【目的】克隆黄鳝csf1r基因,并对其时空表达特性进行分析,为探明csf1r基因在黄鳝不同体色形成中的作用奠定基础。【方法】采用RACEs(Rapid-amplification of cDNA ends)技术从黄鳝皮肤cDNAs中克隆得到csf1r基因的全长cDNA序列,对其编码...【目的】克隆黄鳝csf1r基因,并对其时空表达特性进行分析,为探明csf1r基因在黄鳝不同体色形成中的作用奠定基础。【方法】采用RACEs(Rapid-amplification of cDNA ends)技术从黄鳝皮肤cDNAs中克隆得到csf1r基因的全长cDNA序列,对其编码蛋白进行生物信息学分析。采用实时荧光定量PCR(qRT-PCR)方法检测csf1r基因在黄鳝不同组织、不同发育时期胚胎或个体及3种体色黄鳝(黄黑斑鳝、碎花斑鳝和隐花斑鳝)皮肤和肾脏中的相对表达量,分析该基因的表达特征。测定3种体色黄鳝肝脏中的碱性磷酸酶(AKP)、超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)活性和总抗氧化能力(T-AOC)。【结果】黄鳝csf1r cDNA序列全长为4430 bp(GenBank收录号:OP589303),其编码区长度为2937 bp,编码978个氨基酸,存在免疫球蛋白结构域和蛋白激酶催化结构域2个保守结构域。荧光定量PCR结果表明,csf1r基因在黄鳝脑、精巢、卵巢、肠、心脏、肾脏、肝脏、肌肉、皮肤和脾脏等组织中均有表达,在脾脏和心脏中表达量较高,其次是肾脏、皮肤和肌肉,卵巢中表达量最低;csf1r在胚胎眼晶体形成期开始大量表达,显微观察发现该时期胚胎的躯干上开始有色素颗粒出现。在3种体色黄鳝皮肤和肾脏中,csf1r基因在黄黑斑鳝的皮肤中表达量最低,而在其肾脏中表达量最高。3种体色黄鳝肝脏氧化应激指标测定结果发现,黄黑斑鳝肝脏中的碱性磷酸酶(AKP)、超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)活性和总抗氧化能力比其他2种体色黄鳝高,但是差异未达显著水平。【结论】csf1r基因可能不仅参与了黄鳝体色的形成,还与黄鳝非特异性免疫相关。展开更多
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 cognitiv...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.展开更多
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 remimazo...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.展开更多
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 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.展开更多
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 cond...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.展开更多
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...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.展开更多
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 t...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.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 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 sedatio...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.展开更多
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 venti...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.展开更多
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
文摘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.
文摘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.
文摘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.
文摘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.
文摘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.
文摘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.
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 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.
文摘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.
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.
