Intravenous Lidocaine Significantly Reduces the Propofol Dose in Elderly Patients Undergoing Gastroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Effects of Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation on the Incidence of Hypoxia in Elderly Patients Undergoing Painless Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Hypoxia is not uncommon in elderly patients during painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) in reducing the occurrence of hypoxia symptoms in elderly patients. Methods: Patients were randomly and equally grouped into sham control (n = 109) or TEAS group (n = 109) by using the random number table method. Patients in the TEAS group received electrical stimulation at the bilateral ST36 points 30 min before the examination until the end of the painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients in the control group only had electrodes attached to bilateral nonacupoints in a similar pattern as the TEAS group without electrical stimulation. The primary endpoints measured were the incidence of hypoxia and severe hypoxia. The secondary endpoints included propofol dosage, sedation-related adverse events, hemodynamic parameters, surgical duration, patient recovery time, pain score, patient satisfaction, anesthesiologist satisfaction, and endoscopist satisfaction. Results: Of the 251 patients who participated in this study, 218 patients ended up completing the final study. The primary outcome was that, compared with group control, the incidence of hypoxia in group TEAS was reduced by 11% (19.3% vs. 8.3%, p=0.018) and the incidence of severe hypoxia did not show a significant change (7.3% vs. 2.8%, p=0.122). And there was a significant decrease in the occurrence of patients requiring emergency airway assistance (increased oxygen flow: 16.5% vs. 6.4%, p=0.019, jaw thrust: 11.0% vs. 3.7%, p=0.038, mask-assisted ventilation: 5.5% vs. 1.8%, p=0.015). Conclusion: TEAS can reduce the incidence of hypoxia in elderly patients undergoing painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ChiCTR2200059465.

Effect of Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion on Propofol Dose and Perioperative Pain During Moderate Sedation-Analgesia for Hysteroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

In China, the majority of hysteroscopic procedures require moderate sedation and analgesia. The efficacy of intravenous lidocaine in reducing the need for sedatives and alleviating perioperative pain during hysteroscopy remains equivocal. This study aims to determine whether the intravenous administration of lidocaine can reduce the required dose of propofol and enhance perioperative pain management.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a prospective, single-center, double-blind randomized controlled trial involving patients with ASA I-II undergoing hysteroscopy. Forty patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either receive an intravenous bolus dose of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine, followed by a continuous intravenous infusion at 4 mg/kg/h until the conclusion of the procedure, or an equivalent volume of normal saline. Propofol was then titrated to maintain a MOAA/S score of ≤ 2.

Results

Compared with the control group, the lidocaine group showed a 13.8% decrease in the total dose of propofol (140.0[120.0, 155.0] mg vs 162.5[140.0, 197.5] mg), which was statistically significant (P = 0.014). The induction dose of propofol was 1.37 (1.29, 1.56) mg/kg in the lidocaine group and 1.61 (1.48, 1.94) mg/kg in the control group, respectively (P = 0.001). However, no significant differences were observed between the groups regarding the supplemental dose of propofol (P = 0.062), the number of involuntary movements during hysteroscopy (P = 0.384), or postoperative pain scores (T0: P = 0.628; T1: P = 0.886; T2: P = 0.711). Additionally, the incidence of intraoperative hypoxia (P = 1.000) and fatigue scores (T0: P = 0.878; T1: P = 0.401; T2: P = 0.056) between the two groups were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Intravenous lidocaine reduces the dose requirements of propofol during the induction phase of anesthesia. However, it does not have a significant influence on alleviating intraoperative and postoperative pain during hysteroscopic procedures.

Effect of Lidocaine on Ciprofol Dosage and Efficacy in Patients Who Underwent Gastroscopy Sedation

BACKGROUND Intravenous ciprofol is a short-acting sedative with minimal respiratory and circulatory suppression and limited analgesia. Intravenous lidocaine provides analgesia during surgical procedures. This study included 70 patients who underwent gastroscopy with analgesia and aimed to evaluate the effects of intravenous lidocaine on the dose of ciprofol required to produce 50% of the maximal effect (ED50). MATERIAL AND METHODS Seventy patients scheduled for elective painless gastroscopy were randomly assigned into 2 groups: group L (n=35, received ciprofol and 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine) and group S (n=35, received ciprofol and normal saline). The primary outcomes measured were the ED50 and the 95% effective dose (ED95) of ciprofol, determined using the modified up-down sequential method and Probit analysis. Secondary outcomes included induction, operation, and recovery times; monitoring of vital signs such as mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation; and evaluation of postoperative adverse reactions, including sore throat, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and satisfaction scores from endoscopists and anesthesiologists. RESULTS The ED50 of ciprofol in group L was 0.315 mg/kg (95% CI, 0.291-0.342 mg/kg), which was significantly lower than that in group S, 0.42 mg/kg (95% CI, 0.371-0.491 mg/kg). Additionally, group L exhibited shorter induction and recovery times, a lower incidence of postoperative sore throat, and a temporary drop in blood pressure following induction. CONCLUSIONS Intravenous lidocaine during painless gastroscopy reduces the required ciprofol dose, shortens induction and recovery times, and lowers the incidence of postoperative complications, such as sore throat. These findings support its effective role in improving sedation quality and patient outcomes during gastroscopy.

Effect of esketamine on haemodynamic fluctuations in patients undergoing hysteroscopic surgery: A prospective, double-blind randomized clinical trial

AIMS

We explored whether esketamine anesthesia during hysteroscopic surgery can reduce intraoperative hemodynamic fluctuations and improve patient benefit.

METHODS

A total of 170 patients undergoing hysteroscopic surgery were enrolled, and 151 patients were finally included in the analysis, among which 19 used vasoactive drugs during surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to either the esketamine anesthesia group (E group) or the sufentanil anesthesia group (S group). The primary outcomes were blood pressure and heart rate during the surgery. Secondary outcomes included resistance to laryngeal mask insertion, demand for propofol and remifentanil, nausea and vomiting, Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS), dizziness and pain intensity after resuscitation, vasoactive medication treatment, hospitalization time and expenses.

RESULTS

E group had a more stable heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and mean blood pressure than the S group (p < 0.001). Patients in E group had a higher demand for propofol (p < 0.001) but better RASS scores (p < 0.001) after resuscitation. The incidence of intraoperative vasoactive medication use was higher in the S group (18.4% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.029). There were no statistically significant differences in terms of resistance to laryngeal mask insertion, remifentanil demand, time required for resuscitation, postoperative pain, dizziness, nausea or vomiting.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with sufentanil, esketamine-induced anesthesia during hysteroscopic surgery can reduce intraoperative hemodynamic fluctuations and the incidence of intraoperative vasoactive medication. Although esketamine-induced anesthesia may increase the demand for propofol during surgery, it does not affect the anesthesia recovery time and the quality of patient recovery is better.

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on the ED50 of propofol induction dose in elderly patients undergoing painless gastroscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Intravenous lidocaine could be a potential alternative adjuvant to propofol-based sedation for gastroscopy in elderly patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on the median effective dose (ED50) of propofol induction dose in elderly patients undergoing painless gastroscopy.

METHODS

The study included 70 patients aged ≥ 60 years undergoing painless gastroscopy with 64 randomly assigned to either group L (2% lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg, n = 31) or group N (equal volume normal saline, n = 33). All patients received propofol induction following 0.1 μg/kg intravenous sufentanil. The Dixon "up-and-down" sequential method was used, with a 1.5 mg/kg initial induction dose of propofol followed by a 0.1 mg/kg sequential variable dose. The primary endpoint was the ED50 of the propofol induction dose. The total propofol dose, recovery time, adverse events, and local anesthetic intoxication reactions were also recorded.

RESULTS

The ED50 of propofol induction dose was 0.670 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.216-0.827) mg/kg in group L and 1.118 (95% CI 0.803-1.232) mg/kg in group N. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.001). The incidence of hypotension and propofol injection pain were lower in group L than in group N (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the orientation recovery time in group L was shorter compared to group N (p < 0.05). None of the participants in group L observed local anesthetic intoxication reactions after receiving lidocaine.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of intravenous lidocaine to elderly patients undergoing painless gastroscopy resulted in a significant 40% reduction in the ED50 of propofol induction dose, which may be related to the decreased incidence of hypotension and injection pain, as well as the improved post-gastroscopy orientation recovery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR, ChiCTR2200065530. Registered on 08 November 2022.

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on outcomes in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (GEPs) are frequently employed for the diagnosis and treatment of various gastrointestinal ailments. While propofol sedation is widely used during these procedures, there is a concern regarding its potential negative effects. Intravenous (IV) lidocaine has been suggested as an add-on to propofol sedation for GEPs, but current evidence on its efficiency and safety is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of IV lidocaine on outcomes in patients receiving propofol during GEPs.

METHODS

Electronic databases were screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published up to 31 March 2023, investigating the effectiveness of intravenous lidocaine addition to propofol sedation during GEPs.

RESULTS

A total of 12 RCTs involving 712 patients that received IV lidocaine and propofol for GEF and 719 patients that received propofol were analyzed. Adding IV lidocaine to propofol sedation led to significant reduction in pain after the procedure (standardized mean difference (SMD) =  - 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI]; - 1.51 to - 0.32), decreased propofol usage (SMD =  - 0.89; 95% CI, - 1.31 to - 0.48), lower recovery time (SMD =  - 0.95 min; 95% CI, - 1.48 to - 0.43), and decreased pain score (SMD =  - 0.91; 95% CI, - 1.51 to - 0.32). The overall rate of adverse events was markedly less in the lidocaine group than in the control group (RR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.99).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that IV lidocaine improves patient outcomes by reducing post-procedural pain, decreasing propofol usage, shortening recovery time, and lowering pain scores. This study provides compelling evidence supporting the use of intravenous lidocaine as an adjunct to propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. However, further research is necessary to optimize the use of lidocaine and fully understand its long-term effects.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

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

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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