Safety and efficacy of etomidate and propofol anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy: A double-blind randomized clinical study

Efficacy and safety of low-dose esketamine for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy in adults: a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis

Object: The benefits of low-dose esketamine for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy remain unclear. As such, the present study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose esketamine for this procedure. Methods: Seven common databases were searched for clinical studies investigating low-dose esketamine for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. Subsequently, a meta-analysis was performed to synthesize and analyze the data extracted from studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Results: Meta-analysis revealed that, compared with propofol, low-dose esketamine in combination with propofol significantly reduced recovery time by 0.56 min (mean difference [MD] -0.56%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to -0.05, p = 0.03), induction time by 9.84 s (MD -9.84, 95% CI -12.93 to -6.75, p < 0.00001), propofol dosage by 51.05 mg (MD -51.05, 95% CI -81.53 to -20.57, p = 0.01), and increased mean arterial pressure by 6.23 mmHg (MD 6.23, 95% CI 1.37 to 11.08, p = 0.01). Meanwhile, low-dose esketamine reduced injection pain by 63% (relative risk [RR] 0.37, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.49, p < 0.00001), involuntary movements by 40% (RR 0.60, 95% Cl 0.42 to 0.85, p < 0.005), choking by 42% (RR 0.58, 95% Cl 0.38 to 0.88, p = 0.01), bradycardia by 68% (RR 0.32, 95% Cl 0.18 to 0.58, p = 0.0002), hypotension by 71% (RR 0.29, 95% Cl 0.21 to 0.40, p < 0.00001), respiratory depression by 63% (RR 0.37, 95% 0.26 to 0.51, p < 0.00001), additional cases of propofol by 53% (RR 0.47, 95% Cl 0.29 to 0.77, p = 0.002), and increased hypertension by 1000% (RR 11.00, 95% Cl 1.45 to 83.28, p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in mean heart rate, mean oximetry saturation, delirium, dizziness, vomiting, tachycardia, and hypoxemia. Subgroup analyses revealed that, compared with other dose groups, 0.25 mg/kg esketamine afforded additional benefits in recovery and induction time, mean arterial pressure, involuntary movements, hypoxemia, and respiratory depression. Conclusion: Low-dose esketamine was found to be safe and effective for providing anesthesia during gastrointestinal endoscopy, with 0.25 mg/kg identified as the optimal dose within the dosage ranges examined. However, caution should be exercised when administering this drug to patients with inadequate preoperative blood pressure control.

Exploring Ciprofol Alternatives: A Comprehensive Review of Intravenous Anesthesia Options

Ciprofol is a recently developed, short-acting γ-aminobutyric acid receptor agonist sedative that is more potent than propofol. Still, there have been few clinical studies of this agent to date. This review explores alternative intravenous anesthesia options to ciprofol, considering their pharmacology, clinical efficacy, safety profile, and practical considerations. While ciprofol offers advantages such as rapid onset and predictable offset, concerns regarding its safety profile and individual variability in response have prompted the search for alternatives. Propofol, etomidate, ketamine, and dexmedetomidine are discussed as established options, each with unique characteristics and potential benefits. Emerging agents, including remimazolam, sufentanil, alfaxalone, and brexanolone, are examined for their potential role in anesthesia management. Recommendations for future research include large-scale comparative studies, optimization of dosing strategies, and personalized approaches guided by pharmacogenomic insights. Ultimately, the future of intravenous anesthesia lies in a multifaceted approach that integrates evidence-based practices, technological innovations, and individualized patient care to enhance safety, efficacy, and patient satisfaction across the perioperative continuum. Collaboration among stakeholders will be crucial in advancing the field and shaping the future landscape of intravenous anesthesia options.

Sedation with a 1:1 mixture of etomidate and propofol for gastroscopy in hypertensive elderly patients

We hypothesized that the combined use of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation in elderly hypertensive patients could reduce adverse reactions while providing ideal sedation. To validate our hypothesis, we conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blinded study. A total of 360 elderly hypertensive patients scheduled for gastroscopy at our hospital were enrolled in the study, of whom 328 completed the trial. The patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the propofol group (group P), the etomidate group (group E), or the propofol-etomidate combination group (mixed at a ratio of 1:1, group PE). We collected and analyzed the cardiopulmonary effects and side effects in each group. Regardless of the sedation drug used, the systolic blood pressure, mean blood pressure, and heart rate of involved patients were significantly affected. Oxygen desaturation and injection pain were more common in group P compared to groups E (33.6% vs. 14.8%, 31.8% vs. 2.7%, both P < 0.01) and group PE (33.6% vs. 13.6%, 31.8% vs. 6.4%, both P < 0.01). The incidence of myoclonus in the PE group was lower than that in the E group (10.9% vs. 61.2%, P < 0.01). Our results indeed demonstrated that the combined use of etomidate and propofol appeared to maintain cardiopulmonary stability with minimal side effects in older hypertensive patients scheduled for gastroscopy, which further implied that this sedation strategy could be a safe and pain-free option for managing patients undergoing gastroscopy, particularly those at a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular events.

Etomidate versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes

BACKGROUND

Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, owing to its side effects, an alternative drug is needed. We aimed to compare the safety, satisfaction, and efficacy outcomes of etomidate versus propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy, including advanced endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL (via EBSCO), China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Web of Science (1946-April 2020) databases for randomized controlled trials of gastrointestinal endoscopy (upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colonoscopy, and advanced endoscopy) using etomidate or propofol as sedatives. We pooled odds ratios (ORs) for the safety profile and patient and anesthesiologist satisfaction using mixed-effects conditional logistic models and standardized mean differences for efficiency outcomes using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies involving 3875 patients were included. Compared with propofol, etomidate resulted in significantly reduced apnea (OR: 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.37; P < .001), hypoxemia (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.35-0.54; P < .001), hypotension (OR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.11-0.36; P < .001), and bradycardia (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30-0.91; P = .02) but led to increased myoclonus (OR: 8.54; 95% CI: 5.20-14.01; P < .001) and lowered anesthesiologist satisfaction (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.39-0.91; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Etomidate may be a good alternative to propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially advanced endoscopy. Etomidate appears to be safe as an inducer for hemodynamically unstable patients or older adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Effect of remimazolam tosilate on the incidence of hypoxemia in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: A bi-center, prospective, randomized controlled study

Background: Remimazolam tosilate is a new ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative medicine. In this study, we evaluated the effect of remimazolam tosilate on the incidence of hypoxemia during sedation in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: Patients in the remimazolam group received an initial dose of 0.1 mg/kg and a bolus dose of 2.5 mg of remimazolam tosilate, whereas patients in the propofol group received an initial dose of 1.5 mg/kg and a bolus dose of 0.5 mg/kg of propofol. Patients received ASA standard monitoring (heart-rate, non-invasive blood pressure, and pulse oxygen saturation) during the entire examination process. The primary outcome was the incidence of moderate hypoxemia (defined as 85%≤ SpO₂< 90%, >15s) during the gastrointestinal endoscopy. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of mild hypoxemia (defined as SpO₂ 90%-94%) and severe hypoxemia (defined as SpO₂< 85%, >15s), the lowest pulse oxygen saturation, airway maneuvers used to correct hypoxemia, patient's hemodynamic as well as other adverse events. Results: 107 elderly patients (67.6 ± 5.7 years old) in the remimazolam group and 109 elderly patients (67.5 ± 4.9 years old) in the propofol group were analyzed. The incidence of moderate hypoxemia was 2.8% in the remimazolam group and 17.4% in the propofol group (relative risk [RR] = 0.161; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.049 to 0.528; p < 0.001). The frequency of mild hypoxemia was less in the remimazolam group, but not statistically significant (9.3% vs. 14.7%; RR = 0.637; 95% CI, 0.303 to 1.339; p = 0.228). There was no significant difference in the incidence of severe hypoxemia between the two groups (4.7% vs. 5.5%; RR = 0.849; 95% CI, 0.267 to 2.698; p = 0.781). The median lowest SpO₂ during the examination was 98% (IQR, 96.0%-99.0%) in patients in the remimazolam group, which was significantly higher than in patients in the propofol group (96%, IQR, 92.0%-99.0%, p < 0.001). Patients in the remimazolam group received more drug supplementation during endoscopy than patients in the propofol group (p = 0.014). There was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of hypotension between the two groups (2.8% vs. 12.8%; RR = 0.218; 95% CI, 0.065 to 0.738; p = 0.006). No significant differences were found in the incidence of adverse events such as nausea and vomiting, dizziness, and prolonged sedation. Conclusion: This study explored the safety of remimazolam compared with propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients. Despite the increased supplemental doses during sedation, remimazolam improved risk of moderate hypoxemia (i.e., 85%≤ SpO₂ < 90%) and hypotension in elderly patients.

Effect of Remimazolam Tosilate on Respiratory Depression in Elderly Patients Undergoing Gastroscopy: A Multicentered, Prospective, and Randomized Study

Background

Remimazolam tosilate (RT) is a new type of γ-aminobutyric acid subtype A (GABA_A) receptor agonist, having the possibility to be an ideal sedative drug for procedural sedation. At present, there are few studies on the effect of RT on respiratory depression in elderly patients. We aimed to evaluate the effect of RT on respiratory depression in elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy.

Methods

This prospective, randomized, single-blinded trial recruited patients from eight centers in China between May 2022 and July 2022. A total of 346 elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy were randomly divided into RT group (0.2 mg/kg) or propofol group (1.5 mg/kg), respectively. The primary outcome was the incidence of respiratory depression. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of sedative-related adverse events, the success rate of sedation, time to fully alert, time to loss of consciousness (LOC), time to ready for discharge, as well as the the patients, endoscopists and anethetists' satisfaction.

Results

The incidence of respiratory depression was significantly reduced in the RT group compared with the propofol group (9.8% vs 17.9%, P=0.042). The time of LOC and fully alert in the RT group were longer than that in the propofol group (P < 0.05). The incidences of hypotention (50.9% vs 32.4%, P=0.001) and hypotension requiring treatment (5.8% vs 1.7%, P=0.031) were significantly higher in the propofol group than that in the RT group. The incidence and severity of injection pain were more frequently recorded in the propofol group than that in the RT group (40.5% vs 12.1%, P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of sedation success rates, time to ready for discharge, endoscopists and anethetists' satisfaction and other sedative-related adverse events.

Conclusion

RT may be a suitable alternative sedative agent for elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy due to its safety profile.

Effective Doses of Nalbuphine Combined With Propofol for Painless Gastroscopy in Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: This prospective study evaluated the 50% effective dose (ED₅₀) and 95% effective dose (ED₉₅) of nalbuphine combined with propofol during painless gastroscopy.

Methods: Seventy-five patients who underwent painless gastroscopy were randomly divided into five groups (group N₀, N_0.05, N_0.1, N_0.15, and N_0.2), with doses of 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, or 0.2 mg/kg nalbuphine in each group. Propofol was given to all groups as the sedative. The bispectral index (BIS) value, propofol dose, examination time, and awakening time were recorded. The number of patients with intolerance indexes (coughing, retching, swallowing, or limb movement) was recorded in each group. The ED₅₀/ED₉₅ of nalbuphine combined with propofol for gastroscopy were calculated.

Results: Compared with those of groups N₀, N_0.05, or N_0.1, the propofol dose and awakening time were significantly reduced in group N_0.15 or N_0.2 (p < 0.05). The successful rate of painless gastroscopy in group N_0.15 or N_0.2 significantly increased compared to that of group N₀ or N_0.05 (p < 0.05). When combined with propofol, nalbuphine had an ED₅₀ and ED₉₅ for painless gastroscopy of 0.078 mg/kg (95% CI, 0.056–0.098 mg/kg) and 0.162 mg/kg (95% CI, 0.134–0.217 mg/kg), respectively.

Conclusion: The ED₅₀/ED₉₅ of nalbuphine combined with propofol are 0.078 and 0.162 mg/kg, respectively, for painless gastroscopy. Nalbuphine at 0.162 mg/kg combined with propofol is effective and safe for painless gastroscopy in adults.

Physical and Chemical Compatibility of Etomidate and Propofol Injectable Emulsions

INTRODUCTION

The mixture of etomidate and propofol is widely used in clinical practice to improve efficacy of general anesthesia and to minimize side effects. As a thermodynamically unstable system, emulsion is prone to destabilization through mechanisms including coalescence, flocculation, and creaming. Such unwanted phenomenon can induce fat embolism after intravenous administration. This study was aimed to investigate the physical and chemical stability of the mixture of etomidate and propofol in the dosage form of emulsion.

METHODS

This compatibility study focused on the critical quality attributes (CQAs) of drug-containing emulsions, such as appearance, pH, particle size and distribution, zeta potential, the observation under centrifugation, and drug content and impurity.

RESULTS

As the results, there were no significant changes in the CQAs of the mixed emulsions up to 24 h after mixing at refrigeration temperature (4°C), room temperature (25°C), and body temperature (37°C).

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that etomidate emulsion is physically and chemically compatible with propofol emulsions up to 24 h at 4°C, 25°C, and 37°C, suggesting that etomidate and propofol can be administrated in mixture without adversely affecting product characteristics, at least in vitro.

Progress in research of postoperative nausea and vomiting after painless gastrointestinal endoscopy

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) refers to nausea and vomiting occurring within 24 h after surgery. PONV seriously affects the quality of postoperative recovery after painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. In this paper, we review the progress in the research of PONV after painless gastrointestinal endoscopy to provide clinical guidance for improving the medical safety and service quality of painless and comfortable anesthesia. PONV after painless gastrointestinal endoscopy has unique factors and characteristics. On the basis of comprehensive evaluation and according to the patient's specific situation, the doctors should identify the risk factors, optimize the anesthesia scheme, choose anesthetics and analgesics rationally, and take comprehensive diagnostic and therapeutic measures.

Management strategies for the treatment and prevention of postoperative/postdischarge nausea and vomiting: an updated review

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) remain common and distressing complications following surgery. The routine use of opioid analgesics for perioperative pain management is a major contributing factor to both PONV and PDNV after surgery. PONV and PDNV can delay discharge from the hospital or surgicenter, delay the return to normal activities of daily living after discharge home, and increase medical costs. The high incidence of PONV and PDNV has persisted despite the introduction of many new antiemetic drugs (and more aggressive use of antiemetic prophylaxis) over the last two decades as a result of growth in minimally invasive ambulatory surgery and the increased emphasis on earlier mobilization and discharge after both minor and major surgical procedures (e.g. enhanced recovery protocols). Pharmacologic management of PONV should be tailored to the patient’s risk level using the validated PONV and PDNV risk-scoring systems to encourage cost-effective practices and minimize the potential for adverse side effects due to drug interactions in the perioperative period. A combination of prophylactic antiemetic drugs with different mechanisms of action should be administered to patients with moderate to high risk of developing PONV. In addition to utilizing prophylactic antiemetic drugs, the management of perioperative pain using opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic techniques is critically important for achieving an enhanced recovery after surgery. In conclusion, the utilization of strategies to reduce the baseline risk of PONV (e.g. adequate hydration and the use of nonpharmacologic antiemetic and opioid-sparing analgesic techniques) and implementing multimodal antiemetic and analgesic regimens will reduce the likelihood of patients developing PONV and PDNV after surgery.

Using Etomidate and Midazolam for Screening Colonoscopies Results in More Stable Hemodynamic Responses in Patients of All Ages

Background/Aims

Recent studies have demonstrated that etomidate is a safe sedative drug with noninferior sedative effects. In our recent study, we revealed that etomidate/midazolam was more hemodynamically stable than propofol/midazolam in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopies. We aimed to investigate whether compared with propofol/midazolam, etomidate/midazolam causes fewer cardiopulmonary adverse events with noninferior efficacy for screening colonoscopies in patients of all ages.

Methods

In this single-center, randomized, double-blind study, we prospectively enrolled 200 patients. The patients were divided into etomidate and propofol groups. The primary outcome was the occurrence of cardiopulmonary adverse events. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with fluctuations in vital signs (oxygen desaturation and transient hypotension), adverse events interrupting the procedure, and sedation-related outcomes.

Results

Adverse cardiopulmonary events were more common in the propofol group than the etomidate group (65.0% vs 51.0%, respectively; p=0.045). Forty-six patients (46.0%) in the propofol group and 29 (29.0%) in the etomidate group experienced fluctuations in their vital signs (p=0.013). The proportions of patients experiencing adverse events that interrupted the procedure, including myoclonus, were not significantly different between the two groups (etomidate: 20.0% vs propofol: 11.0%; p=0.079). Both groups had similar sedation-related outcomes. Multivariate analysis revealed that compared with the propofol groups, the etomidate group had a significantly lower risk of fluctuations in vital signs (odds ratio, 0.427; 95% confidence interval, 0.230 to 0.792; p=0.007).

Conclusions

Compared with using propofol/midazolam, using etomidate/midazolam for screening colonoscopies results in more stable hemodynamic responses in patients of all ages; therefore, we recommend using etomidate/midazolam for colonoscopies in patients with cardiovascular risk factors.

Safety and efficacy of combined use of propofol and etomidate for sedation during gastroscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sedation with etomidate or propofol alone during gastroscopy has many side effects. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combined use of propofol and etomidate for sedation during gastroscopy.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Medline (via Ovid SP), Cochrane library databases, CINAHL (via EBSCO), China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), Wanfang, VIP, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were systematically searched. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the combined use of propofol and etomidate vs etomidate or propofol alone for sedation during gastroscopy. Data were pooled using the random-effects models or fixed-effect model based on heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies with 2973 participants were included in the analysis. Compared to propofol alone, the combined use of propofol and etomidate possibly increased recovery time (SMD = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.04-0.24; P = .005), and the risk for myoclonus (OR = 3.07, 95% CI = 1.73-5.44; P < .001), injection pain, and nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, compared to propofol alone, the combination of propofol and etomidate produced an apparent beneficial effect for mean arterial pressure (MAP) after anesthesia (SMD = 1.32, 95% CI = 0.38-2.26; P = .006), SPO2 after anesthesia (SMD = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.43-1.55; P < .001), apnea or hypoxemia (OR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.08-0.33; P < .001), injection pain, and body movement. Further, compared to etomidate alone, the combination of propofol and etomidate reduced the risk for myoclonus (OR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.11-0.22; P < .001), body movement, and nausea and vomiting.

CONCLUSION

The combination of propofol and etomidate might increase recovery time vs that associated with propofol, but it had fewer side effects on circulation and respiration in patients undergoing gastroscopy. The combined use of propofol and etomidate can improve and produce an apparent beneficial effect on the adverse effects of propofol or etomidate alone, and it was safer and more effective than propofol or etomidate alone.

Etomidate Sedation for Advanced Endoscopic Procedures

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

Although propofol is widely used for sedation for endoscopic procedures, concerns remain regarding cardiopulmonary adverse events. Etomidate has little effect on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, but patient satisfaction analysis is lacking. We compared the efficacy and safety of balanced propofol and etomidate sedation during advanced endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

As a randomized noninferiority trial, balanced endoscopic sedation was achieved using midazolam and fentanyl, and patients were randomly assigned to receive propofol (BPS) or etomidate (BES) as add-on drug. The main outcomes were sedation efficacy measured on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) and safety.

RESULTS

In total, 186 patients (94 in the BPS group and 92 in the BES group) were evaluated. BES did not show noninferiority in terms of overall patient satisfaction, with a difference in VAS score of -0.35 (97.5 % confidence interval -1.03 to ∞, p = 0.03). Among endoscopists and nurses, BES showed noninferiority to BPS, with differences in VAS scores of 0.06 and 0.08, respectively. Incidence of cardiopulmonary adverse events was lower in the BES group (27.7 versus 14.1 %, p = 0.023). Hypoxia occurred in 5.3 and 1.1 % of patients in the BPS and BES group (p = 0.211). Myoclonus occurred in 12.1 % (11/92) in the BES group. BES had lower risk of overall cardiopulmonary adverse events (odds ratio 0.401, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

BES was not noninferior to BPS in terms of patient satisfaction. However, BES showed better safety outcomes in terms of cardiopulmonary adverse events.

Effects of small-dose remifentanil combined with index of consciousness monitoring on gastroscopic polypectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blinded trial

BACKGROUND

With the development of painless diagnosis and treatment, remifentanil, a synthetic opioid agonist, is increasingly used in gastroscopy for its rapid, short-term, and potent analgesic effect. However, the dosage of remifentanil used in endoscopy is unclear. Index of consciousness (IOC) is a new anesthesia depth-monitoring indicator that can be divided into index of consciousness 1 (IOC₁) and index of consciousness 2 (IOC₂); IOC₁ is used for estimating a patient's sedation state, whereas IOC₂ reflects analgesic depth. We hypothesized that combining with IOC₁ and IOC₂ monitoring may be helpful to identify an optimal remifentanil dosage in gastroscopic polypectomy.

METHODS

One hundred twenty patients scheduled for gastroscopic polypectomy were enrolled and were randomly assigned to remifentanil 2 ng/mL (group R2), 4 ng/mL (group R4), or 6 ng/mL (group R6), and 40 cases were in each group. During the anesthesia period, remifentanil was kept at the initial given concentration but propofol was adjusted according to IOC₁. The primary outcomes were the dosage of propofol and remifentanil. The secondary outcomes were the variety of IOC₁ and IOC₂, patients' awakening time, and peri-operative adverse reactions such as hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, body movements, hypoxemia, therapy interruption, nausea, vomiting, aspiration, and intra-operative awareness.

RESULTS

With the increasing dosage of remifentanil, the propofol dosage and patients' awakening time decreased significantly, the morbidity of hypertension and body movements also declined, but the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, and hypoxemia rose. In group R2, the value of IOC₂ remained above 50 during the treatment. However, IOC₂ dropped to below 30 at the beginning of the gastroscopy in group R6, and there was statistical difference in hypoxemia between groups R2 and R6 (P <0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

With the help of IOC monitoring, we found that a target concentration of remifentanil 4 ng/mL is comparatively ideal in patients under gastroscopic polypectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Register: ChiCTR-OOD-16009489 , on October 19, 2016.

Efficacy and safety of etomidate-midazolam for screening colonoscopy in the elderly: A prospective double-blinded randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recent studies have shown that etomidate is associated with fewer serious adverse events than propofol and has a noninferior sedative effect. We investigated whether etomidate-midazolam is associated with fewer cardiopulmonary adverse events and has noninferior efficacy compared to propofol-midazolam for screening colonoscopy in the elderly.

METHODS

A prospective, single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial was performed. Patients aged over 65 years who were scheduled to undergo screening colonoscopy were randomized to receive either etomidate or propofol based on midazolam. The primary outcome was all cardiopulmonary adverse events. The secondary outcomes were vital sign fluctuation (VSF), adverse events disturbing the procedure, and sedation-related outcomes.

RESULTS

The incidence of cardiopulmonary adverse events was higher in the propofol group (72.6%) than in the etomidate group (54.8%) (P = .040). VSF was detected in 17 (27.4%) and 31 (50.0%) patients in the etomidate and propofol groups, respectively (P = .010). The incidence rate of adverse events disturbing the procedure was significantly higher in the etomidate group (25.8%) than in the propofol group (8.1%) (P = .008). Moreover, the incidence rate of myoclonus was significantly higher in the etomidate group (16.1%) than in the propofol group (1.6%) (P = .004). There was no statistical significance between the 2 groups with respect to sedation times and sedation-related outcomes including patients' and endoscopist's satisfaction. In the multivariate analysis, the etomidate group had significantly low odds ratio (OR) associated with VSF (OR: 0.407, confidence interval: 0.179-0.926, P = .032).

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend using etomidate-midazolam in patients with high ASA score or vulnerable to risk factors; propofol-midazolam may be used as a guideline in patients with low ASA score.

Effect of the midazolam added with propofol-based sedation in esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although propofol has been widely used for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), adverse events including hypoxia and hypotension may be a concern in the propofol-based sedation. We aimed to analyze whether administration of midazolam would improve safety and efficacy of propofol-based sedation in EGD.

METHODS

One hundred twenty patients who were scheduled to undergo diagnostic EGD were randomly assigned to either midazolam plus propofol (MP) or propofol alone groups. In the MP group, 2 mg of midazolam and 10 mg of propofol were given initially. In the propofol alone group, 40-60 mg of propofol was given initially. In both groups, 20 mg of propofol was given repeatedly to maintain moderate sedation as needed. Vital signs including oxygen saturation were monitored every 2 min. After the patients fully recovered, satisfaction score was investigated from endoscopists, nurses, and patients, respectively.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics did not differ between the MP and propofol alone groups. The mean required doses of propofol was (mean ± standard deviation) 0.3 ± 0.3 and 0.8 ± 0.2 mg/kg in the MP and propofol alone groups, respectively (P < 0.001). In addition, sedation-related adverse events and recovery time did not differ between the two groups. The proportion of satisfactory did not differ between the two groups (MP vs propofol alone; proportion; patient, 95.0% vs 93.3%, P > 0.999; endoscopist, 73.3% vs 80.0%, P = 0.064; nurse, 73.3% vs 76.7%, P = 0.551).

CONCLUSION

Adding midazolam to propofol did not reduced the safety and efficacy, and sedation using propofol alone could be suitable for sedation during diagnostic EGD.

Dexmedetomidine Based Sedation for Post-surgery Critically Ill Adults: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Using dexmedetomidine (Dex) as a sedative agent may benefit the clinical outcomes of post-surgery patients. We reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess whether use of a Dex could improve the outcomes in post-surgery critically ill adults.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane databases for RCTs comparing Dex with propofol or a placebo in post-operative patients, all included RCTs should be published in English before Jul 2016. Citations meeting inclusion criteria were full screened, and trial available data were abstracted independently and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs involving 2568 patients were subject to this meta-analysis. The use of a Dex sedative regimen was associated with a reduce delirium prevalence [odd ratio (OR):0.33, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.24-0.45, I²= 5%, P<0.001], a shorter the length of ICU stay [mean difference (MD): -0.60, 95%CI: -0.69 to -0.50, I²=40%, P<0.001] and the length of hospital stay [MD: -0.68, 95%CI: -1.21 to -0.16, I²=0%, P=0.01]. However, using of Dex could not shorter the duration of mechanical ventilation [MD: -10.18. 95%CI: -31.08-10.72, I²=99%, P=0.34], but could shorter the time to extubation in post-surgery patients [MD: -47.46, 95%CI: -84.63-10.67, I²=98%, P=0.01].

CONCLUSION

The use of a Dex sedative regimen was associated with a reduce delirium prevalence, a shorter the length of ICU and hospital stay, and a shorter time to extubation in post-surgery critical ill patients.

Sevoflurane may be more beneficial than propofol in patients receiving endoscopic variceal ligation and endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy: A randomized, double-blind study

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of various general anesthesia regimens during endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy (EVS). A total of 123 patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status III and IV, aged 40-70 years, undergoing general anesthesia for EVL and EVS were randomly divided into two groups: Sevoflurane anesthesia (group S; n=60) and propofol anesthesia (group P; n=60). Vital signs, particularly heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP), were monitored. The designated time points were as follows: 5 min before induction (T0), and 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 min after intubation (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6 and T7, respectively). Time intervals were recorded, including recovery time and extubation time. Following surgery, the observer recorded the Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) score and the visual analogue scale (VAS) score. Adverse reactions were noted. Results demonstrated that there were significant differences in MAP between the two groups at T2, T3, T5, T6 and T7 (P<0.05). There was a significant difference in HR between the two groups at T2, T3 and T4 (P<0.05). Recovery time and extubation time in group P were significantly longer than those in group S (P<0.05; 18.38±2.25 min vs. 14.57±1.04 min and 21.70±2.70 min vs. 15.83±0.88 min, respectively). The rate of ephedrine injected was 58.3% (35/60 patients) in group P vs. 28.3% (17/60 patients) in group S (P<0.05). There was a significant difference in the RSS score between the two groups 5 min after extubation (P<0.05). VRS scores demonstrated that anesthetists and patients were significantly more satisfied with the procedure in group S than in group P (P<0.01). In conclusion, the superiority and special clinical value of inhalational anesthesia has been demonstrated during EVL and EVS attributed to stable hemodynamics and high quality of anesthesia recovery in the present study.

The Comparison of Etomidate and Propofol Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Etomidate and propofol played an important role in the sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare their efficacy and safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of etomidate versus propofol for the anesthesia of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were included. Two investigators independently searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. The primary outcomes were anesthesia duration and recovery time. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect model.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials involving 1115 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with propofol, etomidate resulted in comparable anesthesia duration [standard mean difference (Std. MD)=-0.03; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.16 to 0.10; P=0.66], recovery time (Std. MD=0.25; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.92; P=0.47), mean arterial pressure at intubation (Std. MD=0.44; 95% CI, -0.26 to 1.15; P=0.21), heart pulse at intubation (Std. MD=0.93; 95% CI, -0.69 to 2.55; P=0.26), SPO2 at intubation (Std. MD=-0.52; 95% CI, -1.04 to 0.01; P=0.05), patient satisfaction [odds risk (OR)=0.42; 95% CI, 0.11-1.66; P=0.22], hypotension (OR=0.14; 95% CI, 0.02-1.22; P=0.07), changes of heart rate (OR=0.97; 95% CI, 0.61-1.53; P=0.88), nausea-vomiting (OR=2.02; 95% CI, 0.73-5.57; P=0.17), and the reduction in apnea or hyoxemia (OR=0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.64; P=0.0002), and injection pain (OR=0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08; P<0.00001), but the increase in myoclonus (OR=8.54; 95% CI, 3.14-23.20; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Between etomidate and propofol, no significant difference was revealed regarding anesthesia duration, recovery time, mean arterial pressure at intubation, heart pulse at intubation, SPO2 at intubation, patient satisfaction, hypotension, changes of heart rate and nausea-vomiting. Compared with propofol, etomidate showed reduced apnea or hyoxemia, and injection pain, but with an increased myoclonus.

Clinical effects of intravenous anesthesia with etomidate plus propofol for subpyloric endoscopic ultrasonography

AIM

To investigate the clinical effects of intravenous anesthesia with etomidate plus propofol for deep sedation during subpyloric endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS).

METHODS

We recruited 60 patients who would undergo subpyloric EUS examination. They were randomly allocated into three groups to receive intravenous etomidate alone (group E, n = 20), intravenous propofol alone (group P, n = 20) and etomidate combined with propofol (group EP, n = 20), respectively. The change of patients' vital signs, examination duration, time to awakening, and adverse effects were observed.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the onset time of anesthesia, examination duration or time to awakening among all groups (P > 0.05). There was a significant circulatory fluctuation in group E and group P. In group E, 7 cases had myoclonus and a total of 15 cases developed adverse effects, and the rates of myoclonus and overall adverse effects were significantly higher than those in the other two groups (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous anesthesia with etomidate plus propofol can be safely and effectively applied to ubpyloric EUS with few adverse effects.

Propofol protects against blood-spinal cord barrier disruption induced by ischemia/reperfusion injury

Propofol has been shown to exert neuroprotective effects on the injured spinal cord. However, the effect of propofol on the blood-spinal cord barrier (BSCB) after ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI) is poorly understood. Therefore, we investigated whether propofol could maintain the integrity of the BSCB. Spinal cord IRI (SCIRI) was induced in rabbits by infrarenal aortic occlusion for 30 minutes. Propofol, 30 mg/kg, was intravenously infused 10 minutes before aortic clamping as well as at the onset of reperfusion. Then, 48 hours later, we performed histological and mRNA/protein analyses of the spinal cord. Propofol decreased histological damage to the spinal cord, attenuated the reduction in BSCB permeability, downregulated the mRNA and protein expression levels of matrix metalloprotease-9 (MMP-9) and nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB), and upregulated the protein expression levels of occludin and claudin-5. Our findings suggest that propofol helps maintain BSCB integrity after SCIRI by reducing MMP-9 expression, by inhibiting the NF-κB signaling pathway, and by maintaining expression of tight junction proteins.