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.

Effect of remimazolam vs. propofol on hemodynamics during general anesthesia induction in elderly patients: Single-center, randomized controlled trial

The current study aimed to compare the effects between remimazolam and propofol on hemodynamic stability during the induction of general anesthesia in elderly patients.We used propofol at a rate of 60 mg/(kg·h)in the propofol group(group P)or remimazolam at a rate of 6 mg/(kg·h)in the remimazolam group(group R)for the induction.A processed electroencephalogram was used to determine whether the induction was successful and when to stop the infusion of the study drug.We measured when patients entered the operating room(T_(0)),when the induction was successful(T_(1)),and when before(T_(2))and 5 min after successful endotracheal intubation(T_(3)).We found that mean arterial pressure(MAP)was lower at T_(1–3),compared with T_(0) in both groups,but higher at T_(2) in the group R,whileΔMAP_(T0–T2) andΔMAP_(max) were smaller in the group R(ΔMAP_(T0–T2):the difference between MAP at time point T_(0) and T_(2),ΔMAP_(max):the difference between MAP at time point T_(0) and the lowest value from T_(0) to T_(3)).Cardiac index and stroke volume index did not differ between groups,whereas systemic vascular resistance index was higher at T_(1–3) in the group R.These findings show that remimazolam,compared with propofol,better maintains hemodynamic stability during the induction,which may be attributed to its ability to better maintain systemic vascular resistance levels.

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.

Impact of propofol and sevoflurane anesthesia on cognition and emotion in gastric cancer patients undergoing radical resection

BACKGROUND Propofol and sevoflurane are commonly used anesthetic agents for maintenance anesthesia during radical resection of gastric cancer.However,there is a debate concerning their differential effects on cognitive function,anxiety,and depression in patients undergoing this procedure.AIM To compare the effects of propofol and sevoflurane anesthesia on postoperative cognitive function,anxiety,depression,and organ function in patients undergoing radical resection of gastric cancer.METHODS A total of 80 patients were involved in this research.The subjects were divided into two groups:Propofol group and sevoflurane group.The evaluation scale for cognitive function was the Loewenstein occupational therapy cognitive assessment(LOTCA),and anxiety and depression were assessed with the aid of the self-rating anxiety scale(SAS)and self-rating depression scale(SDS).Hemodynamic indicators,oxidative stress levels,and pulmonary function were also measured.RESULTS The LOTCA score at 1 d after surgery was significantly lower in the propofol group than in the sevoflurane group.Additionally,the SAS and SDS scores of the sevoflurane group were significantly lower than those of the propofol group.The sevoflurane group showed greater stability in heart rate as well as the mean arterial pressure compared to the propofol group.Moreover,the sevoflurane group displayed better pulmonary function and less lung injury than the propofol group.CONCLUSION Both propofol and sevoflurane could be utilized as maintenance anesthesia during radical resection of gastric cancer.Propofol anesthesia has a minimal effect on patients'pulmonary function,consequently enhancing their postoperative recovery.Sevoflurane anesthesia causes less impairment on patients'cognitive function and mitigates negative emotions,leading to an improved postoperative mental state.Therefore,the selection of anesthetic agents should be based on the individual patient's specific circumstances.

Respiratory complications of propofol,sevoflurane,and dexmedetomidine anesthesia for fiberoptic bronchoscopy in children aged 1 month to 3 years:a randomized trial

Objective To evaluate the effect of propofol,sevoflurane,and dexmedetomidine on respiratory complications inchildren undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy(FOB).Methods This double-blind randomized clinical trial was conductedamong 120 children aged 1 month to 3 years undergoing FOB.The patients were randomized into 3 groups(n=40)foranesthesia induction with sevoflurane inhalation,1 mg/kg propofol,or 1μg/kg dexmedetomidine before bronchoscopy,andthe changes in hemodynamic parameters,sedation level,and respiratory complications during and after the procedure wereassessed.Results The patients'heart rate during bronchoscopy was significantly lower and the mean arterial blood pressuresignificantly higher in dexmedetomidine group than in sevoflurane and propofol groups(P<0.05).Cough duringbronchoscopy did not occur in any of the cases in propofol group,while the highest frequency of cough was recorded indexmedetomidine group.The incidence of laryngospasm in the propofol group(12.5%)was significantly lower than those insevoflurane and dexmedetomidine groups(30%and 32.5%,respectively)(P<0.05).Conclusion Sevoflurane and propofol aresafe and suitable for anesthesia induction in children below 3 years of age undergoing diagnostic FOB and can achieve bettersedative effect and lower the incidences of cough and respiratory complications as compared with dexmedetomidine.

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.

A Study to Observe Pulse Pressure Variation after Induction with Propofol for General Anesthesia

Background and Aims: Pulse pressure variation (PPV) is a reliable and predictive dynamic parameter presently being utilized for fluid responsiveness. In the operating room, fluid administration based on PPV monitoring helps the physician in deciding whether to volume resuscitate or use interventions in patients undergoing surgery. Propofol is an intravenous induction agent which lowers blood pressure. There are multiple causes such as depression in cardiac output, and peripheral vasodilatation for hypotension. We undertook this study to observe the utility of PPV as a guide to fluid therapy after propofol induction. Primary outcome of our study was to monitor PPV as a marker of fluid responsiveness for the hypotension caused by propofol induction. Secondary outcome included the correlation of PPV with other hemodynamic parameters like heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP);after induction with propofol at regular interval of time. Methods: A total number of 90 patients were recruited. Either of the radial artery was then cannulated under local anaesthesia with 20G VygonLeadercath arterial cannula and invasive monitoring transduced. A baseline recording of heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and PPV was then recorded. Patients were then induced with predetermined doses of propofol (2 mg/kg) and recordings of HR, SBP, DBP, and PPV were taken at 5, 10 and 15 minutes. Results: Intraoperatively, PPV was significantly higher at 5 minutes and significantly lower at 15 minutes after induction. It was observed that there were no statistically significant correlations between PPV and SBP or DBP. PPV was strongly and directly associated with HR. Conclusion: We were able to establish that PPV predicts fluid responsiveness in hypotension caused by propofol induction;and can be used to administer fluid therapy in managing such hypotension. However, PPV was not directly correlated with hypotension subsequent to propofol administration.

Propofol with Varied Functions: A Potential Therapeutic Opportunity for Postoperative Nausea, Vomiting and Pruritus—A Narrative Review

Background: Despite the advances in anesthetics and non-pharmacological techniques, the prevalence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in all patients remains high. It is one of the most common distressing symptoms that cause dissatisfaction among patients after anesthesia and surgery. A sub-hypnotic dose of propofol has been shown to reduce morphine-induced postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pruritus. This review article will provide sufficient knowledge on the role of propofol in minimizing opioid-induced postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pruritus by providing detailed information on propofol antiemetic and antipruritic effects, as well as discussions based on empirically available data. Method: We conducted a narrative review of the literature published between 1990 and 2023 from a range of databases;PubMed, BioMed Central, Biosis Previews, Nature, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Springer-Link, and Elsevier. Discussion and Conclusion: The literatures reviewed in this study have demonstrated that propofol may have diverse therapeutic effects including antiemetic and antipruritic. The antiemetic effect of propofol may be an effective therapeutic approach for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The literature also demonstrated that the use of propofol for sedation during surgery may as well ameliorates opioids induced postoperative pruritus, which may be beneficial to surgical patients. Also, it was demonstrated that prophylactic use of propofol may be an effective way of preventing nausea and vomiting and pruritus during opioid use.

Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Clinical Study of Ciprofol and Propofol in Patients with Painless Artificial Abortion

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.

Comparison of Propofol and Fentanyl for Preventing Emergence Agitation Following Sevoflurane Anesthesia in Pediatric Patients: A Single-Center Study in Bangladesh

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.

Effects of Dezocine and Propofol Combination on Plasma 5-HT and ET Levels in Stroke Patients Undergoing Thrombolysis

Objective: To investigate the effect of dezocine combined with propofol on brain metabolism in patients undergoing cerebral thrombosis thrombolysis. Methods: A total of 86 stroke patients admitted between July 2022 and December 2023 were randomly divided into two groups: Group A (study group) and Group B (control group), with 43 patients in each group. Both groups underwent intra-arterial thrombolysis therapy. Group B received dezocine for anesthesia, while Group A received a combination of dezocine and propofol. Plasma concentrations of 5-hydroxytryptamine and endothelin, as well as brain metabolic indicators, were compared between the two groups immediately after anesthesia, at 1 hour post-reperfusion, and 3 hours post-reperfusion. Results: There were no significant differences in the levels of 5-hydroxytryptamine and endothelin between the two groups immediately after anesthesia and at 1 hour post-reperfusion (P > 0.05). However, at 3 hours post-reperfusion, the levels of 5-hydroxytryptamine and endothelin in Group A were significantly lower than those in Group B. Furthermore, in Group A, the levels of 5-hydroxytryptamine and endothelin at 3 hours post-reperfusion were lower compared to the levels at 1 hour post-reperfusion (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Dezocine combined with propofol can effectively improve the quality of anesthesia and has a minimal effect on brain metabolic indices, suggesting reduced damage to brain metabolism.

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.

Effects of Sevoflurane and Propofol on Neurological Recovery of Traumatic Brain Injury Patients in the Early Postoperative Stage: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Objective To investigate the effects of propofol and sevoflurane on neurological recovery of traumatic brain injury(TBI)patients in the early postoperative stage.Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of TBI patients who underwent craniotomy or decompressive craniectomy.Generalized additive mixed model(GAMM)was used to analyze effects of propofol and sevoflurane on Glasgow Coma Scale(GCS)on postoperative days 1,3,and 7.Multivariate regression analysis was used to analyze effects of the two anesthetics on Glasgow Outcome Scale(GOS)at discharge.Results A total of 340 TBI patients were enrolled in this study.There were 110 TBI patients who underwent craniotomy including 75 in the propofol group and 35 in the sevoflurane group,and 134 patients who underwent decompressive craniectomy including 63 in the propofol group and 71 in the sevoflurane group.It showed no significant difference in GCS at admission between the propofol and the sevoflurane groups among craniotomy patients(β=0.75,95%CI:-0.55 to 2.05,P=0.260).However,elevation in GCS from baseline was 1.73 points(95%CI:-2.81 to-0.66,P=0.002)less in the sevoflurane group than that in the propofol group on postoperative day 1,2.03 points(95%CI:-3.14 to-0.91,P 0.001)less on day 3,and 1.31 points(95%CI:-2.43 to-0.19,P=0.022)less on day 7.The risk of unfavorable GOS(GOS 1,2,and 3)at discharge was higher in the sevoflurane group(OR=4.93,95%CI:1.05 to 23.03,P=0.043).No significant difference was observed among two-group decompressive craniectomy patients in GCS and GOS.Conclusions Compared to propofol,sevoflurane was associated with worse neurological recovery during the hospital stay in TBI patients undergoing craniotomy.This difference was not detected in TBI patients undergoing decompressive craniectomy.

Effects of remifentanil combined with propofol on hemodynamics and oxidative stress in patients undergoing resection of rectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND Rectal carcinoma(RC)treatment primarily involves laparoscopic surgery,which may induce significant hemodynamic changes and weaken immune function.Certain anesthetic approaches using opioid drugs(including remifentanil and sufentanil)pose risks,such as hypotension.AIM To determine the effects of remifentanil combined with propofol on hemodynamics and oxidative stress in patients undergoing RC resection.METHODS A total of 211 patients one hundred and four patients with RC treated at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between November 2018 and November 2022 were retrospectively analyzed.Among them,the remifentanil group included 45 patients receiving remifentanil with propofol anesthesia and the sufentanil group included 59 patients receiving sufentanil with propofol anesthesia.Changes in the hemodynamic index,oxidative stress index,general data,consumption of remifentanil,and use of vasoactive drugs were compared.The incidences of adverse reactions were calculated.RESULTS The two groups did not significantly differ in terms of operation,anesthesia,and extubation times(P>0.05).At 1 min after intubation,the sufentanil group showed a notably higher heart rate,systolic blood pressure(SBP),diastolic blood pressure,and mean arterial pressure(MAP)compared with the remifentanil group(P<0.05),whereas the sufentanil group showed a notably higher SBP and MAP compared with the remifentanil group at 5 min after pneumoperitoneum(P<0.05).Thirty minutes after surgery,the remifentanil group showed significantly lower plasma cortisol,noradrenaline,and glucose levels than the sufentanil group(P<0.001).The remifentanil group consumed significantly less remifentanil than the sufentanil group(P<0.05),and the adoption frequency of ephedrine was lower in the remifentanil group than that in the sufentanil group(P<0.05).The incidence of hypotension was notably higher in the sufentanil group than that in the remifentanil group(P<0.05).CONCLUSION Remifentanil combined with propofol can improve hemodynamics and relieve oxidative stress in patients undergoing RC resection.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Propofol Administered by TCI in Chinese Elderly Patients

Aim To investigate the population pharmacokinetics of propofol administered by TCI in Chinese elderly patients. Methods Thirty-two patients with ASA Ⅰ - Ⅱ , 65 - 82 years old, undergoing selective lower abdominal operation were studied. Propofol was administered by target-controlled infusion with Marsh parameter. The target plasma concentration was 3 μg＇ mL^-1. Radial arterial blood samples were collected and analyzed by reversed phase HPLC with fluorescence detection. Population pharmacokinetic modeling was performed using NONMEM. Inter-individual variability and intra-individual variability of propofol were estimated for clearances and volumes of distribution. The effects of age, body weight, lean body mass, gender, height, hemoglobin, total protein, albumin, creatinine, alanine aminotrans ferase （ALT）, and aspartate aminotransferase （AST） were investigated. The effects of coadministered opioid drugs were also studied. Results The pharmacokinetics of propofol in the Chinese elderly patients was best described by a three-compartment open model. Lean body mass was found to be a covariate for system clearance at significant level （ P 〈 0.005）. The clearance decreased linearly with age as well （ P 〈 0. 005）. The apparent volume of distribution for deep peripheral compartment （V3） was influenced by gender. Elderly female patients showed a higher value for V3. Conclusion The pharmacokinetics of propofol administered by TCI in Chinese elderly patients can be well described by a three-compartment open model. Inclusion of age, lean body mass and gender as covariates significantly improved the model. To ensure the accuracy and precision of target-controlled infusion, the population pharmacokinetic model applied to the individual patient should be adjusted reasonably.

Clinical study of anesthetization by dezocine combined with propofol for indolent colonoscopy

AIM: To assess the use of dezocine combined with propofol for the anesthetization of patients undergoing indolent colonoscopy.METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of patients undergoing indolent colonoscopy in the Xinjiang people's Hospital was conducted from April 1 to April 30, 2015. The survey collected patient general information and anesthesia data, including overall medical experience and pain management. Thirty minutes after colonoscopy surgery, samples of venous blood were collected and the biochemical indicators of gastrointestinal function were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 98 female and 62 male respondents. Indolent colonoscopy was found to be more suitable for mid to older-aged patients. The necessary conditions for the diagnosis of digestive diseases were required in 65 of the 73 inpatients. Adverse reactions to the intraoperative process included two cases of body movement and two cases of respiratory depression. Gastrin and vasoactive intestinal peptide levels were slightly increased. However, somatostatin and endothelin levels were slightly decreased. CONCLUSION: This study revealed that dezocine combined with propofol can be successfully used for the anesthetization of indolent colonoscopy patients without pain and should be widely used.

Combination of propofol and dezocine to improve safety and efficacy of anesthesia for gastroscopy and colonoscopy in adults: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

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.

Role of combined propofol and sufentanil anesthesia in endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophageal varices

AIM To investigate the efficacy and safety of a combination of sufentanil and propofol injection in patients undergoing endoscopic injection sclerotherapy(EIS) for esophageal varices(EVs). METHODS Patients with severe EVs who underwent EIS with sufentanil and propofol anesthesia between April 2016 and July 2016 at our hospital were reviewed. Although EIS and sequential therapy were performed under endotracheal intubation, we only evaluated the efficacy and safety of anesthesia for the first EIS procedure. Patients were intravenously treated with 0.5-1 μg/kg sufentanil. Anesthesia was induced with 1-2 mg/kg propofol and maintained using 2-5 mg/kg per hour of propofol. Information, regarding age, sex, weight, American Association of Anesthesiologists(ASA) physical status, Child-Turcotte-Pugh(CTP) classification, indications, preanesthetic problems, endoscopic procedure, successful completion of the procedure, anesthesia time, recovery time, and anesthetic agents, was recorded. Adverse events, including hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, and hypoxia, were also noted.RESULTS Propofol and sufentanil anesthesia was provided in 182 procedures involving 140 men and 42 women aged 56.1± 11.7 years(range, 25-83 years). The patients weighed 71.4 ± 10.7 kg(range, 45-95 kg) and had ASA physical status classifications of Ⅱ(79 patients) or Ⅲ(103 patients). Ninety-five patients had a CTP classification of A and 87 had a CTP classification of B. Intravenous anesthesia was successful in all cases. The mean anesthesia time was 33.1 ± 5.8 min. The mean recovery time was 12.3 ± 3.7 min. Hypotension occurred in two patients(1.1%, 2/182). No patient showed hypertension during the endoscopic therapy procedure. Bradycardia occurred in one patient(0.5%, 1/182), and hypoxia occurred in one patient(0.5%, 1/182). All complications were easily treated with no adverse sequelae. All endoscopic procedures were completed successfully.CONCLUSION The combined use of propofol and sufentanil injection in endotracheal intubation-assisted EIS for EVs is effective and safe.

Postconditioning of sevoflurane and propofol is associated with mitochondrial permeability transition pore

Background: Sevoflurane and propofol are effective cardioprotective anaesthetic agents, though the cardioprotection of propofol has not been shown in humans. Their roles and underlying mechanisms in anesthetic postconditioning are unclear. Mitochondrial permeability transition pore (MPTP) opening is a major cause of ischemia-reperfusion injury. Here we investigated sevoflurane- and propofol-induced postconditioning and their relationship with MPTP. Methods: Isolated perfused rat hearts were exposed to 40 min of ischemia followed by 1 h of reperfusion. During the first 15 min of reperfusion, hearts were treated with either control buffer (CTRL group) or buffer containing 20 μmol/L atractyloside (ATR group), 3% (v/v) sevoflurane (SPC group), 50 μmol/L propofol (PPC group), or the combination of atractyloside with respective anesthetics (SPC+ATR and PPC+ATR groups). Infarct size was determined by dividing the total necrotic area of the left ventricle by the total left ventricular slice area (percent necrotic area). Results: Hearts treated with sevoflurane or propofol showed significantly better recovery of coronary flow, end-diastolic pressures, left ventricular developed pressure and derivatives compared with controls. Sevoflurane resulted in more protective alteration of hemodynamics at most time point of reperfusion than propofol. These improvements were paralleled with the reduction of lactate dehydrogenase release and the decrease of infarct size (SPC vs CTRL: (17.48±2.70)% vs (48.47±6.03)%, P<0.05; PPC vs CTRL: (35.60±2.10)% vs (48.47±6.03)%, P<0.05). SPC group had less infarct size than PPC group (SPC vs PPC: (17.48±2.70)% vs (35.60±2.10)%, P<0.05). Atractyloside coadministration attenuated or completely blocked the cardioprotective effect of postconditioning of sevoflurane and propofol. Conclusion: Postconditioning of sevoflurane and propofol has cardio-protective effect against ischemia-reperfusion injury of heart, which is associated with inhibition of MPTP opening. Compared to propofol, sevoflurane provides superior protection of functional recovery and infarct size.

Clinical analysis of propofol deep sedation for 1,104 patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures:A three year prospective study

AIM： To analyze the hemodynamic and respiratory effects of propofol on patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy. METHODS： In this prospective study, conducted over a period of three years, 1,104 patients referred for a same day GI endoscopy procedure were analyzed. All patients were given a propofol bolus （0.5-1.5 mg/kg）. Arterial blood pressure （BP） was monitored at 3 rain intervals and heart rate and oxygen saturation （SpO2） were recorded continuously by pulse oximetry. Analyzed data acquisition was carried out before, during, and after the procedure. RESULTS： A statistically significant reduction in mean arterial pressure was demonstrated （P〈0.001） when compared to pre-intervention values, but severe hypotension, defined as a systolic blood pressure below 60mmHg, was noted in only 5 patients （0.5%）. Oxygen saturation decreased from 96.5% to 94.4 % （P〈0.001）. A critical decrease in oxygen saturation （〈90%） was documented in 27 patients （2.4%）. CONCLUSION： Our results showed that propofol provided good sedation with excellent pain control, a short recovery time and no significant hemodynamic side effelts if carefully titrated. All the patients （and especially ASA Ⅲ group） require monitoring and care of an anesthesiologist.