-
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2023Studies investigating the cardioprotective effect of volatile anesthetics on cardiac troponins in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) surgery remain... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Studies investigating the cardioprotective effect of volatile anesthetics on cardiac troponins in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) surgery remain controversial. This current study was conducted to systematically evaluate the impact of volatile anesthetics and propofol on patients undergoing OPCAB surgery.
METHODS
A computerized search of electronic databases was conducted up to July 21, 2023, to identify relevant studies using appropriate search terms. The primary outcomes of interest were the levels of myocardial injury biomarkers (e.g., cTnI, cTnT), while secondary outcomes included extubation time, length of ICU stay, 30-day mortality, transfusion and thrombosis, and postoperative recovery, which were compared between two anesthesia techniques.
RESULTS
A search of databases produced 14 relevant studies with a combined total of 703 patients. Among them, 355 were allocated to the volatile anesthetics group and 348 to the propofol group. Our study reveals a statistically significant reduction in myocardial injury biomarkers among patients who received volatile anesthetics compared to those who received propofol ( < .001). Subgroup analysis showed that patients using sevoflurane had lower postoperative cardiac troponins levels compared to propofol ( = .01). However, desflurane and isoflurane currently have no significant advantage over propofol (all > 0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative mechanical ventilation time, length of ICU stay, and mortality between the two groups (all > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
This study suggested that volatile anesthetics, specifically sevoflurane, in adult OPCAB surgery provide a better cardioprotective effect than propofol.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42023444277).
PubMed: 38034375
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1271557 -
Research Square Aug 2023To meta-analyze clinical efficacy and safety of ketamine compared with other anesthetic agents in the course of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in major depressive...
OBJECTIVE
To meta-analyze clinical efficacy and safety of ketamine compared with other anesthetic agents in the course of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in major depressive episode (MDE).
METHODS
PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, GoogleScholar, and US and European trial registries were searched from inception through May 23, 2023, with no language limits. We included RCTs with (1) a diagnosis of MDE; (2) ECT intervention with ketamine and/or other anesthetic agents; and (3) measures included: depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, remission or response rates, and serious adverse events. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to compare ketamine and 7 other anesthetic agents. Hedges' standardized mean differences (SMDs) were used for continuous measures, and relative risks (RRs) were used for other binary outcomes using random-effects models.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies were included in the systematic review. A total of 2,322 patients from 17 RCTs were included in the NMA. The overall pooled SMD of ketamine, as compared with a propofol reference group, was -2.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.79 to -0.64) in depressive symptoms, indicating that ketamine had better antidepressant efficacy than propofol. In a sensitivity analysis, however, ketamine-treated patients had a worse outcome in cognitive performance than propofol-treated patients (SMD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.09). No other statistically significant differences were found.
CONCLUSIONS
Ketamine-assisted ECT is tolerable and may be efficacious in improving depressive symptoms, but a relative adverse impact on cognition may be an important clinical consideration. Anesthetic agents should be considered based on patient profiles and/or preferences to improve effectiveness and safety of ECT use.
PubMed: 37609159
DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3182771/v1 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... May 2024Propofol, a commonly used intravenous anesthetic, has demonstrated potential in protecting against myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury (MIRI) based on preclinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Propofol, a commonly used intravenous anesthetic, has demonstrated potential in protecting against myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury (MIRI) based on preclinical animal studies. However, the clinical benefits of propofol in this context are subject to debate. We conducted a systematic search across eight databases to identify all relevant animal studies investigating the preventive effects of propofol on MIRI until October 30, 2023. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using SYRCLE's bias risk tool. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 15.1. The primary outcome measures analyzed in this study were myocardial infarct size (IS) and myocardial injury biomarkers. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of 48 relevant animal studies investigating propofol's preventive effects on MIRI. Propofol administration demonstrated a reduction in myocardial IS and decreased levels of myocardial injury biomarkers (CK-MB, LDH, cTnI). Moreover, propofol improved myocardial function parameters (+dp/dtmax, -dP/dtmax, LVEF, LVFS), exhibited favorable effects on inflammatory markers (IL-6, TNF-α) and oxidative stress markers (SOD, MDA), and reduced myocardial cell apoptotic index (AI). These findings suggest propofol exerts cardioprotective effects by reducing myocardial injury, decreasing infarct size, and improving heart function. However, the absence of animal models that accurately represent comorbidities such as aging and hypertension, as well as inconsistent administration methods that align with clinical practice, may hinder its clinical translation. Further robust investigations are required to validate these findings, elucidate the underlying mechanisms of propofol, and facilitate its potential translation into clinical practice.
Topics: Propofol; Animals; Myocardial Infarction; Myocardial Reperfusion Injury; Oxidative Stress; Biomarkers; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Humans; Apoptosis
PubMed: 38640712
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2024.116629 -
Medicine Sep 2023Propofol is the most commonly used intravenous anesthetic medication and is most commonly associated with post-operative pain. Several drugs are investigated to reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Propofol is the most commonly used intravenous anesthetic medication and is most commonly associated with post-operative pain. Several drugs are investigated to reduce post-operative pain caused by propofol injection. Ondansetron is a potent anti-emetic drug showing promising results as an analgesic. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of ondansetron to placebo and lidocaine in reducing post-operative pain caused by propofol injection.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) till May 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis using RevMan software version 5.4, and we assessed the quality of included RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
RESULTS
In our study, we included 23 RCTs with 2957 participants. Compared to placebo, ondansetron significantly increased the rate of no pain [risk ratio (RR) = 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.39-4.01)], and reduced moderate [RR = 0.39, 95% CI (0.30-0.52)] and severe pain [RR = 0.34, 95% CI (0.24-0.50)]. Furthermore, ondansetron significantly reduced PONV [RR = 0.73, 95% CI (0.58, 0.91)]. On the other hand, ondansetron showed an inferior efficacy to lidocaine regarding the incidence of no, moderate, and severe pain.
CONCLUSION
Ondansetron is effective in reducing post-operative propofol-induced pain. However, lidocaine is more effective than it.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Lidocaine; Ondansetron; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37746949
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000035021 -
Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and... Apr 2024Propofol has been the gold standard for anesthesia induction and maintenance due to its rapid onset and favorable pharmacokinetic properties. However, the search for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Propofol has been the gold standard for anesthesia induction and maintenance due to its rapid onset and favorable pharmacokinetic properties. However, the search for alternative agents with improved safety and efficacy has led to the emergence of ciprofol (HSK3486), a structural analog of propofol. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to comprehensively assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared to propofol for anesthesia induction and maintenance in adult patients undergoing surgical procedures.
METHODS
This study included only double-arm RCTs in which participants were aged eighteen or older undergoing surgery. For the statistical analysis of the extracted data, we employed RevMan 5.4.1.
RESULTS
Ciprofol demonstrated a promising trend of higher anesthesiologists' satisfaction during the induction phase (MD 0.14, 95%, CI - 0.28 to 0.56, p = 0.51), whereas Propofol was favored during maintenance. Propofol also exhibited advantages with a shorter time to successful anesthesia induction (MD 0.08 min, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, p = 0.04), and quicker attainment of full alertness (MD 0.11 min, 95% CI - 1.29 to 1.52, p = 0.87), suggesting its efficiency in clinical practice. Importantly, there were no significant disparities in the success rate of anesthesia.
CONCLUSION
Both ciprofol and propofol demonstrate comparable efficacy and safety for anesthesia induction and maintenance in adult patients undergoing surgery. While propofol provides a faster onset of induction, ciprofol exhibits advantages in terms of pain management. Clinicians should consider these findings when selecting anesthetic agents, and tailoring choices to individual patient needs and clinical scenarios.
PubMed: 38605424
DOI: 10.1186/s44158-024-00160-8 -
Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and... Apr 2024Propofol is the most commonly used hypnotic agent used during sedation and general anesthesia (GA) practice, offering faster recovery compared to benzodiazepines.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Propofol is the most commonly used hypnotic agent used during sedation and general anesthesia (GA) practice, offering faster recovery compared to benzodiazepines. However, cardiovascular impact of propofol and pain at injection are commonly encountered side effects. Ciprofol is a novel disubstituted phenol derivative, and there is growing evidence regarding its clinical use.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search (updated on 23 July 2023) to evaluate safety and efficacy of ciprofol in comparison to propofol in patients undergoing procedures under sedation or GA. We focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only, extrapolating data on onset and offset, and on the side effects and the pain at injection.
RESULTS
The search revealed 14 RCTs, all conducted in China. Eight RCTs studied patients undergoing sedation, and six focused on GA. Bolus of ciprofol for sedation or induction of GA varied from 0.2 to 0.5 mg/kg. In four studies using ciprofol for maintenance of GA, it was 0.8-2.4 mg/kg/h. Ciprofol pharmacokinetics seemed characterized by slower onset and offset as compared to propofol. Pain during injection was less frequent in the ciprofol group in all the 13 studies reporting it. Eight studies reported "adverse events" as a pooled outcome, and in five cases, the incidence was higher in the propofol group, not different in the remaining ones. Occurrence of hypotension was the most commonly investigated side effects, and it seemed less frequent with ciprofol.
CONCLUSION
Ciprofol for sedation or GA may be safer than propofol, though its pharmacokinetics may be less advantageous.
PubMed: 38589912
DOI: 10.1186/s44158-024-00159-1 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2023Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a widely used treatment for severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, depression, and mania. The procedure involves applying...
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.
PubMed: 37915381
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1251882 -
Heliyon Dec 2023Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel gamma-aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA) receptor agonist that has attracted wide attention because of its lower injection pain and fewer...
BACKGROUND
Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel gamma-aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA) receptor agonist that has attracted wide attention because of its lower injection pain and fewer adverse events. We summarized all available evidence and analyzed the efficacy and safety of ciprofol during procedural sedation and anesthesia induction.
METHODS
An electronic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Science Direct, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Data, and the VIP Chinese Journal Service platform was conducted from inception of databases to March 1, 2023. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) were used separately for binary categorical and continuous variables. We performed trial sequential analysis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to judge the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
Fifteen randomized controlled trials with 2441 patients were included in this study. Ciprofol showed similar advantages to propofol in terms of induction success rate (RR = 1, 95 % CI = 0.99, 1.01, moderate certainty) and induction time (MD = 3.31, 95 % CI = -0.34, 6.95, low certainty), but did not increase the incidence of adverse events (RR = 0.88, 95 % CI = 0.78, 1.00, very low certainty), such as bradycardia (RR = 0.96, 95 % CI = 0.77, 1.21, high certainty), hypoxia (RR = 0.79, 95 % CI = 0.46, 1.37, p = 0.40, moderate certainty) and other adverse events. Although it may be associated with a longer time to be fully alert (MD = 1.22, 95 % CI = 0.32, 2.12, very low certainty), ciprofol significantly reduced injection pain (RR = 0.15, 95 % CI 0.09, 0.24, low certainty) and may have reduced the incidence of hypotension (RR = 0.77, 95 % CI = 0.63, 0.94, low certainty) and respiratory depression (RR = 0.29, 95 % CI = 0.15, 0.56, moderate certainty).
CONCLUSION
Ciprofol and propofol had similar effects on most outcomes. While the time to full alertness may be prolonged, injection pain was significantly reduced, and hypotension and respiratory depression may be reduced compared with propofol. We believe that ciprofol is an effective alternative to intravenous anesthetic agents.
PubMed: 38125496
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22634 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the...
Efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of sedation with DEX during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with a view to providing evidence-based references for clinical decision-making. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DEX with different sedatives comparators (such as propofol, midazolam, and ketamine) for sedation in a variety of adult gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 1 July 2022. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI were used for continuous outcomes or dichotomous outcomes, respectively, and a random-effect model was selected regardless of the significance of the heterogeneity. Forty studies with 2,955 patients were assessed, of which 1,333 patients were in the DEX group and 1,622 patients were in the control (without DEX) group. The results suggested that the primary outcomes of sedation level of DEX are comparable to other sedatives, with similar RSS score and patient satisfaction level, and better in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of body movements or gagging (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.97; = 0.04; I = 68%), and a reduced additional requirement for other sedatives, and increased endoscopist satisfaction level (SMD: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.77; = 0.03; I = 86%). In terms of secondary outcomes of adverse events, DEX may benefit patients in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of hypoxia (RR:0.34; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.55; < 0.0001; I = 52%) and cough (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54; = 0.0004; I = 0%), no significant difference in the risk of hypotension, while an increased risk of bradycardia (RR: 3.08; 95% CI: 2.12 to 4.48; < 0.00001; I = 6%). This meta-analysis indicates that DEX is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy because of its benefits for patients in some clinical outcomes. Remarkably, DEX is comparable to midazolam and propofol in terms of sedation level. In conclusion, DEX provides an additional option in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced.
PubMed: 38034988
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1241714 -
International Journal of Surgery... Dec 2023
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Anesthesia, Intravenous; Benzodiazepines
PubMed: 37816162
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000710