Efficacy and Safety of HSK3486 for Anesthesia/Sedation in Patients Undergoing Fiberoptic Bronchoscopy: A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Propofol-Controlled, Randomized, Phase 3 Study

BACKGROUND

Fiberoptic bronchoscopy is a complex procedure with the need for sufficient patient anesthesia/sedation while maintaining safety. This trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of HSK3486 during fiberoptic bronchoscopy.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, non-inferiority, parallel-group phase 3 trial was conducted in patients who underwent fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Patients randomly received HSK3486 0.4 mg/kg (N = 134) or propofol 2.0 mg/kg (N = 133). The primary efficacy endpoint was the successful rate of fiberoptic bronchoscopy, and secondary efficacy endpoints included successful induction of anesthesia/sedation, duration, time to being fully alert, and time to patient discharge. Safety assessments and drug concentrations were also measured.

RESULTS

A total of 267 patients completed fiberoptic bronchoscopy, with a success rate of 100% and a 95% confidence interval of - 2.8 to 2.8% for the difference between the groups, which met the predesigned criteria of > - 8%, confirming the non-inferiority of anesthesia/sedation produced by HSK3486 compared to propofol. Among the secondary efficacy endpoints, only time to full alertness (median 8.50 vs. 6.00 min, P = 0.012) and time to discharge (median 13.00 vs. 9.87 min, P = 0.002) were slightly longer in the HSK3486 group. The incidence of adverse events was significant lower in the HSK3486 group (52.6 vs. 76.5%, P < 0.001) mainly because of less pain on injection (4.4 vs. 39.4%, P < 0.001) compared to the propofol group. HSK3486 had a similar terminal elimination half-life as propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

HSK3486 exhibited non-inferiority anesthesia/sedation compared to propofol in patients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy, and had a good safety profile with a lower incidence of pain on injection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04111159, registered on 1 October 2019.

Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam in Endoscopic Sedation-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in clinical endoscopic procedure sedation.

Methods: The authors searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published until January 2, 2021, that reported remimazolam sedation for endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency and the incidence of adverse events were assessed as outcomes. Cochrane Review Manager Software 5.3 was used to perform the statistical analyses.

Results: Seven relevant studies involving a total of 1,996 patients were identified. We conducted a meta-analysis of the different controls used in the studies, that is, the placebo, midazolam, and propofol. The results demonstrated that remimazolam had a strong sedative effect, and its sedative efficiency was significantly higher than that of placebo [OR = 0.01, 95% CI: (0.00, 0.10), I² = 30%, p <0.00001]. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam [OR = 0.12, 95% CI: (0.08, 0.21), I² = 0%, p < 0.00001] but lesser than that of propofol [OR = 12.22, 95% CI: (1.58, 94.47), I² = 0%, p = 0.02]. Regarding the adverse events, remimazolam is associated with a lower incidence of hypotension than placebo and midazolam. Similarly, remimazolam was associated with a lower incidence of hypotension and hypoxemia than propofol.

Conclusions: Remimazolam is a safe and effective sedative for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam but slightly lower than that of propofol. However, the respiration and circulation inhibitory effects of remimazolam were weaker than those of midazolam and propofol.

Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Desaturation is a common complication of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA). Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a commonly used sedative in intensive care, is associated with less respiratory depression compared with other sedatives.

OBJECTIVE

We compared DEX with midazolam (MDZ) when used as a sedative during EBUS-TBNA.

DESIGN

A randomised, parallel, double-blinded trial.

SETTING

A university-affiliated teaching hospital between June 2014 and July 2015.

PATIENTS

A total of 102 patients who underwent EBUS-TBNA were randomly allocated to two groups (48 DEX group, 54 MDZ group).

INTERVENTIONS

DEX group received 0.25 to 0.75 μg kg-1 h-1 (start with 0.5 μg kg-1 h-1, modulated in three steps from 0.25 to 0.75 μg kg-1 h-1) of DEX after a loading dose of 0.25 μg kg-1 h-1 for 10 min to maintain a Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) of 3 to 5. If the patient was agitated, 1 mg of MDZ bolus was used as a rescue drug. Patients in the MDZ group initially received 0.05 mg kg-1 of MDZ as a bolus. For maintenance and rescue, 1 mg of MDZ bolus was used.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the presence of oxygen desaturation. Secondary outcomes were level of sedation (Ramsay Sedation Scale score), cough score, sedation and procedure satisfaction score.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics of the patients, duration of EBUS-TBNA procedures and the use of rescue MDZ were not different between the groups. There was no significant difference in desaturation events between the DEX and MDZ groups (56.3 and 68.5%, respectively; P = 0.20). The level of sedation and the sedation satisfaction scores were similar between the two groups. However, cough score was significantly lower in the DEX group (41.9 vs. 53.4; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The use of DEX during EBUS-TBNA was not superior to MDZ in terms of oxygen desaturation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02157818.

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam in procedural sedation and analgesia: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a newly developed benzodiazepine as an alternative of conventional sedatives in the procedure of anesthesia. For the purpose of evaluating the efficacy and safety of remimazolam sedation during an endoscopy, we will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared remimazolam with midazolam and/or placebo.

METHODS

We will search PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to December 2019 for randomized controlled trials that investigated efficacy and safety of remimazolam during an endoscopy. The job will be performed without language restriction. Experimental groups will include the interventions of remimazolam, while control groups will involve midazolam, placebo, or no controls. The primary outcome will be the onset time, followed by the secondary outcomes of the recovery time, the incidence of hypotension, the incidence of hypoxia and the incidence of bradycardia. Relative ratio or standardized mean difference will be used to measure the effect size of remimazolam. We will use I statistics to assess the between-study heterogeneity in each meta-analysis, Eager's test to detect publication bias.

RESULTS

The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

There is no need for ethical approval because all data used in this meta-analysis have been published. In addition, all data will be analyzed anonymously during the review process.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020170745.

The preclinical pharmacological study on HX0969W, a novel water-soluble pro-drug of propofol, in rats

Background

Propofol is the most widely used intravenous sedative-hypnotic anesthetic in clinical practice. However, many serious side effects have been related to its lipid emulsion formulation. The pro-drug design approach was used to develop the water-soluble propofol, which could effectively resolve the limitations associated with the lipid emulsion formulation. Thus, the new water-soluble pro-drug of propofol, HX0969W, was designed and synthesized. The objective of this study was to conduct preclinical pharmacological studies on this novel water-soluble pro-drug of propofol.

Methods

The assessment of the loss of the righting reflex (LoRR) was used for the pharmacodynamic study, and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and high-performance liquid chromatography- fluorescence were used for the pharmacokinetic study.

Results

The potency of HX0969W (ED₅₀ [95% CI], 46.49 [43.89–49.29] mg/kg) was similar to that of fospropofol disodium (43.66 [43.57–43.75] mg/kg), but was lower than that of propofol (4.82 [4.8–14.82] mg/kg). Administered with a dose of 2-fold ED₅₀, propofol required a shorter time to cause LoRR than that of HX0969W and fospropofol. However, the LoRR duration was significantly longer in response to the administration of HX0969W and fospropofol disodium than that caused by propofol. In the pharmacokinetic study, the C_max of fospropofol was higher than that of HX0969W. HX0969W had a shorter mean residual time and a rapid clearance rate than that of fospropofol disodium. There was no significant difference between the T_max of the propofol whether it was released by HX0969W or fospropofol disodium; the C_max of propofol released by HX0969W was similar to that of propofol, which was higher than the propofol released by fospropofol disodium.

Safety and Efficacy of Remimazolam Compared With Placebo and Midazolam for Moderate Sedation During Bronchoscopy

BACKGROUND

While the complexity of flexible bronchoscopy has increased, standard options for moderate sedation medications have not changed in three decades. There is a need to improve moderate sedation while maintaining safety. Remimazolam was developed to address shortcomings of current sedation strategies.

METHODS

A prospective, double-blind, randomized, multicenter, parallel group trial was performed at 30 US sites. The efficacy and safety of remimazolam for sedation during flexible bronchoscopy were compared with placebo and open-label midazolam.

RESULTS

The success rates were 80.6% in the remimazolam arm, 4.8% in the placebo arm (P < .0001), and 32.9% in the midazolam arm. Bronchoscopy was started sooner in the remimazolam arm (mean, 6.4 ± 5.82 min) compared with placebo (17.2 ± 4.15 min; P < .0001) and midazolam (16.3 ± 8.60 min). Time to full alertness after the end of bronchoscopy was significantly shorter in patients treated with remimazolam (median, 6.0 min; 95% CI, 5.2-7.1) compared with those treated with placebo (13.6 min; 95% CI, 8.1-24.0; P = .0001) and midazolam (12.0 min; 95% CI, 5.0-15.0). Remimazolam registered superior restoration of neuropsychiatric function compared with placebo and midazolam. Safety was comparable among all three arms, and 5.6% of the patients in the remimazolam group had serious treatment-emergent adverse events as compared with 6.8% in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam administered under the supervision of a pulmonologist was effective and safe for moderate sedation during flexible bronchoscopy. In an exploratory analysis, it demonstrated a shorter onset of action and faster neuropsychiatric recovery than midazolam.

The Role of GABA Receptor Agonists in Anesthesia and Sedation

GABA (γ-aminobutyric acid) receptors, of which there are two types, are involved in inhibitory synapses within the central nervous system. The GABA_A receptor (GABAAR) has a central role in modern anesthesia and sedation practice, which is evident from the high proportion of agents that target the GABAAR. Many GABAAR agonists are used in anesthesia practice and sedation, including propofol, etomidate, methohexital, thiopental, isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane. There are advantages and disadvantages to each GABAAR agonist currently in clinical use. With increasing knowledge regarding the pharmacology of GABAAR agonists, however, newer sedative agents have been developed which employ 'soft pharmacology', a term used to describe the pharmacology of agents whereby their chemical configuration allows rapid metabolism into inactive metabolites after the desired therapeutic effect(s) has occurred. These newer 'soft' GABAAR agonists may well approach ideal sedative agents, as they can offer well-controlled, titratable activity and ultrashort action. This review provides an overview of the role that GABAAR agonists currently play in sedation and anesthesia, in addition to discussing the future role of novel GABAAR agonists in anesthesia and sedation.

Evaluating Patient-Centered Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Procedural Sedation, Part 1 Efficacy: Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations

The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research, established by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, convened a meeting of sedation experts from a variety of clinical specialties and research backgrounds with the objective of developing recommendations for procedural sedation research. Four core outcome domains were recommended for consideration in sedation clinical trials: (1) safety, (2) efficacy, (3) patient-centered and/or family-centered outcomes, and (4) efficiency. This meeting identified core outcome measures within the efficacy and patient-centered and/or family-centered domains. Safety will be addressed in a subsequent meeting, and efficiency will not be addressed at this time. These measures encompass depth and levels of sedation, proceduralist and patient satisfaction, patient recall, and degree of pain experienced. Consistent use of the recommended outcome measures will facilitate the comprehensive reporting across sedation trials, along with meaningful comparisons among studies and interventions in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

New Hypnotic Drug Development and Pharmacologic Considerations for Clinical Anesthesia

Since the public demonstration of ether as a novel, viable anesthetic for surgery in 1846, the field of anesthesia has continually sought the ideal anesthetic-rapid onset, potent sedation-hypnosis with a high therapeutic ratio of toxic dose to minimally effective dose, predictable clearance to inactive metabolites, and minimal side effects. This article aims to review current progress of novel induction agent development and provide an update on the most promising drugs poised to enter clinical practice. In addition, the authors describe trends in novel agent development, implications for health care costs, and implications for perioperative care.

Complications and discomfort of bronchoscopy: a systematic review

Objective

To identify bronchoscopy-related complications and discomfort, meaningful complication rates, and predictors.

Method

We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed on 8 February 2016, using a search strategy including the PICO model, on complications and discomfort related to bronchoscopy and related sampling techniques.

Results

The search yielded 1,707 hits, of which 45 publications were eligible for full review. Rates of mortality and severe complications were low. Other complications, for instance, hypoxaemia, bleeding, pneumothorax, and fever, were usually not related to patient characteristics or aspects of the procedure, and complication rates showed considerable ranges. Measures of patient discomfort differed considerably, and results were difficult to compare between different study populations.

Conclusion

More research on safety aspects of bronchoscopy is needed to conclude on complication rates and patient- and procedure-related predictors of complications and discomfort.

Randomized Trial Comparing Patient Comfort Between the Oral and Nasal Insertion Routes for Linear Endobronchial Ultrasound

BACKGROUND

Linear endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) is a safe and accurate sampling method for mediastinal adenopathy. The transnasal approach has been proposed to improve patient comfort, but no data compare the oral and nasal routes. The objective was to compare patient comfort during linear EBUS under conscious sedation between the oral and the nasal routes.

METHODS

An open-label randomized study comparing the 2 insertion routes for linear EBUS was conducted. Standardized protocols for sedation and topical anesthesia were used. Primary outcome was subjects' comfort measured by a 10-point scale filled 2 hours after the procedure. Willingness to return for a repeat examination, procedural characteristics, complications, and diagnostic yields were also compared.

RESULTS

A total of 220 subjects were randomized and allocated to the nasal (n=110) or oral (n=110) route. Twenty-seven subjects in the nasal group (24.5%) had a failed nasal insertion but were analyzed in the nasal group. Procedural characteristics were similar (EBUS duration, doses of sedatives and lidocaine, number of stations sampled, complications). There was no difference between the nasal and oral groups in subjects' comfort (8.3 vs. 8.3, respectively, P=0.99), overall patient satisfaction (8.9 vs. 9.1, respectively, P=0.34), subjects' willingness to return (96% vs. 97%, P=1.00), and physician-reported subject comfort. Rates of adequate specimens and diagnostic yields did not differ significantly between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For linear EBUS, the nasal and oral approaches confer a similarly high degree of patient comfort with similar complication rates and diagnostic yield. Patient and physician preferences should dictate the route of insertion.

Sedation during bronchoscopy: data from a nationwide sedation and monitoring survey

Background

There is limited knowledge on practice patterns in procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA), the use of propofol, and monitoring during flexible bronchoscopy (FB). The purpose of this study was to assess the current practice patterns of FBs and to focus on the use of propofol, the education of the proceduralist, and the involvement of anaesthesiologists during FB.

Methods

An anonymous questionnaire was sent to 299 pulmonologists. Only respondents who were active physicians in adult respiratory medicine performing FB were subsequently analysed.

Results

The response rate was 78 % and 27,149 FB in the previous 12 months were analysed. The overall sedation-related morbidity rate was 0.02 % and mortality was 7/100’000 FB. Sedation was used in 95 % of bronchoscopies. The main drugs used for PSA were propofol (77 %) and midazolam (46 %). In 84 % of PSAs propofol was used without the attendance of an anaesthesiologist. The use of propofol was associated with high volume bronchoscopists (p < 0.010) and career-young pulmonologists (p < 0.001). While monitoring vital parameters has become standard practice, pulmonologists reported a very low rate of systematic basic education and training in the field of PSA (50 %).

Conclusions

In Switzerland, PSA during FB is mostly performed with propofol without the attendance of an anaesthesiologist and the use of this drug is expected to increase in the future. While monitoring standards are very high there is need for policies to improve education, systematic training, and support for pulmonologists for PSA during FB.

Efficacy Outcome Measures for Procedural Sedation Clinical Trials in Adults: An ACTTION Systematic Review

Successful procedural sedation represents a spectrum of patient- and clinician-related goals. The absence of a gold-standard measure of the efficacy of procedural sedation has led to a variety of outcomes being used in clinical trials, with the consequent lack of consistency among measures, making comparisons among trials and meta-analyses challenging. We evaluated which existing measures have undergone psychometric analysis in a procedural sedation setting and whether the validity of any of these measures support their use across the range of procedures for which sedation is indicated. Numerous measures were found to have been used in clinical research on procedural sedation across a wide range of procedures. However, reliability and validity have been evaluated for only a limited number of sedation scales, observer-rated pain/discomfort scales, and satisfaction measures in only a few categories of procedures. Typically, studies only examined 1 or 2 aspects of scale validity. The results are likely unique to the specific clinical settings they were tested in. Certain scales, for example, those requiring motor stimulation, are unsuitable to evaluate sedation for procedures where movement is prohibited (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging scans). Further work is required to evaluate existing measures for procedures for which they were not developed. Depending on the outcomes of these efforts, it might ultimately be necessary to consider measures of sedation efficacy to be procedure specific.

A comparison of propofol-midazolam and midazolam alone for sedation in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a new, minimally invasive, bronchoscopic technique used in the evaluation of inthrathoracic lymph nodes.Use of sedation drugs before the procedure differs among centres. There is no standardization about sedation before EBUS-TBNA.We used a policy decision to shift from use of propofol with midazolam vs midazolam alone in a large tertiary hospital to evaluate the diagnostic yield and safety of EBUS-TBNA procedure.

METHODS

Files of all the patients who were performed EBUS-TBNA between the dates of September 2010 and May 2014 were surveyed. All the EBUS-TBNA cases were performed under sedation of propofol and midazolam with an accompanying anesthesiologist in the beginning, however, sedation is applied with midazolam without an accompanying anesthesiologist after April 2013 due to changes in sedation policy. The diagnostic yield and complication rates were compared by chi-squared analysis between two groups.

RESULTS

The files of 340 EBUS-TBNA performed patients were evaluated. Of the patients 274 eligible patients were analysed. 152 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were analysed in propofol-midazolam (P) sedated group and 122 patients were analysed in midazolam (M) group. There is no statistically significant difference between two different sedated groups in terms of age and gender. Diagnostic value was detected as 77.6% in P group and 85.7% in M group and the difference was not statistically significant. No difference between complication rates of both groups was observed.

CONCLUSION

Both sedation-types for performing EBUS-TBNA showed similar diagnostic value and complication rates in our study. Propofol with midazolam application requires with an accompanying anaesthesiologist, therefore, it increases cost. EBUS-TBNA procedures had been performed in safe with no decrease in diagnostic yield under moderate sedation.

Efficacy and Safety of FospropofolFD Compared to Propofol When Given During the Induction of General Anaesthesia: A Phase II, Multi-centre, Randomized, Parallel-Group, Active-Controlled, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy Study

The present phase II study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of fospropofol disodium for injection (FospropofolFD ) and propofol when given during the induction of general anaesthesia in patients scheduled for elective surgery. FospropofolFD is a water-soluble prodrug of propofol. Approved by the Ethical Committee, 240 participants aged 18-65 years were equally randomly allocated to receive an intravenous bolus of FospropofolFD 20 mg/kg or propofol 2 mg/kg without any anaesthetic pre-treatment. The primary efficacy end-point was the sedation success rate within 5 min. after administering investigational drugs (the sedation success is defined as obtaining Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale score of 1). All the participants completed the induction and intubation within 25 min. after administration. The sedation success rates within 5 min. after administration of FospropofolFD 20 mg/kg and propofol 2 mg/kg were 94.50% versus 100% in the intention-to-treat population and 95.10% versus 100% in the per-protocol population, respectively. The non-inferiority test obtained a p-value less than 0.025, and the lower limits of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval were more than -0.09. This meant that FospropofolFD 20 mg/kg was considered non-inferior to propofol 2 mg/kg for the primary efficacy end-point. Compared with propofol 2 mg/kg, FospropofolFD 20 mg/kg had a slower sedation efficacy. No serious adverse events were observed in the two groups. The sedation success rate within 5 min. after administration of FospropofolFD 20 mg/kg was non-inferior to propofol 2 mg/kg, and FospropofolFD 20 mg/kg can be used for the induction of general anaesthesia safely.

Synthesis and evaluation of hydroponically alginate nanoparticles as novel carrier for intravenous delivery of propofol

Commercial lipid emulsion of propofol (CLE) has several drawbacks including pain on injection and emulsion instability. In this paper, a novel nanocarrier system is introduced to improve stability and solubility of the poorly soluble anesthetic drug, propofol, for intravenous administration. In this paper, alginate is modified using a facile method in which the carboxylic group of alginate is grafted to octanol. The octanol-grafted alginate (Alg-C8) is then employed to prepare nanoparticles which are subsequently used for encapsulation of propofol. The nanoparticles are analyzed for their pH, osmolarity, particle size, stability, morphology and sleep recovery and the results are compared with CLE as control. It is revealed that nanoparticles have the average particle size of 180 nm ± 1.2 and spherical morphology which is less than CLE while their pH, osmolarity and profile of release of formulated nanoparticles are similar to those of CLE. In addition, the results show good chemical and physical storage stability for the nanoparticles at room temperature for at least 6 months compared to CLE as control. The animal sleep recovery test on rats shows no significant difference in time of unconsciousness and recovery of the righting reflex between nanoparticles and CLE. It is concluded that encapsulated nanoparticles introduced here could be a promising clinical intravenous system for delivery of poorly soluble anesthetic propofol. In addition, this study provides an efficient and facile method for preparing a carrier system for water insoluble drugs.

A randomized open-label phase I pilot study of the safety and efficacy of total intravenous anesthesia with fospropofol for coronary artery bypass graft surgery

OBJECTIVE

To determine safety and efficacy of the water-soluble prodrug fospropofol for anesthesia in cardiac surgery and to compare the pharmacodynamic profiles of fospropofol and propofol.

DESIGN

Pilot study and a prospective, phase I, open-label, single-center, randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

University hospital; single institution.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixteen patients undergoing elective first-time coronary artery bypass surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive total intravenous anesthesia with fospropofol (n = 8) or propofol (n = 8) combined with alfentanil as total intravenous anesthesia. Bispectral index, arterial blood pressure, and heart rate were recorded continuously, and pulmonary artery catheter measurements were obtained. Plasma concentrations of formate, phosphate, and Ca(2+) were monitored closely. Safety and tolerability were assessed by adverse events, neurologic examinations, clinical laboratory tests, and vital signs.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The total doses of fospropofol and propofol during anesthesia were 11.3±2.5 and 4.4±1.0 mg/kg/h, respectively. According to the achieved bispectral index (BIS) values, fospropofol was as effective as propofol in providing general anesthesia and sedation. There were no clinical signs of formate toxicity in the fospropofol group. The only treatment-related adverse event after administration of fospropofol was a transient burning sensation in the perineal and perianal region during induction of sedation or anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Fospropofol could be used to provide general anesthesia in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Further larger studies are needed to prove the safety of fospropofol when given to provide general anesthesia for major cardiac surgical procedures.

A comparison of fospropofol to midazolam for moderate sedation during outpatient dental procedures

Moderate intravenous (IV) sedation combined with local anesthesia is common for outpatient oral surgery procedures. An ideal sedative agent must be safe and well tolerated by patients and practitioners. This study evaluated fospropofol, a relatively new sedative/hypnotic, in comparison to midazolam, a commonly used benzodiazepine, for IV moderate sedation during oral and maxillofacial surgery. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to either the fospropofol or the midazolam group. Each participant received 1 μg/kg of fentanyl prior to administration of the selected sedative. Those in the fospropofol group received an initial dose of 6.5 mg/kg, with 1.6 mg/kg supplemental doses as needed. Those in the midazolam group received initial doses of 0.05 mg/kg, followed by 0.02 mg/kg supplemental doses. The quality of sedation in each patient was evaluated with regard to (a) onset of sedation, maintenance, and recovery profile; (b) patient and surgeon satisfaction; and (c) hemodynamic stability and adverse effects. The fospropofol group demonstrated shorter physical recovery times than midazolam patients, taking a mean of 11.6 minutes versus 18.4 minutes for physical recovery (P = .007). Cognitive recovery comparison did not find any difference with a mean of 7.5 minutes versus 8.8 minutes between the 2 drug groups (P = .123). The fospropofol group had a higher rate of local anesthetic injection recall (90.5 vs 44.4%, P = .004). Other parameters of recall were comparable. Two adverse effects demonstrated significance, with more patients in the midazolam group experiencing tachycardia (48.2 vs 9.4%, P = .001), and more patients in the fospropofol group experiencing perineal discomfort (40.6 vs 0, P < .001). No significant difference was found in any other measures of sedation safety, maintenance, or satisfaction. Fospropofol, when administered intravenously by a dentist anesthesiologist at the indicated dose in this study, appears to be a safe, well-tolerated alternative to midazolam for intravenous moderate sedation during minor oral surgery procedures.

Prospective analysis of efficacy and safety of an individualized-midazolam-dosing protocol for sedation during prolonged bronchoscopy

BACKGROUND

Newer more advanced techniques in bronchoscopy may require longer procedure times, although a standard protocol for sedation during prolonged bronchoscopy has not yet been defined.

METHODS

We designed a prospective, non-randomized, single-arm study (UMIN trial number 000003971) using patient questionnaires and vital sign monitoring to assess the efficacy and safety of a standardized midazolam dosing protocol based on gender and age for use during bronchoscopy. The loading dose of midazolam was 0.075mg/kg for men ≤65 years old and women ≤70 and 0.05mg/kg for men ≥66 years and women ≥71 years, with subsequent doses of one-half the loading dose to be administered every 20min. The primary endpoint was tolerability and secondary endpoints included anxiety and recall of procedure, willingness to undergo repeat procedure, and complications. Safety was evaluated in terms of monitored changes in blood pressures, ECG, oxygen saturation, and CO2 content in expiration during the procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 204 patients were included in the study. Overall, 163 patients (79.9%) reported "no distress" during the procedure, 185 patients (90.7%) reported "no anxiety," and 175 (85.8%) replied that they would accept a repeat procedure, if necessary. The mean minimum oxygen saturation was 90.2% and the mean maximum expiratory CO2 level was 37.7mmHg. There were no serious complications related to the protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

The midazolam dosing protocol examined in this study was safe and effective. It is simple, and it could easily be translated to routine clinical practice.

Complications, consequences, and practice patterns of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: Results of the AQuIRE registry

BACKGROUND

Few studies of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration(EBUS-TBNA) have been large enough to identify risk factors for complications. The primary objective of this study was to quantify the incidence of and risk factors for complications in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA.

METHODS

Data on prospectively enrolled patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA in the American College of Chest Physicians Quality Improvement Registry, Evaluation, and Education (AQuIRE)database were extracted and analyzed for the incidence, consequences, and predictors of complications.

RESULTS

We enrolled 1,317 patients at six hospitals. Complications occurred in 19 patients (1.44%;95% CI, 0.87%-2.24%). Transbronchial lung biopsy (TBBx) was the only risk factor for complications,which occurred in 3.21% of patients who underwent the procedure and in 1.15% of those who did not (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.07-7.59; P 5 .04). Pneumothorax occurred in seven patients(0.53%; 95% CI, 0.21%-1.09%). Escalations in level of care occurred in 14 patients (1.06%;95% CI, 0.58%-1.78%); its risk factors were age . 70 years (OR, 4.06; 95% CI, 1.36-12.12; P 5 .012),inpatient status (OR, 4.93; 95% CI, 1.30-18.74; P 5 .019), and undergoing deep sedation or general anesthesia (OR, 4.68; 95% CI, 1.02-21.61; P 5 .048). TBBx was performed in only 12.6% of patients when rapid on site cytologic evaluation (ROSE ) was used and in 19.1% when it was not used ( P 5 .006).Interhospital variation in TBBx use when ROSE was used was significant ( P , .001).

CONCLUSIONS

TBBx was the only risk factor for complications during EBUS-TBNA procedures.ROSE significantly reduced the use of TBBx.

[Fospropofol: A new prodrug of propofol]

The development of new propofol formulations has advanced rapidly in the last ten years with the achievement of the marketing a new prodrug of propofol: fospropofol, pharmacologically different from the original compound. It is a water soluble compound that requires metabolism of the prodrug to propofol, which leads to a time delay between its administration and the appearance of its pharmacological effect. Its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics are different to the original formula. Due to its formulation it does not cause pain on intravenous injection, does not lead to hyperlipidaemia or excess bacterial growth. Although it is currently unavailable in Spain, it has been approved by the FDA (American Food and Drug Administration) for sedation in controlled care in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in adults. It must only be administered by personnel qualified to administer anaesthesia, and the patients must be monitored throughout the whole procedure.

Subcutaneous dissociative conscious sedation (sDCS) an alternative method for airway regional blocks: a new approach

BACKGROUND

Predicted difficult airway is a definite indication for awake intubation and spontaneous ventilation. Airway regional blocks which are commonly used to facilitate awake intubation are sometimes impossible or forbidden. On the other hand deep sedation could be life threatening in the case of compromised airway.The aim of this study is evaluating "Subcutaneous Dissociative Conscious Sedation" (sDCS) as an alternative method to airway regional blocks for awake intubation.

METHODS

In this prospective, non-randomized study, 30 patients with predicted difficult airway (laryngeal tumors), who were scheduled for direct laryngoscopic biopsy (DLB), underwent "Subcutaneous Dissociative Conscious Sedation" (sDCS) exerted by intravenous fentanyl 3-4ug/kg and subcutaneous ketamine 0.6-0.7 mg/kg. The tongue and pharynx were anesthetized with lidocaine spray (4%). 10 minutes after a subcutaneous injection of ketamine direct laryngoscopy was performed. Extra doses of fentanyl 50-100 ug were administered if the patient wasn't cooperative enough for laryngoscopy.Patients were evaluated for hemodynamic stability (heart rate and blood pressure), oxygen saturation (Spo2), patient cooperation (obedient to open the mouth for laryngoscopy and the number of tries for laryngoscopy), patient comfort (remaining moveless), hallucination, nystagmus and salivation (need for aspiration before laryngoscopy).

RESULTS

Direct laryngoscopy was performed successfully in all patients. One patient needed extra fentanyl and then laryngoscopy was performed successfully on the second try. All patients were cooperative enough during laryngoscopy. Hemodynamic changes more than 20% occurred in just one patient. Oxygen desaturation (spo2< 90%) didn't occur in any patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous Dissociative Conscious Sedation (sDCS) as a new approach to airway is an acceptable and safe method for awake intubation and it can be suggested as a noninvasive substitute of low complication rate for regional airway blocks.

REGISTRATION ID IN IRCT

IRCT201012075333N1.

Sedation and analgesia in the mechanically ventilated patient

Sedation and analgesia are important components of care for the mechanically ventilated patient in the intensive care unit (ICU). An understanding of commonly used medications is essential to formulate a sedation plan for individual patients. The specific physiological changes that a critically ill patient undergoes can have direct effects on the pharmacology of drugs, potentially leading to interpatient differences in response. Objective assessments of pain, sedation, and agitation have been validated for use in the ICU for assessment and titration of medications. An evidence-based strategy for administering these drugs can lead to improvements in short- and long-term outcomes for patients. In this article, we review advances in the field of ICU sedation to provide an up-to-date perspective on management of the mechanically ventilated ICU patient.

Perspectives on the role of fospropofol in the monitored anesthesia care setting

Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is a safe, effective, and appropriate form of anesthesia for many minor surgical procedures. The proliferation of outpatient procedures has heightened interest in MAC sedation agents. Among the most commonly used MAC sedation agents today are benzodiazepines, including midazolam, and propofol. Recently approved in the United States is fospropofol, a prodrug of propofol which hydrolyzes in the body by alkaline phosphatase to liberate propofol. Propofol liberated from fospropofol has unique pharmacological properties, but recently retracted pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) evaluations make it difficult to formulate clear conclusions with respect to fospropofol's PK/PD properties. In safety and efficacy clinical studies, fospropofol demonstrated dose-dependent sedation with good rates of success at doses of 6.5 mg/kg along with good levels of patient and physician acceptance. Fospropofol has been associated with less pain at injection site than propofol. The most commonly reported side effects with fospropofol are paresthesia and pruritus. Fospropofol is a promising new sedation agent that appears to be well suited for MAC sedation, but further studies are needed to better understand its PK/PD properties as well its appropriate clinical role in outpatient procedures.

[Sedation and analgesia during gastrointestinal endoscopy]

Sedative and analgesic premedication is frequently used during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Sedation improves patient's compliance, helping the examinations and their safe completion, but it lengthens the procedures, increases the costs, and complications can occur. Sedative drugs are applied during upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, and also at ERCP. The review summarizes the different forms of sedation, drugs, future techniques and possibilities of improvements. Moreover, sedation practice in Hungary is also described.

Bronchoalveolar lavage and other methods to define the human respiratory tract milieu in health and disease

During fiber-optic bronchoscopy (FOB), surface sampling of the human respiratory airways and alveolar unit can be done with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), plus selective sites can be brushed for cells and transbronchial biopsies made in adjacent tissue. This permits analysis of the respiratory tract's milieu in healthy normals, in those with disease, and in control subjects. These combined procedures have been an established approach for obtaining specimens for research and for clinical assessment for over four decades. However, now new less invasive sampling methods are emerging. This review emphasizes BAL and the cellular and noncellular components recovered in fluid that have contributed to improving knowledge of how the respiratory tree's innate immunity can protect, and how airway structures can become deranged and manifest disease. After a discussion of training for FOB and procedural issues, a spectrum of respiratory diseases studied with BAL is presented, including airway illness (asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), diffuse interstitial lung diseases [idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, rheumatoid interstitial lung disease (ILD), granulomatous ILDs], lung infections, lung malignancy, and upper and lower tract airway problems. Some recent studies with exhaled breath condensate analyses are given.

Comparison of propofol and the combination of propofol and alfentanil during bronchoscopy: a randomized study

BACKGROUND

propofol is an excellent sedative agent for use in patients undergoing bronchoscopy. The addition of an opioid to propofol can be advantageous because of the antitussive effect of the opioid and the possible improvement in sedation quality. However, it may increase the risk of hypoxaemia. To investigate the effect of the addition of alfentanil to propofol, we performed a prospective study to compare propofol-only sedation with propofol-alfentanil combination sedation in patients undergoing bronchoscopy.

METHODS

patients were randomly assigned either to the propofol-only (group P, n=32) or to the propofol-alfentanil combination group (group PA, n=32). The average peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO(2) ) and the lowest SpO(2) during the sedation were compared. Patient and bronchoscopist satisfaction as well as the degree of coughing were compared using a 100 mm visual analogue scale, where 0 indicated the least and 100 indicated the most satisfied.

RESULTS

group P had the higher average SpO(2) (%) during the procedure than group PA (97.8 ± 1.6 and 96.4 ± 1.1, P<0.01) as well as the lowest SpO(2) (%) (95.4 ± 2.7 and 94.0 ± 2.4, P<0.05). Patient satisfaction (92.2 ± 13.5 and 92.3 ± 18.2), bronchoscopist satisfaction (76.6 ± 18.1 and 72.8 ± 19.1), and degree of cough (73.4 ± 22.7 and 72.2 ± 18.5; group P and group PA, respectively) were not different between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

the combination of propofol and alfentanil resulted in a greater respiratory depression than propofol alone; furthermore, the addition of an opioid did not improve the quality of sedation. In conclusion, we do not recommend sedation with propofol and alfentanil during bronchoscopy.

Fospropofol Disodium for Sedation in Elderly Patients Undergoing Flexible Bronchoscopy

BACKGROUND: Fospropofol disodium is a water-soluble prodrug of propofol. A subset analysis was undertaken of elderly patients (≥65 y) undergoing flexible bronchoscopy, who were part of a larger multicenter, randomized, double-blind study. METHODS: Patients received fentanyl citrate (50 mcg) followed by fospropofol at initial (4.88mg/kg) and supplemental (1.63mg/kg) doses. The primary end point was sedation success (3 consecutive Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scores of ≤4 and procedure completion without alternative sedative or assisted ventilation). Treatment success, time to fully alert, patient and physician satisfaction, and safety/tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS: In the elderly patients subset (n=61), sedation success was 92%, the mean time to fully alert was 8.0±10.9 min, and memory retention was 72% during recovery, and these were comparable with the younger patients subgroup (age, <65 y). Sedation-related adverse events occurred in 23% of the elderly and 18% of the younger patients (age, <65 y) group. Hypoxemia occurred in 26% of the elderly and 18% of the younger patients group, but no escalation of care was required. CONCLUSIONS: Fospropofol provided safe and effective sedation, rapid time to fully alert, and high satisfaction in this elderly subset undergoing flexible bronchoscopy, which was comparable with outcomes in younger patients.

Safety evaluation of fospropofol for sedation during minor surgical procedures

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of intravenous (IV) fospropofol when used to provide minimal to moderate sedation in patients undergoing minor surgical procedures.

DESIGN

Phase 3, open-label, single-arm study.

SETTING

Multi-center.

PATIENTS

123 ASA physical status I, II, III, and IV patients, aged>or=18 years.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were pretreated with fentanyl 50 microg before receiving an initial dose of IV fospropofol 6.5 mg/kg. Patients could receive up to 5 supplemental doses of fospropofol 1.63 mg/kg to reach a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) score<or=4 to allow the start of the procedure and to maintain adequate sedation levels during the procedure.

MEASUREMENTS

Study endpoints included measures of sedation depth, requirement for supplemental sedative doses, use of alternative sedatives, and the frequency and nature of treatment-emergent and sedative-related adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

A mean of 2.4 supplemental doses of fospropofol was administered, and in 60% of patients, two or fewer supplemental doses of fospropofol were sufficient to initiate and complete the procedure. Alternative sedative medication was administered in 6 of 123 patients (4.9%). Mean (SD) MOAA/S score during the procedure was 3.8 (0.5). Sixty-one percent (61%) of patients had a MOAA/S score of 5 (fully alert) within two minutes after the end of the procedure. Few patients (7 of 123; 5.7%) had MOAA/S scores of 0 to 1 (deep sedation) during the procedure, and all 7 were either ASA physical status I (n=1) or II (n=6). The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were self-limited: paresthesias (62.6%) and pruritus (27.6%). Five patients experienced sedation-related adverse events, including hypotension (n=4), bradycardia (concurrently with hypotension and managed with atropine; n=1), or hypoxemia (less than one min and managed with chin lift and verbal stimulation; n=1). Twenty patients with previous or existing hepatic disease (ranging from minimal to severe) and 5 patients with severe renal impairment had adverse events similar to the overall population. No deaths were reported, and no patient discontinued the study due to adverse events.

CONCLUSION

An initial dose of IV fospropofol 6.5 mg/kg with supplemental doses was safe and well-tolerated as moderate sedation for use in minor surgical procedures.

Sedation: not quite that simple

The number of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions performed under sedation is growing rapidly. While providing patients with an improved experience secondary to anxiolysis, analgesia, and amnesia, sedation also puts them at risk for associated cardiorespiratory and other complications. Several medications are available for sedation, all of which have unique advantages and disadvantages. The combination of patient characteristics, procedural factors, and side effects associated with each medication places each patient at risk and therefore, vigilance during sedation cannot be overemphasized. Due vigilance includes proper monitoring, training, staffing, and equipment, all of which are essential to the safe delivery of sedation.

Fospropofol

Fospropofol (fospropofol disodium), a sedative/hypnotic agent, is a water-soluble prodrug of propofol, metabolized in vivo to produce liberated propofol (producing the sedative effect), phosphate and formaldehyde. Intravenous fospropofol 6.5 mg/kg was significantly more effective than fospropofol 2.0 mg/kg (a placebo surrogate) as sedation in patients undergoing colonoscopy or flexible bronchoscopy, with regard to the primary endpoint of sedation success rate in randomized, double-blind, phase III trials. In patients undergoing colonoscopy, the sedation success rate was >3-fold higher among fospropofol 6.5 mg/kg (n = 158) than fospropofol 2.0 mg/kg recipients (n = 102). Similar results were observed in patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy; the sedation success rate was >3-fold greater among fospropofol 6.5 mg/kg (n = 150) than among fospropofol 2.0 mg/kg recipients (n = 102). Fospropofol was generally well tolerated in clinical trials. Adverse events were mostly of mild to moderate severity, and were transient and self-limiting. Patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy appeared to have a higher rate of sedation-related adverse events requiring airway assistance than did those undergoing colonoscopy or minor procedures.

Bronchoscopy: What critical care nurses need to know

Although bronchoscopies have been performed for over a century and are relatively safe when practice guidelines are followed, they are invasive and a real source of anxiety and fear for the patient. The role of the critical care nurse is essential to a successful outcome. This article provides an overview of the main diagnostic and therapeutic indications, contraindications, and possible complications. Also discussed are patient education; patient and staff safety; and considerations before, during, and after the procedure.

Sedation and analgesia in gastrointestinal endoscopy: What’s new?

Various types of sedation and analgesia technique have been used during gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. The best methods for analgesia and sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy are still debated. Providing an adequate regimen of sedation/analgesia might be considered an art, influencing several aspects of endoscopic procedures: the quality of the examination, the patient’s cooperation and the patient’s and physician’s satisfaction with the sedation. The properties of a model sedative agent for endoscopy would include rapid onset and offset of action, analgesic and anxiolytic effects, ease of titration to desired level of sedation, rapid recovery and an excellent safety profile. Therefore there is an impulse for development of new approaches to endoscopic sedation. This article provides an update on the methods of sedation today available and future directions in endoscopic sedation.