through December 2020, and who were admitted to the PACU. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was performed using generalized estimating equations with robust variance estimates to assess whether propofol was associated with decreased need for rescue antiemetics.

RESULTS

Among 47,847 patients, overall IPTW rescue antiemetic use was 4.7% for 17,573 patients who received propofol and 8.2% for 30,274 who did not (odds ratio [OR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.61; P <.001). This effect associated with propofol was present regardless of the intensity of antiemetic prophylaxis (OR, 0.59, 0.51, and 0.58 for 0-1, 2, and ≥3 antiemetics used, respectively), procedural duration (OR, 0.54, 0.62, and 0.47 for ≤2.50, 2.51-4.00, ≥4.01 hours), and type of volatile agent (OR, 0.51, 0.52, and 0.57 for desflurane, isoflurane, and sevoflurane) (all P <.001). This effect was dose dependent, with little additional benefit for the reduction in the use of PACU antiemetics when propofol rate exceeded 100 μg/kg/min. Patients who received rescue antiemetics required longer PACU recovery time than those who did not receive antiemetics (ratio of the geometric mean, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.28-1.33; P <.001), but use of propofol did not affect PACU recovery time (ratio of the geometric mean, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.01; P =.56).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of propofol infusions to volatile-based anesthesia is associated with a dose-dependent reduction in the need for rescue antiemetics in the PACU regardless of the number of prophylactic antiemetics, duration of procedure, and type of volatile agent used, without affecting PACU recovery time.

Mortality and morbidity after total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

General anaesthesia is provided to more than 300 million surgical patients worldwide, every year. It is administered either through total intravenous anaesthesia, using only intravenous agents, or through inhalational anaesthesia, using volatile anaesthetic agents. The debate on how this affects postoperative patient outcome is ongoing, despite an abundance of published trials. The relevance of this topic has grown by the increasing concern about the contribution of anaesthetic gases to the environmental impact of surgery. We aimed to summarise all available evidence on relevant patient outcomes with total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia.

Methods

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials for works published from January 1, 1985 to August 1, 2023 for randomised controlled trials comparing total intravenous anaesthesia using propofol versus inhalational anaesthesia using the volatile anaesthetics sevoflurane, desflurane or isoflurane. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full text articles, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Outcomes were derived from a recent series of publications on consensus definitions for Standardised Endpoints for Perioperative trials (StEP). Primary outcomes covered mortality and organ-related morbidity. Secondary outcomes were related to anaesthetic and surgical morbidity. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023430492).

Findings

We included 317 randomised controlled trials, comprising 51,107 patients. No difference between total intravenous and inhalational anaesthesia was seen in the primary outcomes of in-hospital mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.67-1.66, 27 trials, 3846 patients), 30-day mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70-1.36, 23 trials, 9667 patients) and one-year mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.88-1.48, 13 trials, 9317 patients). Organ-related morbidity was similar between groups except for the subgroup of elderly patients, in which total intravenous anaesthesia was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40-0.97, 11 trials, 3834 patients) and a better score on postoperative cognitive dysfunction tests (standardised mean difference 1.68, 95% CI 0.47-2.88, 9 trials, 4917 patients). In the secondary outcomes, total intravenous anaesthesia resulted in a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.56-0.67, 145 trials, 23,172 patients), less emergence delirium (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29-0.56, 32 trials, 4203 patients) and a higher quality of recovery score (QoR-40 mean difference 6.45, 95% CI 3.64-9.25, 17 trials, 1835 patients).

Interpretation

The results indicate that postoperative mortality and organ-related morbidity was similar for intravenous and inhalational anaesthesia. Total intravenous anaesthesia offered advantages in postoperative recovery.

Funding

Dutch Society for Anaesthesiology (NVA).

Effect of preoperative ondansetron on postoperative nausea in healthy dogs undergoing laparoscopic gastropexy and castration

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if preoperative ondansetron reduces postoperative nausea associated with laparoscopic gastropexy and castration in dogs.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective clinical study.

ANIMALS

Twenty client-owned, healthy male dogs.

METHODS

Dogs were premedicated with dexmedetomidine (2-5 mcg kg-1) and methadone (0.2-0.5 mg kg-1) intramuscularly. General anesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with an inhalant anesthetic agent. Dogs were randomized into group S (saline 0.1 mL kg-1, intravenously) or group O (ondansetron 0.2 mg kg-1, intravenously). Plasma and serum were collected before premedication and 3 hours postextubation to measure arginine vasopressin (AVP) and cortisol concentrations. Nausea scoring occurred before and 10 minutes after premedication, immediately after extubation, and at 1, 2 and 3 hours postextubation. Data were analyzed by mixed and split-plot anova with Bonferroni adjustment for the number of group comparisons. Significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Nausea scores increased over time at 1 (p = 0.01) and 2 (p < 0.001) hours postextubation in both groups compared with before premedication. Median nausea score (0-100 mm) for groups S and O before premedication were 2.5 and 0.5 mm, respectively. At 1 and 2 hours postextubation, group S scored 7.5 and 4.0 mm and group O scored 6.0 and 5.0 mm, respectively. No significant differences in nausea scores within or between groups were observed before premedication and 3 hours postextubation. Cortisol concentrations increased significantly 3 hours postextubation in both groups (p < 0.001) compared with before premedication, with no differences between groups. AVP concentrations showed no significant differences within or between groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Preoperative intravenous administration of ondansetron (0.2 mg kg-1) did not impact postoperative nausea after laparoscopic gastropexy and castration. Investigation of higher doses of ondansetron on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in dogs after surgery is warranted.

Incidence of nausea/vomiting following propofol sedation with adaptive servo-ventilation for atrial fibrillation ablation

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation can cause considerable distress.

Aim

Continuous intravenous propofol sedation with adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) with or without an analgesic, pentazocine, during AF ablation was studied in 272 consecutive patients with paroxysmal, persistent, and long-standing persistent AF. The study objectives were to determine the incidence of PONV after AF ablation and to assess the predictive value of factors for PONV using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

Results

The present sedation maneuver was successfully accomplished with a low incidence of hypotension and without discontinuation of ablation or switching to general anesthesia, while maintaining an acceptable procedural time (102 ± 32 min). The incidence of PONV was 5.5% (15/272). Nausea occurred in nine patients after an average of 4.6 ± 3.5 h (range: 2-12 h) postablation, and vomiting with nausea occurred in six patients after an average of 4.5 ± 3.1 h (range: 1-9 h) postablation. The postablation interval did not differ significantly between the occurrence of nausea and nausea accompanied by vomiting. AUCs based on various factors, including the Apfel score, ranged from 0.55 to 0.67, indicating low accuracy in predicting PONV occurrence.

Conclusions

The incidence of PONV after propofol sedation with ASV was the lowest (5.5%) reported to date. Scoring systems, which included the Apfel score, were ineffective in predicting PONV. The low PONV incidence in addition to the efficacy of propofol sedation with ASV revealed the adequacy of this regimen for AF ablation.

Efficacy of remimazolam tosilate versus propofol for total intravenous anaesthesia in urological surgery: A randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative that acts on the gamma-aminobutyric acid type A receptor (GABAAR).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacies of remimazolam (RMZ), and propofol (PROP) combined with remifentanil and cisatracurium for total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) in patients undergoing urological surgery.

DESIGN

A prospective, single-blind, randomised, noninferiority clinical trial.

SETTING

Single centre from 1 January 2022 to 30 March 2022.

PATIENTS

A total of 146 adult patients undergoing elective urological surgery.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly allocated in a 1 : 1 ratio to the PROP or RMZ groups. In the PROP group, anaesthesia was induced with propofol at 100 mg min -1 to reach a bispectral index score (BIS) of 40 to 60. After loss of consciousness (LOC), intravenous fentanyl 3 μg kg -1 was administered, followed by cisatracurium 0.3 mg kg -1 . Patients were intubated 3 min after cisatracurium administration. Anaesthesia was maintained with the combination of propofol (plasma concentration: 2.5 to 4 μg ml -1 ) and remifentanil (plasma concentration: 2.5 to 4 ng ml -1 ). In the RMZ group, anaesthesia was induced with remimazolam tosilate starting at 10 mg kg -1  h -1 to reach a BIS of 40 to 60 and maintained between 0.2 and 2 mg kg -1  h -1 . After LOC, fentanyl and cisatracurium were administered and intubation was performed as in the PROP group. Anaesthesia was maintained with a combination of remimazolam (0.2 to 2 mg kg -1  h -1 ) and remifentanil (plasma concentration: 2.5 to 4 ng ml -1 ).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the TIVA success rate. The predefined noninferiority margin considered an absolute difference of 6% in the primary outcome between the groups. The secondary outcomes were vital signs, anaesthesia and surgery characteristics, and adverse events.

RESULTS

All patients completed the trial. The success rates of TIVA with remimazolam and propofol were 100 and 98.6%, respectively. The incidence of hypotension during anaesthesia was lower in the RMZ group (26%) than in the PROP group (46.6%) ( P  = 0.016). The median [IQR] total consumption of ephedrine during anaesthesia was higher in the PROP group 10 [0 to 12.5] mg than in the RMZ group 0 [0 to 10] mg ( P  = 0.0002). The incidence of injection pain was significantly higher in the PROP group (76.7%) than in the RMZ group (0; P  < 0.001). No significant differences in the controllability of the anaesthesia depth, anaesthesia and surgery characteristics, or vital signs were observed between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam demonstrated noninferior efficacy to propofol combined with remifentanil and cisatracurium for TIVA in patients undergoing urological surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chictr.org.cn, identifier: ChiCTR2100050923.

CLINICAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100050923, Principal investigator: Xuehai Guan, Date of registration: 8 November 2021, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=133466 ).

Protective effect of sevoflurane on lung function of elderly chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common respiratory disorder that affects the elderly population and increases the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) after major surgeries. Sevoflurane is a volatile anesthetic that has been shown to have anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties and attenuate lung injury in animal models.

AIM

To evaluate the protective effect of sevoflurane on the lung function of elderly COPD patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, we randomly assigned 120 elderly patients with COPD, who were scheduled for THA, to receive either sevoflurane (sevoflurane group) or propofol (propofol group) as the maintenance anesthetic. The primary outcome was the incidence of PPCs within seven days after surgery. The secondary outcomes were changes in the lung function parameters, inflammatory markers, oxidative stress markers, and postoperative pain scores.

RESULTS

The results showed that the incidence of PPCs was significantly lower in the sevoflurane group than in the propofol group (10% vs 25%, P = 0.02). Furthermore, the decline in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s, forced vital capacity, and peak expiratory flow was significantly lesser in the sevoflurane group than in the propofol group at 24 h and 48 h after surgery (P < 0.05). The interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, malondialdehyde, and 8-hydroxy-2 α-deoxyguanosine levels were significantly lower in the sevoflurane group than in the propofol group at 24 h after surgery (P < 0.05). The sevoflurane group showed significantly lower postoperative pain scores than the propofol group at 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h after surgery (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Sevoflurane protects the lung function of elderly COPD patients undergoing THA under general anesthesia by reducing the incidence of PPCs, attenuating inflammatory and oxidative stress responses, and alleviating postoperative pain.

Efficacy of pharmacological therapies for preventing post-dural puncture headaches in obstetric patients: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a major complication of neuraxial anesthesia. PDPH usually occurs after Caesarean section in obstetric patients. The efficacy of prophylactic pharmacological therapies remains controversial.

METHODS

Seven pharmacological therapies (aminophylline (AMP), dexamethasone, gabapentin/pregabalin (GBP/PGB), hydrocortisone, magnesium, ondansetron (OND), and propofol (PPF)), were studied in this Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of PDPH within 7 days. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of PDPH at 24 and 48 h postoperatively, the severity of headache in PDPH patients (24, 48, and 72 h postoperatively), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

RESULTS

Twenty-two randomized controlled trials with 4,921 pregnant women (2,723 parturients received prophylactic pharmacological therapies) were included. The analyses demonstrated that PPF, OND, and AMP were efficient in decreasing the cumulative incidence of PDPH during the follow-up period compared to the placebo group (OR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.70; OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.87; OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.84, respectively). PPF and OND had the lower incidence of PONV compared to the placebo group (OR = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.30; and OR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.63). No significant difference in other outcomes was found among different therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on available data, PPF, OND, and AMP may have better efficacy in decreasing the incidence of PDPH compared to the placebo group. No significant side effects were revealed. Better-designed studies are requested to verify these conclusions.

The difference in mean arterial pressure induced by remimazolam compared to etomidate in the presence of fentanyl at tracheal intubation: A randomized controlled trial

Background: Combined use of hypnotic and opioids during anesthesia inductions decreases blood pressure. Post-induction hypotension (PIHO) is the most common side effect of anesthesia induction. We aimed to compare the difference in mean arterial pressure (MAP) induced by remimazolam with that induced by etomidate in the presence of fentanyl at tracheal intubation. Methods: We assessed 138 adult patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II who underwent elective urological surgery. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either remimazolam or etomidate as alterative hypnotic in the presence of fentanyl during anesthesia induction. Comparable BIS values were achieved in both groups. The primary outcome was the difference in the MAP at tracheal intubation. The secondary outcomes included the characteristics of anesthesia, surgery, and adverse effects. Results: The MAP was higher in the etomidate group than in the remimazolam group at tracheal intubation (108 [22] mmHg vs. 83 [16] mmHg; mean difference, -26; 95% confidence interval [CI], -33 to -19; p < 0.0001). Heart rate was significantly higher in the etomidate group than in the remimazolam group at tracheal intubation. The patients' condition warranted the administration of ephedrine more frequently in the remimazolam group (22%) than in the etomidate group (5%) (p = 0.0042) during anesthesia induction. The remimazolam group had a lower incidence of hypertension (0% vs. 9%, p = 0.0133), myoclonus (0% vs. 47%, p < 0.001), and tachycardia (16% vs. 35%, p = 0.0148), and a higher incidence of PIHO (42% vs. 5%, p = 0.001) than the etomidate group during anesthesia induction. Conclusion: Remimazolam was associated with lower MAP and lower heart rate compared to etomidate in the presence of fentanyl at tracheal intubation. Patients in the remimazolam group had a higher incidence of PIHO, and their condition warranted the administration of ephedrine more frequently than in the etomidate group during anesthesia induction.

Anti-emetic effects of thalidomide: Evidence, mechanism of action, and future directions

The rationale for using thalidomide (THD) as a treatment for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy in the late 1950s appears to have been based on its sedative or hypnotic properties. In contrast to contemporaneous studies on the anti-emetic activity of phenothiazines, we were unable to identify publications reporting preclinical or clinical evaluation of THD as an anti-emetic. Our survey of the literature revealed a clinical study in 1965 showing THD reduced vomiting in cancer chemotherapy which was substantiated by similar studies from 2000, particularly showing efficacy in the delayed phase of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. To identify the mechanism(s) potentially involved in thalidomide's anti-emetic activity we reviewed its pharmacology in the light of nausea and vomiting mechanisms and their pharmacology with a particular emphasis on chemotherapy and pregnancy. The process identified the following potential mechanisms: reduced secretion of Growth Differentiation Factor 15, suppression of inflammation/prostaglandin production, downregulation of cytotoxic drug induced upregulation of iNOS, and modulation of BK (KCa1.1) channels and GABAA/glutamate transmission at critical points in the emetic pathways (nucleus tractus solitarius, area postrema). We propose ways to investigate these hypothesized mechanisms and discuss the associated challenges (e.g., objective quantification of nausea) in addition to some of the more general aspects of developing novel drugs to treat nausea and vomiting.

Esketamine prevents propofol-induced injection pain: Randomized controlled trial

Background: Propofol is widely used during anesthesia. However, propofol-induced injection pain (PIP) is considered an unpleasant perioperative outcome. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of a mixture of esketamine and propofol in preventing propofol injection pain in patients undergoing general anesthesia.

Methods: This was a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, and randomized controlled trial. We included 252 adult patients with the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I to II who underwent surgery under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to four groups (n = 63 per group). Group NS received a mixture of 1% propofol (20 ml) and 0.9% normal saline (1 ml), group ESK-4 received a mixture of 1% propofol (20 ml) and esketamine 4 mg (diluted with 0.9% normal saline, 1 ml), group ESK-12 received a mixture of 1% propofol (20 ml) and esketamine 12 mg (diluted with 0.9% normal saline, 1 ml), and group ESK-20 received a mixture of 1% propofol (20 ml) and esketamine 20 mg (diluted with 0.9% normal saline, 1 ml) as sedative drugs during anesthesia. The primary outcome was the incidence and distribution of different degrees of PIP. The secondary outcomes were vital signs, characteristics of surgery and anesthesia, and adverse events.

Results: The incidence of PIP in group ESK-20 (33.3%) was significantly lower than that in groups NS, ESK-4, and ESK-12 (63.3%, 62.2%, and 49.1%, respectively; p &lt; 0.01). The incidence of moderate PIP in group NS (33.3%) and group ESK-4 (22.6%) was higher than that in groups ESK-12 (7.5%) and ESK-20 (6.7%). The incidence of severe PIP in group NS (6.7%) and group ESK-4 (9.4%) was higher than that in groups ESK-12 (1.9%) and ESK-20 (0%). There were no differences in the vital signs, characteristics of surgery and anesthesia, or adverse events between the groups.

Conclusion: Our results indicated that the esketamine–propofol admixture reduced the incidence of PIP in patients undergoing general anesthesia without severe side effects.

Effect of intraoperative subhypnotic infusion of propofol on postoperative nausea and vomiting: A retrospective analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To measure the possible association between subhypnotic propofol infusion during general balanced anesthesia and the incidence of PONV.

DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort Analysis Using Propensity Score Matching.

SETTING

Postanesthesia care unit and inpatient unit.

PATIENTS

Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-IV, undergoing non-cardiac surgery lasting >2 h were included. Patients were excluded if transferred to the intensive care unit after surgery or received ketamine. Initially 70,976 patients were screened, and a cohort of 51,707 eligible adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery under general balanced anesthesia between 2015 and 2019 were included. Using a propensity score matching, 3185 patients who received subhypnotic propofol during general balanced anesthesia were matched with 5826 patients who did not receive subhypnotic propofol in a 1:2 ratio.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV during PACU stay. The secondary outcome was the incidence of PONV within the first 24 h after surgery. Exploratory outcomes were time-to-extubation and length of hospital stay.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 9011 patients were included (3185 patients who received propofol infusion, and 5826 patients who did not receive propofol infusion) after propensity score matching. The adjusted odds ratio for PONV incidence was 1.03 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.18; p = 0.635) in PACU, and 1.05 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.23; P = 0.50) within 24 h after surgery. The length of hospital stay was 6 h shorter (ratio of means (95% CI) of 0.92, 0.89, 0.94), p < 0.001) and time-to-extubation was 2 min longer (ratio of means 1.24 (1.20, 1.28), p < 0.001) in patients receiving subhypnotic propofol infusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that subhypnotic propofol infusion during general balanced anesthesia is not associated with a reduction in the incidence of PONV during PACU stay and within the first 24 h after surgery. However, it is associated with decreased LOS and increased time-to-extubation, but differences in neither outcome were clinically important.

Metoclopramide and Propofol to Prevent Nausea and Vomiting during Cesarean Section under Spinal Anesthesia: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial

Background: Intra-operative nausea, vomiting and retching (NVR) are frequently associated with subarachnoid anesthesia (SA) in women undergoing cesarean section (CS). In this study performed in women undergoing CS under SA with a risk factor control strategy, we compared saline (placebo), propofol, metoclopramide and both drugs to prevent NVR. Methods: We recorded NVR events in 110 women undergoing CS who were randomized after umbilical cord clamping to receive saline (S; n = 27), metoclopramide 10 mg (M; n = 28), propofol 1 mg/kg/h (P; n = 27) or both drugs (PM; n = 28). Results: The proportion of women with intra-operative nausea was: S: 17/27 (63%); P: 15/27 (56%); M: 13/28 (46%); PM: 6/28 (21%) (p = 0.012, Cramér’s V = 0.31 (large effect). The proportion of women with intra-operative vomiting/retching was: S: 9/27 (33%); M: 7/27 (25%); P: 3/28 (11%); PM 2/28 (7%) (p = 0.049, Cramér’s V = 0.26 (medium effect). Post-hoc multiple comparisons revealed a significant reduction in NVR episodes and NRS scores between the PM group and control. Sedation scores did not differ among groups. Conclusion: In women undergoing CS under SA with a risk factor control strategy, combined propofol and metoclopramide reduce nausea and vomiting.

Effect of continuous infusion of a subhypnotic dose of propofol on nausea and vomiting after carboprost administration at cesarean delivery: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether continuous infusion of propofol at a subhypnotic dose prevents nausea and vomiting following carboprost administration at cesarean delivery.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at West China Second University Hospital, from June 28, 2017 to January 30, 2018. Pregnant women were randomly allocated to propofol or saline infusion immediately before receiving carboprost at cesarean delivery under combined spinal-epidural (CSE) anesthesia. Propofol was given at an infusion rate of 1.0 mg/kg/h following a loading dose of 0.3 mg/kg. Primary outcome was incidence of intraoperative nausea and vomiting (IONV). Potential sedative effect of propofol infusion was assessed using Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) scoring and continuous Bispectral Index (BIS) monitoring.

RESULTS

The incidence of IONV was lower in patients who received propofol compared with saline (46.7% vs 76.7%, OR 0.27; 95% CI, 0.092-0.78, P = 0.016 for nausea; 26.7% vs 53.3%, OR 0.50; 95% CI, 0.25-0.95, P = 0.032 for retching; 10.0% vs 50.0%, OR 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03-0.44, P < 0.001 for vomiting). There were no differences in MOAA/S scoring or BIS between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

A subhypnotic dose of propofol reduces the incidence of nausea and vomiting following carboprost administration at cesarean delivery under CSE anesthesia, without measurable effect on patients' consciousness or alertness. ClincalTrials.gov: NCT03185156.

Current status of perioperative hypnotics, role of benzodiazepines, and the case for remimazolam: a narrative review

Anaesthesiologists and non-anaesthesiologist sedationists have a limited set of available i.v. hypnotics, further reduced by the withdrawal of thiopental in the USA and its near disappearance in Europe. Meanwhile, demand for sedation increases and new clinical groups are using what traditionally are anaesthesiologists' drugs. Improved understanding of the determinants of perioperative morbidity and mortality has spotlighted hypotension as a potent cause of patient harm, and practice must be adjusted to respect this. High-dose propofol sedation may be harmful, and a critical reappraisal of drug choices and doses is needed. The development of remimazolam, initially for procedural sedation, allows reconsideration of benzodiazepines as the hypnotic component of a general anaesthetic even if their characterisation as i.v. anaesthetics is questionable. Early data suggest that a combination of remimazolam and remifentanil can induce and maintain anaesthesia. Further work is needed to define use cases for this technique and to determine the impact on patient outcomes.

Does a combined intravenous-volatile anesthesia offer advantages compared to an intravenous or volatile anesthesia alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In anesthesia, additive drug interactions are used for reducing dose and dose-dependent side-effects. The combination of propofol with volatile anesthetics is rather unusual but might have advantages compared to the single use regarding PONV, time to extubation, movement during surgery and postoperative pain perception.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL for relevant studies comparing combined intravenous volatile anesthesia with total intravenous or balanced anesthesia. The studies identified were summarized in a meta-analysis with the standardized mean difference or risk ratio as the effect size.

RESULTS

Ten studies provided data. The risk for PONV in the recovery room was significantly reduced for a combined anesthesia compared to a balanced anesthesia (RR 0.657, CI 0.502-0.860, p-value 0.002). There was no significant difference detected either in the time to extubation or in pain perception. Movement during surgery was significantly reduced for a combined compared to a total intravenous anesthesia (RR 0.241, CI 0.135-0.428, p-value 0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of propofol and volatiles may have some advantages in the early occurrence of PONV compared to a balanced anesthesia. To sufficiently evaluate potential advantages of a combination of volatiles and propofol further high-quality trials are needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019126627 .

Incidence and risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting in orthognathic surgery: a 10-year retrospective study

Objectives

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is considered as one of the most incessant and anguishing factors for patients who have surgery under general anesthesia. The occurrence of PONV after orthognathic surgery can lead to dehydration, infection, bleeding at the surgical site, and patient discomfort, all of which leave a patient with a negative impression of anesthesia and surgery. The purpose of this study is to assess the incidence of PONV after orthognathic surgery and to correlate it with factors related to patient, anesthesia, and surgery.

Materials and Methods

A 10-year retrospective survey was done for patients who underwent orthognathic surgery between January 2008 and March 2018. The incidence of PONV was evaluated, correlations with factors related to patient, anesthesia, and surgery were studied, and the duration between the end of surgery and the occurrence of the first episode of PONV was tabulated.

Results

The medical records of 109 patients were screened, out of which 101 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Amongst these patients, 60 patients (59.4%) suffered from PONV. Patient’s sex, induction agent used, intravenous fluids administered intraoperatively, duration and type of surgery, and the presence of a nasogastric tube were seen to have a significant influence on precipitating PONV. It was noted that among the patients who suffered from PONV, 61.7% of them experienced it 48-96 hours after the end of surgery.

Conclusion

Despite the improved anesthetic equipments, drugs, and surgical techniques currently used, the incidence of PONV was high in our study. Certain factors that were seen to influence PONV in this study need to be considered in order to develop an efficacious protocol to reduce PONV in orthognathic surgeries.

The Effect of Adding Midazolam to Propofol Intravenous Sedation to Suppress Gag Reflex During Dental Treatment

We retrospectively investigated the efficacy and safety of propofol administration alone and in combination with midazolam for gag reflex suppression during dental treatment under intravenous sedation. We included 56 patients with an overactive gag reflex who were to undergo dental treatment under intravenous sedation. They were divided into propofol (P group, n = 22) and midazolam with propofol (MP group, n = 34) groups. The P group received propofol alone, while the MP group received midazolam (0.04 mg/kg) prior to target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol (titrated for adequate sedation). The patients' anesthetic records were evaluated for vital sign changes, adverse cardiovascular or respiratory event frequency, the number of forced treatment interruptions, and the TCI-predicted cerebral propofol concentration at gag reflex suppression (posterior tongue stimulation with a dental mirror). No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups preoperatively. There were no cases of forced interruptions or significant respiratory compromise in either group. Cardiovascular adverse event frequency was lower in the MP group than in the P group (all p < .05). Our results suggest that propofol, when combined with midazolam, minimized cardiovascular effects compared with propofol alone when used to suppress the gag reflex in patients during dental treatment under intravenous sedation.

Propofol vs. inhalational agents to maintain general anaesthesia in ambulatory and in-patient surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

It is unclear if anaesthesia maintenance with propofol is advantageous or beneficial over inhalational agents. This study is intended to compare the effects of propofol vs. inhalational agents in maintaining general anaesthesia on patient-relevant outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Methods

Studies were identified by electronic database searches in PubMed™, EMBASE™ and the Cochrane™ library between 01/01/1985 and 01/08/2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of peer-reviewed journals were studied. Of 6688 studies identified, 229 RCTs were included with a total of 20,991 patients. Quality control, assessment of risk of bias, meta-bias, meta-regression and certainty in evidence were performed according to Cochrane. Common estimates were derived from fixed or random-effects models depending on the presence of heterogeneity. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was the primary outcome. Post-operative pain, emergence agitation, time to recovery, hospital length of stay, post-anaesthetic shivering and haemodynamic instability were considered key secondary outcomes.

Results

The risk for PONV was lower with propofol than with inhalational agents (relative risk (RR) 0.61 [0.53, 0.69], p < 0.00001). Additionally, pain score after extubation and time in the post-operative anaesthesia care unit (PACU) were reduced with propofol (mean difference (MD) − 0.51 [− 0.81, − 0.20], p = 0.001; MD − 2.91 min [− 5.47, − 0.35], p = 0.03). In turn, time to respiratory recovery and tracheal extubation were longer with propofol than with inhalational agents (MD 0.82 min [0.20, 1.45], p = 0.01; MD 0.70 min [0.03, 1.38], p = 0.04, respectively). Notably, patient satisfaction, as reported by the number of satisfied patients and scores, was higher with propofol (RR 1.06 [1.01, 1.10], p = 0.02; MD 0.13 [0.00, 0.26], p = 0.05). Secondary analyses supported the primary results.

Conclusions

Based on the present meta-analysis there are several advantages of anaesthesia maintenance with propofol over inhalational agents. While these benefits result in an increased patient satisfaction, the clinical and economic relevance of these findings still need to be addressed in adequately powered prospective clinical trials.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-018-0632-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Randomized double-blind clinical trial comparing two anesthetic techniques for ultrasound-guided transvaginal follicular puncture

Objective:

To compare the anesthetic techniques using propofol and fentanyl versus midazolam and remifentanil associated with a paracervical block with lidocaine in performing ultrasound-guided transvaginal oocyte aspiration.

Methods:

A randomized double-blind clinical trial (#RBR-8kqqxh) performed in 61 women submitted to assisted reproductive treatment. The patients were divided into two groups: anesthetic induction with 1mcg/kg of fentanyl associated with 1.5mg/kg of propofol (FP Group, n=32), in comparison with anesthetic induction using 0.075mg/kg of midazolam associated with 0.25mcg/kg/min of remifentanil, and paracervical block with 3mL of 2% lidocaine (MRPB Group, n=29). Main outcome measures: human reproduction outcomes, modified Aldrete-Kroulik index, hemodynamic parameters, and salivary cortisol.

Results:

The results revealed a higher number of embryos formed in the FP Group (p50=2 versus 1; p=0.025), gestation rate two times higher in the FP Group (44.4% versus 22.2%; p=0.127), less time to reach AK=10 in the MRPB Group (p50=10 versus 2; p<0.001), and lower mean of hemodynamic parameters in the MRPB Group (p<0.05).

Conclusion:

Anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol as well as with midazolam, remifentanil, and paracervical block offered satisfactory anesthetic conditions when performing assisted reproduction procedures, providing comfort for the patient and physician.

Objetivo:

Comparar as técnicas anestésicas utilizando propofol e fentanil contra midazolam e remifentanil associados a um bloqueio paracervical com lidocaína na aspiração de oócitos transvaginal guiada por ultrassom.

Métodos:

Ensaio clínico randomizado duplocego (#RBR-8kqqxh) realizado em 61 mulheres submetidas ao tratamento de reprodução assistida. As pacientes foram divididas em dois grupos: um grupo foi submetido à indução da anestesia com 1mcg/kg de fentanil associada com 1,5mg/kg de propofol (Grupo FP, n=32), em comparação com ao grupo submetido à indução da anestesia utilizando 0,075mg/kg de midazolam associada com 0,25mcg/kg/min de remifentanil, e bloqueio paracervical com 3mL de lidocaína a 2% (Grupo MRBP, n=29). Foram avaliados os resultados reprodutivos, índice modificado de Aldrete e Kroulik, parâmetros hemodinâmicos e cortisol salivar.

Resultados:

Foi encontrado um número mais elevado de embriões formados no Grupo FP (p50=2 versus 1; p=0,025), taxa de gestação duas vezes mais elevada no Grupo FP (44,4% versus 22,2%; p=0,127), menos tempo para alcançar AK=10 no Grupo MRBP (p50=10 versus 2; p<0,001) e média mais baixa de parâmetros hemodinâmicos do Grupo MRBP (p<0,05).

Conclusão:

Ambas as anestesias (com fentanil e propofol, e com midazolam, remifentanil e bloqueio paracervical) ofereceram condições anestésicas satisfatórias na realização de procedimentos realizados em reprodução assistida, proporcionando conforto para o paciente e médico.

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

OBJECTIVES

Propofol is an agent commonly used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED), but it can cause respiratory depression and hypotension. The combination of ketamine-propofol (K-P) is an alternative that theoretically provides a reduction in adverse events compared to propofol. The primary objective of this review was to determine if K-P has a lower frequency of adverse respiratory events in patients undergoing PSA in the ED than propofol alone. Secondary objectives were to compare the proportion of overall adverse events, sedation time, procedure time, and recovery time between K-P and propofol.

METHODS

Electronic searches of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL were conducted and reference lists were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English comparing the use of K-P to propofol alone for PSA in the ED were included.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included with a combined total of 932 patients (K-P = 520, propofol = 412). Five RCTs reported the proportion of adverse respiratory events; the pooled estimate revealed fewer adverse respiratory events with K-P compared to propofol (29.0% vs. 35.4%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68 to 0.99). There was no significant difference with respect to the proportion of overall adverse events (38.8% vs. 42.5%; RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.04). Procedure time was similar when the groups were compared.

CONCLUSIONS

The premise of combining ketamine with propofol is based on the many synergies that theoretically exist between these two agents. In this study, K-P had a lower frequency of adverse respiratory events in patients undergoing PSA in the ED compared to propofol alone.

Propofol Versus Midazolam for Procedural Sedation of Anterior Shoulder Dislocation in Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background:

Anterior shoulder dislocation (ASD) is one of the most common reasons for referrals to emergency departments (ED). Usually, a combination of an intravenous narcotic and a benzodiazepine is used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in such cases.

Objectives:

This study compares the efficacy of two combinations to reduce ASD.

Patients and Methods:

The subjects in this clinical trial consisted of 48 patients with ASD who were randomly assigned to midazolam/fentanyl and propofol/fentanyl groups for PSA. The two groups were compared to the time interval between injection and induction of sedation (T1), duration of time from sedation to awakening (T2), the duration of time between sedation and full awareness to time, location and individuals (T3), and possible side effects.

Results:

Twenty-nine subjects (60.4%) were sedated with midazolam and 19 (39.6%) were sedated with propofol. During the procedure, one patient in the propofol group experienced apnea (P = 0.39) and three patients (one in the midazolam group and two in the propofol group) experienced bradycardia (P = 0.34). The mean T1, T2, and T3 were significantly shorter in the propofol group (P < 0.001).

Conclusions:

It seems that propofol and fentanyl can be used as a safe and fast combination for PSA in the reduction of ASD.

Is infusion of subhypnotic propofol as effective as dexamethasone in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting related to laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A randomized controlled trial

Background. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of common complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of subhypnotic (1 mg/kg/h) infusion of propofol with dexamethasone on PONV in patients undergoing LC. Methods. A total of 120 patients were included in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients were randomly assigned to 3 groups; patients of group dexamethasone (group D) were administrated 8 mg dexamethasone before induction of anesthesia, patients of group propofol (group P) were infused to subhypnotic (1 mg/kg/h) propofol during operation and patients of group control (group C) were applied infusion of 10% intralipid. The incidence of PONV and needs for rescue analgesic and antiemetic were recorded in the first 24 h postoperatively. Results. In the 0–24 h, the incidence of PONV was significantly lower in the group D and group P compared with the group C (37.5%, 40%, and 72.5%, resp.). There was no significant difference in the incidence of PONV and use of antiemetics and analgesic between group D and group P. Conclusion. We concluded that infusion of propofol 1 mg/kg/h is as effective as dexamethasone for the prevention of PONV during the first 24 hours after anesthesia in patients undergoing LC.

The evolution of spinal/epidural neostigmine in clinical application: Thoughts after two decades

Since the first clinical application of analgesia following spinal anticholinesterase by 1940's, several clinical double-blind studies have been conducted to date, where intrathecal doses of neostigmine in humans ranged from 750 to 1 μg, due to side-effects. Conversely, epidural neostigmine has been evaluated in proportionally higher doses and represents an alternative, but still deserves more investigation concerning both acute and chronic pain, as it seems devoid of important side-effects.

Effects of a novel method of anesthesia combining propofol and volatile anesthesia on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery

BACKGROUND

We investigated the effects of a novel method of anesthesia combining propofol and volatile anesthesia on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery.

METHODS

Patients were randomly divided into three groups: those maintained with sevoflurane (Group S, n=42), propofol (Group P, n=42), or combined propofol and sevoflurane (Group PS, n=42). We assessed complete response (no postoperative nausea and vomiting and no rescue antiemetic use), incidence of nausea and vomiting, nausea severity score, vomiting frequency, rescue antiemetic use, and postoperative pain at 2 and 24h after surgery.

RESULTS

The number of patients who exhibited a complete response was greater in Groups P and PS than in Group S at 0-2h (74%, 76% and 43%, respectively, p=0.001) and 0-24h (71%, 76% and 38%, respectively, p<0.0005). The incidence of nausea at 0-2h (Group S=57%, Group P=26% and Group PS=21%, p=0.001) and 0-24h (Group S=62%, Group P=29% and Group PS=21%, p<0.0005) was also significantly different among groups. However, there were no significant differences among groups in the incidence or frequency of vomiting or rescue antiemetic use at 0-24h.

CONCLUSION

Combined propofol and volatile anesthesia during laparoscopic gynecological surgery effectively decreases the incidence of postoperative nausea. We term this novel method of anesthesia "combined intravenous-volatile anesthesia (CIVA)".

Total intravenous anaesthesia with high-dose remifentanil does not aggravate postoperative nausea and vomiting and pain, compared with low-dose remifentanil: a double-blind and randomized trial

The study was designed to investigate postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in low- and high-dose remifentanil regimens for total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) in adult female patients with American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status classification I undergoing local breast excision. Propofol and remifentanil 5 ng·mL⁻¹ (L group) or 10 ng·mL⁻¹ (H group) were administered for anaesthesia induction and maintenance. Propofol was titrated within range of 0.1 μg·mL⁻¹ to maintain bispectral index (BIS) values between 40 and 60. Haemodynamic parameters during the intra- and postoperative periods and 24 h postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) and PONV were evaluated. Each group with 63 patients was analyzed. The H group showed higher use of remifentanil and lower use of propofol, with similar recovery time. Mean systemic arterial blood pressure (MBP), heart rate, and BIS did not differ significantly before and after endotracheal intubation in the H group. However, significant increases in MBP and BIS were apparent in the L group. Postoperative VAS, PONV incidence and scale, and Rhodes index did not differ significantly between the two groups. In conclusion, TIVA with high-dose remifentanil did not aggravate PONV with similar postoperative pain, compared with low-dose remifentanil. Furthermore, high-dose remifentanil showed more haemodynamic stability after endotracheal intubation. This trial is registered with KCT0000185.

Antiemetic effect of propofol administered at the end of surgery in laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) commonly occur after general anesthesia, especially in women. In this study, we evaluated the antiemetic efficacy of propofol administered at the end of surgery in highly susceptible patients undergoing a laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy.

Methods

A total of 107 women undergoing a laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy under general anesthesia were enrolled for this prospective, double-blind, randomized study. Fifteen minutes before the end of surgery, all patients received 50 µg fentanyl and 1 of following 3 doses; 0.5 mg/kg of propofol (propofol 0.5 group), 1 mg/kg of propofol (propofol 1.0 group), and normal saline (control group). All patients received intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). Emergence time, a visual analog scale for pain and nausea, duration of postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, and frequency of antiemetic use were recorded at 0-2, 2-24, and 24-48 hours postoperatively.

Results

The incidence of nausea significantly lower in the propofol 0.5 and propofol 1.0 groups than in the control group (12.1 vs 14.7 vs 40%). During the first postoperative 2 hours, antiemetics were less frequently administered in the propofol 0.5 and propofol 1.0 groups than in the control group (3.0 vs 5.9 vs 22.5%). Emergence time was slightly longer in the propofol 0.5 and propofol 1.0 groups than in the control group, but there was no significant difference in PACU stay time was observed between the 3 groups.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that low-dose propofol administration at the end of surgery may effectively reduce the incidence of PONV within 2 hours postoperatively in highly susceptible women undergoing a laparoscopiy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and receiving opioid-based PCA.

The comparison of feasibility and safety on fiberoptic guided intubation under conscious sedation with remifentanil and propofol

Background

Oropharyngeal manipulation is problematic when patients have a gag reflex. Sedation can suppress gag reflex, but can cause serious airway problems. We compared remifentanil (Group R) and propofol (Group P) in terms of cooperation and loss of gag reflex, while drugs were administered incrementally using target controlled infusion (TCI).

Methods

Fifty seven patients who required awake fiberoptic intubation were randomized to Group R or Group P. After measurement of baseline gag trigger point index (GTPI), TCI was set to effect-site concentration (Ce) of 1 ng/ml (Group R) or 1 µg/ml (Group P), then titrated by 0.5 increment until GTPI score reached 0. The incidence of drop-out and decreased cooperation, Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) and Ce at loss of GR, and complications were assessed.

Results

Seven patients were dropped out in Group P due to deep sedation and disobedient behavior, but none in Group R (P = 0.015). Gag reflex suppressed as RSS increased in both groups (P < 0.001), however, the incidence of elimination of gag reflex clustered at RSS 2 in Group R (P < 0.001), whereas it was evenly distributed in Group P (P = 0.20). The incidence of patients who were spontaneously roused (gag reflex elimination at RSS 1 and 2) were higher in Group R than in Group P (P = 0.002).

Conclusions

Deep sedation and impaired cooperation were observed only in Group P and spontaneously roused patients were higher in Group R, suggesting that remifentanil is more suitable for cooperative elimination of GR.

Comparison of recovery profile for propofol and sevoflurane anesthesia in cases of open cholecystectomy

Objective:

Sevoflurane and propofol are considered to be the agents of choice in surgeries of short duration due to their better recovery profile and few post-operative complications. This study was designed to compare the early recovery profile of sevoflurane and propofol anesthesia in patients undergoing open cholecystectomy.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 60 patients of either sex with American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1 and 2 scheduled for elective cholecystectomy were prospectively randomized into two groups. Group S (30 patients) were maintained with sevoflurane anesthesia (1-2%), while in Group P (30 patients) were maintained with propofol infusion (75-125 μg/kg/min) in both the groups the anesthetic concentration/dose was so adjusted to keep hemodynamic parameter (mean arterial pressure and heart rate) within 15% of their respective baselines values.

Results:

It was observed that there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) between there early recovery profile that includes spontaneous eye opening (7.5 ± 1.6 min for sevoflurane group and 6.9 ± 1.7 min for propofol group), following simple verbal command (9.2 ± 2.2 min for sevoflurane group and 8.9 ± 1.9 min for propofol group) and extubation time (10.7 ± 2.3 min for sevoflurane group and 10.3 ± 2.0 min for propofol group) but there was a significant difference (P < 0.05) in incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in both groups.

Conclusion:

Propofol is as good as sevoflurane for maintenance of anesthesia in surgeries like open cholecystectomy with an added advantage of lower incidence of PONV owing to its intrinsic antiemetic properties.

Anaesthetic agents for thoracic surgery: what's best?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pneumonectomy is still associated with a 5% 30-day mortality in a large series involving a variety of anaesthetic agents and techniques.

RECENT FINDINGS

As well as the immediate 'anaesthetic' complications of pain, nausea and vomiting and respiratory dysfunction, differences between anaesthetic agents have emerged in systemic inflammation, postoperative cognitive dysfunction, immune suppression and cell signalling after surgery.

SUMMARY

No one anaesthetic agent has emerged as best. There is a trade-off between initial success and long-term problems or vice versa.

Small dose of propofol combined with dexamethasone for postoperative vomiting in pediatric Moyamoya disease patients: a prospective, observer-blinded, randomized controlled study

Background

For effective postoperative antiemetic management in pediatric moyamoya disease patients receiving fentanyl based postoperative analgesia, a multimodal approach has been recommended. The uncertain efficacy of ondansetron for pediatric neurosurgical patients or the possible antiemetic effect of small dose of propofol motivated us to evaluate the preventive effect of a subhypnotic dose of propofol combined with dexamethasone on postoperative vomiting (POV), especially during immediate postoperative periods.

Methods

In a prospective observer-blind randomized controlled study, we compared dexamethasone 0.15 mg/kg alone (Group D) with dexamethasone combined with propofol of 0.5 mg/kg (Group DP) in 60 pediatric patients, aged 4-17 years, who underwent indirect bypass surgery and received fentanyl-based postoperative analgesia. Occurrence of vomiting and pain score (Wong-Baker facial score) and requirement of rescue analgesic and antiemetic were continually measured (0-2, 2-6, 6-12 and 12-24 postoperative hours). For statistical analysis, in addition to the Fisher's exact test, a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) and the linear mixed model (LMM) for repeated measures were used for vomiting and pain scores, respectively.

Results

There was no statistical significance of POV incidence, requirement of rescue analgesic and pain score between the two groups at any measured intervals. The incidence of POV was 53.3% during 24 hours in both groups, and was especially 6.7% and 13.3% (P = 0.671) during 0-2 hr and 16.7% and 23.3% (P = 0.748) during 2-6 hr in group D and group DP, respectively.

Conclusions

A small dose of propofol combined with dexamethasone appears ineffective to preventing POV in pediatric moyamoya patients receiving continuous fentanyl infusion.

An update on sperm retrieval techniques for azoospermic males

The use of non-ejaculated sperm coupled with intracytoplasmic sperm injection has become a globally established procedure for couples with azoospermic male partners who wish to have biological offspring. Surgical methods have been developed to retrieve spermatozoa from the epididymides and the testes of such patients. This article reviews the methods currently available for sperm acquisition in azoospermia, with a particular focus on the perioperative, anesthetic and technical aspects of these procedures. A critical analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of these sperm retrieval methods is provided, including the authors' methods of choice and anesthesia preferences.

A comparative study of non-lipid nanoemulsion of propofol with solutol and propofol emulsion with lecithin

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Some formulations have been proposed to reduce the adverse reactions due to the lipid emulsion containing soybean oil used as propofol carrier. This study for endoscopy sedation was aimed at evaluating and comparing the safety, effectiveness and adverse effects of the use of propofol nanoemulsion compared to propofol currently commercialized.

METHOD

In this prospective study, 150 patients were submitted to upper digestive endoscopy. These patients were allocated into two groups: the control group (CONT Group; n=75) and the nanoemulsion group (NE Group; n=75). HR, SBP, DBP, SpO(2) and BIS (which is considered to be appropriate between 65 and 75 during procedure) were monitored. Gender, age, weight, height, BMI, ASA physical status, times and doses were analyzed, as well as adverse effects (phlogistic signs and pain on injection, apnea, nausea/vomiting) and alterations in monitoring variables. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

The groups had similar results concerning anthropometric data and physical status. None of the patients developed apnea or presented phlogistic signs in the injection site. The incidence of pain on injection in the CONT Group was 82.7% and 53.3% in the NE Group (p<0.001), and the incidence of nausea and vomiting was 10.7% in the CONT Group and 2.7% in the NE Group (p>0.05). The times, induction doses and the SBP and DBP values at the end of examination and at the moment of discharge from the PACU were lower in the NE Group (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Lipid propofol and propofol nanoemulsion were equivalent concerning effectiveness, safety and adverse effects in the doses used. There was a lower incidence of pain on injection in the nanoemulsion formulation.

The Incidence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting after Thyroidectomy using Three Anaesthetic Techniques

The choice of anaesthetics can affect the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study compared the incidence of PONV in 177 female patients who underwent thyroidectomy, with anaesthesia induced and maintained using one of three regimens: (i) sevoflurane (thiopental sodium 4–5 mg/kg and sevoflurane 2.0–2.5 vol% in 50% air); (ii) total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA; propofol-remifentanil [target blood concentrations 2.5–3.5 μg/ml and 3.5–4.5 ng/ml, respectively]); or (iii) combined inhalation and intravenous anaesthesia (sevoflurane 1.0 vol% in 50% air plus propofol-remifentanil [target blood concentrations 1.5–2.5 μg/ml and 2.5–3.5 ng/ml, respectively]). The incidence and severity of PONV and the need for rescue antiemetics were assessed at 0–24 h postoperatively. Overall, the incidence of PONV was significantly lower in the TIVA and combined groups compared with the sevoflurane group (33.9%, 39.0% and 64.4%, respectively). In conclusion, the maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol-remifentanil or sevoflurane-propofol-remifentanil decreased the incidence of PONV compared with sevoflurane alone.

Management of postoperative nausea and vomiting in women scheduled for breast cancer surgery

Breast cancer surgery performed under general anesthesia is associated with a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A number of approaches are available for the management of PONV after breast cancer surgery. First, the risk factors related to patient characteristics, surgical procedure, anesthetic technique, and postoperative care can be reduced. More specifically, the use of propofol-based anesthesia can reduce the incidence of PONV. Secondly, a wide range of prophylactic antiemetics, including butyrophenones (droperidol), benzamides (metoclopramide), glucocorticoids (dexamethasone), clonidine, a small dose of propofol, and serotonin receptor (SR) antagonists (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, and palonosetron), are available for preventing PONV. Thirdly, antiemetic therapy combined with granisetron and droperidol or dexamethasone, and a multimodal management strategy which includes a package consisting of dexamethasone, total intravenous anesthesia with propofol, and ondansetron are highly effective in preventing PONV. Unfortunately, the use of glucocorticoids and SR antagonists for preventing PONV is not permitted in Japan according to national health insurance guidelines. Fourth, electro-acupoint stimulation at the P6 point (Nei-Guwan) as a non-pharmacologic therapy is as effective as ondansetron for preventing PONV. Knowledge of the risk factors for PONV, antiemetics, and a non-pharmacologic approach are needed for the management of PONV in women undergoing breast cancer surgery.

A blinded, randomized controlled trial to evaluate ketamine/propofol versus ketamine alone for procedural sedation in children

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The primary objective is to compare total sedation time when ketamine/propofol is used compared with ketamine alone for pediatric procedural sedation and analgesia. Secondary objectives include time to recovery, adverse events, efficacy, and satisfaction scores.

METHODS

Children (aged 2 to 17 years) requiring procedural sedation and analgesia for management of an isolated orthopedic extremity injury were randomized to receive either ketamine/propofol or ketamine. Physicians, nurses, research assistants, and patients were blinded. Ketamine/propofol patients received an initial intravenous bolus dose of ketamine 0.5 mg/kg and propofol 0.5 mg/kg, followed by propofol 0.5 mg/kg and saline solution placebo every 2 minutes, titrated to deep sedation. Ketamine patients received an initial intravenous bolus dose of ketamine 1.0 mg/kg and Intralipid placebo, followed by ketamine 0.25 mg/kg and Intralipid placebo every 2 minutes, as required.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-six patients (67 ketamine/propofol, 69 ketamine) completed the trial. Median total sedation time was shorter (P=0.04) with ketamine/propofol (13 minutes) than with ketamine (16 minutes) alone (Δ -3 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI] -5 to -2 minutes). Median recovery time was faster with ketamine/propofol (10 minutes) than with ketamine (12 minutes) alone (Δ -2 minutes; 95% CI -4 to -1 minute). There was less vomiting in the ketamine/propofol (2%) group compared with the ketamine (12%) group (Δ -10%; 95% CI -18% to -2%). All satisfaction scores were higher (P<0.05) with ketamine/propofol.

CONCLUSION

When compared with ketamine alone for pediatric orthopedic reductions, the combination of ketamine and propofol produced slightly faster recoveries while also demonstrating less vomiting, higher satisfaction scores, and similar efficacy and airway complications.