Background: Emergence agitation (EA) is a common phenomenon observed in pediatric patients following general anesthesia. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of propofol and fentanyl in preventing EA and to compare...Background: Emergence agitation (EA) is a common phenomenon observed in pediatric patients following general anesthesia. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of propofol and fentanyl in preventing EA and to compare their associated complications or side effects. Methods: This prospective randomized observational comparative study was conducted at Dhaka Medical College Hospital from July 2013 to June 2014. The study aimed to evaluate the effects of propofol and fentanyl on EA in children aged 18 to 72 months undergoing circumcision, herniotomy, and polypectomy operations. Ninety children were included in the study, with 45 in each group. Patients with psychological or neurological disorders were excluded. Various parameters including age, sex, weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, duration of anesthesia, Saturation of Peripheral Oxygen (SPO2), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) score, duration of post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, incidence of laryngospasm, nausea, vomiting, and rescue drug requirement were compared between the two groups. Results: Age, sex, weight, ASA class, and duration of anesthesia were comparable between the two groups. Perioperative SpO2 and HR were similar in both groups. However, the PAED score was significantly higher in the fentanyl group during all follow-ups except at 30 minutes postoperatively. The mean duration of PACU stay was significantly longer in the fentanyl group. Although the incidence of laryngospasm was higher in the fentanyl group, it was not statistically significant. Conversely, nausea or vomiting was significantly higher in the fentanyl group. The requirement for rescue drugs was significantly higher in the fentanyl group compared to the propofol group. Conclusion: Both propofol and fentanyl were effective in preventing emergence agitation in pediatric patients undergoing various surgical procedures under sevoflurane anesthesia. However, propofol demonstrated a better safety profile with fewer incidences of nausea, vomiting, and rescue drug requirements compared to fentanyl.展开更多
Background and Objectives: Propofol is a commonly used intravenous anesthetic for painless artificial abortion, but the injection pain and related adverse reactions such as those related to respiration and circulation...Background and Objectives: Propofol is a commonly used intravenous anesthetic for painless artificial abortion, but the injection pain and related adverse reactions such as those related to respiration and circulation it induces have also been criticized. We aimed to conduct a comparative study on the efficacy, safety and comfort of ciprofol and propofol applied in painless artificial abortion. Materials and Methods: A total of 140 early pregnant patients undergoing painless induced abortion were selected and randomly divided into the ciprofol combined with fentanyl group (Group C) and the propofol combined with fentanyl group (Group P), with 70 cases in each group. The anesthetic effect, depth of anesthesia sedation (NI), onset time, recovery time, recovery time of orientation, retention time in the anesthesia recovery room and total amount of intravenous anesthetic drug were recorded in both groups. The respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SpO2), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) at different time points were recorded. The occurrence of perioperative adverse events, injection pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and dizziness were compared. The pain score at 30 minutes after operation and the satisfaction of patients and surgeons with anesthesia were evaluated. Results: The success rate of anesthesia in both groups was 100%. There were no statistically significant differences in the NI value at each time point, intraoperative body movement, recovery time, recovery time of orientation, retention time in the anesthesia recovery room, and total dosage of sedative drugs (ml) between the two groups;the onset time in Group C was longer than that in Group P, with a statistically significant difference (P Conclusion: The efficacy of ciprofol in painless induced abortion is equivalent to that of propofol, and the incidence of adverse reactions is lower than that of propofol, with higher safety and comfort.展开更多
BACKGROUND Gastroscopy and colonoscopy are important and common endoscopic methods for the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal and colorectal diseases.However,endoscopy is usually associated with adverse react...BACKGROUND Gastroscopy and colonoscopy are important and common endoscopic methods for the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal and colorectal diseases.However,endoscopy is usually associated with adverse reactions such as nervousness,nausea,vomiting,choking cough,and pain.Severe discomfort,such as vomiting,coughing,or body movement,may lead to aggravation of a preexisting condition or even interruption of examination or treatment,especially in some critically ill patients with physiological dysfunction(e.g.,cardiovascular or respiratory disease).The optimal methods for inducing analgesia and sedation in endoscopy are areas of ongoing debate;nevertheless,determining an appropriate regimen of sedation and analgesia is important.AIM To evaluate the effects of propofol combined with dezocine,sufentanil,or fentanyl in painless gastroscopy and colonoscopy.METHODS Four hundred patients were randomly assigned to one of four groups for anesthesia:intravenous dezocine,sufentanil,fentanyl,or saline.Propofol was administered intravenously for induction and maintenance of anesthesia.RESULTS The dosage of propofol in the dezocine group was significantly lower than those in other groups(P<0.01).Bispectral index and Steward score(0-6 points,an unresponsive,immobile patient whose airway requires maintenance to a fully recovered patient)after eye opening in the dezocine group were significantly higher than those in other groups(P<0.01).Awakening time and postoperative pain score(0-10 points,no pain to unbearable pain)in the dezocine group were significantly lower than those in other groups(P<0.01).Mean arterial pressure and pulse oxygen saturation in the dezocine group were significantly more stable at various time points(before dosing,disappearance of eyelash reflex,and wakeup)than those in other groups(P<0.01).The rates of hypopnea,jaw thrust,body movements,and usage of vasoactive drugs in the dezocine group were significantly lower than those in other groups(P<0.01).Additionally,the rates of reflex coughing,nausea,and vomiting were not statistically different between the four groups(P>0.05).CONCLUSION The combination of propofol and dezocine can decrease propofol dosage,reduce the risk for the development of inhibitory effects on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems,increase analgesic effect,decrease body movement,shorten awakening time,and improve awakening quality.展开更多
Background Surgical stress causes a helper T-cell type 2 （Th2）-dominant status and disturbs the Th1/Th2 cytokine balance. Anesthesia can suppress the stress response to surgery, therefore it may inhibit the imbalanc...Background Surgical stress causes a helper T-cell type 2 （Th2）-dominant status and disturbs the Th1/Th2 cytokine balance. Anesthesia can suppress the stress response to surgery, therefore it may inhibit the imbalance in the Th1/Th2 ratio. In this study, we assessed if propofol anesthesia and sevoflurane anesthesia influence the Th1/Th2 cytokine balance, and which anesthesia method better attenuates this ratio.Methods Twenty-eight patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists （ASA） physical status of I undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were selected. They were randomly allocated into two groups of 14. Group 1 received propofol anesthesia by a target-controlled-infusion （TCI） pump and group 2 received sevoflurane anesthesia.Non-invasive blood pressure, heart rate, and end-expiration CO2 partial pressure were monitored during anesthesia. The depth of anesthesia was measured using the bispectral index （BIS）, and maintained between 50 and 60. During surgery we adjusted the doses of propofol and sevoflurane according to the BIS. Samples of peripheral blood were taken before the induction of anesthesia （T1）, after the induction of anesthesia （T2）, at the beginning of surgery （T3）, at the end of surgery （T4） and on the first day after surgery （D1）. Blood samples were analyzed to give the Th1/Th2 ratio and plasma level of cortisol.Results Non-invasive blood pressure, heart rate and end-expiration CO2 partial pressure were not notably different in the two groups. At T4, the percentage of T1 cells was higher in group 1 and had statistical significance （P 〈0.05）. The percentage of T2 cells was not significantly different in the two groups. At T4, the difference in the Th1/Th2 ratio was significantly different. At T3, T4, and D1, the plasma level of cortisol was lower in group 1（P 〈0.05）.Conclusion Compared with sevoflurane, propofol can preferably promote Th cells to differentiate into Th1 cells and inhibit surgical stress. Propofol may therefore be immunoprotective for such patients.展开更多
AIM: To compare the effect of propofol versus urapidil on hemodynamics and intraocular pressure during anesthesia and extubation for ophthalmic patients. METHODS: Eighty-two surgical patients (Class: ASA I-II) were ra...AIM: To compare the effect of propofol versus urapidil on hemodynamics and intraocular pressure during anesthesia and extubation for ophthalmic patients. METHODS: Eighty-two surgical patients (Class: ASA I-II) were randomly assigned to propofol (n = 41) and urapidil groups (n = 41). Their gender, age, body mass, operation time and dosage of anesthetics had no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The patients of propofol and urapidil groups were given propofol (1.5mg/kg) and urapidil (2.5mg/kg) respectively; and two drugs were all diluted with normal saline to 8mL. Then the drugs were given to patients by slow intravenous injection. After treatment, the patients were conducted immediate suction, tracheal extubation, and then patients wore oxygen masks for 10 minutes. By double-blind methods, before the induction medication, at the suction, and 5, 10 minutes after the extubation, we recorded the systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), pH, PaO2, PaCO2, SaO(2) and intraocular pressure (TOP) respectively. The complete recovery time of the patients with restlessness (on the command they could open eyes and shaking hands) was also recorded during the extubation. The data were analyzed by using a professional SPSS 15.0 statistical software. RESULTS: The incidence of cough, restlessness and glossocoma was significantly lower in the propofol group than that in the urapidil group after extubation (P < 0.05). There were no episodes of hypotension, laryngospasm, or severe respiratory depression. There was no statistical difference in recovery time between two groups (P > 0.05). In propofol group, the BP and HR during extubation and thereafter had no significant difference compared with those before induction, while they were significantly lower than those before giving propofol (P < 0.05), and had significant difference compared with those in urapidil group (P < 0.05). Compared to preinduction, the BP of urapidil group showed no obvious increase during aspiration and extubation. The HR of urapidil group had little changes after being given urapidil, and it was obviously increased compared with that before induction. The stimulation of aspiration and extubation caused less cough and agitation in propofol group than that in urapidil group (P < 0.05). The IOP of propofol group showed no obvious increase during extubation compared with that in preinduction, while in the urpidil group, extubation caused IOP significantly increased (P < 0.05). The changes in these indicators between the two groups had no significant difference (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared to urapidil, propofol is superior for preventing the cardiovascular and stress responses and IOP increases during emergence and extubation for the ophthalmic patients. Moreover, it has no effects on patient's recovery.展开更多
Background: Emergence agitation (EA) after sevoflurane anesthesia is common in children. When rapid intravenous induction of general anesthesia is indicated in a brief procedure, the induction agent can reduce the inc...Background: Emergence agitation (EA) after sevoflurane anesthesia is common in children. When rapid intravenous induction of general anesthesia is indicated in a brief procedure, the induction agent can reduce the incidence of EA after sevoflurane anesthesia. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of intravenous induction with ketamine and propofol for reducing EA in children after short sevoflurane anesthesia. Methods: Children aged 2 to 6 years who were scheduled to undergo inguinal hernia repair were randomly divided into 3 groups to receive 2 mg/kg ketamine iv, 3 mg/kg propofol iv, or inspired concentration of 8% sevoflurane for induction of anesthesia. After a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion, a caudal block was performed in all children. Anesthesia was maintained with 1.5% sevoflurane and 65% nitrous oxide in oxygen with spontaneous ventilation. The recovery characteristics were recorded and EA were evaluated by using the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) scale. Results: One hundred and twenty children were enrolled and randomized to treatment. Children who received ketamine induction had higher incidence of EA than those who received propofol (42% vs 16%, P < 0.05) and showed delayed recovery (32 ± 9 min) as compared with those who received propofol or sevoflurane (22 ± 8 min and 20 ± 7 min, respectively, P < 0.05). The mean peak PAED score was significantly lower in children who received propofol induction (6.8 ± 4.0, P < 0.05) than ketamine (11.8 ± 4.1) or sevoflurane (11.6 ± 3.8). Conclusions: Intravenous induction with ketamine does not prevent the incidence of EA and delays recovery. Induction with propofol improves the quality of recovery by reducing the incidence of EA and provides a safe and early recovery.展开更多
文摘Background: Emergence agitation (EA) is a common phenomenon observed in pediatric patients following general anesthesia. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of propofol and fentanyl in preventing EA and to compare their associated complications or side effects. Methods: This prospective randomized observational comparative study was conducted at Dhaka Medical College Hospital from July 2013 to June 2014. The study aimed to evaluate the effects of propofol and fentanyl on EA in children aged 18 to 72 months undergoing circumcision, herniotomy, and polypectomy operations. Ninety children were included in the study, with 45 in each group. Patients with psychological or neurological disorders were excluded. Various parameters including age, sex, weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, duration of anesthesia, Saturation of Peripheral Oxygen (SPO2), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) score, duration of post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, incidence of laryngospasm, nausea, vomiting, and rescue drug requirement were compared between the two groups. Results: Age, sex, weight, ASA class, and duration of anesthesia were comparable between the two groups. Perioperative SpO2 and HR were similar in both groups. However, the PAED score was significantly higher in the fentanyl group during all follow-ups except at 30 minutes postoperatively. The mean duration of PACU stay was significantly longer in the fentanyl group. Although the incidence of laryngospasm was higher in the fentanyl group, it was not statistically significant. Conversely, nausea or vomiting was significantly higher in the fentanyl group. The requirement for rescue drugs was significantly higher in the fentanyl group compared to the propofol group. Conclusion: Both propofol and fentanyl were effective in preventing emergence agitation in pediatric patients undergoing various surgical procedures under sevoflurane anesthesia. However, propofol demonstrated a better safety profile with fewer incidences of nausea, vomiting, and rescue drug requirements compared to fentanyl.
文摘Background and Objectives: Propofol is a commonly used intravenous anesthetic for painless artificial abortion, but the injection pain and related adverse reactions such as those related to respiration and circulation it induces have also been criticized. We aimed to conduct a comparative study on the efficacy, safety and comfort of ciprofol and propofol applied in painless artificial abortion. Materials and Methods: A total of 140 early pregnant patients undergoing painless induced abortion were selected and randomly divided into the ciprofol combined with fentanyl group (Group C) and the propofol combined with fentanyl group (Group P), with 70 cases in each group. The anesthetic effect, depth of anesthesia sedation (NI), onset time, recovery time, recovery time of orientation, retention time in the anesthesia recovery room and total amount of intravenous anesthetic drug were recorded in both groups. The respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SpO2), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) at different time points were recorded. The occurrence of perioperative adverse events, injection pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and dizziness were compared. The pain score at 30 minutes after operation and the satisfaction of patients and surgeons with anesthesia were evaluated. Results: The success rate of anesthesia in both groups was 100%. There were no statistically significant differences in the NI value at each time point, intraoperative body movement, recovery time, recovery time of orientation, retention time in the anesthesia recovery room, and total dosage of sedative drugs (ml) between the two groups;the onset time in Group C was longer than that in Group P, with a statistically significant difference (P Conclusion: The efficacy of ciprofol in painless induced abortion is equivalent to that of propofol, and the incidence of adverse reactions is lower than that of propofol, with higher safety and comfort.
文摘BACKGROUND Gastroscopy and colonoscopy are important and common endoscopic methods for the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal and colorectal diseases.However,endoscopy is usually associated with adverse reactions such as nervousness,nausea,vomiting,choking cough,and pain.Severe discomfort,such as vomiting,coughing,or body movement,may lead to aggravation of a preexisting condition or even interruption of examination or treatment,especially in some critically ill patients with physiological dysfunction(e.g.,cardiovascular or respiratory disease).The optimal methods for inducing analgesia and sedation in endoscopy are areas of ongoing debate;nevertheless,determining an appropriate regimen of sedation and analgesia is important.AIM To evaluate the effects of propofol combined with dezocine,sufentanil,or fentanyl in painless gastroscopy and colonoscopy.METHODS Four hundred patients were randomly assigned to one of four groups for anesthesia:intravenous dezocine,sufentanil,fentanyl,or saline.Propofol was administered intravenously for induction and maintenance of anesthesia.RESULTS The dosage of propofol in the dezocine group was significantly lower than those in other groups(P<0.01).Bispectral index and Steward score(0-6 points,an unresponsive,immobile patient whose airway requires maintenance to a fully recovered patient)after eye opening in the dezocine group were significantly higher than those in other groups(P<0.01).Awakening time and postoperative pain score(0-10 points,no pain to unbearable pain)in the dezocine group were significantly lower than those in other groups(P<0.01).Mean arterial pressure and pulse oxygen saturation in the dezocine group were significantly more stable at various time points(before dosing,disappearance of eyelash reflex,and wakeup)than those in other groups(P<0.01).The rates of hypopnea,jaw thrust,body movements,and usage of vasoactive drugs in the dezocine group were significantly lower than those in other groups(P<0.01).Additionally,the rates of reflex coughing,nausea,and vomiting were not statistically different between the four groups(P>0.05).CONCLUSION The combination of propofol and dezocine can decrease propofol dosage,reduce the risk for the development of inhibitory effects on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems,increase analgesic effect,decrease body movement,shorten awakening time,and improve awakening quality.
文摘Background Surgical stress causes a helper T-cell type 2 （Th2）-dominant status and disturbs the Th1/Th2 cytokine balance. Anesthesia can suppress the stress response to surgery, therefore it may inhibit the imbalance in the Th1/Th2 ratio. In this study, we assessed if propofol anesthesia and sevoflurane anesthesia influence the Th1/Th2 cytokine balance, and which anesthesia method better attenuates this ratio.Methods Twenty-eight patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists （ASA） physical status of I undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were selected. They were randomly allocated into two groups of 14. Group 1 received propofol anesthesia by a target-controlled-infusion （TCI） pump and group 2 received sevoflurane anesthesia.Non-invasive blood pressure, heart rate, and end-expiration CO2 partial pressure were monitored during anesthesia. The depth of anesthesia was measured using the bispectral index （BIS）, and maintained between 50 and 60. During surgery we adjusted the doses of propofol and sevoflurane according to the BIS. Samples of peripheral blood were taken before the induction of anesthesia （T1）, after the induction of anesthesia （T2）, at the beginning of surgery （T3）, at the end of surgery （T4） and on the first day after surgery （D1）. Blood samples were analyzed to give the Th1/Th2 ratio and plasma level of cortisol.Results Non-invasive blood pressure, heart rate and end-expiration CO2 partial pressure were not notably different in the two groups. At T4, the percentage of T1 cells was higher in group 1 and had statistical significance （P 〈0.05）. The percentage of T2 cells was not significantly different in the two groups. At T4, the difference in the Th1/Th2 ratio was significantly different. At T3, T4, and D1, the plasma level of cortisol was lower in group 1（P 〈0.05）.Conclusion Compared with sevoflurane, propofol can preferably promote Th cells to differentiate into Th1 cells and inhibit surgical stress. Propofol may therefore be immunoprotective for such patients.
基金National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.39580683)
文摘AIM: To compare the effect of propofol versus urapidil on hemodynamics and intraocular pressure during anesthesia and extubation for ophthalmic patients. METHODS: Eighty-two surgical patients (Class: ASA I-II) were randomly assigned to propofol (n = 41) and urapidil groups (n = 41). Their gender, age, body mass, operation time and dosage of anesthetics had no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The patients of propofol and urapidil groups were given propofol (1.5mg/kg) and urapidil (2.5mg/kg) respectively; and two drugs were all diluted with normal saline to 8mL. Then the drugs were given to patients by slow intravenous injection. After treatment, the patients were conducted immediate suction, tracheal extubation, and then patients wore oxygen masks for 10 minutes. By double-blind methods, before the induction medication, at the suction, and 5, 10 minutes after the extubation, we recorded the systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), pH, PaO2, PaCO2, SaO(2) and intraocular pressure (TOP) respectively. The complete recovery time of the patients with restlessness (on the command they could open eyes and shaking hands) was also recorded during the extubation. The data were analyzed by using a professional SPSS 15.0 statistical software. RESULTS: The incidence of cough, restlessness and glossocoma was significantly lower in the propofol group than that in the urapidil group after extubation (P < 0.05). There were no episodes of hypotension, laryngospasm, or severe respiratory depression. There was no statistical difference in recovery time between two groups (P > 0.05). In propofol group, the BP and HR during extubation and thereafter had no significant difference compared with those before induction, while they were significantly lower than those before giving propofol (P < 0.05), and had significant difference compared with those in urapidil group (P < 0.05). Compared to preinduction, the BP of urapidil group showed no obvious increase during aspiration and extubation. The HR of urapidil group had little changes after being given urapidil, and it was obviously increased compared with that before induction. The stimulation of aspiration and extubation caused less cough and agitation in propofol group than that in urapidil group (P < 0.05). The IOP of propofol group showed no obvious increase during extubation compared with that in preinduction, while in the urpidil group, extubation caused IOP significantly increased (P < 0.05). The changes in these indicators between the two groups had no significant difference (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared to urapidil, propofol is superior for preventing the cardiovascular and stress responses and IOP increases during emergence and extubation for the ophthalmic patients. Moreover, it has no effects on patient's recovery.
文摘Background: Emergence agitation (EA) after sevoflurane anesthesia is common in children. When rapid intravenous induction of general anesthesia is indicated in a brief procedure, the induction agent can reduce the incidence of EA after sevoflurane anesthesia. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of intravenous induction with ketamine and propofol for reducing EA in children after short sevoflurane anesthesia. Methods: Children aged 2 to 6 years who were scheduled to undergo inguinal hernia repair were randomly divided into 3 groups to receive 2 mg/kg ketamine iv, 3 mg/kg propofol iv, or inspired concentration of 8% sevoflurane for induction of anesthesia. After a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion, a caudal block was performed in all children. Anesthesia was maintained with 1.5% sevoflurane and 65% nitrous oxide in oxygen with spontaneous ventilation. The recovery characteristics were recorded and EA were evaluated by using the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) scale. Results: One hundred and twenty children were enrolled and randomized to treatment. Children who received ketamine induction had higher incidence of EA than those who received propofol (42% vs 16%, P < 0.05) and showed delayed recovery (32 ± 9 min) as compared with those who received propofol or sevoflurane (22 ± 8 min and 20 ± 7 min, respectively, P < 0.05). The mean peak PAED score was significantly lower in children who received propofol induction (6.8 ± 4.0, P < 0.05) than ketamine (11.8 ± 4.1) or sevoflurane (11.6 ± 3.8). Conclusions: Intravenous induction with ketamine does not prevent the incidence of EA and delays recovery. Induction with propofol improves the quality of recovery by reducing the incidence of EA and provides a safe and early recovery.
