-
International Journal of Surgery... Nov 2023Propofol is the most widely used intravenous anesthetic in endoscopic surgery, but is associated with several adverse reactions. Public research has shown that... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Propofol is the most widely used intravenous anesthetic in endoscopic surgery, but is associated with several adverse reactions. Public research has shown that remimazolam, a safe general anesthetic, is increasingly being used as a substitute for propofol in clinical operations. Our meta-analysis aimed to analyze whether the adverse reaction rate of remimazolam in endoscopic surgery is acceptable and whether the surgical success rate is not lower than that of propofol.
AIM
This meta-analysis examined the adverse events and efficacy of remimazolam vs. propofol during endoscopic surgery.
METHOD
MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched. Seven studies comparing remimazolam and propofol were included in our meta-analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Cochrane manual were used to assess the quality of the results published in all included studies to ensure that our meta-analysis results are reliable and worthwhile.
RESULTS
Compared to propofol, the use of remimazolam reduced postoperative injection pain [relative risk (RR)=0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.12, P <0.00001], postoperative hypotension (RR=0.45, 95% CI: 0.28-0.73, P =0.001), and postoperative respiratory depression (RR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.08-0.47, P =0.0002); however, it also slightly reduced the success rate of the operation [risk difference (RD)=-0.02, 95% CI: -0.04 to -0.01, P =0.0007]. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of bradycardia symptoms after the operation (RD=-0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.01, P =0.35), recovery time after the operation [standardized mean difference (SMD)=0.68, 95% CI: -0.43 to 1.80, P =0.23] or discharge time (SMD=0.17, 95% CI: -0.58 to 0.23, P =0.41). We also performed a subgroup analysis of each corresponding outcome.
CONCLUSION
Our analysis showed that remimazolam may be a safer shock option than propofol for endoscopic surgery. However, further research is required to determine their utility.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Anesthesia, Intravenous; Endoscopy; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37534687
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000638 -
Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica Jun 2016The objective of this review is to evaluate the existing literature with regard to the influence of propofol and remifentanil total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) on... (Review)
Review
The objective of this review is to evaluate the existing literature with regard to the influence of propofol and remifentanil total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) on cerebral perfusion and oxygenation in healthy pigs. Anaesthesia has influence on cerebral haemodynamics and it is important not only in human but also in veterinary anaesthesia to preserve optimal regulation of cerebral haemodynamics. Propofol and remifentanil are widely used in neuroanaesthesia and are increasingly used in experimental animal studies. In translational models, the pig has advantages compared to small laboratory animals because of brain anatomy, metabolism, neurophysiological maturation, and cerebral haemodynamics. However, reported effects of propofol and remifentanil on cerebral perfusion and oxygenation in pigs have not been reviewed. An electronic search identified 99 articles in English. Title and abstract screening selected 29 articles for full-text evaluation of which 19 were excluded with reasons. Of the 10 peer-reviewed articles included for review, only three had propofol or remifentanil anaesthesia as the primary study objective and only two directly investigated the effect of anaesthesia on cerebral perfusion and oxygenation (CPO). The evidence evaluated in this systematic review is limited, not focused on propofol and remifentanil and possibly influenced by factors of potential importance for CPO assessment. In one study of healthy pigs, CPO measures were within normal ranges following propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia, and addition of a single remifentanil bolus did not affect regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO2). Even though the pool of evidence suggests that propofol and remifentanil alone or in combination have limited effects on CPO in healthy pigs, confirmative evidence is lacking.
Topics: Animals; Brain; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Oxygen; Periodicals as Topic; Piperidines; Propofol; Remifentanil; Swine
PubMed: 27334375
DOI: 10.1186/s13028-016-0223-6 -
Minerva Anestesiologica 2023This review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the side effects and efficacy of esketamine combined with propofol in procedural sedation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
This review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the side effects and efficacy of esketamine combined with propofol in procedural sedation and analgesia.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies occurring between their inceptions and September 2022. The primary outcome was the incidence of sedation-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, total consumption of propofol and body movement.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Data from a total of seven RCTs enrolling 808 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooling of data showed that compared with other drug regimens, the esketamine and propofol combination was associated with a reduction in the risk of hypotension (relative risk [RR]: 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25 to 0.56) and bradycardia (RR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.80) as well as an increase in the risk of agitation (RR: 6.29, 95% CI: 1.15 to 34.32). The results also indicated a decrease in propofol consumption (standardized mean difference: -1.45, 95% CI: -2.39 to -0.50) with the use of the esketamine and propofol combination. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in respiratory depression, nausea/vomiting, recovery time or body movement.
CONCLUSIONS
Esketamine combined with propofol has an advantage in reducing the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia during procedural sedation and analgesia, but it may increase the risk of agitation in the recovery phase. More studies of high quality are needed before the widespread adoption of the combination of esketamine and propofol.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Bradycardia; Pain; Analgesia; Hypotension
PubMed: 36988407
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.23.17100-8 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel intravenous anesthetic agent that bears structural similarity to propofol and displays favorable pharmacodynamic characteristics such as...
Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel intravenous anesthetic agent that bears structural similarity to propofol and displays favorable pharmacodynamic characteristics such as rapid onset and offset. The meta-analysis aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol in clinical practice. Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library were searched from inception to April 2023. The primary outcome was success rate of sedation/anesthetic induction and differences in sedation/induction time. The secondary outcomes included risks of hemodynamic instability, respiratory complications, and pain on injection, as well as recovery profiles, satisfaction score, and top-up dose requirement. Twelve RCTs (sedation: = 6, anesthetic induction, = 6, all conducted in China) involving 1,793 patients (age: 34-58 years) published from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Pooled results revealed no differences in success rate [risk ratio (RR) = 1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99 to 1.01, I = 0%, 1,106 patients, = 1] and time required for successful anesthetic induction/sedation [mean difference (MD) = 7.95 s, 95% CI: -1.09 to 16.99, I = 97%, 1,594 patients, = 0.08]. The risks of top-up dose requirement (RR = 0.94, = 0.48), cardiopulmonary complications [i.e., bradycardia (RR = 0.94, = 0.67), tachycardia (RR = 0.83, = 0.68), hypertension (RR = 1.28, = 0.2), hypoxemia/pulmonary depression (RR = 0.78, = 0.24)], and postoperative nausea/vomiting (RR = 0.85, = 0.72), as well as discharge time (MD = 1.39 min, = 0.14) and satisfaction score (standardized MD = 0.23, = 0.16) did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the ciprofol group had lower risks of hypotension (RR = 0.85, = 0.02) and pain on injection (RR = 0.17, < 0.00001) than the propofol group. The time to full alertness was statistically shorter in the propofol group (i.e., 0.66 min), but without clinical significance. Our results demonstrated similar efficacy between ciprofol and propofol for sedation and anesthetic induction, while ciprofol was associated with lower risks of hypotension and pain on injection. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol in pediatric or the elderly populations. (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/), identifier (CRD42023421278).
PubMed: 37818194
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1225288 -
Pain Physician Nov 2023Remimazolam is a novel ultrashort-effect benzodiazepine. In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration approved it for procedural sedation. Remimazolam is beneficial for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Hemodynamic Influences of Remimazolam Versus Propofol During the Induction Period of General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
BACKGROUND
Remimazolam is a novel ultrashort-effect benzodiazepine. In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration approved it for procedural sedation. Remimazolam is beneficial for consistent sedation and quick recovery in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. Propofol is one of the most commonly used intravenous anesthetics in clinical practice. Recently, only a few studies have compared propofol with remimazolam for general anesthesia induction.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the hemodynamic effects of remimazolam and propofol during the induction of general anesthesia.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials.
METHODS
The authors retrieved the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for studies published through September 30, 2022, which reported relevant prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing remimazolam with propofol for general anesthesia. The primary outcome was hemodynamic changes, including the absolute value of fluctuation of mean arterial pressure (delta MAP) and heart rate delta HR). The secondary outcomes were the following 2 indicators: the occurrence of total adverse events and the quality of recovery from general anesthesia at 24 hours postsurgery. RevMan 5.4.1 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre for The Cochrane Collaboration) and trial sequential analysis were used to execute the statistical analyses. The different domains of bias were judged by the Cochrane risk of the bias assessment tool.
RESULTS
The authors identified 189 papers in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Eight articles with 964 patients were selected. The included studies had moderate quality. For primary outcomes, the lower delta HR (mean difference [MD] = -4.99; 95% CI, -7.97 to -2.00; I² = 41.6%; P = 0.001] and delta MAP (MD = -5.91; 95% CI. -8.57 to -3.24; I² = 0%; P < 0.0001) represent more stable hemodynamic characteristics in the remimazolam group. Regarding secondary outcomes, a considerably lower incidence of total adverse events was noted in the remimazolam group than that for the propofol group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.58; I² = 63%; P < 0.00001). In comparison to the propofol group, remimazolam achieved an advantage score of quality of recovery -15 in 24 hours postsurgery (MD = 5.31, 95% CI, 1.51 to 9.12; I² = 87%; P = 0.006).
LIMITATION
Firstly, there are only a handful of published RCTs on the administration of remimazolam in general anesthesia. In addition, due to patient privacy, we could not extract individual patient data, therefore we could not combine and assess any variations in patient characteristics.
CONCLUSION
Evidence suggests that remimazolam has a lower hemodynamic effect during general anesthesia and fewer perioperative adverse effects after general anesthesia than propofol; however, which agent is superior regarding quality benefit in postoperative recovery based on the studies included here remains inconclusive. Additional RCTs with updated meta-analyses to enlarge the sample size and properly analyze the benefit-to-risk ratio to patients are needed to determine the evidence for such a relatively new medicine.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anesthesia, General; Benzodiazepines; Hemodynamics
PubMed: 37976477
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Nov 2023(1) Purpose: to systematically evaluate the recovery following sedation and anesthesia with remimazolam combined with flumazenil in comparison to propofol. (2) Methods:... (Review)
Review
(1) Purpose: to systematically evaluate the recovery following sedation and anesthesia with remimazolam combined with flumazenil in comparison to propofol. (2) Methods: Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, were systematically searched from their inception up to 22 October 2023. Included in this analysis were randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared remimazolam-flumazenil with propofol for the recovery from sedation and anesthesia in adults. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Pooled risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using either fixed-effects or random-effects models, and the results were visualized in forest plots. (3) Results: Nine RCTs involving 745 patients who underwent general anesthesia in three different countries were included. Compared to propofol, the remimazolam-flumazenil combination shortened the emergence time (MD = -4.34 min, 95% CI = [-6.88, -1.81], = 0.0008, low certainty), extubation time (MD = -4.26 min, 95% CI = [-6.81, -1.7], = 0.0011, low certainty), and the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay (MD = -4.42 min, 95% CI = [-7.45, -1.38], = 0.0044, low certainty), while reducing the incidence of respiratory depression (RR = 0.2, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.89], = 0.03, high certainty) after general anesthesia. However, this combination was associated with a higher incidence of re-sedation (RR = 4.15, 95% CI = [1.31, 13.13], = 0.01, moderate certainty). (4) Conclusions: Based on the existing evidence, the combination of remimazolam and flumazenil accelerates recovery from general anesthesia and lowers the risk of respiratory depression compared to propofol. However, it is important to consider the higher risk of re-sedation when using this combination in clinical practice. Due to limitations in the quality of the evidence, it is advisable to interpret the results of meta-analyses with caution.
PubMed: 38068368
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12237316 -
Pharmacology 2023Propofol occasionally induces a green or pink-cloudy urine discoloration. A lesser-known effect is green discoloration of hair, milk, liver, or stool. We aimed to gain...
INTRODUCTION
Propofol occasionally induces a green or pink-cloudy urine discoloration. A lesser-known effect is green discoloration of hair, milk, liver, or stool. We aimed to gain insight into the features of these disturbances.
METHODS
The terms ("propofol" OR "fospropofol") AND ("green" OR "pink" OR "cloudy" OR "pink-cloudy") were searched in Excerpta Medica, MEDLINE/PubMed®, and Web of Sciences databases, with no language limit, from inception up to February 2023 (CRD4202236804). Articles reporting individually documented cases were retained, and data were extracted using a checklist.
RESULTS
Seventy-seven original reports documented 95 cases (including 13 subjects ≤18 years of age). Completeness of reporting was satisfactory in 33, good in 35, and excellent in 27 cases. Propofol-associated green urine discoloration was observed in 54 patients. In most instances (n = 21, 39%), propofol was given for ≥24 h. Sometimes, however, the urine discoloration developed after propofol for ≤3 h (n = 12, 22%). Propofol-associated urine discoloration was usually observed during the administration of this agent, but it was at times (n = 11) first recognized ≥3 h after propofol discontinuation. The duration of green urine discoloration was usually ≤24 h after stopping propofol. Propofol-associated green urine discoloration was never associated with worsening kidney function. A pink-cloudy urine discoloration was observed in 32 subjects with an acidic urine pH and increased uric acid excretion given propofol for ≤24 h. A stage I acute kidney injury was observed in 2 cases (6.3%) of propofol-associated pink-cloudy urine discoloration. Nine cases of non-urinary green discoloration were observed: hair (n = 4), breast milk (n = 1), liver (n = 1), stool (n = 1).
CONCLUSION
Propofol is sometimes associated with a green (benign) or pink-cloudy (occasionally associated with mild acute kidney injury) urine discoloration. Rarely, non-urinary green discoloration has been reported.
Topics: Female; Humans; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Liver; Acute Kidney Injury
PubMed: 37634493
DOI: 10.1159/000533327 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jan 2023Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common neurological system disorder in surgical patients. The choice of anesthetic can potentially reduce POCD. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common neurological system disorder in surgical patients. The choice of anesthetic can potentially reduce POCD. The authors performed this network meta-analysis to compare different anesthetic drugs in reducing the incidence of POCD for elderly people undergoing noncardiac surgery. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science for randomized controlled trials comparing the different anesthetic drugs for noncardiac surgery in elderly from inception until July, 2022. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD#42020183014). A total of 34 trials involving 4314 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery in elderly were included. The incidence of POCD for each anesthetic drug was placebo (27.7%), dexmedetomidine (12.9%), ketamine (15.2%), propofol (16.8%), fentanyl (23.9%), midazolam (11.3%), sufentanil (6.3%), sevoflurane (24.0%), and desflurane (28.3%). Pairwise and network meta-analysis showed dexmedetomidine was significantly reducing the incidence of POCD when compared with placebo. Network meta-analysis also suggested dexmedetomidine was significantly reducing the incidence of POCD when compared with sevoflurane. Sufentanil and dexmedetomidine ranked the first and second in reducing the incidence of POCD with the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value of 87.4 and 81.5%. Sufentanil and dexmedetomidine had the greatest possibility to reduce the incidence of POCD for elderly people undergoing noncardiac surgery.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Sevoflurane; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Dexmedetomidine; Postoperative Cognitive Complications; Sufentanil; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36799783
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000001 -
Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin Feb 2019Ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol) is being used to provide a safe and effective procedural sedation (PS) in emergency department (ED) and may theoretically have... (Review)
Review
Ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol) is being used to provide a safe and effective procedural sedation (PS) in emergency department (ED) and may theoretically have beneficial effects since using lower doses of each drug may result in a reduction of the adverse events of both agents while maintaining optimal conditions for performing procedures. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy, advantages and disadvantages of these two drugs for PS. The PRISMA statement was used for this systematic review. We searched the databases of PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Medline (Ovid) from 1990 to August 2017 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in which the study population aged ≥18 and was referred to ED. Full-texts of the studies performed in adults that were published in English were reviewed for inclusion. Both authors independently evaluated all studies. Five articles were eligible for the meta-analysis based on their common outcomes. The total number of subjects was 1250, of which 635 were treated with propofol and 615 were treated with ketofol. Although two of the five studies showed a better quality of sedation with ketofol, the other three did not find any significant difference between propofol and ketofol. This systematic review found a lower incidence of respiratory adverse effects in ketofol group than propofol group. Ketamine/propofol mixture (ketofol) has less respiratory adverse effects than propofol alone in ED procedural sedation.
PubMed: 31011553
DOI: 10.15171/apb.2019.002 -
BMC Anesthesiology Jul 2023The number of non-intubated general anesthesia outside the operating room is growing as the increasing demand for comfort treatment. Non-intubated general anesthesia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Analysis of the efficacy of subclinical doses of esketamine in combination with propofol in non-intubated general anesthesia procedures - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The number of non-intubated general anesthesia outside the operating room is growing as the increasing demand for comfort treatment. Non-intubated general anesthesia outside the operating room requires rapid onset of anesthesia, smoothness, quick recovery, and few postoperative complications. Traditional anesthetic regimens (propofol alone or propofol and opioids/dezocine/midazolam, etc.) have severe respiratory and circulatory depression and many systemic adverse effects. In this paper, we compare the effectiveness and safety of propofol and subclinical doses of esketamine with other traditional regimens applied to non-intubated general anesthesia through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and Sinomed databases for the period from January 2000 to October 2022. We rigorously screened the literature according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, while risk assessment of the studies was performed using The Cochrane Collaboration's tool, and statistical analysis of the data was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. The main outcome indicators we evaluated were the various hemodynamic parameters and incidence of various adverse effects between the experimental and control groups after induction of anesthesia.
RESULTS
After a rigorous screening process, a total of 14 papers were included in the final meta-analysis. After risk bias assessment, three of the papers were judged as low risk and the others were judged as having moderate to high risk. Forest plots were drawn for a total of 16 indicators. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in HR' WMD 3.27 (0.66, 5.87), MAP' WMD 9.68 (6.13, 13.24), SBP' WMD 5.42 (2.11, 8.73), DBP' WMD 4.02 (1.15, 6.88), propofol dose' SMD -1.39 (-2.45, -0.33), hypotension' RR 0.30 (0.20, 0.45), bradycardia' RR 0.33 (0.14, 0.77), hypoxemia or apnea' RR 0.45 (0.23, 0.89), injection pain' RR 0.28 (0.13, 0.60), intraoperative choking' RR 0.62 (0.50, 0.77), intraoperative body movements' RR 0.48 (0.29, 0.81) and overall incidence of adverse reactions' RR 0.52 (0.39, 0.70).The indicators that were not statistically different were time to wake up' WMD - 0.55 (-1.29, 0.19), nausea and vomiting 0.84' RR (0.43, 1.67), headache and dizziness' RR 1.57 (0.98, 2.50) and neuropsychiatric reaction' RR 1.05 (0.28, 3.93). The funnel plot showed that the vast majority of studies fell within the funnel interval, but the symmetry was relatively poor.
CONCLUSION
In non-intubated general anesthesia, the combination of subclinical doses of esketamine and propofol did reduce circulatory and respiratory depression, injection pain, and other adverse effects, while the incidence of esketamine's own side effects such as neuropsychiatric reactions did not increase, and the combination of the two did not cause the occurrence of new and more serious adverse reactions, and the combination of the two was safe and effective.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPREO registration number: CRD 42022368966.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Ketamine; Anesthesia, General; Pain; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37479982
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02135-8