Comparison of procedural sedation for the reduction of dislocated total hip arthroplasty.
ABSTRACT: Various types of sedation can be used for the reduction of a dislocated total hip arthroplasty. Traditionally, an opiate/benzodiazepine combination has been employed. The use of other pharmacologic agents, such as etomidate and propofol, have more recently gained popularity. Currently no studies directly comparing these sedation agents have been carried out. The purpose of this study is to compare differences in reduction and sedation outcomes, including recovery times, of these 3 sedation agents.We performed a retrospective chart review examining 198 patients who presented with dislocated total hip arthroplasty at 2 academic affiliated medical centers. The patients were grouped according to the type of sedation agent. We calculated percentages of reduction and sedation complications along with recovery times. Reduction complications included fracture, skin or neurovascular injury, and failure of reduction requiring general anesthesia. Sedation complications included use of bag-valve mask and artificial airway, intubation, prolonged recovery, use of a reversal agent, and inability to achieve sedation. We then compared the data for each sedation agent.We found reduction complications rates of 8.7% in the propofol, 24.7% in the etomidate, and 28.9% in the opiate/benzodiazepine groups. The propofol group was significantly different from the other 2agents (p ≤ 0.01). Sedation complications were found 7.3% of the time in the propofol , 11.7% in the etomidate , and 21.3% in the opiate/benzodiazepine group, (p=0.02 propofol vs. others) . Average recovery times were 25.2 minutes for propofol, 30.8 minutes for etomidate, and 44.4 minutes for opiate/benzodiazepine (p = 0.05 for propofol vs. other agents).For reduction of dislocated total hip arthroplasty under procedural sedation, propofol appears to have fewer complications and a trend toward more rapid recovery than both etomidate and opiate/benzodiazepine. These data support the use of propofol as first line agent for procedural sedation of dislocated total hip arthroplasty, with fewer complications and a shorter recovery period.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Sedation 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. METHODS:PubMed, 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. RESULTS:Fifteen 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. CONCLUSION:The 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:The importance of providing effective analgesia during sedation for complex endoscopic procedures has been widely recognized. However, repeated administration of opioids in order to achieve sufficient analgesia may carry the risk of delayed recovery after propofol based sedation. This study was done to compare recovery profiles and the satisfaction of the endoscopists and patients between conventional balanced propofol sedation and analgesia-oriented combination sedation for patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).Two hundred and two adult patients scheduled for ERCP were sedated by either the Conventional (initial bolus of meperidine with propofol infusion) or Combination (repeated bolus doses of fentanyl with propofol infusion) method. Recovery profiles, satisfaction levels of the endoscopists and patients, drug requirements and complications were compared between groups.Patients of the Combination Group required significantly less propofol compared to the Conventional Group (135.0 ± 68.8 mg vs. 165.3 ± 81.7 mg, P = 0.005). Modified Aldrete scores were not different between groups throughout the recovery period, and recovery times were also comparable between groups. Satisfaction scores were not different between the two groups in both the endoscopists and patients (P = 0.868 and 0.890, respectively).Considering the significant reduction in propofol dose, the non-inferiority of recovery profiles and satisfaction scores of the endoscopists and patients, analgesia oriented combination sedation may be a more safe yet effective sedative method compared to conventional balanced propofol sedation during ERCP.
Project description:Background:Procedural sedation is a core skill of the emergency physician. Bolus administration of propofol is widely utilised in UK emergency departments to provide procedural sedation. Bolus administration of propofol, titrated to an endpoint of sedation, has a rapid effect but can easily result in apnoea and loss of airway patency. The use of a target-controlled infusion of propofol allows for controlled titration to an effect site concentration and may reduce the rate of adverse incidents. Target-controlled infusion of propofol is not currently used in emergency departments.The primary aim of this feasibility study is to ensure that propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) is acceptable to the patient and that recruitment rates are adequate to power a randomised controlled trial comparing propofol target-controlled infusion versus bolus administration. Methods:This study will recruit in four emergency departments in Scotland, UK. Patients aged 18-65?years with anterior shoulder dislocation, weighing ??50?kg and fasted ??90?min, will be screened. Recruited patients will undergo emergency reduction of a dislocated shoulder facilitated by procedural sedation utilising TCI of propofol.The widespread adoption of TCI propofol by emergency departments will require evidence that it is safe, potentially effective, patient centred and a timely method of providing procedural sedation. The primary endpoint will be acceptability measured by patient satisfaction. The secondary endpoints will include incidence and severity of adverse events, number of shoulder reduction attempts, nursing opinion of patient experience, patient's reported pain score and time from commencement of TCI propofol sedation to desired sedation level.The study will be open for recruitment from April 2017 to December 2018. Discussion:If the study demonstrates patient acceptability with adequate recruitment, we will be in a position to determine the feasibility of progression to a randomised controlled clinical trial of TCI compared to bolus administration of propofol. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03442803. Registered retrospectively on 22 February 2018.
Project description:To 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.RCTs 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.Twenty-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.Propofol 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.
Project description:1H NMR spectroscopy was used to investigate the metabolic consequences of general anesthesia in the plasma of two groups of patients with diagnosis for non-metastatic colorectal cancer and metastatic colorectal cancer with liver-metastasis, respectively. Patients were treated with etomidate or propofol, two frequently used sedation agents. Plasma samples were obtained via Ficoll separation. Here, we demonstrated that this procedure introduces a number of limitations for NMR-based metabolomics studies, due to the appearance of spurious signals. Nevertheless, the comparison of the 1H NMR metabolomic profiles of patients treated with etomidate or propofol at equipotent dose ranges was still feasible and proved that both agents significantly decrease the plasma levels of several NMR-detectable metabolites. Consequently, samples collected during anesthesia are not suitable for metabolic profiling studies aimed at patient stratification, because interpersonal variability are reduced by the overall depression of metabolites levels. On the other hand, this study showed that plasma metabolomics could represent a valuable tool to monitor the effect of different sedation agents and/or the individual metabolic response to anesthesia, providing hints for an appropriate tuning of personalized sedation procedures. In our reference groups, the metabolomic signatures were slightly different in patients anesthetized with etomidate versus propofol. The importance of standardized collection procedures and availability of exhaustive metadata of the experimental design for the accurate evaluation of the significance of the observed changes in metabolites levels are critically discussed.
Project description:Background and study aims? Choice of sedation (propofol vs opioid/benzodiazepine) has been studied in the literature and has shown variable outcomes. The majority of recent studies have evaluated propofol sedation (PS) versus opioids, benzodiazepines, or a combination of both. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing PS to other sedation methods to assess the impact on colonoscopy outcomes. Methods? Multiple databases were searched and studies of interest were extracted. Primary outcome of the study was adenoma detection rate (ADR) and secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and cecal intubation rate (CIR). Results? A total of 11 studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 177,016 patients (148,753 and 28,263 in the opioids/benzodiazepine group and PS group, respectively). Overall, ADR (RR: 1.07, 95?% CI 0.99-1.15), PDR (RR: 1.01, 95?% CI 0.93-1.10), and AADR (RR: 1.17, 95?% CI 0.92-1.48) did not improve with the use of PS. The CIR was slightly higher for propofol sedation group (RR 1.02, 95?% CI 1.00-1.03). Conclusion? Based on our analysis, PS and opioid/benzodiazepine sedation seem to have comparable ADR. Our results do not favor use of a particular sedation method and the choice of sedation should be individualized based on patient preference, risk factors and resource availability.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The clinical efficacy of effect-site targeted patient-maintained propofol sedation (PMPS) compared to anaesthetist-controlled propofol sedation (ACPS) for patients undergoing awake joint replacement surgery is currently unknown. There is no commercially available medical device capable of delivering PMPS so we have designed and built such a device. We plan a clinical trial to compare PMPS to ACPS and to collect data relating to the safety of our prototype device in delivering sedation. METHODS:The trial is an open-label, randomised, controlled superiority trial recruiting adults who are undergoing elective primary lower-limb arthroplasty with sedation by propofol infusion by effect-site targeting into two equal-sized parallel arms: PMPS and ACPS. The primary research objective is to compare the body-weight-normalised rate of propofol consumption when sedation for surgery on adults undergoing elective primary lower-limb arthroplasty under spinal anaesthesia is patient-maintained versus when it is anaesthetist-controlled. The study primary null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the rate of propofol consumption when sedation is patient-maintained versus anaesthetist-controlled. DISCUSSION:This is the first trial to test the superiority of effect-site-targeted patient-maintained propofol sedation versus anaesthetist-controlled propofol sedation in terms of total propofol consumption during the sedation period. The results of this trial will help inform clinicians and device manufacturers of the clinical efficacy and safety of patient-maintained propofol sedation applied to a common operative setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION:International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry, ISRCTN29129799 . Prospectively registered on 12 June 2018.
Project description:ERCP practically requires moderate to deep sedation controlled by a combination of benzodiazepine and opiod. Propofol as a sole agent may cause oversedation. A combination (cocktail) of infused propofol, meperidine, and midazolam can reduce the dosage of propofol and we hypothesized that it might decrease the risk of oversedation. We prospectively compare the efficacy, recovery time, patient satisfactory, and side effects between cocktail and conventional sedations in patients undergoing ERCP.ERCP patients were randomized into 2 groups; the cocktail group (n?=?103) and the controls (n?=?102). For induction, a combination of 25?mg of meperidine and 2.5?mg of midazolam were administered in both groups. In the cocktail group, a bolus dose of propofol 1?mg/kg was administered and continuously infused. In the controls, 25?mg of meperidine or 2.5?mg/kg of midazolam were titrated to maintain the level of sedation.In the cocktail group, the average administration rate of propofol was 6.2?mg/kg/hr. In the control group; average weight base dosage of meperidine and midazolam were 1.03?mg/kg and 0.12?mg/kg, respectively. Recovery times and patients' satisfaction scores in the cocktail and control groups were 9.67?minutes and 12.89?minutes (P?=?0.045), 93.1and 87.6 (P <0.001), respectively. Desaturation rates in the cocktail and conventional groups were 58.3% and 31.4% (P <0.001), respectively. All desaturations were corrected with temporary oxygen supplementation without the need for scope removal.Cocktail sedation containing propofol provides faster recovery time and better patients' satisfaction for patients undergoing ERCP. However, mild degree of desaturation may still develop.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01540084.
Project description:Anesthetics are known to modulate host immune responses, but separating the variables of surgery from anesthesia when analyzing hospital acquired infections is often difficult. Here, the bacterial pathogen Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) was used to assess the impact of the common anesthetic propofol on host susceptibility to infection. Brief sedation of mice with physiologically relevant concentrations of propofol increased bacterial burdens in target organs by more than 10,000-fold relative to infected control animals. The adverse effects of propofol sedation on immune clearance of Lm persisted after recovery from sedation, as animals given the drug remained susceptible to infection for days following anesthesia. In contrast to propofol, sedation with alternative anesthetics such as ketamine/xylazine or pentobarbital did not increase susceptibility to systemic Lm infection. Propofol altered systemic cytokine and chemokine expression during infection, and prevented effective bacterial clearance by inhibiting the recruitment and/or activity of immune effector cells at sites of infection. Propofol exposure induced a marked reduction in marginal zone macrophages in the spleens of Lm infected mice, resulting in bacterial dissemination into deep tissue. Propofol also significantly increased mouse kidney abscess formation following infection with the common nosocomial pathogen Staphylococcus aureus. Taken together, these data indicate that even brief exposure to propofol severely compromises host resistance to microbial infection for days after recovery from sedation.
Project description:We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of midazolam plus ketamine versus fentanyl plus propofol combination administered to children undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) and to determine the most appropriate sedation protocol.This prospective, randomized, single-blind study included patients between the ages of 4 and 17 years who underwent UGE for diagnostic purposes. Patients were divided randomly into groups A (midazolam-ketamine combination, n=119) and B (fentanyl plus propofol combination, n=119). The effectiveness of the sedation and complications during the procedure and recovery period were recorded.The processes started without an additional dose of the drug for 118 patients (99.1%) in group A and for 101 patients (84.8%) in group B (P=0.001). The average dose of ketamine administered to the patients in group A was 1.03±0.15?mg/kg and the average dose of propofol administered to the patients in group B was 1.46±0.55?mg/kg. None of the patients stopped the endoscopic procedure in group A, but one patient (0.8%) had to discontinue the endoscopic procedure in group B. 27 patients in group A (22.7%) and 41 patients (34.5%) in group B developed complications during the procedure (P=0.044). The rate of complications during the recovery of group A (110 patients, 92.4%) was significantly higher than that in group B (48 patients, 40.3%) (P=0.001).In children, UGE procedures can be quite comfortable when using the midazolam-ketamine combination. However, adverse effects related to ketamine were observed during recovery.