Effectiveness of sodium thiopentone, propofol, and etomidate as an ideal intravenous anesthetic agent for modified electroconvulsive therapy

Efficacy of Single-Bolus Administration of Remimazolam During Induction of Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Prospective, Single-Center, Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a recently marketed ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine. This drug is considered safe and effective during general anesthesia; however, limited information is available about its effects on patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Therefore, the present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and hemodynamic stability of a bolus administration of remimazolam during anesthesia induction in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery were randomly assigned to any 1 of the following 3 groups: anesthesia induction with a continuous infusion of remimazolam 6 mg/kg/h (continuous group), a single-bolus injection of remimazolam 0.1 mg/kg (bolus 0.1 group), or a single-bolus injection of remimazolam 0.2 mg/kg (bolus 0.2 group). Time to loss of responsiveness, defined as modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale <3, and changes in hemodynamic status during anesthetic induction were measured.

RESULTS

Times to loss of responsiveness were 137 ± 20, 71 ± 35, and 48 ± 9 seconds in the continuous, bolus 0.1, and bolus 0.2 groups, respectively. The greatest mean difference was observed between the continuous and bolus 0.2 groups (89.0, 95% confidence interval [CI], 79.1-98.9), followed by the continuous and bolus 0.1 groups (65.8, 95% CI, 46.9-84.7), and lastly between the bolus 0.2 and bolus 0.1 groups (23.2, 95% CI, 6.6-39.8). No significant differences were found in terms of arterial blood pressures and heart rates of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A single-bolus injection of remimazolam provided efficient anesthetic induction in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. A 0.2 mg/kg bolus injection of remimazolam resulted in the shortest time to loss of responsiveness among the 3 groups, without significantly altering the hemodynamic parameters. Therefore, this dosing can be considered a favorable anesthetic induction method for patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Etomidate versus propofol for electroconvulsive therapy: An intraindividual comparative study during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic markedly influenced mental health care practices, notably regarding electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). This was due to the redistribution of anesthetic agents used during ECT such as propofol, for intensive care units. Because in our center propofol was switched to etomidate to avoid ECT activity discontinuation, we undertook this study in order to compare Propofol and Etomidate regarding electroencephalographic seizure duration and stimulus intensity.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective and comparative study, each patient being its own control. We included patients with at least two courses of ECT on propofol and two others with etomidate over the period from September 2019 to April 2021, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis. Our data collection process notably targeted stimulus intensity, seizure duration recorded using electroencephalography, and medication used for anesthetic induction.

RESULTS

Overall, we included 18 patients with a male: female ratio of 1:2.6 and a mean (and standard deviation) age of 62.7±13.4 years. We found that the mean intensity of stimulation was significantly lower with etomidate when compared to propofol (425.3±250.0 vs. 658.9±280.2 mC, P=0.001). The mean duration of electroencephalographic seizure was significantly higher with etomidate in comparison to propofol (53.5±16.6 vs. 35.0±12.2seconds, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

By using each patient as its own control, our study found that etomidate, while compared to propofol, was related to a lower level of stimulatory intensity and a longer electroencephalographic seizure duration.

Anesthetic Influence on Electroconvulsive Therapy: A Comprehensive Review

The prevalence of severe mental disorders has been rising annually. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is considered a valuable treatment option in psychiatry for conditions such as schizophrenia and medication-resistant depression, especially when other treatments have proven insufficient. ECT rapidly improves patients' mood, alleviates symptoms, and demonstrates significant therapeutic effects. Currently, the form of ECT used in clinical practice is modified electroconvulsive therapy (mECT), which is administered under general anesthesia. Accumulative evidence has confirmed that different anesthetic drugs, anesthetic-ECT time interval, anesthetic depth, and airway management can impact the outcomes of ECT. Therefore, this review aims to summarize the current impact of anesthesia factors on ECT, providing reference for clinical anesthesia during ECT procedures.

Beyond the surface: analyzing etomidate and propofol as anesthetic agents in electroconvulsive therapy-A systematic review and meta-analysis of seizure duration outcomes

Background

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a widely used treatment for severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, depression, and mania. The procedure involves applying brief electrical stimulation to induce a seizure, and anesthesia is used to ensure sedation and muscle relaxation. Finding the right anesthetic agent with minimal side effects, especially on seizure duration, is crucial for optimal outcomes because seizure duration is an important factor in the effectiveness of ECT, but the anesthetic agents used can affect it.

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to pool the results of all relevant studies comparing the two induction agents, etomidate and propofol, for motor and electroencephalogram (EEG) seizure duration outcomes.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases to identify the relevant articles. The primary outcome measures were motor and EEG seizure durations. Statistical power was ensured by performing heterogeneity, publication bias, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis. Standard mean difference and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for continuous outcomes, and a random-effects model was used.

Results

A total of 16 studies were included in this meta-analysis, comprising 7 randomized control trials (RCTs), 7 crossover trials, and 2 cohorts. The overall motor seizure duration was statistically significantly longer with etomidate than with propofol. The overall result for EEG seizure duration was also longer with the use of etomidate over propofol and was statistically significant. In addition, subgrouping was performed based on the study design for both outcomes, which showed insignificant results in the cohort's subgroup for both outcomes, while the RCTs and crossover subgroups supported the overall results. Heterogeneity was assessed through subgrouping and sensitivity analysis.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis found that etomidate is superior to propofol in terms of motor and EEG seizure duration in ECT, implying potentially better efficacy. Hence, etomidate should be considered the preferred induction agent in ECT, but larger studies are needed to further validate our findings.

Changes of inflammatory factors in patients after resection of lung adenocarcinoma with propofol and etomidate

OBJECTIVE

This research was designed to investigate the changes of inflammatory factors in patients after resection of lung adenocarcinoma with propofol versus etomidate.

METHODS

A total of 104 patients who underwent resection of lung adenocarcinoma in our hospital were divided into a propofol group (group A, n=50) and an etomidate group (group B, n=54). The levels of CRP and IL-6 at different time points and the changes of blood gas indexes at 10 min before and after operation were observed in both groups. Their pain score and quality of life score were compared. Besides, we observed the wake-up time, tracheal extubation time and the incidence of adverse reactions.

RESULTS

The anesthesia recovery and tracheal extubation time in group B were shorter than those in group A (P<0.05). After 10-minutes of spontaneous breathing, PaO₂ and SaO₂ in group B were higher than those in group A (P<0.05), and PaCO₂ was lower (P<0.05); compared with group A. The incidence of adverse reactions and the levels of inflammatory factors in group B were lower than those in group A after operation (both P<0.05). The quality of life of patients in group B after operation was better than that in group A (P<0.05). There was no marked difference in VAS scores between groups.

CONCLUSION

Etomidate has better anesthetic effect than propofol in lung adenocarcinoma resection, leading to better stabilization of the vital signs of patients and it also has higher safety.

Evaluating Factors Affecting the Time Interval Between Propofol Injection and Induction of Electro-convulsion and Relationship Between These Factors and Duration of Convulsion

Background

Current evidence on the effect of anesthetic-ECT time interval (AETI) is controversial. This study aimed to investigate the factors affecting the time interval between propofol injection and electro-convulsion induction and the relationship between these factors and the duration of convulsion.

Methods

In this study, 102 patients (616 sessions of ECT) were studied. Demographic and clinical data (age, gender, receiving or not receiving medications that affected the seizure threshold, the total number of ECT sessions, clinical severity of admission scores, clinical diagnosis, propofol dose, seizure duration, and AETI) were collected in special forms and analyzed by appropriate statistical methods.

Results

Sessions with long-term AETI had longer seizure time than sessions with short-term AETI (33.47 ± 8.46 vs. 28.68 ± 9.74, P value < 0.05). The duration of seizures was significantly longer in the group with long AETI in sessions 1, 2, and 4 than in the other group (P value < 0.05). There was a significant relationship between the duration of seizures and propofol dose, AETI, and receiving drugs effective in the seizure threshold (P value < 0.05).

Conclusions

The results showed that increasing AETI and injecting a lower dose of propofol to induce anesthesia would increase the duration of seizures. Also, taking medications that would affect the seizure threshold reduces the duration of seizures.

Bi-Spectral Index-Guided Comparison of Propofol versus Etomidate for Induction in Electroconvulsive Therapy

Background:

Previous studies have compared varying doses of propofol and etomidate for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) without monitoring the depth of anesthesia. Seizure duration may vary with the depth of anesthesia.

Aim:

This study aimed to compare the effects of bi-spectral index (BIS)-guided induction with propofol and etomidate on various parameters of ECT.

Settings and Design:

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty patients undergoing ECT were randomly allocated to two groups. Group P received intravenous propofol 1–2 mg.kg ⁻¹ and Group E received etomidate 0.1–0.3 mg.kg ⁻¹ to attain a BIS of 40–60. Heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and BIS were recorded at various time points intraoperatively till 30 min following ECT. Seizure duration, recovery time, and adverse effects were also recorded.

Statistical Analysis:

Quantitative data were compared using unpaired t-test. Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical data. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

The mean induction time and seizure duration were shorter (P < 0.001), and recovery time to obey commands was longer in Group P as compared to that of Group E (P = 0.031). HR, SBP, and DBP for 10 min after ECT had elevated more in Group E than that in Group P (P < 0.05). The incidence of myoclonus was higher in Group P compared to that of Group E (P = 0.012).

Conclusion:

During ECT, BIS-guided induction with propofol provides more stable hemodynamics than etomidate, but reduces induction time, seizure duration, and recovery time more as compared to that of etomidate.

Comparison of the efficacy of ketamine- propofol versus sodium thiopental-fentanyl in sedation: a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Many sedative regimens have been studied with controversial efficiencies. This study tried to assess the desirable and adverse effects of sodium thiopental-fentanyl (TF) with ketamine-propofol (KP) for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department.

METHODS

After signing written consent, patients were enrolled in this randomised double-blind trial to receive either KP or TF to reach the desired sedation level. The respiratory and haemodynamic complications, nausea and vomiting, recovery agitation, patient recall and satisfaction, provider satisfaction and recovery time were compared.

RESULTS

Of the participants, 47 in the KP group and 49 in the TF group were enrolled. The mean and SD scores were 6.91±1.93 and 8.34±1.25 for patients' satisfaction and 7.55±1.54 and 8.65±1.00 for satisfaction of physicians performing the procedures in TF and KP groups, respectively (p=0.000). Moreover, 39 (79.59%) and 18 (38.29%) of patients declared that they had recalled the procedures in the TF and KP groups, respectively (p=0.000). Transient hypoxia was reported in 2.1% and 8.1% in the KP and TF groups leading to perform 4.2% vs 8.1% airway manoeuvres, respectively, without the need for endotracheal intubation or further admission.

CONCLUSIONS

KP and TF combinations were effectively comparable although KP resulted in higher patient and provider satisfaction. This study did not detect a difference regarding adverse respiratory or haemodynamic effects. It is estimated that the TF combination can be potent and efficacious with possible low adverse events in procedural sedation.

Rapid sequence induction (RSI) in trauma patients: Insights from healthcare providers

BACKGROUND

We aimed to describe the current practice of emergency physicians and anaesthesiologists in the selection of drugs for rapid-sequence induction (RSI) among trauma patients.

METHODS

A prospective survey audit was conducted based on a self-administered questionnaire among two intubating specialties. The preferred type and dose of hypnotics, opioids, and muscle relaxants used for RSI in trauma patients were sought in the questionnaire. Data were compared for the use of induction agent, opioid use and muscle relaxant among stable and unstable trauma patients by the intubating specialties.

RESULTS

A total of 102 participants were included; 47 were anaesthetists and 55 were emergency physicians. Propofol (74.5%) and Etomidate (50.0%) were the most frequently used induction agents. Significantly higher proportion of anesthesiologist used Propofol whereas, Etomidate was commonly used by emergency physicians in stable patients (P=0.001). Emergency physicians preferred Etomidate (63.6%) and Ketamine (20.0%) in unstable patients. The two groups were comparable for opioid use for stable patients. In unstable patients, use of opioid differed significantly by intubating specialties. The relation between rocuronium and suxamethonium use did change among the anaesthetists. Emergency physicians used more suxamethonium (55.6% vs. 27.7%, P=0.01) in stable as well as unstable (43.4 % vs. 27.7%, P=0.08) patients.

CONCLUSION

There is variability in the use of drugs for RSI in trauma patients amongst emergency physicians and anaesthesiologists. There is a need to develop an RSI protocol using standardized types and dose of these agents to deliver an effective airway management for trauma patients.

Cost analysis of vitrectomy under local versus general anesthesia in a developing country

Purpose

To report cost reductions of vitrectomy under local anesthesia.

Patients and methods

This was a retrospective cohort study using medical records of consecutive patients undergoing vitrectomy surgery for retinal detachment under general or local anesthesia. Data of patient’s fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (local anesthesia) and Group 2 (general anesthesia). The preoperative data were checked and validated by a peer group consisting of two ophthalmologists, two internists, and two anesthesiologists independently in a blind manner. The calculation of the cost was done using the cost minimization analysis. The cost data were obtained from the finance division of the hospital for each individual treatment. The cost data included unit cost of laboratory tests, surgery, and medications.

Result

There were 100 subjects (50 subjects in each group) assessed by peer groups and declared eligible to undergo surgery under either local or general anesthesia. Both groups were equal. The total average cost for vitreous surgery under general anesthesia for each patient was $322.17, whereas for local anesthesia it was $220.57. The mean difference was $101.60 (46.06%) saving on local anesthesia.

Conclusion

Vitrectomy surgery under local anesthesia can reduce the cost by almost half that of general anesthesia. The present study showed that the type of anesthesia determined the ultimate cost for the surgery. Hence, surgery under local anesthesia appears affordable and cost-effective, especially in a developing country like Indonesia.

Different regimens of intravenous sedatives or hypnotics for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in adult patients with depression

BACKGROUND

Depression is a common mental disorder. It affects millions of people worldwide and is considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be one of the leading causes of disability. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a well-established treatment for severe depression. Intravenous anaesthetic medication is used to minimize subjective unpleasantness and adverse side effects of the induced tonic-clonic seizure. The influence of different anaesthetic medications on the successful reduction of depressive symptoms and adverse effects is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This review evaluated the effects of different regimens of intravenous sedatives and hypnotics on anti-depression efficacy, recovery and seizure duration in depressed adults undergoing ECT.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2012, Issue 12); MEDLINE via Ovid SP (from 1966 to 31 December 2012); and EMBASE via Ovid SP (from 1966 to 31 December 2012). We handsearched related journals and applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials evaluating the effects of different intravenous sedatives and hypnotics for ECT. We excluded studies and trials using placebo or inhalational anaesthetics and studies that used no anaesthetic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. When possible, data were pooled and risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs), each with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were computed using the Cochrane Review Manager statistical package (RevMan).

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the review 18 RCTs (599 participants; published between 1994 and 2012). Most of the included trials were at high risk of bias.We analysed the results of studies comparing six different intravenous anaesthetics.Only a few studies comparing propofol with methohexital (four studies) and with thiopental (three studies) could be pooled.No difference was noted in the reduction of depression scores observed in participants treated with propofol compared with methohexital (low-quality evidence). These four studies were not designed to detect differences in depression scores.The duration of electroencephalograph (EEG) and of motor seizures was shorter in the propofol group compared with the methohexital group (low-quality evidence). No difference was seen in EEG seizure duration when propofol was compared with thiopental (low-quality evidence).Time to recovery (following commands) was longer among participants after anaesthesia with thiopental compared with propofol (low-quality evidence).For the remaining comparisons of anaesthetics, only single studies or insufficient data were available. Adverse events were inadequately reported in eligible trials, and none of the included trials reported anaesthesia-related mortality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most of the included studies were at high risk of bias, and the quality of evidence was generally low. The studies were not designed to detect clinically relevant differences in depression scores. Anaesthetic agents should be chosen on the basis of adverse effect profile, emergence and how these medications affect seizure duration. If it is difficult to elicit an adequately long seizure, methohexital may be superior to propofol (low-quality evidence). If a patient is slow to recover from anaesthesia, propofol may allow a faster time to follow commands than thiopental (low-quality evidence). A factor of clinical concern that was not addressed by any study was adrenal suppression from etomidate. Optimal dosages of intravenous sedatives or hypnotics have not yet been determined.Larger well-designed randomized studies are needed to determine which intravenous anaesthetic medication leads to the greatest improvement in depression scores with minimal adverse effects.