-
Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2024To evaluate the effect of flumazenil antagonizing remimazolam on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after gynecologic day surgery. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
PURPOSE
To evaluate the effect of flumazenil antagonizing remimazolam on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after gynecologic day surgery.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
141 cases of gynaecological daycase surgery patients in Weifang People's Hospital were selected, randomized into group F (flumazenil group, 71 cases) and group C (control group, 70 cases). Dexamethasone 5 mg, flurbiprofen axetil 50 mg, and droperidol 1 mg were given intravenously before induction of anesthesia in both groups. Anesthesia induction: Remimazolam 0.25mg / kg was injected within 1 minute. After the patient fell asleep, mivacurium chloride 0.2mg / kg was injected for 30 seconds and alfentanil 20ug / kg was injected for 30 seconds. Anesthesia maintenance: Remimazolam 1mg/kg/h and alfentanil 40ug/kg/h were continuously pumped by micro pump. Stopping the injection of remimazolam and alfentanil at the end of the operation. Flumazenil 0.2 mg was given to antagonize remimazolam in group F after 1 minute. Group C was given an equal volume of saline. The incidence of PONV in the postoperative PACU and over a 24-hour period, patient awakening time, and general patient information were recorded.
RESULTS
The incidence of PONV in both groups within 24 hours was 50.70% in group F was significantly higher than 32.86% in group C. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The incidence of PONV in the PACU was 5.6% in group F and 8.6% in group C. The difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Flumazenil antagonism of remimazolam increases the incidence of PONV within 24 hours in gynecologic day surgery patients and has no significant effect on the incidence of PONV in the PACU.
Topics: Female; Humans; Alfentanil; Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Antiemetics; Benzodiazepines; Flumazenil; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 38465267
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S444313 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2022Intraocular pressure (IOP) is crucial to the well-being of eyes. During anesthesia, the administration of succinylcholine and endotracheal intubation are associated with... (Review)
Review
Intraocular pressure (IOP) is crucial to the well-being of eyes. During anesthesia, the administration of succinylcholine and endotracheal intubation are associated with an increase in IOP, which may be attenuated by short-acting opioids. However, the drug of choice among the commonly used short-acting opioids is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of fentanyl, sufentanil, alfentanil, and remifentanil on IOP measured after the administration of succinylcholine and after endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing general anesthesia. Five databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared short-acting opioids and reported at least one of the clinical outcomes of interest were included. Nine RCTs with 357 patients were included. Remifentanil (1 μg kg) more effectively alleviated the increase in IOP than the placebo after the administration of succinylcholine [mean difference (MD) of IOP, -3.64; confidence interval (CI), -5.47 to -1.81 and after endotracheal intubation (MD, -9.71; CI, -11.91 to -7.51). Remifentanil (1 μg kg) ranked the best in terms of both attenuating the increase in IOP after the administration of succinylcholine [surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), 0.91; normalized entropy (NE), 0.47; and after endotracheal intubation (SUCRA, 0.89; NE, 0.54) among all of the treatments. Remifentanil (1 μg kg) should be considered the drug of choice in the circumstances where increased IOP is a great concern.
PubMed: 36015137
DOI: 10.3390/ph15080989 -
Toxicology Letters Mar 2021In animal health risk assessment, hazard characterisation of feed additives has been often using the default uncertainty factor (UF) of 100 to translate a... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
In animal health risk assessment, hazard characterisation of feed additives has been often using the default uncertainty factor (UF) of 100 to translate a no-observed-adverse-effect level in test species (rat, mouse, dog, rabbit) to a 'safe' level of chronic exposure in farm and companion animal species. Historically, both 10-fold factors have been further divided to include chemical-specific data in both dimensions when available. For cats (Felis Sylvestris catus), an extra default UF of 5 is applied due to the species' deficiency in particularly glucuronidation and glycine conjugation. This paper aims to assess the scientific basis and validity of the UF for inter-species differences in kinetics (4.0) and the extra UF applied for cats through a comparison of kinetic parameters between rats and cats for 30 substrates of phase I and phase II metabolism. When the parent compound undergoes glucuronidation the default factor of 4.0 is exceeded, with exceptions for zidovudine and S-carprofen. Compounds that were mainly renally excreted did not exceed the 4.0-fold default. Mixed results were obtained for chemicals which are metabolised by CYP3A in rats. When chemicals were administered intravenously the 4.0-fold default was not exceeded with the exception of clomipramine, lidocaine and alfentanil. The differences seen after oral administration might be due to differences in first-pass metabolism and bioavailability. Further work is needed to further characterise phase I, phase II enzymes and transporters in cats to support the development of databases and in silico models to support hazard characterisation of chemicals particularly for feed additives.
Topics: Animal Feed; Animals; Cats; Cytochrome P-450 Enzyme System; Food Contamination; Glucuronosyltransferase; Metabolic Detoxication, Phase I; Metabolic Detoxication, Phase II; No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level; Rats; Risk Assessment; Species Specificity; Substrate Specificity; Uncertainty; Xenobiotics
PubMed: 33253781
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.11.014 -
BMC Gastroenterology Apr 2024Proper sedation of patients, particularly elderly individuals, who are more susceptible to sedation-related complications, is of significant importance in endoscopic...
BACKGROUND
Proper sedation of patients, particularly elderly individuals, who are more susceptible to sedation-related complications, is of significant importance in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of a low-dose combination of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol for deep sedation in elderly patients undergoing ERCP, compared to a group of middle-aged patients.
METHODS
The medical records of 610 patients with common bile duct stones who underwent elective ERCP under deep sedation with a three-drug regimen, including midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol at Shandong Provincial Third Hospital from January 2023 to September 2023 were retrospectively reviewed in this study. Patients were categorized into three groups: middle-aged (50-64 years, n = 202), elderly (65-79 years, n = 216), and very elderly (≥ 80 years, n = 192). Intraoperative vital signs and complications were compared among these groups.
RESULTS
The three groups showed no significant difference in terms of intraoperative variation of systolic blood pressure (P = 0.291), diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.737), heart rate (P = 0.107), peripheral oxygen saturation (P = 0.188), bispectral index (P = 0.158), and the occurrence of sedation-related adverse events including hypotension (P = 0.170) and hypoxemia (P = 0.423).
CONCLUSION
The results suggest that a low-dose three-drug regimen consisting of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol seems safe and effective for deep sedation of elderly and very elderly patients undergoing ERCP procedures. However, further studies are required to verify these findings and clarify the benefits and risks of this method.
Topics: Aged; Middle Aged; Humans; Propofol; Midazolam; Alfentanil; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Deep Sedation; Retrospective Studies; Conscious Sedation
PubMed: 38566038
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-024-03197-9 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Sedation is recommended by most guidelines to be offered to all patients undergoing diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy (DFB) without contraindications, and the most...
Sedation is recommended by most guidelines to be offered to all patients undergoing diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy (DFB) without contraindications, and the most commonly reported regimen is midazolam in combination with a short-acting opioid (fentanyl or alfentanil) to provide both sedative and antitussive effects. However, the optimal dose or ideal regimen of the combination therapy with midazolam and opioids has not yet been found. So this randomized, double-blinded clinical trial was designed and registered (ChiCTR2100049052) to assess the safety and efficacy of midazolam combined with different doses of alfentanil in DFB sedation. Our study showed that relative high doses of alfentanil (10-25 μg/kg) combined with a fixed low dose of midazolam can markedly reduce hemodynamic fluctuations, cough reactions, patients' discomforts, and improve their satisfaction in a dose-dependent manner during DFB, with no significant increase in the desaturation risks.
PubMed: 36339547
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1036840 -
BMC Anesthesiology Sep 2022To observe the effect of different antiemetic drugs for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after gynaecological day surgery under remimazolam... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
PURPOSE
To observe the effect of different antiemetic drugs for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after gynaecological day surgery under remimazolam general anesthesia.
METHODS
One hundred ninety-two patients were selected for gynaecological day surgery and randomly divided into three groups: droperidol group (DD group), tropisetron group (DT group) and control group (DC group). Flurbiprofen axetil 50 mg and dexamethasone 5 mg were given intravenously before induction of anesthesia, and 2 min later droperidol 1 mg was given intravenously to the DD group, tropisetron 5 mg to the DT group and saline (5 ml) to the DC group. Induction of anesthesia: remimazolam 6 mg/kg/h was continuously infused until sleep, mivacurium 0.2 mg/kg and alfentanil 20ug/kg were slowly pushed, 3 min later intubation was performed to control breathing. Maintenance of anesthesia: 40ug/kg/h of alfentanil, 1 mg/kg/h of remimazolam continuous infusion. After awakening and extubation, the patient was transferred to the PACU. PONV were recorded in the PACU and an electronic questionnaire was pushed 24 h after surgery.
RESULTS
The incidence of PONV within the PACU was significantly lower in the DD (14.5%)and DT(26.7%) groups than in the DC(50%) group (p < 0.01), there was no significantly difference between the DT and DD groups. There were no significant difference in the incidence of PONV in 24 h after surgery between the three groups(DD:DT:DC = 44.5%:45.1%:63.8%,p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Droperidol or tropisetron combined with dexamethasone is superior to dexamethasone alone for the prevention of PONV in the PACU after remimazolam combined with alfentanil anesthesia, with no significant difference in the incidence of PONV in 24 h after surgery.
Topics: Alfentanil; Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Anesthesia, General; Antiemetics; Benzodiazepines; Dexamethasone; Droperidol; Female; Humans; Mivacurium; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Tropisetron
PubMed: 36109691
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-022-01835-x -
Medicine Aug 2023To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of alfentanil plus propofol versus propofol only for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of alfentanil plus propofol versus propofol only for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.
METHODS
The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, China Biology Medicine, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials on alfentanil combined with propofol versus propofol only for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy from the inception of the database to August 2022. The Rev Man 5.4 software was used for statistical analyses.
RESULTS
Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 1762 patients were identified as eligible for this study. The meta-analysis showed that compared with propofol, alfentanil combined with propofol had a more stable mean arterial pressure [mean difference (MD) = 5.38, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.97-8.80; P = .002], heart rate (MD = 3.78, 95% CI: 1.30-6.26; P = .003) and pulse oxygen saturation (MD = 1.90, 95% CI: 0.93-2.78; P = .0001); a lower propofol dose (standard mean difference = -2.82, 95% CI: -3.70 to -1.94; P < .00001), lower awakening time (MD = -3.23, 95% CI: -4.01 to -2.45; P < .00001) and lower directional force recovery time (MD = -3.62, 95% CI: -4.22 to -3.03; P < .00001); a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting (relative risk [RR] = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.14-0.71; P = .005), body movement (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13-0.54; P = .0002), hypotension (RR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; P < .0001), respiratory depression (RR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.15-0.89; P = .03) and cough reflex (RR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.12-0.89; P = .03).
CONCLUSION
This meta-study found that current evidence indicates that alfentanil plus propofol is better than propofol alone for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy and is associated with a lower incidence of adverse reactions. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to validate these above conclusions.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Alfentanil; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Vomiting; Nausea; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37565872
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034745 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Nov 2023In recent years, remimazolam has gained approval for use in adult procedural sedation in both the United Kingdom and the United States, potentially offering an...
In recent years, remimazolam has gained approval for use in adult procedural sedation in both the United Kingdom and the United States, potentially offering an alternative to conventional sedatives like propofol and midazolam for procedural sedation. However, there is a limited body of literature that systematically reviews the outcomes of a remimazolam-alfentanil combination protocol for routine office-based dental procedures. The primary objective of this pilot study was to assess the occurrence of significant adverse events associated with the use of a remimazolam-alfentanil sedation protocol for adult dental procedures. Secondary outcomes included evaluating physiological responses, sedation effectiveness, patient and clinician satisfaction and the incidence of intraprocedural awareness. Notably, no significant adverse events were reported among the 25 adult subjects who received remimazolam and alfentanil, and all dental procedures were successfully completed. Patients and clinicians expressed high levels of satisfaction, and patients did not report any distressing memories associated with the dental procedure. These findings suggest that in a limited cohort, the remimazolam-alfentanil regimen appears to be well tolerated and effective for office-based dental procedures in adult patients, with a low risk of adverse events, acceptable hemodynamic effects, rapid onset and recovery and minimal intraoperative awareness. This study provides valuable insights into the potential use of the remimazolam-alfentanil combination in dental sedation practice.
PubMed: 38068360
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12237308 -
Surgical Endoscopy Sep 2022Remifentanil is a rapid onset and rapid recovery opioid. The combination of remifentanil and propofol for deep sedation decreases the incidents of movement, cough, and...
BACKGROUND
Remifentanil is a rapid onset and rapid recovery opioid. The combination of remifentanil and propofol for deep sedation decreases the incidents of movement, cough, and hiccup. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of remifentanil during endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed patients in whom endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition was performed for solid mass lesions of the upper gastrointestinal tract and adjacent organs. All patients were premedicated with midazolam (2 mg), and target-controlled infusion of propofol, opioid, and Bispectral Index (BIS) monitoring were administered as necessary to maintain moderate-to-deep sedation. The opioids used were a bolus of alfentanil or remifentanil infusion. The discharge time, consumption of propofol and opioid, adverse events, diagnostic accuracy, and sensitivity and specificity for malignancy, were compared.
RESULTS
Tissue acquisition was achieved in 123 patients (alfentanil group, n = 64; remifentanil group, n = 59). The discharge time of the remifentanil group (16.5 ± 3.2 min) was significantly shorter than that of the alfentanil group (19.0 ± 4.9 min, P = 0.001). The consumption of propofol, adverse events, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for malignancy in the alfentanil group were not significantly different from those in the remifentanil group.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of alfentanil or remifentanil for target-controlled infusion of propofol-BIS monitoring can provide good sedative and diagnostic quality for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. However, remifentanil resulted in faster recovery than alfentanil.
Topics: Alfentanil; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Humans; Piperidines; Propofol; Remifentanil; Retrospective Studies; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 35041053
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-09006-8 -
Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2021The aim of this work is to identify the most influential initial clinical studies that fomented important developments in anesthesiology over the past 50 years. Studies... (Review)
Review
The aim of this work is to identify the most influential initial clinical studies that fomented important developments in anesthesiology over the past 50 years. Studies fomenting new development can be selected using vastly different approaches and, therefore, might provide diverse outcomes. In the present work, two basic aspects of study assessments - the stage of development (eg, generation of idea, preclinical studies, clinical trials) and the method of selection (eg, committee vote, various types of citation analysis, method of finding the invention disclosure) - were chosen according to the following model. The stage of development: the initial clinical studies demonstrating the basic advantage of an innovation for providing anesthesia. The method: a combination of two factors - the study priority in terms of the time of its publication and the degree of its acknowledgement in the form of citation impact; the time of study publication was regarded as a primary factor, but only if the study's citation count was =/>20. The initial high-impact studies were selected for 16 drug-related topics (ketamine, isoflurane, etomidate, propofol, midazolam in anesthesia, vecuronium, alfentanil, atracurium, sevoflurane, sufentanil, rocuronium, desflurane, ropivacaine, remifentanil, dexmedetomidine in anesthesia, and sugammadex), and 9 technique-related topics (ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block, capnography in anesthesia, target-controlled intravenous anesthesia, pulse oximetry in anesthesia, total intravenous anesthesia, transesophageal echocardiography in anesthesia, combined spinal-epidural anesthesia, and bispectral index). Twenty-five studies were designated the first high-impact studies (one for each topic); 16 are drug-related and 9 are technique-related. Half of the first high-impact studies had a citation count of =/>100, (range: 100 to 555). The citation count of the other half of high-impact studies did not reach the 100-citation threshold (range: 41 to 97). If a selected first high-impact study had a citation count <100, a next-on-timeline, additional study with citation count =/>100 was also selected; (range: 100 to 344). The present results show that an initial high-impact clinical study on a new development in anesthesiology can be determined and that related citations usually vary from one hundred to five hundred.
Topics: Anesthesia; Anesthesiology; Anesthetics; Animals; Clinical Trials as Topic; Drug Development; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Publications
PubMed: 34149285
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S316636