Efficacy and safety of propofol target-controlled infusion combined with butorphanol for sedated colonoscopy

BACKGROUND Propofol is a short-acting,rapid-recovering anesthetic widely used in sedated colonoscopy for the early detection,diagnosis and treatment of colon diseases.However,the use of propofol alone may require high doses to achieve the induction of anesthesia in sedated colonoscopy,which has been associated with anesthesia-related adverse events(AEs),including hypoxemia,sinus bradycardia,and hypotension.Therefore,propofol co-administrated with other anesthetics has been proposed to reduce the required dose of propofol,enhance the efficacy,and improve the satisfaction of patients receiving colonoscopy under sedation.AIM To evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol target-controlled infusion(TCI)in combination with butorphanol for sedation during colonoscopy.METHODS In this controlled clinical trial,a total of 106 patients,who were scheduled for sedated colonoscopy,were prospectively recruited and assigned into three groups to receive different doses of butorphanol before propofol TCI:Low-dose butorphanol group(5μg/kg,group B1),high-dose butorphanol group(10μg/kg,group B2),and control group(normal saline,group C).Anesthesia was achieved by propofol TCI.The primary outcome was the median effective concentration(EC50)of propofol TCI,which was measured using the up-and-down sequential method.The secondary outcomes included AEs in perianesthesia and recovery characteristics.RESULTS The EC50 of propofol for TCI was 3.03μg/mL[95%confidence interval(CI):2.83-3.23μg/mL]in group B2,3.41μg/mL(95%CI:3.20-3.62μg/mL)in group B1,and 4.05μg/mL(95%CI:3.78-4.34μg/mL)in group C.The amount of propofol necessary for anesthesia was 132 mg[interquartile range(IQR),125-144.75 mg]in group B2 and 142 mg(IQR,135-154 mg)in group B1.Furthermore,the awakening concentration was 1.1μg/mL(IQR,0.9-1.2μg/mL)in group B2 and 1.2μg/mL(IQR,1.025-1.5μg/mL)in group B1.Notably,the propofol TCI plus butorphanol groups(groups B1 and B2)had a lower incidence of anesthesia AEs,when compared to group C.Furthermore,no significant differences were observed in the rates of AEs in perianesthesia,including hypoxemia,sinus bradycardia,hypotension,nausea and vomiting,and vertigo,among group C,group B1 and group B2.CONCLUSION The combined use with butorphanol reduces the EC50 of propofol TCI for anesthesia.The decrease in propofol might contribute to the reduced anesthesia-related AEs in patients undergoing sedated colonoscopy.

Unsedated versus Sedated Gastrointestinal Endoscopy:A Questionnaire Investigation in Wuhan,Central China

National data show that in China mainland unsedated gastrointestinal （GI） endoscopy has been applied in most hospitals for clinical examination, while sedated GI endoscopy is only performed in some hospitals. The purpose of this study was to compare sedated versus unsedated GI endoscopy regarding cost, safety, degree of comfort, tolerance level and overall satisfaction of patients over a 6-month period investigation. From March to September 2011, a questionnaire survey was performed on 1800 patients and 30 physicians at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University and Wuhan General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command. The patients fell into two groups according to their own de- cisions： the unsedated group （n=1000） and the sedated group （n=800）. After examination, the patients and the physicians were required to fill in a questionnaire form. All the data were analyzed statistically. The results showed that the main factors the patients took for consideration between sedated and unse- dated procedures included economy, comfort and safety. The income levels between the sedated and unsedated groups showed significant difference （P〈0.01）. Most patients in the unsedated group had lower income and were covered by less medical insurance. The tolerance rate was 92.4% vs. 65.5% be- tween the sedated and unsedated group, respectively. 95.5% patients in the sedated group and 72.1% pa- tients in the unsedated group chose the same endoscopy procedure for repeat examination. The survey data from endoscopists suggested the sedated procedure was more comfortable but less safe than the unsedated procedure （P〈0.01 ）. In China, unsedated GI endoscopy is now widely accepted by the major- ity of patients due to low cost and safety. Compared to unsedated GI endoscopy, sedated GI endoscopy is less painful, but more expensive and less safe. With the rapid improvement of people＇s living stan- dard and the reliability of sedation technology, we expect sedated GI endoscopy will be gradually ac- cepted by more patients.

Sedated vs unsedated colonoscopy:A prospective study

AIM:To compare sedated to unsedated colonoscopy in terms of duration,pain and the patient’s willingness to repeat the procedure.METHODS:Consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopies over a 2-year period were invited to participate.All patients who were to undergo our endoscopy unit were offered sedation with standard intravenous sedatives and analgesics,or an unsedated colonoscopy was attempted.Demographic details were recorded.The patient anxiety level prior to the procedure,time to reach the cecum,total discharge time,patient and endoscopist pain assessments,satisfaction after the examination and the patient’s willingness to return for the same procedure in the future were recorded.RESULTS:Among the 403 observed patients,more males were observed in the unsedated group(66.2%vs 55.2%,P=0.04).Additionally,the unsedated group patients were less anxious prior to the procedure(5.1vs 6.0,P<0.01).The colonoscopy completion rates were comparable between the 2 groups(85.9%vs84.2%,P=0.66).The time to reach the cecum was also comparable(12.2 min vs 11.8 min);however,the total discharge times were shorter in the unsedated group(20.7 min vs 83.0 min,P<0.01).Moreover,the average patient pain score(3.4 vs 5.7,P<0.01)was lower in the sedated group,while the satisfaction score(8.8 vs 7.8,P<0.01)was significantly higher.There was no significant difference,however,between the groups in terms of willingness to repeat the procedure if another was required in the future(83.3%vs 77.3%,P=0.17).CONCLUSION:Unsedated colonoscopy is feasible in willing patients.The option saves the endoscopy units up to one hour per patient and does not affect the patient willingness to return to the same physician again for additional colonoscopies if a repeated procedure is needed.

Unsedated colonoscopy: A neverending story

Although sedation and analgesia for patients undergoing colonoscopy is the standard practice in Western countries, unsedated colonoscopy is still routinely provided in Europe and the Far East. This variation in sedation practice relies on the different cultural attitudes of both patients and endoscopists across these countries. Data from the literature consistently report that, in unsedated patients, the use of alternative techniques, such as warm water irrigation or carbon dioxide insufflation, can allow a high quality and well tolerated examination.

Randomized controlled study of the safety and efficacy of nitrous oxide-sedated endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for digestive tract diseases

AIM To evaluate the efficacy and safety of nitrous oxidesedated endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. METHODS Enrolled patients were divided randomly into an experimental group(inhalation of nitrous oxide) and a control group(inhalation of pure oxygen) and heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, blood pressure, electrocardiogram(ECG) changes, and the occurrence of complications were monitored and recorded. All patients and physicians completed satisfaction questionnaires about the examination and scored the process using a visual analog scale. RESULTS There was no significant difference in heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, blood pressure, ECG changes, or complication rate between the two groups of patients(P > 0.05). However, patient and physician satisfaction were both significantly higher in the nitrous oxide compared with the control group(P < 0.05).CONCLUSION Nitrous oxide-sedation is a safe and effective option for patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration.

Carbon dioxide accumulation during analgosedated colonoscopy: Comparison of propofol and midazolam

AIM: To characterize the profiles of alveolar hypoventilation during colonoscopies performed under sedoanalgesia with a combination of alfentanil and either midazolam or propofol. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing routine colonoscopy were randomly assigned to sedation with either propofol or midazolam in an open-labeled design using a titration scheme. All patients received 4 μg/kg per body weight alfentanil for analgesia and 3 L of supplemental oxygen. Oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) was measured by pulse oximetry (POX), and capnography (PcCO 2 ) was continuously measured using a combined dedicated sensor at the ear lobe. Instances of apnea resulting in measures such as stimulation of the patient, a chin lift, a mask maneuver, or withholding of sedation were recorded. PcCO 2 values (as a parameter of sedation-induced hypoventilation) were compared between groups at the following distinct time points: baseline, maximal rise, termination of the procedure and 5 min after termination of the procedure. The number of patients in both study groups who regained baseline PcCO 2 values (± 1.5 mmHg) five minutes after the procedure was determined.RESULTS: A total of 97 patients entered this study. The data from 14 patients were subsequently excluded for clinical procedure-related reasons or for technical problems. Therefore, 83 patients (mean age 62 ± 13 years) were successfully randomized to receive propofol (n = 42) or midazolam (n = 41) for sedation. Most of the patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Ⅱ [16 (38%) in the midazolam group and 15 (32%) in the propofol group] and ASA Ⅲ [14 (33%) and 13 (32%) in the midazolam and propofol groups, respectively]. A mean dose of 5 (4-7) mg of Ⅳ midazolam and 131 (70-260) mg of Ⅳ propofol was used during the procedure in the corresponding study arms. The mean SpO 2 at baseline (%) was 99 ± 1 for the midazolam group and 99 ± 1 for the propofol group. No cases of hypoxemia (SpO 2 < 85%) or apnea were recorded. However, an increase in PcCO 2 that indicated alveolar hypoventilation occurred in both groups after administration of the first drug and was not detected with pulse oximetry alone. The mean interval between the initiation of sedation and the time when the PcCO 2 value increased to more than 2 mmHg was 2.8 ± 1.3 min for midazolam and 2.8 ± 1.1 min for propofol. The mean maximal rise was similar for both drugs: 8.6 ± 3.7 mmHg for midazolam and 7.4 ± 3.2 mmHg for propofol. Five minutes after the end of the procedure, the mean difference from the baseline values was significantly lower for the propofol treatment compared with midazolam (0.9 ± 3.0 mmHg vs 4.3 ± 3.7 mmHg, P = 0.0000169), and significantly more patients in the propofol group had regained their baseline value ± 1.5 mmHg (32 of 41vs 12 of 42,P = 0.0004). CONCLUSION: A significantly higher number of patients sedated with propofol had normalized PcCO 2 values five minutes after sedation when compared with patients sedated with midazolam.

Effectiveness of daily interruption of sedation in sedated patients with mechanical ventilation in ICU: A systematic review

Purpose:To evaluate the effectiveness of daily sedation interruption in patients with mechanical ventilation in intensive care unit(ICU).Methods:The randomized controlled trials(RCTs)on the application of daily interruption of sedation in sedated patients with mechanical ventilation in ICU were collected through databases including Cochrane library,MEDLINE,Web of Knowledge,Embase,CNKI,CBM and VIP Data.Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of studies and extracted the data.Meta-analysis was conducted on the included studies.Results:Eight RCTs involving 757 patients were included.The daily sedation interruptions could shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation(Z=5.36,p<0.0001),length of stay(Z=2.93,p=0.003<0.05)and reduce the rate of tracheotomy(Z=3.97,p<0.00001)in these patients.Additionally,daily sedation interruption was not associated with increased rate of unplanned extubation by the patients(Z=0.53,p=0.6<0.05).Conclusion:The application of daily interruption of sedation in patients with mechanical ventilation in ICU is safe and effective.

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam in bronchoscopic sedation:A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Remimazolam is a new benzodiazepine used for procedural sedation and general anesthesia.Several studies have used remimazolam for bendable bronchoscopy.AIM To assess the safety and efficacy of remimazolam for sedation in patients undergoing bendable bronchoscopy by performing a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials(RCTs).METHODS We searched the EMBASE,PubMed,Cochrane Library,and Web of Science databases for RCTs on bendable bronchoscopic procedural sedation with remimazolam vs conventional sedatives(CS).RESULTS Five studies with 1080 cases were included.Remimazolam had the same sedation success rate compared with CS[relative risk(RR):1.35,95%CI:0.60-3.05,P=0.474,I2=99.6%].However,remimazolam was associated with a lower incidence of hypotension(RR:0.61;95%CI:0.40-0.95,P=0.027;I2=65.1%)and a lower incidence of respiratory depression(RR:0.50,95%CI:0.33-0.77,P=0.002,I2=42.3%).A subgroup analysis showed a higher success rate of sedation with remimazolam than midazolam(RR:2.45,95%CI:1.76-3.42,P<0.001).Compared with propofol,the incidence of hypotension(RR:0.45,95%CI:0.32-0.64,P<0.001,I2=0.0%),respiratory depression(RR:0.48,95%CI:0.30-0.76,P=0.002,I2=78.4%),hypoxemia(RR:0.36,95%CI:0.15-0.87,P=0.023),and injection pain(RR:0.04,95%CI:0.01-0.28,P=0.001)were lower.CONCLUSION Remimazolam is safe and effective during bronchoscopy.The sedation success rate was similar to that in the CS group.However,remimazolam has a higher safety profile,with fewer inhibitory effects on respiration and circulation.

Safety and efficacy comparison of remimazolam and propofol for intravenous anesthesia during gastroenteroscopic surgery of older patients:A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Remimazolam is characterized by rapid action and inactive metabolites.It is used as the general anesthetic for many clinical surgeries.In this study,we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate whether remimazolam is superior to propofol for gastroenteroscopy in older patients.AIM To compare the adverse events and efficacy of remimazolam and propofol during gastroenteroscopy in older adults.METHODS The PubMed,Web of Science,the Cochrane Library databases were queried for the relevant key words"remimazolam,""and propofol,""and gastrointestinal endoscopy or gastroscopy."The search scope was"Title and Abstract,"and the search was limited to human studies and publications in English.Seven studies wherein remimazolam and propofol were compared were included for the metaanalysis.RESULTS We selected seven randomized controlled trials involving 1445 cases for the analysis.Remimazolam reduced the hypotension(relative risk,RR=0.44,95%CI:0.29-0.66,P=0.000),respiratory depression(RR=0.46,95%CI:0.30-0.70,P=0.000),injection pain(RR=0.12,95%CI:0.05-0.25,P=0.000),bradycardia(RR=0.37,95%CI:0.24-0.58,P=0.000),and time to discharge[weighted mean difference(WMD)=-0.58,95%CI:-0.97 to-0.18,P=0.005],compared to those after propofol administration.No obvious differences were observed for postoperative nausea and vomiting(RR=1.09,95%CI:0.97-1.24,P=0.151),dizziness(RR=0.77,95%CI:0.43-1.36,P=0.361),successful sedation rate(RR=0.96,95%CI:0.93-1.00,P=0.083),or the time to become fully alert(WMD=0.00,95%CI:-1.08-1.08,P=0.998).CONCLUSION Remimazolam appears to be safer than propofol for gastroenteroscopy in older adults.However,further studies are required to confirm these findings.

Brain protective effect of dexmedetomidine vs propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation in non-brain injured patients

BACKGROUND Dexmedetomidine and propofol are two sedatives used for long-term sedation.It remains unclear whether dexmedetomidine provides superior cerebral protection for patients undergoing long-term mechanical ventilation.AIM To compare the neuroprotective effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation in patients without brain injury.METHODS Patients who underwent mechanical ventilation for>72 h were randomly assigned to receive sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol.The Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale(RASS)was used to evaluate sedation effects,with a target range of-3 to 0.The primary outcomes were serum levels of S100-βand neuron-specific enolase(NSE)every 24 h.The secondary outcomes were remifentanil dosage,the proportion of patients requiring rescue sedation,and the time and frequency of RASS scores within the target range.RESULTS A total of 52 and 63 patients were allocated to the dexmedetomidine group and propofol group,respectively.Baseline data were comparable between groups.No significant differences were identified between groups within the median duration of study drug infusion[52.0(IQR:36.0-73.5)h vs 53.0(IQR:37.0-72.0)h,P=0.958],the median dose of remifentanil[4.5(IQR:4.0-5.0)μg/kg/h vs 4.6(IQR:4.0-5.0)μg/kg/h,P=0.395],the median percentage of time in the target RASS range without rescue sedation[85.6%(IQR:65.8%-96.6%)vs 86.7%(IQR:72.3%-95.3),P=0.592],and the median frequency within the target RASS range without rescue sedation[72.2%(60.8%-91.7%)vs 73.3%(60.0%-100.0%),P=0.880].The proportion of patients in the dexmedetomidine group who required rescue sedation was higher than in the propofol group with statistical significance(69.2%vs 50.8%,P=0.045).Serum S100-βand NSE levels in the propofol group were higher than in the dexmedetomidine group with statistical significance during the first six and five days of mechanical ventilation,respectively(all P<0.05).CONCLUSION Dexmedetomidine demonstrated stronger protective effects on the brain compared to propofol for long-term mechanical ventilation in patients without brain injury.

Propofol sedation in routine endoscopy:A case series comparing target controlled infusion vs manually controlled bolus concept

BACKGROUND Many studies have addressed safety and effectiveness of non-anaesthesiologist propofol sedation(NAPS)for gastrointestinal(GI)endoscopy Target controlled infusion(TCI)is claimed to provide an optimal sedation regimen by avoiding under-or oversedation.AIM To assess safety and performance of propofol TCI sedation in comparison with nurse-administered bolus-sedation.METHODS Fouty-five patients undergoing endoscopy under TCI propofol sedation were prospectively included from November 2016 to May 2017 and compared to 87 patients retrospectively included that underwent endoscopy with NAPS.Patients were matched for age and endoscopic procedure.We recorded time of sedation and endoscopy,dosage of medication and adverse events.RESULTS There was a significant reduction in dose per time of propofol administered in the TCI group,compared to the NAPS group(8.2±2.7 mg/min vs 9.3±3.4 mg/min;P=0.046).The time needed to provide adequate sedation levels was slightly but significantly lower in the control group(5.3±2.7 min vs 7.7±3.3 min;P<0.001),nonetheless the total endoscopy time was similar in both groups.No differences between TCI and bolus-sedation was observed for mean total-dosage of propofol rate as well as adverse events.CONCLUSION This study indicates that sedation using TCI for GI endoscopy reduces the dose of propofol necessary per minute of endoscopy.This may translate into less adverse events.However,further and randomized trials need to confirm this trend.

Remimazolam for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy:A comprehensive review

Worldwide,a majority of routine endoscopic procedures are performed under some form of sedation to maximize patient comfort.Propofol,benzodiazepines and opioids continue to be widely used.However,in recent years,Remimazolam is gaining immense popularity for procedural sedation in gastrointestinal(GI)endoscopy.It is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in July 2020 for use in procedural sedation.Remimazolam has shown a favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile in terms of its non-specific metabolism by tissue esterase,volume of distribution,total body clearance,and negligible drug-drug interactions.It also has satisfactory efficacy and has achieved high rates of successful sedation in GI endoscopy.Furthermore,studies have demonstrated that the efficacy of Remimazolam is non-inferior to Propofol,which is currently a gold standard for procedural sedation in most parts of the world.However,the use of Propofol is associated with hemodynamic instability and respiratory depression.In contrast,Remimazolam has lower incidence of these adverse effects intra-procedurally and hence,may provide a safer alternative to Propofol in procedural sedation.In this comprehensive narrative review,highlight the pharmacologic characteristics,efficacy,and safety of Remimazolam for procedural sedation.We also discuss the potential of Remimazolam as a suitable alternative and how it can shape the future of procedural sedation in gastroenterology.

Sedation reversal trends at outpatient ambulatory endoscopic center vs in-hospital ambulatory procedure center using a triage protocol

BACKGROUND Routine outpatient endoscopy is performed across a variety of outpatient settings.A known risk of performing endoscopy under moderate sedation is the potential for over-sedation,requiring the use of reversal agents.More needs to be reported on rates of reversal across different outpatient settings.Our academic tertiary care center utilizes a triage tool that directs higher-risk patients to the in-hospital ambulatory procedure center(APC)for their procedure.Here,we report data on outpatient sedation reversal rates for endoscopy performed at an inhospital APC vs at a free-standing ambulatory endoscopy digestive health center(AEC-DHC)following risk stratification with a triage tool.AIM To observe the effect of risk stratification using a triage tool on patient outcomes,primarily sedation reversal events.METHODS We observed all outpatient endoscopy procedures performed at AEC-DHC and APC from April 2013 to September 2019.Procedures were stratified to their respective sites using a triage tool.We evaluated each procedure for which sedation reversal with flumazenil and naloxone was recorded.Demographics and characteristics recorded include patient age,gender,body mass index(BMI),American Society of Anesthesiologists(ASA)classification,procedure type,and reason for sedation reversal.RESULTS There were 97366 endoscopic procedures performed at AEC-DHC and 22494 at the APC during the study period.Of these,17 patients at AEC-DHC and 9 at the APC underwent sedation reversals(0.017%vs 0.04%;P=0.06).Demographics recorded for those requiring reversal at AEC-DHC vs APC included mean age(53.5±21 vs 60.4±17.42 years;P=0.23),ASA class(1.66±0.48 vs 2.22±0.83;P=0.20),BMI(27.7±6.7 kg/m^(2) vs 23.7±4.03 kg/m^(2);P=0.06),and female gender(64.7%vs 22%;P=0.04).The mean doses of sedative agents and reversal drugs used at AEC-DHC vs APC were midazolam(5.9±1.7 mg vs 8.9±3.5 mg;P=0.01),fentanyl(147.1±49.9μg vs 188.9±74.1μg;P=0.10),flumazenil(0.3±0.18μg vs 0.17±0.17μg;P=0.13)and naloxone(0.32±0.10 mg vs 0.28±0.12 mg;P=0.35).Procedures at AEC-DHC requiring sedation reversal included colonoscopies(n=6),esophagogastroduodenoscopy(EGD)(n=9)and EGD/colonoscopies(n=2),whereas APC procedures included EGDs(n=2),EGD with gastrostomy tube placement(n=1),endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(n=2)and endoscopic ultrasound's(n=4).The indications for sedation reversal at AEC-DHC included hypoxia(n=13;76%),excessive somnolence(n=3;18%),and hypotension(n=1;6%),whereas,at APC,these included hypoxia(n=7;78%)and hypotension(n=2;22%).No sedation-related deaths or long-term post-sedation reversal adverse outcomes occurred at either site.CONCLUSION Our study highlights the effectiveness of a triage tool used at our tertiary care hospital for risk stratification in minimizing sedation reversal events during outpatient endoscopy procedures.Using a triage tool for risk stratification,low rates of sedation reversal can be achieved in the ambulatory settings for EGD and colonoscopy.

Inhaled volatile anesthetics in the intensive care unit

The discovery and utilization of volatile anesthetics has significantly transformed surgical practices since their inception in the mid-19th century.Recently,a paradigm shift is observed as volatile anesthetics extend beyond traditional confines of the operating theatres,finding diverse applications in intensive care settings.In the dynamic landscape of intensive care,volatile anesthetics emerge as a promising avenue for addressing complex sedation requirements,managing refractory lung pathologies including acute respiratory distress syndrome and status asthmaticus,conditions of high sedative requirements including burns,high opioid or alcohol use and neurological conditions such as status epilepticus.Volatile anesthetics can be administered through either inhaled route via anesthetic machines/devices or through extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuitry,providing intensivists with multiple options to tailor therapy.Furthermore,their unique pharmacokinetic profiles render them titratable and empower clinicians to individualize management with heightened accuracy,mitigating risks associated with conventional sedation modalities.Despite the amounting enthusiasm for the use of these therapies,barriers to widespread utilization include expanding equipment availability,staff familiarity and training of safe use.This article delves into the realm of applying inhaled volatile anesthetics in the intensive care unit through discussing their pharmacology,administration considerations in intensive care settings,complication considerations,and listing indications and evidence of the use of volatile anesthetics in the critically ill patient population.

Remimazolam in intensive care unit:Potential applications and considerations

This manuscript explores the potential use of Remimazolam in the intensive care unit(ICU)and critical care units,considering its pharmacological characteristics,clinical applications,advantages,and comparative effectiveness over current sedatives and anesthetics.We reviewed existing PubMed and Google Scholar literature to find relevant studies on Remimazolam in ICU.We created search criteria using a combination of free text words,including Remimazolam,critical care,intensive care,sedation,anesthesia,pharmacokinetics,and pharmacodynamics.Relevant articles published in the English language were analyzed and incorporated.Remimazolam is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine derivative promising for sedation and anesthesia.It is a safer option for hemodynamically unstable,elderly,or liver or kidney issues.It also has comparable deep sedation properties to propofol in the ICU.Furthermore,it reduces post-procedural delirium and patient comfort and reduces the need for additional sedatives in pediatric patients.In conclusion,Remimazolam is an excellent alternative to current sedatives and anesthetics in the ICU.Its cost is comparable to that of current medications.Further research on its long-term safety in the ICU and its broader application and incorporation into routine use is necessary.

Between Euthanasia and Dysthanasia: The Ethical Issue of Sedation in the Terminal Phase of Illness

Background: Deep sedation, euthanasia and therapeutic relentlessness lead us today to rethink the paradigm of life and the contingency of human existence. Between therapeutic relentlessness, the unreasonable care which uses heavy therapeutic means which are often disproportionate to the expected benefit, namely keeping alive a patient whose condition is considered medically hopeless;and euthanasia which would precipitate the process of death would be sedation in the terminal phase of the illness. Should doctors and families of comatose patients decide the “life” and “death” of their patients? For anti-euthanasia associations, doctors, relatives of terminally ill patients and the State itself, if they accept the principle of euthanasia, they are “murderers”, while for pro-euthanasists, the dignity of the human being would recommend that the days of patients in situations considered critical be shortened, to avoid unnecessary suffering and humiliation. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was carried out to identify relevant articles relating to euthanasia, dysthanasia and sedation in the terminal phase of illness. The search was conducted in French or English in three databases: PubMed, Google Scholar and Science Direct. Objectives: The objectives of this article are: 1) define the terminologies and concepts of palliative sedation, deep sedation, deep and continuous sedation until death, euthanasia and dysthanasia;2) present aspects of the meaning of life and the human person in African cultures;and 3) propose an ethical reflection on the value of life. Results: After precisely defining the concepts of euthanasia, dysthanasia and sedation, this research presented the African anthropological and ethical approach to the mysteries of life and death. Conclusion: With this in mind, the golden rule of medicine always remains as such “Primum non nocere”.

Postoperative Sedation Options in ICU

This paper examines sedation options in ICU postoperative care. It highlights the necessity of sedation for patients’ physical and mental comfort, safety, and reduction of delirium. The article advocates light sedation, primarily with non-benzodiazepines like propofol or dexmedetomidine, to improve outcomes. It introduces novel sedatives like ciprofol and remimazolam, suggesting they may be future alternatives in ICU sedation, although more research is needed.

Impact of Sedation Protocols on Elderly Patients Undergoing Mechanical Ventilation and Off-Line Weaning

The proportion of elderly patients in intensive care is increasing, and a significant proportion of them require mechanical ventilation. How to implement safe and effective mechanical ventilation for elderly patients, and when appropriate off-line is an important issue in the field of critical care medicine. Appropriate sedation can improve patient outcomes, but excessive sedation may lead to prolonged mechanical ventilation and increase the risk of complications. Elderly patients should be closely monitored and evaluated on an individual basis while offline, and the sedation regimen should be dynamically adjusted. This requires the healthcare team to consider the patient’s sedation needs, disease status, and pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of the drug to arrive at the best strategy. Although the current research has provided valuable insights and strategies for sedation and off-line management, there are still many problems to be further explored and solved.

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam-based sedation for intensive care unit patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy:a cohort study

BACKGROUND:Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting sedative,but its safety and adverse events(AEs)in high-risk patients in the intensive care unit(ICU)setting remain unknown.METHODS:This was a single-center,retrospective study that compared remimazolam to propofol and midazolam in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.The primary outcome was the incidence of treatment-related AEs.The secondary outcomes were the time to extubation,the length of ICU stay,and the average cost of sedative per case.RESULTS:Of the 88 patients analyzed,47 were treated with remimazolam(mean dose,7.90±4.84mg),and 41 were treated with propofol(21.19±17.98 mg)or midazolam(3.08±2.17 mg).There was no statistically significant difference in the average duration of the endoscopic procedure(35.89±13.37 min vs.44.51±21.68 min,P=0.133)or the time to extubation(15.00±9.75 h vs.20.59±18.71 h,P=0.211)in the remimazolam group(group I)compared to the propofol or midazolam group(group II).ICU stays(5.40±2.93 d vs.4.63±3.31 d,P=0.072)and treatment-related AEs(48.61%vs.51.38%,P=0.056)were similar between groups.The average cost of sedative per case was significantly lower in the group I than in the group II(RMB 16.07±10.58 yuan vs.RMB 24.37±15.46 yuan,P=0.016).CONCLUSION:Remimazolam-based sedation was noninferior to the classic sedatives and had lower average cost per case,indicating that it may be used as a promising sedative for high-risk patients during endoscopic procedures in the ICU setting.

Evaluation of bronchoscopic direct vision glottis anesthesia method in bronchoscopy

BACKGROUND Fibrobronchoscopy is a common adjunct tool that requires anesthesia and is widely used in the diagnosis and treatment of various respiratory diseases.However,current anesthesia methods,such as spray,nebulized inhalation,and cricothyroid membrane puncture,have their own advantages and disadvantages.Recently,studies have shown that bronchoscopic direct-view glottis anesthesia is a simple and inexpensive method that shortens the examination time and provides excellent anesthetic results.AIM To evaluate the effectiveness of bronchoscopic direct vision glottis anesthesia for bronchoscopy.METHODS The study included 100 patients who underwent bronchoscopy during thoracic surgery.A random number table method was used to divide the patients into control and observation groups(50 patients each).The control and observation groups were anesthetized using the nebulized inhalation and bronchoscopic direct vision glottis method,respectively.Hemodynamic indices[systolic blood pressure(SBP),diastolic blood pressure(DBP),heart rate(HR),and oxygen saturation(SpO_(2))before(T1),5 min after anesthesia(T2),and at the end of the operation(T3)]serum stress hormone indices[norepinephrine(NE),epinephrine(E),adrenocorticotropic hormone(ACTH),and cortisol(Cor)before and after treatment]were compared between the 2 groups.Adverse effects were also RESULTS At T2 and T3,SBP,DBP,and HR were lower in the observation group than the control group,whereas SpO_(2) was higher than the control group[(119.05±8.01)mmHg vs(127.05±7.83)mmHg,(119.35±6.66)mmHg vs(128.39±6.56)mmHg,(84.68±6.04)mmHg vs(92.42±5.57)mmHg,(84.53±4.97)mmHg compared to(92.57±6.02)mmHg,(74.25±5.18)beats/min compared to(88.32±5.72)beats/min,(74.38±5.31)beats/min compared to(88.42±5.69)beats/min,(97.36±2.21)%vs(94.35±2.16)%,(97.42±2.36)%vs(94.38±2.69%],with statistically significant differences(all P<0.05).After treatment,NE,E,ACTH,and Cor were significantly higher in both groups than before treatment,but were lower in the observation group than in the control group[(68.25±8.87)ng/mL vs(93.35±14.00)ng/mL,(53.59±5.89)ng/mL vs(82.32±10.70)ng/mL,(14.32±1.58)pg/mL vs(20.35±3.05)pg/mL,(227.35±25.01)nmol/L vs(322.28±45.12)nmol/L],with statistically significant differences(all P<0.05).The incidence of adverse reactions was higher in the control group than in the observation group[12.00%(12/50)vs 6.00%(3/50)](P<0.05).CONCLUSION The use of bronchoscopic direct vision glottis anesthesia method for bronchoscopy patients is beneficial for stabilizing hemodynamic indices during bronchoscopy and reducing the level of patient stress,with good safety and practicality.