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: 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
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
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 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 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
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
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: 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 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 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.