Dataset Information

Clinical observation of the combined use of propofol and etomidate in painless gastroscopy.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study is aims to compare the anesthetic safety of propofol combined with etomidate for painless gastroscopy.

Methods

Three hundred patients undergoing painless gastroscopy were randomly assigned to P, PE1, and PE2 groups. Patients were anesthetized with propofol (P group) or propofol combined with etomidate (volume ratio 1: 1, PE1 group; volume ratio 2: 1, PE2 group). The hemodynamics and adverse reactions were observed. The sleep quality satisfaction and nature of dreams were recorded.

Results

Compared with pre-anesthesia, the mean arterial pressure and heart rate of the 3 groups were significantly slower during the examination and at the end of the examination. PE1 group had a higher incidence of muscle spasm, body moving, choking, and deglutition. The incidence of hypoxemia and injection pain was higher in P group. P and PE2 group had higher sleep quality satisfaction and dream incidence after awaking. However, there was no difference in the nature of dreams among 3 groups.

Conclusion

Our data indicate that the combination of 10 ml 1.0% propofol and 5 ml 0.2% etomidate for painless gastroscopy reduces adverse reactions while not affecting the patients respiratory function. Moreover, it is safe and effective, which is worthy of clinical application and promotion.

SUBMITTER: Hao L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7647540 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical observation of the combined use of propofol and etomidate in painless gastroscopy.

Hao Lina L Hu Xibei X Zhu Bingqing B Li Wanhong W Huang Xiang X Kang Fang F

Medicine 20201101 45

<h4>Objective</h4>This study is aims to compare the anesthetic safety of propofol combined with etomidate for painless gastroscopy.<h4>Methods</h4>Three hundred patients undergoing painless gastroscopy were randomly assigned to P, PE1, and PE2 groups. Patients were anesthetized with propofol (P group) or propofol combined with etomidate (volume ratio 1: 1, PE1 group; volume ratio 2: 1, PE2 group). The hemodynamics and adverse reactions were observed. The sleep quality satisfaction and nature of ...[more]

PMID: 33157963

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSedation with etomidate or propofol alone during gastroscopy has many side effects. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combined use of propofol and etomidate for sedation during gastroscopy.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Medline (via Ovid SP), Cochrane library databases, CINAHL (via EBSCO), China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), Wanfang, VIP, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were systematically searched. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the combined use of propofol and etomidate vs etomidate or propofol alone for sedation during gastroscopy. Data were pooled using the random-effects models or fixed-effect model based on heterogeneity.ResultsFifteen studies with 2973 participants were included in the analysis. Compared to propofol alone, the combined use of propofol and etomidate possibly increased recovery time (SMD = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.04-0.24; P = .005), and the risk for myoclonus (OR = 3.07, 95% CI = 1.73-5.44; P < .001), injection pain, and nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, compared to propofol alone, the combination of propofol and etomidate produced an apparent beneficial effect for mean arterial pressure (MAP) after anesthesia (SMD = 1.32, 95% CI = 0.38-2.26; P = .006), SPO2 after anesthesia (SMD = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.43-1.55; P < .001), apnea or hypoxemia (OR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.08-0.33; P < .001), injection pain, and body movement. Further, compared to etomidate alone, the combination of propofol and etomidate reduced the risk for myoclonus (OR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.11-0.22; P < .001), body movement, and nausea and vomiting.ConclusionThe combination of propofol and etomidate might increase recovery time vs that associated with propofol, but it had fewer side effects on circulation and respiration in patients undergoing gastroscopy. The combined use of propofol and etomidate can improve and produce an apparent beneficial effect on the adverse effects of propofol or etomidate alone, and it was safer and more effective than propofol or etomidate alone.

Project description:ObjectiveEstablishing a convolutional neural network model for the recognition of characteristic raw electroencephalogram (EEG) signals is crucial for monitoring consciousness levels and guiding anesthetic drug administration.MethodsThis trial was conducted from December 2023 to March 2024. A total of 40 surgery patients were randomly divided into either a propofol group (1% propofol injection, 10 mL: 100 mg) (P group) or a propofol-etomidate combination group (1% propofol injection, 10 mL: 100 mg, and 0.2% etomidate injection, 10 mL: 20 mg, mixed at a 2:1 volume ratio) (EP group). In the P group, target-controlled infusion (TCI) was employed for sedation induction, with an initial effect site concentration set at 5-6 μg/mL. The EP group received an intravenous push with a dosage of 0.2 mL/kg. Six consciousness-related EEG features were extracted from both groups and analyzed using four prediction models: support vector machine (SVM), Gaussian Naive Bayes (GNB), artificial neural network (ANN), and one-dimensional convolutional neural network (1D CNN). The performance of the models was evaluated based on accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score.ResultsThe power spectral density (94%) and alpha/beta ratio (72%) demonstrated higher accuracy as indicators for assessing consciousness. The classification accuracy of the 1D CNN model for anesthesia-induced unconsciousness (97%) surpassed that of the SVM (83%), GNB (81%), and ANN (83%) models, with a significance level of p < 0.05. Furthermore, the mean and mean difference ± standard error of the primary power values for the EP and P groups during the induced period were as follows: delta (23.85 and 16.79, 7.055 ± 0.817, p < 0.001), theta (10.74 and 8.743, 1.995 ± 0.7045, p < 0.02), and total power (24.31 and 19.72, 4.588 ± 0.7107, p < 0.001).ConclusionLarge slow-wave oscillations, power spectral density, and the alpha/beta ratio are effective indicators of changes in consciousness during intravenous anesthesia with a propofol-etomidate combination. These indicators can aid anesthesiologists in evaluating the depth of anesthesia and adjusting dosages accordingly. The 1D CNN model, which incorporates consciousness-related EEG features, represents a promising tool for assessing the depth of anesthesia.Clinical trial registrationhttps://www.chictr.org.cn/index.html.

Project description:BackgroundWe explored the efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol for conscious sedation in painless colonoscopy.MethodsA total of 195 patients who underwent painless colonoscopy surgery were randomly divided into three groups: the propofol deep sedation group (group DS), the sufentanil combined with propofol for conscious sedation (group CS1) and the esketamine combined with propofol for conscious sedation (group CS2). The primary outcomes of this study included the incidence of hypoxemia, hypotension, hypertension, and bradycardia and excellent and good rates of anaesthesia during colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes included perioperative changes in vital signs (MAP, HR, and SpO2), anaesthesia induction time, dischargeable time, patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), drowsiness, dizziness, propofol injection pain, assisted ventilation and vasoactive medications.ResultsThe incidence of intraoperative hypoxemia in the DS group was significantly greater than that in the CS1 and CS2 groups (χ2 = 7.081, P = 0.029). The incidence of hypotension in the CS2 group was significantly lower than that in the DS and CS1 groups (χ2 = 16.278, P < 0.001). The risk of hypoxemia was 5.727 times higher in Group DS than in Group CS2 (OR 5.727; 95%CI 1.203-27.273), and the risk of hypotension was 9.864 times higher in Group DS than in Group CS2 (OR 9.864; 95%CI 2.770-35.120). The risk of hypotension in Group CS1 was 5.167 times that in Group CS2 (OR 5.167; 95%CI 1.396-19.117). The incidence of propofol injection pain, assisted ventilation, ephedrine usage and drowsiness in the DS group was significantly greater than that in the CS1 and CS2 groups (χ2 = 57.618, P < 0.001; χ2 = 9.544, P = 0.008; χ2 = 14.820, P = 0.001; χ2 = 37.257, P < 0.001). The incidence of dizziness during recovery in the CS1 group was significantly greater than that in the DS and CS2 groups (χ2 = 6.594, P = 0.037). The dischargeable time in the DS group was significantly greater than that in the CS1 and CS2 groups (F = 53.039, P < 0.001). The satisfaction scores of the endoscopist and patients in the DS group were significantly lower than those in the CS1 and CS2 groups (F = 17.390, P < 0.001; F = 19.282; P < 0.001).ConclusionsIn conclusion, esketamine combined with propofol for conscious sedation can be safely and effectively used for painless colonoscopy and has fewer complications.It is recommended for painless colonoscopy.

Project description:IntroductionThe best methods for inducing analgesia and sedation for gastroscopy are still debated but finding an adequate regimen of sedation/analgesia is important. Stimulation of the larynx under sedation can cause reflex responses. Propofol with opioids has been recommended for gastroscopy sedation but the effects on cough reflex suppression remain unclear. This trial will evaluate the effects of propofol combined with small doses of dezocine, oxycodone, sufentanil or fentanyl for gastroscopy. We hypothesise that better performance may be obtained with a combination of propofol and oxycodone. We will observe the incidence and degree of reflex coughing and gagging under sedation when using propofol combined with one of the above drugs or propofol alone.Methods and analysisThis will be a prospective, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial. ASA I-II level patients aged 18-65 years and scheduled for gastroscopy will be included. It is planned that 500 subjects will be randomised to intravenously receive 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.5-0.8 μg/kg fentanyl (fentanyl group), 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.05-0.08 μg/kg sufentanil (sufentanil group), 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.04-0.05 mg/kg dezocine (dezocine group), 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.04-0.05 mg/kg oxycodone (oxycodone group), or 2.4-3 mg/kg propofol plus 2-2.5 mL saline (control group) for sedation. The primary endpoint is the incidence and degree of reflex coughing and gagging. The secondary endpoints include the occurrence of discomfort or side effects, the use of jaw thrust, assisted ventilation or additional propofol, recovery time, duration of procedure and Steward score.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee for Clinical Research of Zhongda Hospital, Affiliated to Southeast University (No. 2015ZDSYLL033.0). The results of the trial will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.Trial registrationThis study has been registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Register (No. ChiCTR-ICR-15006952).Trial statusAt the time of manuscript submission, the study was in the recruitment phase.

Project description:ImportanceOlder patients may benefit from the hemodynamic stability of etomidate for general anesthesia. However, it remains uncertain whether the potential for adrenocortical suppression with etomidate may increase morbidity.ObjectiveTo test the primary hypothesis that etomidate vs propofol for anesthesia does not increase in-hospital morbidity after abdominal surgery in older patients.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter, parallel-group, noninferiority randomized clinical trial (Etomidate vs Propofol for In-hospital Complications [EPIC]) was conducted between August 15, 2017, and November 20, 2020, at 22 tertiary hospitals in China. Participants were aged 65 to 80 years and were scheduled for elective abdominal surgery. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Data analysis followed a modified intention-to-treat principle.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1 to receive either etomidate or propofol for general anesthesia by target-controlled infusion.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was a composite of major in-hospital postoperative complications (with a noninferiority margin of 3%). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative hemodynamic measurements; postoperative adrenocortical hormone levels; self-reported postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting; and mortality at postoperative months 6 and 12.ResultsA total of 1944 participants were randomized, of whom 1917 (98.6%) completed the trial. Patients were randomized to the etomidate group (n = 967; mean [SD] age, 70.3 [4.0] years; 578 men [59.8%]) or propofol group (n = 950; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [4.2] years; 533 men [56.1%]). The primary end point occurred in 90 of 967 patients (9.3%) in the etomidate group and 83 of 950 patients (8.7%) in the propofol group, which met the noninferiority criterion (risk difference [RD], 0.6%; 95% CI, -1.6% to 2.7%; P = .66). In the etomidate group, mean (SD) cortisol levels were lower at the end of surgery (4.8 [2.7] μg/dL vs 6.1 [3.4] μg/dL; P < .001), and mean (SD) aldosterone levels were lower at the end of surgery (0.13 [0.05] ng/dL vs 0.15 [0.07] ng/dL; P = .02) and on postoperative day 1 (0.14 [0.04] ng/dL vs 0.16 [0.06] ng/dL; P = .001) compared with the propofol group. No difference in mortality was observed between the etomidate and propofol groups at postoperative month 6 (2.2% vs 3.0%; RD, -0.8%; 95% CI, -2.2% to 0.7%) and 12 (3.3% vs 3.9%; RD, -0.6%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 1.0%). More patients had pneumonia in the etomidate group than in the propofol group (2.0% vs 0.3%; RD, 1.7%; 95% CI, 0.7% to 2.8%; P = .001). Results were consistent in the per-protocol population.Conclusions and relevanceResults of this trial showed that, compared with propofol, etomidate anesthesia did not increase overall major in-hospital morbidity after abdominal surgery in older patients, although it induced transient adrenocortical suppression.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02910206.

Dataset Information

Clinical observation of the combined use of propofol and etomidate in painless gastroscopy.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Clinical observation of the combined use of propofol and etomidate in painless gastroscopy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets