Pro: propofol in endoscopy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ferreira AO
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4260111 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Pro: propofol in endoscopy.
Ferreira Alexandre Oliveira AO Cravo Marília M
Clinical endoscopy 20141130 6
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background/aimsThe efficacy of propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients with midazolam-induced paradoxical reactions remains unclarified. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of propofol-based sedation in patients who previously experienced paradoxical reactions.MethodsThis was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled pilot study. Participants with a history of paradoxical reactions to midazolam during a previous esophagogastroduodenoscopy were recruited and randomly assigned to group I (propofol monosedation) or group II (combination of propofol and midazolam). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a paradoxical reaction.ResultsA total of 30 participants (mean age, 54.7±12.6 years; male, 19/30) were randomly assigned to group I (n=16) or group II (n=14). There were no paradoxical reactions in group I, but there were two in group II, without a significant difference (p=0.209). The mean dose of propofol was higher in group I than in group II (p=0.002). Meanwhile, the procedure and recovery times did not differ between groups.ConclusionPropofol-based sedation was safe and effective for patients who experienced paradoxical reactions to midazolam. However, caution is needed because few cases of paradoxical reaction again can happen in group II in which midazolam was readministered.
| S-EPMC8995981 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11490659 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEndoscopy under propofol sedation has become a routine procedure. Given the number of Canadians undergoing an endoscopy annually, as well as the pervasive use of cannabis by many patients, understanding the effect of cannabis use on the propofol dose at endoscopy is highly relevant. We aimed to evaluate the association between cannabis exposure and the propofol dose needed to achieve adequate sedation at endoscopy.MethodsA case-control study of individuals undergoing endoscopy was conducted at a single outpatient endoscopy clinic in London, Ontario between 2014 and 2017. Cases included all individuals with any self-reported cannabis exposure, while controls included all individuals without any self-reported history of cannabis use. Dose of propofol administered by a single anesthetist was collected on each subject as well as additional demographic and procedure-related covariates.ResultsThree hundred and eighteen participants were included (cases, n = 151; controls, n = 167). Cannabis exposure was associated with an increase in propofol dose (cases 0.33 mg/kg/minute ±0.24; controls, 0.18 mg/kg/minute ±0.11; p<0.0001). Cannabis exposure remained an independent predictor of propofol dose on multivariate linear regression accounting for other important covariates (p<0.0001). Daily cannabis users required a higher propofol dose than weekly or monthly users. Three procedural sedation-related complications occurred in the cannabis-exposed group, while none occurred in the unexposed group.ConclusionOur data suggest that cannabis use is significantly associated with the quantity of propofol needed for sedation at endoscopy. Further study is needed to better understand the molecular basis for this possible drug-drug interaction.
| S-EPMC7932135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPropofol is recommended for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy (GE), but preliminary data suggest addictive potentials.ObjectiveThe objective of this article is to evaluate the frequency of predominantly euphoric reaction after GE and patients' subsequent reminiscences.MethodsEighty-two patients undergoing elective GE under propofol sedation were enrolled in a prospective observational study. The grade of anxiety, expectation or relief about the examination's result and affective state in terms of cheerfulness, relaxation, activation, sedation and anxiety were surveyed using a numeric rating scale (1 to 10) immediately before (t1), after GE (t2) and seven days (t3) later. Statistics: hierarchical cluster analysis, heat map, χ2 test and paired t test.ResultsMean propofol dosage was 264 ± 120 mg. Two clusters of mood changes emerged (t1 vs. t2). One (n = 46, 56.1%) was characterized by an unease reaction pattern with equal values regarding cheerfulness, relaxation and anxiety, while relaxation decreased; the other cluster showed a euphoric reaction pattern (n = 36, 43.9%) with markedly increased cheerfulness, relaxation and decreased anxiety. These effects intensified at recall (t3). Despite similar endoscopy results, euphoric cluster patients rated these more positively.ConclusionPropofol induces euphoria in nearly half of the patients undergoing elective GE with persisting, even enhanced reminiscence (germanctr.de, trial number DRKS00011202).
| S-EPMC5987275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe role of ciprofol as a novel anesthetic in gastrointestinal endoscopic surgery is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients aged over 65 years and under 65 years, aiming to provide evidence-based information for clinical decision-making.MethodsWe conducted a search for RCTs(randomized controlled trials) comparing ciprofol and propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy on databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, (China National Knowledge Infrastructure)CNKI, Wanfang, and Vipro Chinese Journal Service up to September 15, 2024. The required information was screened and extracted, and the quality of the included research literatures was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias assessment tool, and Meta-analysis of outcome metrics was performed using Revman 5.4 and Stata software.ResultsA total of 17 RCTs involving 2800 patients were included, with 1,450 patients in the ciprofol group and 1350 patients in the propofol group. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in the sedation success rate or recovery time between the two groups across all age categories. In patients under 65 years old, the induction time of the ciprofol group (MD = 0.41 min, 95%CI: 0.04 min ∼ 0.78 min, P = 0.03) was longer than that in the propofol group. The incidences of hypotension (OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.32 ∼ 0.72, P = 0.004), bradycardia (OR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.49 ∼ 0.87, P = 0.004), injection pain (OR = 0.08, 95%CI: 0.05 ∼ 0.15, P<0.0001), respiratory depression (OR = 0.21, 95%CI: 0.15 ∼ 0.30, P<0.0001), and hypoxemia (OR = 0.29, 95%CI: 0.20 ∼ 0.43, P<0.0001), in the ciprofol group were much lower than those in the propofol group.ConclusionMeta-analysis results indicate that, across various age groups, ciprofol demonstrates a higher safety profile and effectively reduces the incidence of postoperative (ADRs)adverse reactions compared to propofol. However, there is no significant difference in the sedative effects of the two agents. This study categorized elderly patients into subgroups, thereby providing a foundation for the application of ciprofol in gastrointestinal examinations of elderly patients. Consequently, we propose that ciprofol may serve as a safer alternative to intravenous anesthesia compared to propofol; However, this conclusion requires further validation through high-quality studies.
| S-EPMC11877735 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing propofol with traditional sedative agents.MethodsRCTs comparing the effects of propofol and traditional sedative agents during gastrointestinal endoscopy were found on MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Cardiopulmonary complications (i.e., hypoxia, hypotension, arrhythmia, and apnea) and sedation profiles were assessed.ResultsTwenty-two original RCTs investigating a total of 1,798 patients, of whom 912 received propofol only and 886 received traditional sedative agents only, met the inclusion criteria. Propofol use was associated with shorter recovery (13 studies, 1,165 patients; WMD -19.75; 95% CI -27.65, 11.86) and discharge times (seven studies, 471 patients; WMD -29.48; 95% CI -44.13, -14.83), higher post-anesthesia recovery scores (four studies, 503 patients; WMD 2.03; 95% CI 1.59, 2.46), better sedation (nine studies, 592 patients; OR 4.78; 95% CI 2.56, 8.93), and greater patient cooperation (six studies, 709 patients; WMD 1.27; 95% CI 0.53, 2.02), as well as more local pain on injection (six studies, 547 patients; OR 10.19; 95% CI 3.93, 26.39). Effects of propofol on cardiopulmonary complications, procedure duration, amnesia, pain during endoscopy, and patient satisfaction were not found to be significantly different from those of traditional sedative agents.ConclusionsPropofol is safe and effective for gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures and is associated with shorter recovery and discharge periods, higher post-anesthesia recovery scores, better sedation, and greater patient cooperation than traditional sedation, without an increase in cardiopulmonary complications. Care should be taken when extrapolating our results to specific practice settings and high-risk patient subgroups.
| S-EPMC3540096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPainless gastrointestinal endoscopy is being increasingly practised in the clinical field. The management and choice of sedation are important during the endoscopy procedure to reduce patient discomfort and facilitate high disease detection rates. Ciprofol is principally an agonist of the γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptor; it comprises the active ingredient HSK3486, which is similar to the currently used intravenous anaesthetic propofol in clinical practice. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ciprofol and propofol will be conducted to assess their efficacy and safety during endoscopy. Before starting the study, we describe the specific protocol of this systematic review.Methods and analysisThis protocol was prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols 2015. The following databases will be searched: Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database and a clinical trial registry. The database search strategy will adopt a combination of subject words and free words. Randomised controlled trials related to ciprofol use for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy will also be included. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two researchers will independently screen the articles and extracted data. Following the qualitative evaluation of each study, analysis will be conducted using Review Manager software.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis involves no individual patient data; thus, ethical approval is not required. This will be the first meta-analysis to assess the sedation efficacy of ciprofol and provide evidence to clinicians for decision-making. The results will be disseminated through conference presentations and publications in peer-review journals related to this field.Prospero registration numberCRD42022370047.
| S-EPMC10255017 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Fusing topical pharyngeal anesthetics (TPAs) to intravenous sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has been controversial. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessed the association of TPA with patient recovery time, post-EGD to discharge. Supplementary aims were to determine the association of TPA with patient and practitioner satisfaction (both measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale), total propofol dose, and side effects. The study included 93 patients (mean age 53.8 years, range 44-67; 37 men and 56 women) undergoing elective EGD at a single academic medical center from September 2015 to October 2016. Urgent or therapeutic EGDs were excluded. Interventions were 7.5 mL 2% lidocaine viscous solution and 7.5 mL placebo solution (3% methylcellulose). There were no statistically significant differences between the lidocaine (n = 46) and placebo (n = 47) groups with respect to recovery time (42 ± 17.8 vs 39 ± 15.9 minutes; P = 0.23), procedure time (6.5 ± 2.7 vs 7 ± 3.6 minutes; P = 0.77), endoscopist satisfaction (83.2 ± 24.4 vs 77 ± 27.7, P = 0.23), patient discomfort (16.6 ± 19.8 vs 24.0 ± 29.7, P = 0.37), or total propofol administered (2.3 ± 1.3 vs 2.3 ± 1.0 mg/kg, P = 0.55). Compared to placebo, topical viscous lidocaine does not appear to delay recovery time or adversely affect sedation-related outcomes.
| S-EPMC6793967 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe utilization of Propofol, a widely used intravenous sedative or anesthetic, is characterized by its quick onset, predictable control, and fleeting half-life during both general anesthesia and intensive care unit sedation. Recent evidence, however, has highlighted propofol's propensity to induce euphoria, particularly in patients undergoing painless procedures such as gastrointestinal or gastric endoscopy. Given its widespread use in patients undergoing such procedures, this study aims to investigate the clinical evidence and factors that may influence propofol-induced euphoria in these settings.MethodsThe Addiction Research Center Inventory-Chinese Version (ARCI-CV) scale was administered to 360 patients undergoing gastric or gastrointestinal endoscopy using propofol as a sedative. Patient characteristics including past medical history, depression, anxiety, alcohol abuse, and sleep disturbance were recorded through history taking and assessment using various questionnaires prior to the examination. The euphoric and sedative statuses were assessed at 30 min and 1 week post-examination.ResultsThe experimental results of a survey of 360 patients who underwent gastric or gastrointestinal endoscopy using propofol showed that the mean Morphine-Benzedrine Group (MBG) score before the procedure and after 30 min of the procedure was 4.23 and 8.67, respectively. The mean Pentobarbital-Chlorpromazine-Alcohol Group (PCAG) score before the procedure and after 30 min of the procedure was 3.24 and 6.22, respectively. These results showed that both MBG and PCAG scores increased significantly after the procedure. Certain factors, such as dreaming, propofol dose, duration of anesthesia, and etomidate dose, were all correlated with MBG both at 30 min and 1 week after the examination. In addition, etomidate had an effect of decreasing MBG scores and increasing PCAG scores both at 30 min and 1 week after the examination.ConclusionTaken together, propofol may elicit euphoria and potentially contribute to propofol addiction. There are several risk factors for the development of propofol addiction, including dreaming, propofol dose, duration of anesthesia, and etomidate dose. These findings suggest that propofol may have a euphoric effect and may have the potential for drug addiction and abuse.
| S-EPMC10174461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, owing to its side effects, an alternative drug is needed. We aimed to compare the safety, satisfaction, and efficacy outcomes of etomidate versus propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy, including advanced endoscopic procedures. Methods: We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL (via EBSCO), China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Web of Science (1946–April 2020) databases for randomized controlled trials of gastrointestinal endoscopy (upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colonoscopy, and advanced endoscopy) using etomidate or propofol as sedatives. We pooled odds ratios (ORs) for the safety profile and patient and anesthesiologist satisfaction using mixed-effects conditional logistic models and standardized mean differences for efficiency outcomes using random-effects models. Results: Twenty-four studies involving 3875 patients were included. Compared with propofol, etomidate resulted in significantly reduced apnea (OR: 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13–0.37; P < .001), hypoxemia (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.35–0.54; P < .001), hypotension (OR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.11–0.36; P < .001), and bradycardia (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30–0.91; P = .02) but led to increased myoclonus (OR: 8.54; 95% CI: 5.20–14.01; P < .001) and lowered anesthesiologist satisfaction (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.39–0.91; P = .02). Conclusion: Etomidate may be a good alternative to propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially advanced endoscopy. Etomidate appears to be safe as an inducer for hemodynamically unstable patients or older adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.
| S-EPMC9907930 | biostudies-literature