The comparison of sedation quality, side effect and recovery profiles on different dosage of remifentanil patient-controlled sedation during breast biopsy surgery

Comparison of Single Target-Controlled Infusion Pump-Delivered Mixed Propofol and Remifentanil with Two Target-Controlled Infusion Pumps-Delivered Propofol and Remifentanil in Patients Undergoing Breast Cancer Surgery-A Prospective Study

Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with remifentanil and propofol (RP) is considered to be an ideal type of general anesthesia (GA) for pediatric and adult patients undergoing medical procedures. However, delivery of an RP mixture by target-controlled infusion (TCI) for GA in surgical procedures has not been described. We investigated the merit of this approach for breast cancer surgery. Eighty-four patients (n = 42 per group) were randomly allocated to propofol and remifentanil either delivered by separate TCI pumps (S group) or in an RP mixture by a single TCI pump (M group). Dosages were adjusted based on the bispectral index (BIS) and the analgesia nociception index (ANI). The primary outcomes were adequate anesthesia (BIS 40-60 and ANI 50-70, respectively), acceptable hemodynamic fluctuations (<30% of baseline) with less frequent TCI pump adjustments, bolus injections of anesthetics, and total consumption of anesthetics during the procedure. The secondary endpoints included time of emergence from anesthesia, patient satisfaction, postoperative pain, rescue with opioids, and adverse events. The characteristics of patients, hemodynamic parameters, BIS and ANI scores, duration of surgery, anesthesia, and emergence were not significantly different between groups. The adjustment frequency of TCI was significantly higher in the S group (3 (range 0-6) vs. 2 (0-6) times; p = 0.005). The total dosage of anesthetics, pain rating, patient satisfaction, need for opioids postoperatively, and incidence of adverse events were not significantly different. We have demonstrated that this RP mixture provided adequate hypnotic and analgesic effects under BIS and ANI monitoring in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery within 1 h.

Prospective evaluation of remifentanil-propofol mixture for total intravenous anesthesia: A randomized controlled study

Application of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) may be considered as unpractical when compared with inhalational anesthesia. Although it is mostly not recommended, mixing intravenous agents is popular in clinical practice. The aim of the present study was to investigate the suitability of using remifentanil-propofol mixture (MIXTIVA) for TIVA. Adult patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of I-II scheduled for elective thyroidectomy were randomly allocated to 3 groups (n=32 for each) to receive TIVA with remifentanil and propofol infusions separately (control group, Group I) or with MIXTIVA infusion that contained remifentanil/propofol at a proportion of 2/1,000 or 3/1,000 (remifentanil concentration, 20 or 30 µg/ml in 1% propofol in Group II or Group III, respectively). The extubation time (the primary outcome of the study), the orientation time and number of patients in whom intraoperative hypotension, hypertension or bradycardia episodes were encountered during anesthesia were comparable among the groups. The mean remifentanil infusion rate in Group III was significantly higher than that in the other groups. The mean propofol infusion rates and mean bispectral index (BIS) scores during anesthesia were comparable among groups. Hypotension accompanied with a high BIS was encountered in one patient in Group III. In conclusion, compared to the standard TIVA technique using separate drug infusions, MIXTIVA infusion used for thyroidectomies did not result in any statistically significant difference in recovery and clinical outcomes. This technique may be considered as a practical implementation for busy ambulatory centers performing general anesthesia. The present study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (trial registration no. NCT04394897).

Patient-controlled Sedation During Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) is a documented method for endoscopic procedures considered to facilitate early recovery. Limited data have been reported, however, on its use during flexible bronchoscopy (FB).

METHODS

This study hypothesized that PCS with propofol during FB would facilitate early recovery, with similar bronchoscopist and patient satisfaction compared with nurse-controlled sedation (NCS) with midazolam. A total of 150 patients were randomized 1:1:1 into a control group (premedication with morphine-scopolamine and NCS with midazolam), PCS-MS group (premedication with morphine-scopolamine and PCS with propofol), and PCS-G group (premedication with glycopyrronium and PCS with propofol).

RESULTS

The procedures included transbronchial biopsy, transbronchial needle aspiration, cryotherapy/biopsy, and/or multistation endobronchial ultrasound. FB duration values in median (range) were 40 (10 to 80), 39 (12 to 68), and 44 (10 to 82) minutes for the groups NCS, PCS-MS, and PCS-G, respectively. An overall 81% of the patients in the combined PCS groups were ready for discharge (modified Post Anaesthetic Discharge Scoring System, score 10) 2 hours after bronchoscopy compared with 40% in the control group (P<0.0001). Between PCS groups, 96% of the PCS-G group patients were ready for discharge compared with 65% in the PCS-MS group (P=0.0002) at 2 hours. Bronchoscopists' and patients' satisfaction scores were high in all groups. Postdischarge quality scores showed no differences among the groups.

CONCLUSION

PCS with propofol during FB is feasible, as it shortened recovery time without compromising procedure conditions for bronchoscopists or patients. A rapid postsedation stabilization of vital signs facilitates surveillance before the patient leaves the hospital.

Chitosan Oligosaccharide Reduces Propofol Requirements and Propofol-Related Side Effects

Propofol is one of the main sedatives but its negative side effects limit its clinical application. Chitosan oligosaccharide (COS), a kind of natural product with anti-pain and anti-inflammatory activities, may be a potential adjuvant to propofol use. A total of 94 patients receiving surgeries were evenly and randomly assigned to two groups: 10 mg/kg COS oral administration and/or placebo oral administration before being injected with propofol. The target-controlled infusion of propofol was adjusted to maintain the values of the bispectral index at 50. All patients’ pain was evaluated on a four-point scale and side effects were investigated. To explore the molecular mechanism for the functions of COS in propofol use, a mouse pain model was established. The activities of Nav1.7 were analyzed in dorsal root ganglia (DRG) cells. The results showed that the patients receiving COS pretreatment were likely to require less propofol than the patients pretreated with placebo for maintaining an anesthetic situation (p < 0.05). The degrees of injection pain were lower in a COS-pretreated group than in a propofol-pretreated group. The side effects were also more reduced in a COS-treated group than in a placebo-pretreated group. COS reduced the activity of Nav1.7 and its inhibitory function was lost when Nav1.7 was silenced (p > 0.05). COS improved propofol performance by affecting Nav1.7 activity. Thus, COS is a potential adjuvant to propofol use in surgical anesthesia.

Sedative-analgesic activity of remifentanil and effects of preoperative anxiety on perceived pain in outpatient mandibular third molar surgery

The aim of this study was to assess the sedative-analgesic activity of different doses of remifentanil and effects of preoperative anxiety on intraoperative pain levels in patients attending a dental clinic. The patients (n=60) were divided into two groups according to the remifentanil infusion dose given: group R₁: 0.05μg/kg/min; group R₂: 0.1μg/kg/min. The following were evaluated: haemodynamic parameters, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) TX-I score, pain level due to local anaesthesia injection, time to reach a Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score of 3, amount of bolus dose, total drug consumption, recovery period, patient and surgeon satisfaction, and complications. The patient satisfaction score on a visual analogue scale (VAS) was 90 in group R₁ and 100 in group R₂ (P=0.008); the surgeon satisfaction score was 80 in group R₁ and 90 in group R₂ (P=0.004). The time to reach an RSS score of 3 and the amount of bolus dose were significantly lower in group R₂ than in group R₁. High levels of anxiety did not affect intraoperative pain levels. In conclusion, high doses of remifentanil can safely be used for various same-day dental surgery interventions.

A comparison between the effects of propofol-fentanyl with propofol-ketamine for sedation in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography outside the operating room

Background

The efficient and secure techniques of anesthesia and sedation have always been needed for. One of these procedures is endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), due to its painfulness and long duration, has high sensitivity. We compare the effects of propofol–fentanyl (PF) with propofol–ketamine (PK) to sedate patients undergoing ERCP.

Methods

In this clinical trial, patients were divided into two groups of 49 people. A group received a pharmaceutical combination of PK, and another group received a pharmaceutical combination of PF. Vital signs of patients, Ramsey Sedation Score, and pain of patients were assessed. The total dosage of used propofol was also recorded.

Results

There was no significant difference seen in the patients' hemodynamic characteristics in both groups. Pain at the end of surgery and an hour after it in the PK group was less that was not statistically significant. By Ramsey Sedation Score also significant differences were not seen between groups (p = 0.68). By using total dose of propofol used also a significant difference was not observed between the two groups (p = 0.36). Rate of apnea in PK group was 32% and in the PF group was 63%, which this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

A comparison between the two drugs combination shows that although in terms of hemodynamic and sedation criteria both groups were similar, but because of the lower amount of pain and apnea in the PK group, this combination may generally in the ERCP procedure is more efficient and safer.

Patient-controlled sedation with propofol/remifentanil versus propofol/alfentanil for patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy, a randomized, controlled double-blind study

CONTEXT

Many techniques are used for sedation of colonoscopies. Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) is utilizing many drugs or drug combinations.

AIMS

The aim of this study is to compare the safety and feasibility of propofol/remifentanil versus propofol/alfentanil given to sedate patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopies through a patient-controlled technique.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

Controlled randomized and double-blind study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 80 patients were randomly divided into two groups; PA group received a combination of propofol/alfentanil and PR group received propofol/remifentanil combination. Patients were monitored for heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), oxygen saturation, and Ramsay sedation scale (RSS). Times of the following events were recorded; initiation of sedation, insertion and removal of the colonoscope, recovery and discharge. Five intervals were calculated; time to sedation, procedure time, postprocedure time, procedure room time, and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) time. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction scores were obtained.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Unpaired Student's t-test was used to compare between the two groups. Paired Student's t-test was used to compare baseline readings with readings after 30 min of sedation in the same group when needed.

RESULTS

Both groups showed slowing of the HR and decrease in mean arterial BP. HR and mean arterial BP were significantly lower 5 and 10 min after initiation of sedation in PR group when compared with PA group. Both HR and mean arterial BP returned to presedation readings 30 min after initiation of sedation in PR group but not in PA group. No differences between the two groups concerning oxygen saturation, RSS, endoscopist and patient satisfaction scores. Postprocedure and PACU times were significantly prolonged in PA group.

CONCLUSION

PCS with either remifentanil/propofol or alfentanil/propofol for patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy is safe and feasible. Remifentanil/proofol has more beneficial advantages in this setting secondary to its more rapid clearance.