RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Intravenous non-volatile anaesthetics like propofol are commonly used in cardiac surgeries across several countries. Volatile anaesthetics like isoflurane may help in protecting the myocardium and minimize ischaemia-reperfusion injury. Hence, we did this review to compare the cardioprotective effect of isoflurane and propofol among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: We conducted a search in the databases Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (or MEDLINE), Embase, PubMed Central®, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library from inception until April 2021. We carried out a meta-analysis with random-effects model and reported pooled risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) depending on the type of outcome. RESULTS: We analysed 13 studies including 808 participants. Almost all were low-quality studies. For cardiac index, the pooled SMD was 0.14 (95% CI: -0.22 to 0.50); for cardiac troponin I, pooled SMD was 0.10 (95% CI: -0.28 to 0.48). For mortality, the RR was 3.00 (95% CI: 0.32 to 28.43); for MI, pooled RR was 1.58 (95% CI: 0.59 to 4.20); and for inotropic drug use, pooled RR was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.90 to 1.21). For length of intensive care unit stay, the pooled SMD was 0.13 (95% CI: -0.29 to 0.55), while pooled SMD for mechanical ventilation time was -0.02 (95% CI: -0.54 to 0.51). CONCLUSION: Isoflurane did not have significant cardioprotective effect compared to propofol following CABG. Hence, the anaesthetists need to check some viable alternatives to manage these patients and reduce the rate of postoperative complications.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The incidence of arterial hypotension during induction of general anesthesia is influenced by the method of propofol administration, but there is a dearth of randomized clinical trials comparing bolus injection and target-controlled infusion in relation to arterial hypotension. This study seeks to compare the incidence of arterial hypotension between these two methods of propofol administration. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, single-center, non-blinded study included 60 patients (aged 35 to 55 years), classified as ASA physical status I or II, who were undergoing non-cardiac surgeries. They were randomly allocated using a computer to two groups based on the method of propofol administration during the induction of general anesthesia: the Target Group, receiving target-controlled infusion at 4 µg.mL-1, and the Bolus Group, receiving a bolus infusion of 2 mg.kg-1. Both groups also received midazolam 2 mg, fentanyl 3 µg.kg-1, and rocuronium 0.6 mg.kg-1. Over the first 10 minutes of anesthesia induction, Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), Heart Rate (HR), level of Consciousness (qCON), and Suppression Rate (SR) were recorded every 2 minutes. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients remained in the TCI group, while 28 were in the Bolus group. Repeated measure analysis using mixed-effects models could not reject the null hypothesis for the effect of group-time interactions in MAP (p = 0.85), HR (p = 0.49), SR (p = 0.44), or qCON (p = 0.72). The difference in means for qCON (60.2 for TCI, 50.5 for bolus, p < 0.001), MAP (90.3 for TCI, 86.2 for bolus, p < 0.006), HR (76.2 for TCI, 76.9 for bolus, p = 0.93), and SR (0.01 for TCI, 5.5 for bolus, p < 0.001), irrespective of time (whole period means), revealed some significant differences. CONCLUSION: Patients who received propofol bolus injection exhibited a lower mean arterial pressure, a greater variation in the level of consciousness, and a higher suppression rate compared to those who received it as a target-controlled infusion. However, the interaction effect between groups and time remains inconclusive.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Propofol has a favourable efficacy profile in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, however adverse events remain frequent. Emerging evidence supports remimazolam use in gastrointestinal endoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares remimazolam and propofol, both combined with a short-acting opioid, for sedation of adults in gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials comparing efficacy-, safety-, and satisfaction-related outcomes between remimazolam and propofol, both combined with short-acting opioids, for sedation of adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We performed sensitivity analyses, subgroup assessments by type of short-acting opioid used and age range, and meta-regression analysis using mean patient age as a covariate. We used R statistical software for statistical analyses. RESULTS: We included 15 trials (4516 subjects). Remimazolam was associated with a significantly lower sedation success rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.991; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.984-0.998; high-quality evidence) and a slightly longer induction time (mean difference [MD] 9 s; 95% CI 4-13; moderate-quality evidence), whereas there was no significant difference between the sedatives in other time-related outcomes. Remimazolam was associated with significantly lower rates of respiratory depression (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.30-0.56; high-quality evidence), hypotension (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.35-0.51; moderate-quality evidence), hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.12-0.52; high-quality evidence), and bradycardia (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.30-0.58; high-quality evidence). There was no difference in patient (MD 0.41; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence) and endoscopist satisfaction (MD -0.31; 95% CI -0.65 to 0.04; high-quality evidence) between both drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam has clinically similar efficacy and greater safety when compared with propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopies.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: This randomized and controlled prospective study tested the hypothesis that closed-loop Target-Controlled Infusion (TCI) of propofol would be associated with better system performance when compared with open-loop controlled delivery of propofol. METHODS: Patients scheduled for elective breast surgery were randomly assigned to two groups: a closed-loop group, in which propofol infusion was performed by a closed-loop TCI system that used the Bispectral Index (BIS) as a feedback parameter to titrate the rate of propofol infusion, and an open-loop group, in which propofol infusion was performed manually and guided by the bispectral index. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients were recruited for this study (closed-loop group n = 79; open-loop group n = 77). The Global Score (GS) of the closed-loop group was lower than that of the open-loop group (34.3 and 42.2) (p = 0.044). The proportions of time with a BIS value between 40 and 60 were almost identical in the closed-loop group and the open-loop group (68.7 ± 10.6% and 66.7 ± 13.3%) (p = 0.318). The individuals in the closed-loop group consumed more propofol compared with those in the open-loop group (7.20 ± 1.65 mg.kg-1.h-1 vs. 6.03 ± 1.31 mg.kg-1.h-1, p < 0.001). No intraoperative recall, somatic events or adverse events occurred. No significant difference in heart rate was observed between the two groups (p = 0.169). CONCLUSION: The closed-loop protocol was associated with lower BIS variability and lower out-of-range BIS values, at the cost of a greater consumption of propofol when compared to the open loop group. REGISTER NUMBER: ChiCTR-INR-17010399.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Abstract Background and objective: Anesthesia induction can produce severe propofol dose-dependent hypotension. Fentanyl coadministration reduces the catecholaminergic response to orotracheal intubation allowing propofol dose reduction. The aim of this study is to determine whether the hemodynamic response is improved by increasing the time between fentanyl and propofol administration and reducing the dose of the latter without increasing the time to achieve optimal hypnosis. Methods: After approval by the Research Ethics Committee, patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery with endotracheal intubation were randomized by a computer-generated table into six time-dose groups (1 or 2 minutes/1, 1.5, or 2mg.kg-1 of propofol). Patients with high bronchoaspiration risk, a difficult airway, hemodynamic instability, or anesthetic allergies were excluded. After giving intravenous fentanyl (2 μg.kg-1 ), each group received different doses of propofol after 1 or 2 minutes. Non-invasive blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) were measured at pre-induction, pre-intubation, and post-intubation. Time to hypnosis (bispectral index < 60) was also recorded. Results: Of the 192 recruited patients, 186 completed the study (1 min group n = 94; 2 min group n = 92). It was observed that HR and BP decreased after propofol administration and increased after intubation in all groups (p<0.0001). In patients over 55 years, the 2 min - 2 mg.kg-1 group showed the greatest systolic BP reduction (36 ± 12%) at pre-intubation, while the 1 min - 1.5 mg.kg-1 group showed the least hemodynamic alteration between pre- and post-intubation (-4 ± 13%). No significant differences were found in younger patients or in the time to reach hypnosis between the six groups. While no cases of severe bradycardia were recorded, 5,4% of the sample required vasopressors. Conclusion: Increasing the time between the administration of fentanyl and propofol by up to two minutes results in greater hypotension in patients over 55 years.

RESUMO

Abstract Background: This randomized and controlled prospective study tested the hypothesis that closed-loop Target-Controlled Infusion (TCI) of propofol would be associated with better system performance when compared with open-loop controlled delivery of propofol. Methods: Patients scheduled for elective breast surgery were randomly assigned to two groups: a closed-loop group, in which propofol infusion was performed by a closed-loop TCI system that used the Bispectral Index (BIS) as a feedback parameter to titrate the rate of propofol infusion, and an open-loop group, in which propofol infusion was performed manually and guided by the bispectral index. Results: A total of 156 patients were recruited for this study (closed-loop group n = 79; open-loop group n = 77). The Global Score (GS) of the closed-loop group was lower than that of the open-loop group (34.3 and 42.2) (p = 0.044). The proportions of time with a BIS value between 40 and 60 were almost identical in the closed-loop group and the open-loop group (68.7 ± 10.6% and 66.7 ± 13.3%) (p = 0.318). The individuals in the closed-loop group consumed more propofol compared with those in the open-loop group (7.20 ± 1.65 mg.kg−1.h−1 vs. 6.03 ± 1.31 mg.kg−1.h−1, p < 0.001). No intraoperative recall, somatic events or adverse events occurred. No significant difference in heart rate was observed between the two groups (p = 0.169). Conclusion: The closed-loop protocol was associated with lower BIS variability and lower out-of-range BIS values, at the cost of a greater consumption of propofol when compared to the open loop group. Register number:ChiCTR-INR-17010399.

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Objective: Intravenous non-volatile anaesthetics like propofol are commonly used in cardiac surgeries across several countries. Volatile anaesthetics like isoflurane may help in protecting the myocardium and minimize ischaemia-reperfusion injury. Hence, we did this review to compare the cardioprotective effect of isoflurane and propofol among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods: We conducted a search in the databases Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (or MEDLINE), Embase, PubMed Central®, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library from inception until April 2021. We carried out a meta-analysis with random-effects model and reported pooled risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) depending on the type of outcome. Results: We analysed 13 studies including 808 participants. Almost all were low-quality studies. For cardiac index, the pooled SMD was 0.14 (95% CI: -0.22 to 0.50); for cardiac troponin I, pooled SMD was 0.10 (95% CI: -0.28 to 0.48). For mortality, the RR was 3.00 (95% CI: 0.32 to 28.43); for MI, pooled RR was 1.58 (95% CI: 0.59 to 4.20); and for inotropic drug use, pooled RR was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.90 to 1.21). For length of intensive care unit stay, the pooled SMD was 0.13 (95% CI: -0.29 to 0.55), while pooled SMD for mechanical ventilation time was -0.02 (95% CI: -0.54 to 0.51). Conclusion: Isoflurane did not have significant cardioprotective effect compared to propofol following CABG. Hence, the anaesthetists need to check some viable alternatives to manage these patients and reduce the rate of postoperative complications.

RESUMO

Propofol is used for anesthetic induction in cats and procedural sedation in countries where alfaxalone is not available. Studies have reported propofol-related effects in echocardiography variables in dogs and humans. However, there is a lack of echocardiography studies investigating propofol-related effects on cats. This study aimed to use echocardiography to investigate echocardiographic changes in three protocols using propofol: propofol-slow (2 mg/kg/min, PS); propofol-fast (8 mg/kg/min, PF); propofol-ketamine (S-ketamine 2 mg/kg bolus followed by propofol 2 mg/kg/min; PK) in healthy premedicated (gabapentin-buprenorphine-acepromazine; 200 mg/cat, 0.4, and 0.1 mg/kg, respectively), non-intubated cats. Echocardiographic measurements were obtained at three time points: baseline (before the administration of propofol), end of propofol titration (end-point, T0), and 15 min after T0 (T15). Propofol at a lower rate continued from T0 to T15. Echocardiographic and physiological variables included fractional shortening (FS%), ejection fraction (EF%), HR, BP, and others. Propofol requirements at T0 for PF, PS, and PK groups were 5.0 ± 0.9, 3.8 ± 0.7, and 2.4 ± 0.5 mg/kg, respectively. EF% neither change over time nor between groups. PF and PK showed a reduction in FS% at T0 (47 ± 6 to 34 ± 6 and 42 ± 6 to 36 ± 5, respectively). BP reduced significantly in PF and PS groups (136 ± 26 to 105 ± 13 and 137 ± 22 to 115 ± 15 mmHg, respectively). It is unclear whether changes in echocardiography variables were of clinical relevance related to treatment groups or a result of within-group individual responses.

RESUMO

Abstract Background: Our objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of Target-Controlled Infusion (TCI) versus intermittent bolus of propofol for colonoscopy sedation. Methods: We conducted a randomized (1:1), single-blind, parallel-group superiority trial with fifty ASA I or II patients, both sexes, aged 18 to 65 years, Body Mass Index ≤ 30 kg.mr-2, undergoing colonoscopy, allocated to receive propofol by TCI (effect-site, 2 μg.mL-1 plus 0.5 μg.mL-1 until unconsciousness and as necessary for agitation) or intermittent bolus (1 mg.kg-1 plus 0.5 mg.kg-1 every 5 minutes or as above). The primary safety outcome was the need for airway maneuvers and the primary efficacy outcome was the need for interventions to adjust the level of sedation. Secondary outcomes included incidence of agitation, propofol dose, and time to recovery. Results: The median (IQR) number of airway maneuvers and interventions needed to adjust sedation was 0 (0-0) vs. 0 (0-0) (p = 0.239) and 1 (0-1) vs. 3 (1-4) (p < 0.001) in the TCI and control groups, respectively. Agitation was more common in the intermittent bolus group - 2 (0-2) vs. 1 (0-1), p < 0.001. The mean ± SD time to recovery was 4.9 ± 1.4 minutes in the TCI group vs. 2.3 ± 1.6 minutes in the control group (p < 0.001). The total propofol dose was higher in the TCI group (234 ± 46 μg.kg-1.min-1 vs. 195 ± 44 μg.kg-1.min-1 (p = 0.040)). Conclusions: During colonoscopy, TCI is as safe as intermittent bolus of propofol while reducing the incidence of agitation and the need for dose adjustments. However, intermittent bolus administration was associated with lower total propofol dose and earlier recovery.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Abstract Introduction: Propofol is a widely used anesthetic and its dose is closely related to aging. Telomere length (TL) is a unique heritable trait, and emerging as a biomarker of aging, health and disease. Telomerase RNA component (TERC) plays an important role in maintaining TL. We proposed a hypothesis that propofol dose in general anesthesia can be predicted by measuring TL before operation, which greatly reduced the risk of anesthesia, especially the elderly. Methods: The association between the propofol dose in anesthesia induction and: TL in the DNA of peripheral blood leukocytes; body weight; sex; difference of the Bispectral Index (BIS) before and after anesthesia induction in patients was evaluated by multivariable linear regression analyses. The mutation at the 5'end or 3'end of TERC was detected. We recruited 100 patients of elective surgery. Results: We found that propofol dose in anesthesia induction was clearly correlated significantly with TL (r = 0.78, p < 0.001), body weight (r = 0.84, p = 0.004), sex (r = 0.83, p= 0.84, p = 0.004), sex (r = 0.83, p = 0.004), and difference of BIS before and after anesthesia induction (r = 0.85, p = 0.029). By comparing the absolute values of standardized regression coefficients (0.58, 0.21, 0.19, and 0.12) of the four variables, it can be seen that TL contributes the most to the propofol dose in anesthesia induction. However, the mutation at the 5' end or 3' end of TERC was not found. Conclusions: These findings provide preliminary evidence that the propofol dose in anesthesia induction was clearly correlated with genetically determined TL. TL may be a promising predictor of the propofol dose, which is beneficial to improve the safety of anesthesia and reduce perioperative complications.

Assuntos