GABRA1 and GABRB2 Polymorphisms are Associated with Propofol Susceptibility

Efficacy and safety of Ciprofol for procedural sedation and anesthesia in non-operating room settings

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Ciprofol, a novel intravenous anesthetic, provides rapid recovery in patients undergoing colonoscopy. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of ciprofol in comparison with propofol for sedation or anesthesia in non-operating room settings including endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and flexible bronchoscopy (FB).

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial.

SETTING

University-affiliated teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

We recruited 207 patients scheduled for an endoscopic procedure from October 2021 to December 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized into three groups according to the dose during induction (n = 69 each): 1) ciprofol 6 mg/kg/h, 2) ciprofol 8 mg/kg/h, or 3) propofol 40 mg/kg/h. Ciprofol or propofol was administered throughout the procedure.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the success rate of sedation or anesthesia for the procedures. Secondary outcomes included induction time, endoscope insertion time, recovery time, discharge time, incidence of drug-related adverse events (AEs), neurological and inflammatory outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

The procedure success rates in the three groups were 100%. The induction time in the 6 (3.3 ± 1.0 min) and 8 mg/kg/h (2.9 ± 0.6 min) ciprofol groups was longer than that in the propofol group (2.5 ± 0.6 min) only in patients undergoing FB (p = 0.004). The time for patients to be fully alert and discharged from the post-anesthesia care unit was comparable across the three groups (p > 0.05). The incidence of drug-related AEs in the propofol and 6 and 8 mg/kg/h ciprofol groups was 84.1%, 76.8%, and 79.7%. No pain on injection was reported by ciprofol groups. Neurological outcomes and inflammatory responses were comparable among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol induced a level of sedation or anesthesia equivalent to that induced by propofol in non-operating room settings except for a prolonged induction time in patients undergoing FB. Ciprofol had a safety profile similar to that of propofol. No pain on injection was reported by ciprofol.

Polymorphisms of pharmacogenetic candidate genes affect etomidate anesthesia susceptibility

Purpose: Etomidate is widely used in general anesthesia and sedation, and significant individual differences are observed during anesthesia induction. This study aimed to explore the molecular mechanisms of different etomidate susceptibility at the genetic level.

Methods: 128 patients were enrolled in the study. The bispectral index (BIS), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded when the patients entered the operating room for 5 min, before the administration of etomidate, 30 s, 60 s, 90 s, 120 s and 150 s after the administration of etomidate, and the corresponding single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were analyzed.

Results: Significant individual differences were observed in etomidate anesthesia. The results of two-way ANOVA showed that CYP2C9 rs1559, GABRB2 rs2561, GABRA2 rs279858, GABRA2 rs279863 were associated with the BIS value during etomidate anesthesia; UGT1A9 rs11692021 was associated with the Extended Observer’s Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (EOAA/S) score during etomidate anesthesia; GABRB2 rs2561 was associated with MAP. Multiple linear stepwise regression model results showed that CYP2C9 rs1559, GABRA2 rs279858 and GABRB2 rs2561 were associated with the BIS value and UGT1A9 rs11692021 was associated with the EOAA/S score; GABRB2 rs2561 was associated with MAP.

Conclusion: GABRA2 rs279858, GABRB2 rs2561, CYP2C9 rs1559 and UGT1A9 rs11692021 are the SNPs with individual differences during etomidate anesthesia. This is the first to study the SNPs of etomidate, which can provide certain evidence for the future use of etomidate anesthesia and theoretical basis for precision anesthesia.