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: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: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??g/kg fentanyl (fentanyl group), 2-2.2?mg/kg propofol plus 0.05-0.08??g/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:IntroductionObese patients who undergo painless gastroscopy are particularly prone to suffer from upper airway obstruction, respiratory depression, and subsequent hypoxemia. Despite adequate preoxygenation, the incidence of hypoxemia remains high. Recently, inspiratory muscle training (IMT) has been considered to be a promising strategy to increase respiratory muscle strength and endurance with the attendant improvement of pulmonary function. However, it remains unclear whether IMT is associated with a lower rate of hypoxemia in obese patients during this sedative procedure. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of IMT used in obese patients who are scheduled for selective painless gastroscopy.Methods and analysisThis prospective, randomized controlled trial (RCT) will enroll 232 obese patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 35-39.9 kg·m-2 who undergo painless gastroscopy at the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University. Subjects will be randomly assigned to two groups with a 1:1 ratio. Participants in both groups will receive IMT for 4 weeks prior to gastroscopy. The intervention group will receive IMT with a load of 30% of the maximal inspiratory pressure (Pi(max)) in the first week, with an increase of 10% per week since the following week, while the counterparts in the control group will not receive any load during the 4-week IMT. The primary outcome is the incidence of hypoxemia during painless gastroscopy. Secondary outcomes include the need for airway maneuvers, blood pressure changes, sleep quality assessment, pro-inflammatory cytokines levels, and monitoring of adverse events.DiscussionsThe outcomes of this study will offer invaluable guidance for the clinical implementation of IMT as a potential non-invasive preventive measure. Additionally, it stands to enrich our comprehension of anesthesia management and airway-related challenges in obese patients undergoing procedural sedation, which we anticipate will further contribute to addressing the turnaround concerns within high-volume, swiftly paced ambulatory endoscopy centers.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University (2022, No.091). The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberChina Clinical Trial Center (ChiCTR2200067041).

Project description:Propofol, ketamine, and etomidate are common anesthetic agents for induction of anesthesia in the ICU. The choice between these agents is complex and may not depend solely upon severity of illness.ObjectivesTo evaluate the association between the administration of propofol, ketamine, and etomidate and ICU, hospital mortality, and length of stay.Design setting and participantsRetrospective single-center cohort study. ICUs in a tertiary medical center, between January 01, 2012, and December 31, 2017. Critically ill adult patients given a single IV anesthetic for intubation.Main outcome and measuresPrimary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were ICU- and hospital-free days through 28 days. An inverse probability of treatment weighed approach was used. The propensity score was estimated using a generalized logit model as a function of patient characteristics, admission source, ICU type, readmission status, length of ICU stays prior to intubation, and acute physiology score. Mortality outcomes were assessed with weighted logistic regression and -free days assessed by weighted linear regression with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons.ResultsOf 2,673 patients, 36% received propofol, 30% ketamine and 34% etomidate. Overall ICU and hospital mortality were 19% and 29%, respectively. Patients given ketamine had higher odds of ICU mortality (1.45; [95% CI, 1.07-1.94]; p = 0.015) and patients given etomidate had higher odds of ICU mortality (1.87; 1.40-2.49; p < 0.001), hospital mortality (1.43; 1.09-1.86; p = 0.009), and less ICU-free days (-2.10; -3.21 to -1.00; p < 0.001) than those given propofol. Patients given ketamine and etomidate had similar odds of hospital mortality (1.06; 0.80-1.42; p = 0.761) and similar hospital-free days (0.30; -0.81 to 1.40; p = 0.600).Conclusions and relevanceCompared with ketamine and etomidate, propofol was associated with better outcome in critically ill patients undergoing anesthesia for intubation. Even after adjusting for severity of illness prior to intubation, residual confounders cannot be excluded.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets