Propofol infusion for sedation in the intensive care unit: preliminary report.

Propofol (2,6,di-isopropylphenol) was given by continuous intravenous infusion to provide sedation after cardiac surgery in 30 patients and its effects compared with those of midazolam given to a further 30 patients. Propofol infusion allowed rapid and accurate control of the level of sedation, which was satisfactory for longer than with midazolam. Patients given propofol recovered significantly more rapidly from their sedation once they had fulfilled the criteria for weaning from artificial ventilation and as a result spent a significantly shorter time attached to a ventilator. There were no serious complications in either group. Both medical and nursing staff considered the propofol infusion to be superior to midazolam in these patients. These findings suggest that propofol is a suitable replacement for etomidate and alphaxalone-alphadolone for sedating patients receiving intensive care.     

Efficacy and safety of propofol sedation during urgent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy--a prospective study

The aim of this study was to investigate both the efficacy and safety of sedation with propofol during urgent therapeutic gastroscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. This prospective study included a total of 110 patients. Propofol was administered intravenously at the starting dose of 1 mg/kg body weight and was followed by repeated doses. Oxygen saturation and heart rate were monitored by pulse oxymetry. The mean dose of propofol administered was 161 +/- 49 mg. Urgent upper GI endoscopy under propofol sedation was successful in 98% of cases. Endoscopists rated the sedation as good in 83.6%, satisfactory in 14.5%, and poor in 1.8% of patients. Potentially harmful drop in oxygen saturation below 85% was observed in 5.5% of patients, whereas a temporary drop in heart rate below 50 beats/min was observed in 11.8%, not requiring any intervention. Almost 93% of patients could not remember the beginning or the end of the intervention. This data demonstrates that sedation with propofol is suitable for use in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding undergoing urgent endoscopy.     

Low-dose propofol infusion for sedation during local anesthesia

The safety and efficacy of lose-dose propofol for sedation were investigated on 90 consenting patients who had undergone surgical procedures with local anesthesia. After being premedicated with intravenous midazolam 0.05 mg.kg(-1), all patients were randomly divided into two groups and received intravenously either a loading dose of propofol 0.8 mg.kg(-1) followed by a continuous infusion of propofol 30 microg.kg(-1)min(-1) (propofol group) or an equivalent volume of saline (placebo group) during operation. Study groups were compared with respect to the level of sedation, hemodynamic variables, oxygen saturation, and the incidence of intraoperative side effects. In addition, the discharge time and the satisfaction of both patients and surgeons with this sedative technique were assessed. Propofol reduced patients' discomfort and lowered their arterial pressure and heart rate during the infiltration of local anesthetics. It also promoted an adequate level of sedation without clinically significant oxygen desaturation in the intraoperative period. Surgeons and patients in the propofol group showed a higher level of satisfaction than those in the placebo group. There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the incidence of adverse effects and the discharge time. In conclusion, it was found that the use of low-dose propofol infusion was a safe and effective sedative technique for local anesthesia.     

右美托咪定联合丙泊酚在房颤电复律中的镇静效果研究

摘要 目的：在接受电复律的房颤患者中,观察比较丙泊酚联合右美托咪定和单用丙泊酚镇静的安全性及有效性。方法：2021年1月至2021年10月期间纳入60例接受电复律的房颤患者,根据随机数表法分为观察组（丙泊酚-右美P-D组）和对照组（丙泊酚 P组）,每组30人,观察两组T0-T4不同阶段的生命体征、不良事件、镇痛效果、苏醒时间等指标。结果：P-D组在T1-4时段HR较T0减低,P组T2-4时段HR也较T0下降,但两组间无明显差异。两组在T2、T3时MAP、SpO₂均低于T0,但T2时段P-D组MAP、SpO₂下降幅度低于P组, T3时段SpO₂下降幅度低于P组, MAP降幅无差异。P-D组丙泊酚用量显著低于P组（48.67±15.03 mg vs 71.33±19.03 mg;P<0.001）,但苏醒时间无明显差异。P-D组呼吸抑制、心动过缓的发生率均低于P组（16.7% vs 40% P=0.045;13.3% vs 3.3% P=0.35）。P-D组镇痛评分为轻度以下者占93.3%,显著优于P组的73.3%（P<0.05）。结论：对电复律的房颤患者,丙泊酚-右美托咪定复合策略展现出良好的镇静、镇痛效果,该方案可明显降低丙泊酚用量,减少临床不良事件率,增强了用药安全性。     

清醒镇静与深度镇静在食管胃底静脉曲张内镜诊疗术的麻醉效果及安全性分析

摘要 目的：研究在清醒镇静与深度镇静下实施食管胃底静脉曲张内镜诊疗术的麻醉效果及安全性分析。方法：选取在我院2020年5月至2022年5月收治的94例食管胃底静脉曲张患者，按照随机数字表法将静脉曲张患者分为对照组和观察组，每组47例。对照组采用清醒镇静（咪达唑仑+芬太尼），观察组采用深度镇静在对照组基础上增加丙泊酚。观察对照组与观察组手术治疗时患者基生命体征变化以及手术治疗后的麻醉效果及安全性。比较两组患者治疗后治疗后的总有效率。结果：观察组总有效率显著高于对照组，差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。观察组出院时间、麻醉达标时间及术后拔管时间显著小于对照组，差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。各时间点实验组患者HR相比差异无显著性（P＞0.05）。在T2，T3，T4时，实验组患者MAP、HR均较对照组显著降低（P＜0.05）。两组患者手术时Ramsay评分和术后满意度比较，两组患者均无统计学差异。对照组和观察组不良反应发生率分别为12.75%和8.49%，两组比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论：深度镇静对于食管胃底静脉曲张行内镜诊疗疗效显著而且安全可靠，疗程短，见效快，恢复快，患者接受程度高,提高治疗成功率，值得进行推广。     

Randomised trial of endoscopy with testing for Helicobacter pylori compared with non-invasive H pylori testing alone in the management of dyspepsia

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of non-invasive testing for Helicobacter pylori with that of endoscopy (plus H pylori testing) in the management of patients referred for endoscopic investigation of upper gastrointestinal symptoms.DesignRandomised controlled trial with follow up at 12 months.SettingHospital gastroenterology unit.Participants708 patients aged under 55 referred for endoscopic investigation of dyspepsia, randomised to non-invasive breath test for H pylori or endoscopy plus H pylori testing.ResultsIn 586 patients followed up at 12 months the mean change in dyspepsia score was 4.8 in the non-invasive H pylori test group and 4.6 in the endoscopy group (95% confidence interval for difference –0.7 to 0.5, P=0.69). Only 8.2% of patients followed up who were randomised to breath test alone were referred for subsequent endoscopy. The use of non-endoscopic resources was similar in the two groups. Reassurance value, concern about missed pathology, overall patient satisfaction, and quality of life were similar in the two groups. The patients found the non-invasive breath test procedure less uncomfortable and distressing than endoscopy with or without sedation. No potentially serious pathology requiring treatment other than eradication of H pylori was missed.ConclusionIn this patient group, non-invasive testing for H pylori is as effective and safe as endoscopy and less uncomfortable and distressing for the patient. Non-invasive H pylori testing should be the preferred mode of investigation.

What is already known on this topic

Endoscopy is a commonly used investigation for upper gastrointestinal symptoms, but its effectiveness has been questionedNon-invasive testing for Helicobacter pylori has been shown to predict endoscopic diagnosis in patients with dyspepsia

What this study adds

In patients less than 55 years of age with uncomplicated dyspepsia, non-invasive testing for H pylori is as effective and as safe as endoscopyNon-invasive H pylori testing is as reassuring to the patient as endoscopy and is less uncomfortable and distressing     

An outcome study comparing intravenous sedation with midazolam/fentanyl (conscious sedation) versus propofol infusion (deep sedation) for aesthetic surgery

The purpose of this study was to determine the differences in measurable outcomes following aesthetic procedures performed under intravenous sedation with incremental doses of midazolam and fentanyl and those performed under propofol infusion. The authors' hypothesis was that the differences in these outcome parameters are not significant between these intravenous sedation protocols. All intraoperative and perioperative records of 84 consecutive patients having aesthetic surgery under a conscious sedation protocol using incremental doses of intravenous midazolam and fentanyl were retrospectively reviewed and compared with the records of a second group of 85 patients having aesthetic surgery under a deep sedation regimen based primarily on propofol infusion. All procedures were hospital based and performed by two surgeons. Twenty-eight different parameters were examined by chart review. In addition, a patient questionnaire was used to assess patient satisfaction and patient recall of operative and perioperative pain, anxiety, nausea, and vomiting. Multivariate statistical analysis was conducted. The two sedation groups were similar with regard to aesthetic procedures performed and patient demographics. The mean duration of operative time was statistically equivalent (152 minutes and 153 minutes). In both groups, there were minor adverse intraoperative events reported but no significant complications. Transient hypotension was more common in the propofol infusion group (12.9 percent versus 2.4 percent, p = 0.018), but no patient required intervention beyond reducing the sedative agent or increasing intravenous fluids. The amount of supplemental fentanyl given intraoperatively was significantly higher in the group whose primary agent for sedation was propofol infusion than the group who received midazolam/fentanyl (209 mug and 143 mug, respectively). The overall questionnaire response rate was 80 percent for both groups. The midazolam/fentanyl sedation group had more recall of "unpleasant intraoperative events" (17 percent versus 3 percent, p = 0.007). However, both groups had low recall of intraoperative pain, anxiety, and nausea. The propofol infusion group experienced significantly more nausea in the recovery room (p = 0.002), nausea at the time of discharge (p = 0.009), and nausea the evening after the operation (p = 0.013). Greater than 90 percent of the patients in both groups would have the same anesthetic in the future rather than undergo general anesthesia. Patient safety, outcomes, and satisfaction are similar in plastic surgery procedures performed under sedation protocols using either incremental doses of midazolam and fentanyl or propofol infusion. All operative and postoperative outcomes for pain, anxiety, and vomiting were similar in the two groups except for immediate postoperative nausea, which was higher in the propofol infusion group. The overall satisfaction of patients undergoing plastic surgery procedures under these intravenous sedation protocols appears very high.     

丙泊酚联合舒芬太尼/芬太尼对无痛人流患者麻醉效果分析

目的:研究丙泊酚联合舒芬太尼或芬太尼对无痛人流患者麻醉情况及术后疼痛的影响差异。方法:选取我院自愿申请无痛人流孕妇208例,通过随机数表法分为实验组(n=104)和对照组(n=104),对照组给予丙泊酚联合芬太尼用药,实验组给予丙泊酚联合舒芬太尼用药。观察并记录患者麻醉前(T0)、麻醉后手术前(T1)、扩宫时(T2)、术后(T3)的MAP、SpO_2、RR、HR;记录患者丙泊酚用量、苏醒时间、患者醒后宫缩VAS疼痛评分;记录两组患者不良反应的发生率。结果:与T0时比较,两组在T1和T2时的MAP、SpO_2、RR、HR均有所降低,且差异有统计学意义(P0.05),两组间比较无明显差异(p0.05);实验组丙泊酚用量低于对照组(P0.05);实验组的平均苏醒时间、醒后宫缩VAS疼痛评分及丙泊酚注射痛均低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。实验组的恶心呕吐、呼吸抑制等不良反应发生率均较对照组有所降低,但差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:丙泊酚联合舒芬太尼较丙泊酚联合芬太尼镇痛作用更佳,术后恢复更快,值得在无痛人流手术推广使用。     

右美托咪定和丙泊酚对髋部骨折手术患者术后镇静效果及谵妄的影响

目的:探讨右美托咪定和丙泊酚对髋部骨折手术患者术后镇静效果及谵妄改善效果的影响。方法:选取2016年4月-2018年3月于我院行髋部骨折手术的108例患者作为研究对象,按随机数字表法分为观察组(n=54)和对照组(n=54),两组患者术中均采用全身静脉麻醉,观察组患者给予右美托咪定进行镇静诱导,对照组患者给予丙泊酚进行镇静诱导。术后24h,采用Ramsay镇静评分评价两组患者术后的镇静效果,采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分评价术后镇痛效果,术后1周,对两组患者术后谵妄发生率、谵妄评定量表(CAM)评分、简易智能精神状态检查量表(MMSE)评分进行比较,记录不良反应发生情况。结果:术后24h,观察组患者的Ramsay镇静评分高于对照组,VAS评分及镇痛药追加量低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后1周,观察组患者谵妄发生率、CAM评分低于对照组,MMSE评分高于对照组,差异有统计意义(P0.05)。观察组不良反应发生率为9.26%,与对照组的14.81%比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:与丙泊酚相比,髋部骨折手术患者应用右美托咪定可获得更好的术后镇静、镇痛效果,能够降低谵妄的发生率,且无严重不良反应发生,有较高的临床应用价值。     

瑞芬太尼在全髋关节置换术中的麻醉效果观察

目的探讨瑞芬太尼在全髋关节置换术中的麻醉效果。方法将80例全髋关节置换术患者随机分为观察组和对照组各40例,观察组采用咪达唑仑、依托咪酯、舒芬太尼、罗库溴铵行全麻诱导,以丙泊酚、瑞芬太尼和阿曲库铵行麻醉维持;对照组采用咪达唑仑、依托咪酯、舒芬太尼、罗库溴铵行全麻诱导,以丙泊酚、芬太尼和阿曲库铵行麻醉维持。观察两组患者T0~T3各时点MAP和HR的变化情况以及手术时间、苏醒时间和语言恢复时间。结果观察组苏醒时间和语言恢复时间明显短于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论瑞芬太尼用于全髋关节置换术中患者苏醒时间快,且手术过程血压、心率相对平稳,具有临床应用价值。     

The Anxiolytic Effect of Midazolam in Third Molar Extraction: A Systematic Review

Purpose

To assess the efficacy of midazolam for anxiety control in third molar extraction surgery.

Methods

Electronic retrievals were conducted in Medline (via PubMed, 1950-2013.12), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 3), Embase (via OVID 1974-2013.12), and the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE). The bibliographies of relevant clinical trials were also checked. Randomized controlled trials satisfying the inclusion criteria were evaluated, with data extraction done independently by two well-trained investigators. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consultation with a third member of the review team.

Results

Ten studies were included, but meta-analysis could not be conducted because of the significant differences among articles. All but one article demonstrated that midazolam could relieve anxiety. One article demonstrated that propofol offered superior anxiolysis, with more rapid recovery than with midazolam. Compared with lorazepam and diazepam, midazolam did not distinctly dominate in its sedative effect, but was safer. Two articles used midazolam in multidrug intravenous sedation and proved it to be more effective than midazolam alone.

Conclusion

It was found, by comparison and analysis, that midazolam might be effective for use for anxiety control during third molar extraction and can be safely administered by a dedicated staff member. It can also be used with other drugs to obtain better sedative effects, but the patient’s respiratory function must be monitored closely, because multidrug sedation is also more risky.     

The Influence of Perioperative Dexmedetomidine on Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

BackgroundThe use of dexmedetomidine may have benefits on the clinical outcomes of cardiac surgery. We conducted a meta-analysis comparing the postoperative complications in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with dexmedetomidine versus other perioperative medications to determine the influence of perioperative dexmedetomidine on cardiac surgery patients.MethodsRandomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes in patients who underwent cardiac surgery with dexmedetomidine, another medication, or a placebo were retrieved from EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index.ResultsA total of 1702 patients in 14 studies met the selection criteria among 1,535 studies that fit the research strategy. Compared to other medications, dexmedetomidine has combined risk ratios of 0.28 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15, 0.55, P = 0.0002) for ventricular tachycardia, 0.35 (95% CI 0.20, 0.62, P = 0.0004) for postoperative delirium, 0.76 (95% CI 0.55, 1.06, P = 0.11) for atrial fibrillation, 1.08 (95% CI 0.74, 1.57, P = 0.69) for hypotension, and 2.23 (95% CI 1.36, 3.67, P = 0.001) for bradycardia. In addition, dexmedetomidine may reduce the length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis revealed that the perioperative use of dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing cardiac surgery can reduce the risk of postoperative ventricular tachycardia and delirium, but may increase the risk of bradycardia. The estimates showed a decreased risk of atrial fibrillation, shorter length of ICU stay and hospitalization, and increased risk of hypotension with dexmedetomidine.     

Comparison of intranasal midazolam with intravenous diazepam for treating febrile seizures in children: prospective randomised study

ObjectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of midazolam given intranasally with diazepam given intravenously in the treatment of children with prolonged febrile seizures.DesignProspective randomised study.SettingPaediatric emergency department in a general hospital.Subjects47 children aged six months to five years with prolonged febrile seizure (at least 10 minutes) during a 12 month period.InterventionsIntranasal midazolam (0.2 mg/kg) and intravenous diazepam (0.3 mg/kg).ResultsIntranasal midazolam and intravenous diazepam were equally effective. Overall, 23 of 26 seizures were controlled with midazolam and 24 out of 26 with diazepam. The mean time from arrival at hospital to starting treatment was significantly shorter in the midazolam group (3.5 (SD 1.8) minutes, 95% confidence interval 3.3 to 3.7) than the diazepam group (5.5 (2.0), 5.3 to 5.7). The mean time to control of seizures was significantly sooner (6.1 (3.6), 6.3 to 6.7) in the midazolam group than the diazepam group (8.0 (0.5), 7.9 to 8.3). No significant side effects were observed in either group.ConclusionSeizures were controlled more quickly with intravenous diazepam than with intranasal midazolam, although midazolam was as safe and effective as diazepam. The overall time to cessation of seizures after arrival at hospital was faster with intranasal midazolam than with intravenous diazepam. The intranasal route can possibly be used not only in medical centres but in general practice and, with appropriate instructions, by families of children with recurrent febrile seizures at home.     

Clinical evaluation of combination of dexmedetomidine and midazolam vs. dexmedetomidine alone for sedation during spinal anesthesia

BackgroundDexmedetomidine is a useful sedative agent for spinal anesthesia. However, it has been reported to decreases heart rate in a dose-dependent manner. In the present study, we compared the bolus dose of midazolam and bolus loaded dexmedetomidine over 10 min to determine additional sedation methods.MethodsA total of 100 patients who were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I–II undergoing spinal anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups. In the combination of midazolam and dexmedetomidine group (group MD), 10 min after bolus loading of 0.05 mg/kg midazolam, 0.5 μg/kg/h dexmedetomidine was infused. In the dexmedetomidine group (group D), 1 μg/kg bolus dose of dexmedetomidine was infused over 10 min, and then 0.5 μg/kg/h dexmedetomidine was infused continuously.ResultsAt 10 min, the sedation depth of the two groups was approximately the same. In both groups, the bispectral index (BIS) was within the optimal range of 55–80 and the Ramsay Sedation Scale score was within the optimal range of 3–5. Both patient and surgeon satisfaction with sedation did not differ between groups. At 10 min, heart rate (beats/min) was significantly lower (P < .01) in group D and mean blood pressure (mm Hg) was significantly lower (P < .01) in group MD. The prevalence of bradycardia (P = .714), hypotension (P = .089), and hypoxia (P = .495) did not differ statistically between the two groups.ConclusionsMidazolam bolus and dexmedetomidine continuous infusion may be a useful additional sedation method for patients who have severe bradycardia.     

Efficiency and safety of inhalative sedation with sevoflurane in comparison to an intravenous sedation concept with propofol in intensive care patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: State of the art sedation concepts on intensive care units (ICU) favor propofol for a time period of up to 72 h and midazolam for long-term sedation. However, intravenous sedation is associated with complications such as development of tolerance, insufficient sedation quality, gastrointestinal paralysis, and withdrawal symptoms including cognitive deficits. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether sevoflurane as a volatile anesthetic technically implemented by the anesthetic-conserving device (ACD) may provide advantages regarding 'weaning time', efficiency, and patient's safety when compared to standard intravenous sedation employing propofol. Method/Design This currently ongoing trial is designed as a two-armed, monocentric, randomized prospective phase II studies including intubated intensive care patients with an expected necessity for sedation exceeding 48 h. Patients are randomly assigned to either receive intravenous sedation with propofol or sevoflurane employing the ACD. Primary endpoint is the comparison of the 'weaning time' defined as the time required from discontinuation of the sedating agent until sufficient spontaneous breathing occurs. Moreover, sedation depth evaluated by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale and parameters of patient's safety (that is, vital signs, laboratory monitoring of organ function) as well as the duration of mechanical ventilation and overall stay on the ICU are analyzed and compared. An intention-to-treat analysis will be carried out with all patients for whom it will be possible to define a wake-up time. In addition, a per-protocol analysis is envisaged. Completion of patient recruitment is expected by the end of 2012. DISCUSSION: This clinical study is designed to evaluate the impact of sevoflurane during long-term sedation of critically ill patients on 'weaning time', efficiency, and patient's safety compared to the standard intravenous sedation concept employing propofol. Trial registration EudraCT2007-006087-30; ISCRTN90609144.     

Efficacy,tolerability, and upper gastrointestinal safety of celecoxib for treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review of randomised controlled trials

ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy, gastrointestinal safety, and tolerability of celecoxib (a cyclo-oxygenase 2 (COX 2) inhibitor) used in the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.DesignSystematic review of randomised trials that compared at least 12 weeks'' celecoxib treatment with another non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) or placebo and reported efficacy, tolerability, or safety. Trials identified from manufacturer and by searching electronic databases and evaluated according to predefined inclusion and quality criteria. Data combined through meta-analysis.Participants15 187 patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis.ResultsNine randomised controlled trials were included. Celecoxib and NSAIDS were equally effective for all efficacy outcomes. Compared with those taking other NSAIDs, in patients taking celecoxib the rate of withdrawals due to adverse gastrointestinal events was 46% lower (95% confidence interval 29% to 58%; NNT 35 at three months), the incidence of ulcers detectable by endoscopy was 71% lower (59% to 79%; NNT 6 at three months), and the incidence of symptoms of ulcers, perforations, bleeds, and obstructions was 39% lower (4% to 61%; NNT 208 at six months). Subgroup analysis of patients taking aspirin showed that the incidence of ulcers detected by endoscopy was reduced by 51% (14% to 72%) in those given celecoxib compared with other NSAIDs. The reduction was greater (73%, 52% to 84%) in those not taking aspirin.ConclusionCelecoxib is as effective as other NSAIDs for relief of symptoms of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis and has significantly improved gastrointestinal safety and tolerability.

What is already known on this topic

Long term NSAID use is associated with the development of peptic and duodenal ulcersCOX 2 specific inhibitors are claimed to cause fewer gastrointestinal complicationsThe National Institute for Clinical Excellence has recently recommended that COX 2 specific inhibitors are used in patients with arthritis who are at risk of gastrointestinal complications but not in those taking prophylactic aspirin

What this study adds

Systematic review of randomised trials shows that celecoxib is as effective as other NSAIDs for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritisCelecoxib has significantly improved gastrointestinal safety and tolerability compared with standard NSAIDsAn improvement in gastrointestinal safety was still evident in patients who were also taking aspirin     

Análisis de la sedación paliativa en pacientes mayores hospitalizados: efectividad de un protocolo

ObjectiveTo measure changes in the practice of palliative sedation during agony in hospitalised elderly patients before and after the implementation of a palliative sedation protocol.Material and methodsA retrospective before-after study was performed in hospitalised patients over 65 years old who received midazolam during hospital admission and died in the hospital in two 3-month periods, before and after the implementation of the protocol. Non-sedative uses of midazolam and patients in intensive care were excluded. Patient and admission characteristics, the consent process, withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments, and the sedation process (refractory symptom treated, drug doses, assessment and use of other drugs) were recorded. Association was analysed using the Chi² and Student t tests.ResultsA total of 143 patients were included, with no significant differences between groups in demographic characteristics or symptoms. Do not resuscitate (DNR) orders were recorded in approximately 70% of the subjects of each group, and informed consent for sedation was recorded in 91% before vs. 84% after the protocol. Induction and maintenance doses of midazolam followed protocol recommendations in 1.3% before vs 10.4% after the protocol was implemented (P=.02) and adequate rescue doses were used in 1.3% vs 11.9% respectively (P=.01). Midazolam doses were significantly lower (9.86 mg vs 18.67 mg, P<.001) when the protocol was used than when it was not used. Ramsay sedation score was used in 8% vs. 12% and the Palliative Care Team was involved in 35.5% and 16.4% of the cases (P=.008) before and after the protocol, respectively.ConclusionsUse of midazolam slightly improved after the implementation of a hospital protocol on palliative sedation. The percentage of adequate sedations and the general process of sedation were mostly unchanged by the protocol. More education and further assessment is needed to gauge the effect of these measures in the future.     

对比分析丙泊酚/依托咪酯混合液分别联合艾司氯胺酮、盐酸舒芬太尼在无痛胃肠镜检查中的应用

摘要 目的：探讨对比分析丙泊酚/依托咪酯混合液分别联合艾司氯胺酮、盐酸舒芬太尼在无痛胃肠镜检查中的应用效果。方法：选取我院2022年1月到2022年12月收治的80例行无痛胃肠镜检查患者作为研究对象,应用随机数字表法将所有患者分为观察组与对照组,每组40例。对照组患者应用丙泊酚/依托咪酯混合液+盐酸舒芬太尼进行静脉麻醉,观察组应用丙泊酚/依托咪酯混合液+艾司氯胺酮进行静脉麻醉,对比两组患者入室时基础值（T₁）、开始镇静时（T₂）、胃镜置入后（T₃）、肠镜置入后（T₄）、操作结束即刻（T₅）五个不同时间血流动力学指标变化,并对比患者麻醉起效时间、麻醉药追加次数、追加麻醉药总量、意识恢复时间、PACU停留时间,对比检查不同时间认知功能情况以及不良反应发生率。结果：两组患者T₁时间舒张压（SBP）、收缩压（DBP）、平均动脉压（MAP）、心率（HR）对比无明显差异（P＞0.05）,观察组患者同组间T₁、T₂、T₃、T₄、T₅时间SBP、DBP、MAP、HR对比无明显差异（P＞0.05）,对照组T₁到T₂时间SBP、DBP、MAP、HR水平降低,到T₃和T₄时间升高,T₅时间恢复平稳,且观察组与对照组相比T₂、T₃、T₄时间SBP、DBP、MAP水平对比差异显著,观察组低于对照组,T₃时间观察组HR低于对照组（P＜0.05）;观察组麻醉起效时间、麻醉药追加次数、追加麻醉药总量、意识恢复时间、PACU停留时间显低于对照组（P＜0.05）;两组患者检查后6 h S100B 蛋白明显升高,检查后1 d的S100B 蛋白逐渐降低,且观察组低于对照组,检查后6 h褪黑素明显降低,检查后1 d的褪黑素逐渐升高,观察组高于对照组（P＜0.05）;观察组患者不良反应发生率明显低于对照组（P＜0.05）。结论：丙泊酚/依托咪酯混合液联合艾司氯胺酮与丙泊酚/依托咪酯混合液联合盐酸舒芬太尼对于无痛胃肠镜检查麻醉效果显著,能够改善患者血流动力学指标波动,减少麻醉药追加次数,且麻醉起效快,苏醒质量好,另外能够进一步改善患者检查后认知功能情况,安全性较高。     

Propofol inhibits the myeloperoxidase activity by acting as substrate through a redox process

BackgroundPropofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) is frequently used as intravenous anesthetic agent, especially in its injectable form (Diprivan), to initiate and maintain sedative state during surgery or in intensive care units. Numerous studies have reported the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effect of propofol. The oxidant enzyme myeloperoxidase (MPO), released from activated neutrophils, plays a key role in host defense. An increase of the circulating MPO concentration has been observed in patients admitted in intensive care unit and presenting a systemic inflammatory response related to septic shock or trauma.MethodsThis study investigates the immunomodulatory action of propofol and Diprivan as inhibitor of the oxidant activity of MPO. The understanding of the redox action mechanism of propofol and Diprivan on the myeloperoxidase chlorination and peroxidase activities has been refined using the combination of fluorescence and absorption spectroscopies with docking and cyclic voltammetry.ResultsPropofol acts as a reversible MPO inhibitor. The molecule interacts as a reducing substrate in the peroxidase cycle and promotes the accumulation of compound II. At acidic pH (5.5), propofol and Diprivan do not inhibit the chlorination activity, but their action increases at physiological pH (7.4). The main inhibitory action of Diprivan could be attributed to its HOCl scavenging property.General significancePropofol can act as a reversible MPO inhibitor at clinical concentrations. This property could, in addition to other previously proven anti-inflammatory actions, induce an immunomodulatory action, beneficial during clinical use, particularly in the treatment of systemic inflammation response syndrome.     

Feasibility of bispectral index-guided propofol infusion for flexible bronchoscopy sedation: a randomized controlled trial

Objectives

There are safety issues associated with propofol use for flexible bronchoscopy (FB). The bispectral index (BIS) correlates well with the level of consciousness. The aim of this study was to show that BIS-guided propofol infusion is safe and may provide better sedation, benefiting the patients and bronchoscopists.

Methods

After administering alfentanil bolus, 500 patients were randomized to either propofol infusion titrated to a BIS level of 65-75 (study group) or incremental midazolam bolus based on clinical judgment to achieve moderate sedation. The primary endpoint was safety, while the secondary endpoints were recovery time, patient tolerance, and cooperation.

Results

The proportion of patients with hypoxemia or hypotensive events were not different in the 2 groups (study vs. control groups: 39.9% vs. 35.7%, p = 0.340; 7.4% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.159, respectively). The mean lowest blood pressure was lower in the study group. Logistic regression revealed male gender, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and electrocautery were associated with hypoxemia, whereas lower propofol dose for induction was associated with hypotension in the study group. The study group had better global tolerance (p<0.001), less procedural interference by movement or cough (13.6% vs. 36.1%, p<0.001; 30.0% vs. 44.2%, p = 0.001, respectively), and shorter time to orientation and ambulation (11.7±10.2 min vs. 29.7±26.8 min, p<0.001; 30.0±18.2 min vs. 55.7±40.6 min, p<0.001, respectively) compared to the control group.

Conclusions

BIS-guided propofol infusion combined with alfentanil for FB sedation provides excellent patient tolerance, with fast recovery and less procedure interference.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials. gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00789815","term_id":"NCT00789815"}}NCT00789815