Efficacy and safety of flurbiprofen axetil in the prevention of pain on propofol injection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Efficacy and Safety of Ketamine Compared with Placebo and Other Medications for Preventing Propofol Injection Pain in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ketamine in preventing propofol injection pain (PIP).

Patients and Methods

The electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception until 2 August 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing ketamine with placebo or other interventions to alleviate PIP in adults were included. Fixed-effects or random-effects models were used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on the heterogeneity of the studies included.

Results

Thirteen RCTs involving 2105 patients were included. In terms of reducing the incidence of PIP, ketamine is more effective than placebo (RR = 0.43, 95% CI = [0.34, 0.55], P < 0.00001), lidocaine (RR = 0.70, 95% CI = [0.55, 0.90], P = 0.005), dexmedetomidine (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = [0.40, 0.66], P < 0.00001), and thiopental (RR = 0.25, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.83], P = 0.02). In reducing the incidence of severe PIP, ketamine is superior to placebo (RR = 0.12, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.19], P < 0.00001), and lidocaine (RR = 0.34, 95% CI = [0.21, 0.56], P < 0.0001), except dexmedetomidine (RR = 0.20, 95% CI = [0.04, 1.13], P = 0.07), and thiopental (RR = 0.33, 95% CI = [0.04, 3.10], P = 0.33). Compared with mixed injection, separate injection of ketamine and propofol showed no significant difference in the incidence of PIP (RR = 0.96, 95% CI = [0.31, 3.00], P = 0.95) and severe PIP (RR = 1.19, 95% CI = [0.07, 21.29], P = 0.90). Based solely on the reports from the studies included, subanesthetic doses of ketamine are generally safe in preventing PIP.

Conclusion

A subanesthetic dose of ketamine can effectively and safely reduce the incidence of PIP and severe PIP in adults, and is more effective than lidocaine, dexmedetomidine, and thiopental.

Registration

PROSPERO CRD42023455093.

Efficacy of pretreatment with remimazolam on prevention of propofol-induced injection pain in patients undergoing gastroscopy

To evaluate the efficacy of remimazolam pretreatment in preventing propofol-induced injection pain (PIP) in patients undergoing gastroscopy. One hundred and forty patients (ASA I-II, aged 18-65 years, BMI 18-28 kg/m2) who were to undergo gastroscopy were randomized into either a saline group (group S) or a remimazolam group (group R) (n = 70 for each) on a computer-generated random number basis. The patients in group S received normal saline (0.1 ml/kg) and those in group R were administered remimazolam (0.1 mg/kg) via intravenous infusion for 60 s. 30 s after the injection of normal saline or remimazolam, patients received intravenously propofol (0.5 ml/s) until loss of consciousness. A different anesthesiologist who was unaware of the pretreatment was responsible for maintaining the outcome. The primary endpoint of our study was the incidence of PIP, which was measured using a 4-point scale. Secondary endpoints include the intensity of PIP, vital signs, characteristics of surgery and recovery, and adverse events. The incidence of PIP was significantly lower in group R than in group S (13 vs 51%, p < 0.001), and a lower percentage of patients presented with moderate PIP (3 vs 20%, p < 0.001). Moreover, lower consumption of propofol, shorter recovery time, and greater patient satisfaction were observed in group R than in group S. Pretreatment with remimazolam can effectively reduce the incidence and intensity of PIP in gastroscopy and shorten the recovery time without severe adverse effects.Clinical Trials Registration: Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (identifier: ChiCTR2200063793). Registry time: 16/09/2022. Registry name: Efficacy of Pre-Treatment with Remimazolam on Prevention of Propofol-Induced Injection Pain in Patients Undergoing Gastroscopy. The date of patient enrollment began from 2022-9-17 to 2022-10-10. The link to the registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=176004 .

Opioid-Sparing Effects of Flurbiprofen Axetil as an Adjuvant to Ropivacaine in Pre-Emptive Scalp Infiltration for Post-Craniotomy Pain: Study Protocol for a Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Pain after craniotomy remains a poorly controlled problem that is mainly caused by the inflammatory reaction at the incision site. Nowadays, systemic opioids use, as first-line analgesics, is often limited because of adverse effects. Flurbiprofen axetil (FA) is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug merged into emulsified lipid microspheres, which represent a strong affinity to inflammatory lesions. Local administration of flurbiprofen into a surgical wound has induced enhanced analgesic efficacy and few systemic or local adverse effects after oral surgery. However, the impact of local FA, as a non-opioid pharmacologic alternative, remains elusive on postoperative pain in craniotomy. In this study, we presume that pre-emptive infiltration of scalp with FA as an adjuvant to ropivacaine can lead to less sufentanil consumption postoperatively in patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) compared with ropivacaine alone.

Methods/Design

We design a multicenter, randomized controlled study that will enroll 216 subjects who are planned to receive supratentorial craniotomy. Patients will receive pre-emptive infiltration of scalp either with 50 mg FA and 0.5% ropivacaine, or with 0.5% ropivacaine alone. Primary outcome is total consumption of sufentanil with PCIA device at 48 h postoperatively.

Discussion

This is the first study attempting to explore the analgesic and safety profile of local FA as an adjuvant to ropivacaine for incisional pain in patients undergoing craniotomy. It will provide additional insights into the opioid-sparing analgesia pathways by local administration of NSAIDs for neurosurgery.

The cost-effectiveness analysis of analgesic treatment options for postoperative pain following laparotomy surgeries

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain control remains unsatisfactory. Patients who underwent laparotomy may have moderate to severe acute postoperative pain. Comparative cost-effectiveness of the following postoperative pain treatment options remains to be investigated: patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) with flurbiprofen therapy, flurbiprofen monotherapy, parecoxib monotherapy, or dezocine monotherapy.

AIM

To provide a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of four analgesic regimens for patients with postoperative pain following laparotomy surgeries.

METHOD

Patients with postoperative pain following laparotomy were retrospectively reviewed from a postoperative pain management database created by pharmacists, and divided into four groups according to analgesic regimens. The clinical outcomes were visual analogue scale (VAS) scores and the incidence of adverse drug events. The CEA was conducted by developing a decision tree model based on retrospective data. The maximum incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the four regimens was used as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) value. Meanwhile, the uncertainty of the base-case results was examined by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 677 patients were included in the retrospective study. PCIA with flurbiprofen therapy had the lowest VAS scores at 6, 24, 48 h postoperatively. Based on the base-case results, PCIA plus flurbiprofen was the optimal regimen with the highest effectiveness, while flurbiprofen monotherapy had the lowest cost. PCIA plus flurbiprofen was the optimal regimen even with a WTP value of 0 dollars.

CONCLUSION

PCIA plus flurbiprofen therapy was the optimal regimen. Parecoxib monotherapy was more cost-effective than flurbiprofen monotherapy. The findings may guide the selection of postoperative pain management.

Retracted randomized controlled trials were cited and not corrected in systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether and when the correction is done in Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) when included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been retracted.

METHODS

In this meta-epidemiological study, we included SRs and CPGs citing the retracted RCTs from the Retraction Watch Database. We investigated how often the retracted RCTs were cited in SRs and CPGs. We also investigated whether and when such SRs and CPGs corrected themselves.

RESULTS

We identified 587 articles (525 SRs and 62 CPGs) citing retracted RCTs. Among the 587 articles, 252 (43%) were published after retraction, and 335 (57%) were published before retraction. Among 127 articles published citing already retracted RCTs in their evidence synthesis without caution, none corrected themselves after publication. Of 335 articles published before retraction, 239 included RCTs that were later retracted in their evidence synthesis. Among them, only 5% of SRs (9/196) and 5% of CPGs (2/43) corrected or retracted their results.

CONCLUSION

Many SRs and CPGs included already or later retracted RCTs without caution. Most of them were never corrected. The scientific community, including publishers and researchers, should make systematic and concerted efforts to remove the impact of retracted RCTs.

Evaluation of bioequivalence of two flurbiprofen axetil injections: A randomized, open-label, double-cycle, and crossover study

Flurbiprofen is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. We evaluated the bioequivalence of a new formulation of flurbiprofen axetil for injection and the reference drug ROPION (another kind of flurbiprofen axetil injection marketed for use) in healthy Chinese subjects. This is a single-centre, randomized, open-label, single-dose, two period crossover bioequivalence study. Each subject received a single intravenous injection at the dose of 50 mg under fasting. The drug was dissolved in 100 mL normal saline, and the injection was completed in 15 minutes. There was a 7-day washout period between the two administrations. The plasma concentrations of flurbiprofen were measured by LC-MS/MS, and descriptive statistics were used to describe the safety outcomes including adverse events (AEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Twenty-four subjects were enrolled in this study. Mean values of primary PK parameters (Tmax , Cmax , AUC0-t , AUC0-∞ , λz , T1/2 ) were similar (P > 0.05). Tmax for both products is 0.3 hours. The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for peak concentration Cmax ranged between 96.87% and 100.42%, and the area under curve AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ ranged between 99.09% and 104.29% and 98.97% and 104.29%, respectively. The 90% CIs for the geometric means and ratios of primary PK endpoints of flurbiprofen axetil injection to reference drug ranged between 98.97% and 104.29%. The adverse event rate of the test product was 8.3% and no serious adverse events (SAE) occurred in this clinical study. We concluded that the test product and the reference drug were bioequivalent and the safety was high in healthy Chinese subjects.

Effect of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia combined with flurbiprofen axetil and dezocine on postoperative analgesia for lobectomy (EPIC-FAD): a trial protocol

BACKGROUND

The optimal analgesic strategy for surgical pain after lobectomy remains undefined. To compare the combination of flurbiprofen axetil and dezocine with flurbiprofen axetil alone and dezocine alone, in post-lobectomy patients.

METHODS

A single-center, parallel-design double-blind superiority trial, with 5 groups (1:1:1:1:1 ratio) with different combinations of flurbiprofen and dezocine. Patients scheduled for lobectomy will be recruited. The primary outcome is total sufentanil use in patient-controlled intravenous analgesia within the first 24 postoperative hours. Secondary outcomes include pain numeric rating scales at 6th, 12th, 24th, 48th, and 72th postoperative hours, and on the 1st, 3rd, and 6th postoperative months at rest and during coughing, adverse effects from experimental drug treatment, sufentanil use at other time points, analgesia cost, time to chest tube removal, length of hospital stay, time to pass first flatus, and serum level of cytokines. Doctors, patients, and nurses are blinded, and only the manager is unblinded. Analysis is intention-to-treat. Statistical analysis is pre-specified. Statistical comparison of the treatment groups includes one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's post hoc test.

DISCUSSION

Trial did not begin to recruit. Participant recruitment start date is planned to be June 1, 2020. Approximate recruitment end date is May 31, 2021. If successful, the trial may shed light on the use of certain analgesic combinations in post-lobectomy pain control.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1800018563 . Registered on September 25, 2018.

Clinical therapeutic effects of lidocaine combination with flurbiprofen axetil for reducing propofol-induced pain in adults: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pain on injection is a well-recognized adverse event of propofol administration for the stimulation of general anesthesia. Pre-treatment with lidocaine or flurbiprofen axetil has proven to be effectual in the reduction propofol-induced pain in adults. Nonetheless, only few studies have evaluated the clinical therapeutic effects of lidocaine combination with flurbiprofen axetil to prevent pain on injection of propofol. The current study aims to evaluate the clinical therapeutic effects of lidocaine combination with flurbiprofen axetil to reduce pain on injection of propofol among adult patients.

METHODS

The literature search will be conducted from their inception to November 2020 from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases without date or geographical restrictions. However, language will be restricted to publications in English and Chinese. Two authors will independently screen abstracts and titles of all papers to determine whether to include or exclude them. The authors will also study characteristic and outcomes of data extraction and carry out risk of bias assessment. We plan to use either a fixed-effects or random-effects model to estimate the risk ratios (RR) or mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) together with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

This study will provide high-quality evidence for the clinical therapeutic effects of lidocaine combination with flurbiprofen axetil for reducing pain on injection of propofol in adult patients.

CONCLUSION

This study will summarize current evidence for the management of pain on injection of propofol in adult patients and provide guidance for both intervention and future research.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Since no data collection will be involved, there is no need for an ethics approval.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

November 17, 2020.osf.io/72tpj/. (https://osf.io/72tpj/).

[Effect of pre-administered flurbiprofen axetil on the EC50 of propofol during anesthesia in unstimulated patients: a randomized clinical trial]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Preoperative use of flurbiprofen axetil (FA) is extensively adopted to modulate the effects of analgesia. However, the relationship between FA and sedation agents remains unclear. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effects of different doses of FA on the median Effective Concentration (EC50) of propofol.

METHODS

Ninety-six patients (ASA I or II, aged 18-65 years) were randomly assigned into one of four groups in a 1:1:1:1 ratio. Group A (control group) received 10 mL of Intralipid, and groups B, C and D received 0.5 mg.kg^-1, 0.75 mg.kg^-1 and 1 mg.kg^-1 of FA, respectively, 10 minutes before induction. The depth of anesthesia was measured by the Bispectral Index (BIS). The "up-and-down" method was used to calculate the EC50 of propofol. During the equilibration period, if BIS ≤ 50 (or BIS > 50), the next patient would receive a 0.5 μg.mL^-1-lower (or-higher) propofol Target-Controlled Infusion (TCI) concentration. The hemodynamic data were recorded at baseline, 10 minutes after FA administration, after induction, after intubation, and 15 minutes after intubation.

RESULTS

The EC50 of propofol was lower in Group C (2.32 μg.mL^-1, 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] 1.85-2.75) and D (2.39 μg.mL^-1, 95% CI 1.91-2.67) than in Group A (2.96 μg.mL^-1, 95% CI 2.55-3.33) (p = 0.023, p = 0.048, respectively). There were no significant differences in the EC50 between Group B (2.53 μg.mL^-1, 95% CI 2.33-2.71) and Group A (p ˃ 0.05). There were no significant differences in Heart Rate (HR) among groups A, B and C. The HR was significantly lower in Group D than in Group A after intubation (66 ± 6 vs. 80 ± 10 bpm, p < 0.01) and 15 minutes after intubation (61 ± 4 vs. 70 ± 8 bpm, p < 0.01). There were no significant differences among the four groups in Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) at any time point. The MAP of the four groups was significantly lower after induction, after intubation, and 15 minutes after intubation than at baseline (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

High-dose FA (0.75 mg.kg^-1 or 1 mg.kg^-1) reduces the EC50 of propofol, and 1 mg.kg^-1 FA reduces the HR for adequate anesthesia in unstimulated patients. Although this result should be investigated in cases of surgical stimulation, we suggest that FA pre-administration may reduce the propofol requirement when the depth of anesthesia is measured by BIS.

The efficacy of Antipyretic Analgesics administration intravenously for Preventing Rocuronium-Associated Pain/Withdrawal Response: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Rocuronium-associated injection pain/withdrawal response (RAIPWR) was non-ideal but occurred frequently when injection intravenously during anesthesia induction. Many studies had reported that pretreating with antipyretic analgesics (AAs) could reduce the occurrence of RAIPWR, but there was no consensus yet. Therefore, this meta-analysis was designed to systematically evaluate the benefits of AAs on RAIPWR in patients.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Ovid, EMbase, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang Data were searched by January 1st 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) applying AAs to alleviate RAIPWR in patients who underwent elective surgery under general anesthesia. Two investigators assessed quality of RCTs and extracted data respectively and the meta-analysis was carried on Revman 5.3 software. Moreover, we compared AAs in pros and cons directly with lidocaine, the most reported medicine to prevent RAIPWR.

Results

Data were analyzed from 9 RCTs totaling 819 patients. The results of Meta-analysis showed that compared to the control group, pretreating with AAs could prevent the total occurrence of RAIPWR [Risk ratio (RR), 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42 to 0.66; P < 0.0001], and took effect on moderate (RR, 0.56; 95%CI, 0.43 to 0.73; P < 0.0001) and severe RAIPWR (RR = 0.14; 95%CI, 0.08 to 0.24; P < 0.00001). When compared to lidocaine, the preventive effect was not so excellent as the latter but injection pain induced by prophylactic occurred less.

Conclusion

The currently available evidence suggested that pretreating with AAs intravenously could alleviate RAIPWR.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42019129776.

Intravenous Lidocaine Alleviates the Pain of Propofol Injection by Local Anesthetic and Central Analgesic Effects

Objective

Lidocaine alleviates propofol injection pain. However, whether lidocaine works through a local anesthetic effect at the site of intravenous injection or through a systemic effect on the central nervous system remains unknown. This study aimed to determine the pain-alleviating mechanism of lidocaine.

Design

A randomized controlled study.

Setting

A gastroscopy facility.

Methods

The study was divided into two parts. Part 1 involved 717 patients who were randomly assigned into five groups. Groups PR, RL20, and RL40 received normal saline or saline containing 20 or 40 mg of lidocaine, injected via the vein on the right hand. Groups LL20 and LL40 received 20 or 40 mg of lidocaine, injected via the vein on the left hand. Part 2 involved 378 patients who were randomly assigned into five groups. Groups RL40, RL1.2, and RL1.5 received 40 mg, 1.2 mg/kg, and 1.5 mg/kg of lidocaine, injected via the vein on the right hand. Groups LL1.2 and LL1.5 received 1.2 or 1.5 mg/kg of lidocaine, injected via the vein on the left hand. All received 2 mg/kg of propofol via the vein on the right hand two minutes later. Injection pain and patient satisfaction were recorded.

Results

The incidence of pain of group RL40 was lower than that of group PR. The incidence of pain of group LL1.2 was higher than that of other groups.

Conclusions

A dosage of 40 mg lidocaine is an appropriate dosage to alleviate propofol injection pain within the same vein. Lidocaine reduces propofol injection pain through both a local anesthetic effect and a central analgesic effect when the dosage reaches 1.5 mg/kg.

Population pharmacokinetic modeling of flurbiprofen, the active metabolite of flurbiprofen axetil, in Chinese patients with postoperative pain

Background

Flurbiprofen axetil, a lipid-microsphere-carrier targeting preparation, is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug indicated for the treatment of postoperative pain.

Aim

The aim of the study was to develop a population pharmacokinetic (PPK) model of flurbiprofen, the active metabolite of flurbiprofen axetil, and optimize the treatment of flurbiprofen axetil in Chinese patients.

Methods

A total of 144 therapeutic drug-monitoring samples of flurbiprofen axetil from 72 patients were included in this study. The pharmacologically active metabolite flurbiprofen was used as the analytical target and determined 5–45 minutes after intravenous administration. The PPK model for flurbiprofen was developed using Phoenix NLME 1.3 with a nonlinear mixed-effect model. Bootstrap and visual predictive checks were used simultaneously to validate the final PPK model. Potential covariates of age, sex, body weight, height, and body-mass index were tested for PK parameters.

Results

The PPK model of flurbiprofen was explained by a one-compartment model with first-order elimination, in which a hypothetical-effect compartment was linked to a PK compartment. Population mean values of PK parameters estimated in the final model were θ_Ke=0.0015/h, θ_Vd=7.91 L, and θ_CL=1.55 L/h. Analysis of covariates showed that height and weight influenced the K_e of flurbiprofen. The final model was proved to be robust.

Conclusion

The final PPK model was demonstrated to be appropriate and effective, and can be used to assess the PK parameters of flurbiprofen in Chinese patients with postoperative pain.

Effects of flurbiprofen on serum level of interleukin-6, prostacyclin and corticosteroid A2 in patients with bone metastases of cancer

The present study aimed to investigate the effects of flurbiprofen on serum level of interleukin-6 (IL-6), prostacyclin (PGI2) and corticosteroid A2 (TXA2) in patients with bone metastases of cancer. A total of 210 patients with bone metastasis of cancer were randomly divided into two groups: Flurbiprofen axetil analgesia group (group A) and dezocine analgesia group (group B), 105 cases in each group. The analgesic effect was evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS) scoring system at 1, 12, 24 and 48 h after treatment. Serum levels of IL-6, PGI2 and TXA2 at 12 and 24 h after treatment were detected using double-antibody sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. No significant differences in VAS scores were found between the two groups at 1, 12, 24 and 48 h after treatment, and no gastrointestinal adverse events and abnormal bleeding were observed. No significant differences in the serum levels of IL-6 were found between the two groups at 12 and 24 h after treatment. Significantly lower serum levels of TXA2 and PGI2 were found in group A compared to group B at 12 and 24 h after treatment (P<0.05). Serum level of PGI2 was positively correlated with serum level of TXA2 (r=0.7212, P<0.05) and VAS score (r=0.7159, P<0.05). Serum level of IL-6 was positively correlated with VAS score (r=0.7997, P<0.05). The results show that flurbiprofen axetil can effectively relieve pain in patients with bone metastases of cancer, can inhibit platelet activation, adhesion and aggregation, and reduce the formation of deep vein thrombosis, and can inhibit stress response and inflammatory response in the body.

Preoperative flurbiprofen axetil administration for acute postoperative pain: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have been shown to effectively decrease postoperative pain and reduce opioid requirements. Flurbiprofen axetil is an injectable non-selective cyclooxygenase inhibitor that has a high affinity for inflammatory tissues to achieve targeted drug therapy and prolonged duration of action. This meta-analysis examined the use of preoperative flurbiprofen axetil and its impact on postoperative analgesia.

METHODS

An electronic literature search of the Library of PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and EMBASE databases was conducted in Feb 2016. Searches were limited to randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was pain scores. The secondary outcomes included cumulative postoperative opioid consumption and opioid-related adverse effects.

RESULTS

A total of nine RCT studies involving 457 patients were included in this study. Compared to patients without perioperative flurbiprofen axetil, patients treated with preoperative flurbiprofen axetil had lower pain scores at 2 h (SMD -1.00; 95% CI -1.57 to -0.43, P = 0.0006), 6 h (SMD -1.22; 95% CI -2.01 to -0.43; P = 0.002), 12 h (SMD -1.19; 95% CI -2.10 to -0.28; P = 0.01), and 24 h (SMD -0.79; 95% CI -1.31 to -0.27; P = 0.003) following surgery. Preoperative flurbiprofen axetil had no significant effect on postoperative opioid consumption (SMD -13.11; 95% CI -34.56 to 8.33; P = 0.23). There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to adverse effects. Compared to patients with postoperative flurbiprofen axetil, however, preoperative flurbiprofen axetil resulted in decreased pain score only at 2 h after operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative use of flurbiprofen axetil will result in significantly lower postoperative pain scores, but no difference in nausea, vomiting, and opioid consumption compared to those who did not receive flurbiprofen axetil. However, more homogeneous and well-designed clinical studies are necessary to determine whether preoperative flurbiprofen axetil administration has more efficacy than that given at the end of surgery.

Do Different Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors Impair Rotator Cuff Healing in a Rabbit Model?

Background:

The effect of selective and non-selective cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors on tendon healing was variable. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the influence of non-selective COX inhibitor, ibuprofen and flurbiprofen axetil and selective COX-2 inhibitor, celecoxib on the tendon healing process in a rabbit model.

Methods:

Ninety-six New Zealand rabbits were used as rotator cuff repair models. After surgery, they were divided randomly into four groups: Ibuprofen (10 mg·kg⁻¹·d⁻¹), celecoxib (8 mg·kg⁻¹·d⁻¹), flurbiprofen axetil (2 mg·kg⁻¹·d⁻¹), and control group (blank group). All drugs were provided for 7 days. Rabbits in each group were sacrificed at 3, 6, and 12 weeks after tendon repair. Tendon biomechanical load failure tests were performed. The percentage of type I collagen on the bone tendon insertion was calculated by Picric acid Sirius red staining and image analysis. All data were compared among the four groups at the same time point. All data in each group were also compared across the different time points. Qualitative histological evaluation of the bone tendon insertion was also performed among groups.

Results:

The load to failure increased significantly with time in each group. There were significantly lower failure loads in the celecoxib group than in the control group at 3 weeks (0.533 vs. 0.700, P = 0.002), 6 weeks (0.607 vs. 0.763, P = 0.01), and 12 weeks (0.660 vs. 0.803, P = 0.002), and significantly lower percentage of type I collagen at 3 weeks (11.5% vs. 27.6%, P = 0.001), 6 weeks (40.5% vs. 66.3%, P = 0.005), and 12 weeks (59.5% vs. 86.3%, P = 0.001). Flurbiprofen axetil showed significant differences at 3 weeks (failure load: 0.600 vs. 0.700, P = 0.024; percentage of type I collagen: 15.6% vs. 27.6%, P = 0.001), but no significant differences at 6 and 12 weeks comparing with control group, whereas the ibuprofen groups did not show any significant difference at each time point.

Conclusions:

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can delay tendon healing in the early stage after rotator cuff repair. Compared with nonselective COX inhibitors, selective COX-2 inhibitors significantly impact tendon healing.

Flurbiprofen Axetil Enhances Analgesic Effects of Sufentanil and Attenuates Postoperative Emergence Agitation and Systemic Proinflammation in Patients Undergoing Tangential Excision Surgery

Objective. Our present study tested whether flurbiprofen axetil could reduce perioperative sufentanil consumption and provide postoperative analgesia with decrease in emergency agitation and systemic proinflammatory cytokines release. Methods. Ninety patients undergoing tangential excision surgery were randomly assigned to three groups: (1) preoperative dose of 100 mg flurbiprofen axetil and a postoperative dose of 2 μg/kg sufentanil and 10 mL placebo by patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump, (2) preoperative dose of 100 mg flurbiprofen axetil and a postoperative dose of 2 μg/kg sufentanil and 100 mg flurbiprofen axetil by PCA pump, and (3) 10 mL placebo and a postoperative dose of 2 μg/kg sufentanil and 10 mL placebo by PCA pump. Results. Preoperative administration of flurbiprofen axetil decreased postoperative tramadol consumption and the visual analog scale at 4, 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery, which were further decreased by postoperative administration of flurbiprofen axetil. Furthermore, flurbiprofen axetil attenuated emergency agitation score and Ramsay score at 0, 5, and 10 min after extubation and reduced the TNF-α and interleukin- (IL-) 6 levels at 24 and 48 h after the operation. Conclusion. Flurbiprofen axetil enhances analgesic effects of sufentanil and attenuates emergence agitation and systemic proinflammation in patients undergoing tangential excision surgery.

Etomidate-remifentanil is more suitable for monitored anesthesia care during gastroscopy in older patients than propofol-remifentanil

Background

This prospective and randomized study was designed to compare safety, potential complications, and patient and examiner satisfaction of 2 anesthetic combinations – etomidate-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil – in elderly patients undergoing diagnostic gastroscopy.

Material/Methods

A group of 720 patients, aged 60–80 years, scheduled for diagnostic gastroscopy under sedation were prospectively randomized. After 0.4–0.6 μg kg⁻¹ of remifentanil was infused, etomidate or propofol was administered. Patients in the etomidate group received doses of etomidate at 0.1–0.15 mg kg⁻¹ followed by 4–6 mg. Patients in the propofol group received doses of propofol at 1–2 mg kg⁻¹ followed by 20–40 mg. Physiological indexes were evaluated for the 715 of 720 patients that completed the treatment. The onset time, duration time, and discharge time were recorded. Physicians, anesthetists, and patients were surveyed to assess their satisfaction.

Results

Systolic pressure and diastolic pressure decreased significantly after the procedure in the propofol group (P<0.001). The average heart rate was significantly lower in the propofol group (P<0.05). No periods of desaturation (SpO₂ <95%) were observed in either group. The onset time was earlier in the etomidate group (P=0.00). All adverse events, with the exception of myoclonus, were greater in the propofol group, and physician and patient satisfaction in both groups was similar.

Conclusions

Etomidate-remifentanil administration for sedation and analgesia during gastroscopy resulted in more stable hemodynamic responses and less adverse events in older patients.