Objective To explore the effects of propofol and thiopental sodium injection on convulsive seizure in electro-convulsive therapy(ECT) and to provide evidence to help the selection of intravenous anaesthetics in improved ECT. Methods Total of 111 patients who received ECT in the 3rd Pepole’s Hospital of Panzhihua from July to December 2005 were divided into a thiopental sodium group (n =62) and a propofol group (n =49). These patients received intravenous anaesthesia with suxamethonium plus thiopental sodium or propofol for the implementation of ECT, respectively. The status of convulsive seizure was compared between the two groups. Results There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of main demographic data, disease category and ECT parameters (Pgt;0.05). Motor seizure and electricity discharge lasted significantly longer in the propofol group than in the thiopental sodium group (Plt;0.01). Conclusion Thiopental sodium can increase the excitation threshold of brain cortical neurons and decrease the level of convulsive seizure induced by ECT. Propofol may decrease the excitation threshold, and increase the level of convulsive seizure under the same ECT parameters, but may have the potential to induce epileptic seizure.
Objective To evaluate the sedative and analgesic efficacy and adverse effect of dexmedetomidine versus propofol on the postoperative patients in intensive care unit (ICU). Methods The relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCI, SpringerLinker, ScinceDirect, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM from the date of their establishment to November 2011. The quality of the included studies was evaluated after the data were extracted by two reviewers independently, and then the meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.1. Results Ten RCTs involoving 793 cases were included. The qualitative analysis results showed: within a certain range of dosage as dexmedetomidine: 0.2-2.5 μg/(kg·h), and propofol: 0.8-4 mg/(kg·h), dexmedetomidine was similar to propofol in sedative effect, but dexmedetomidine group needed smaller dosage of supplemental analgesics during the period of sedative therapy. The results of meta-analysis showed: the percentage of patients needing supplemental analgesics in dexmedetomidine group was less than that in propofol group during the period of sedative therapy (OR=0.24, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.68, P=0.008). Compared with the propofol group, the duration of ICU stay was significantly shorter in the dexmedetomidine group (WMD= –1.10, 95%CI –1.88 to –0.32, P=0.006), but the mechanical ventilated time was comparable between the two groups (WMD=0.89, 95%CI –1.15 to 2.93, P=0.39); the incidence of adverse effects had no significant difference between two groups (bradycardia: OR=3.57, 95%CI 0.86 to 14.75, P=0.08; hypotension: OR=1.00, 95%CI 0.30 to 3.32, P=1.00); respiratory depression seemed to be more frequently in propofol group, which however needed further study. Mortalities were similar in both groups after the sedative therapy (OR=1.03, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.99, P=0.92). Conclusion Within an exact range of dosage, dexmedetomidine is comparable with propofol in sedative effect. Besides, it has analgesic effect, fewer adverse effects and fewer occurrences of respiratory depression, and it can save the extra dosage of analgesics and shorten ICU stay. Still, more larger-sample, multi-center RCTs are needed to provide more evidence to support this outcome.
ObjectiveTo study the feasibility of using propofol and remifentanil for reduction of shoulder joint dislocation in the conscious elderly patients, and compare its efficacy with brachial plexus block anesthesia. MethodsSeventy elderly patients (American Sociaty of Anesthesiologist physical statusⅠ-Ⅱ) who underwent shoulder dislocation reduction in our hospital between August 2011 and December 2013 were randomly divided into two groups, each group having 35 cases. Patients in group A received brachial plexus nerve block anesthesia downlink gimmick reset, while patients in group B received the use of remifentanil-propofol and lidocaine compound liquid intravenous drop infusion for anesthesia downlink manipulative reduction. After successful anesthesia, two groups of patients were treated with traction and foot pedal method (Hippocrates) to reset. We observed the two groups of patients in the process of reduction, and recorded their hemodynamic changes, reset time, discharge time, postoperative satisfaction, intra-operative memory, breathing forgotten (breathing interval was longer than 15 seconds) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, and then comparison was made between the two groups. ResultsPatients in both the two groups successfully completed manipulative reduction. Compared with group A, patients in group B had more stable hemodynamic indexes during the process of reduction, shorter reduction time, better anesthesia effect and higher postoperative satisfaction degree, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in terms of time of leaving the operation room between the two groups (P>0.05). VAS score was higher in group A than that in group B (P<0.05). The occurrence of intra-operative memory amnesia and breathing forgotten phenomenon existed in part of the patients after operation in group B, but they did not occur in patients in group A. ConclusionRemifentanyl propofol-lidocaine compound fluid can be safely used in conscious elderly patients for shoulder joint dislocation reconstructive surgery, and it functions quickly with complete analgesia and stable hemodynamic indexes.
To investigate the effect of propofol intra-aortic and intravenous infusion on the concentration of propofol for an ischemia-reperfusion spinal cord injury in rabbits. Methods Forty-six healthy adult New Zealand white rabbits were randomly divided into 3 groups: sal ine infusion group (group N, n=10), propofol intra-aortic infusion group (group A, n=16) and propofol intravenous infusion group (group V, n=16). The infrarenal abdominal aorta was occluded for 30 min during which propofol 50 mg/kg was infused continuously intra-aortic or intravenous with a pump in group A and V. In group N, the same volume of normal sal ine was infused in the same way and at the same rate as in group A. Upon reperfusion, propofol concentration of the spinal segments of L4-6 and T6-8 was examined in group A and V. At 48 hoursafter reperfusion, the neurological outcomes were recorded in each group. Results Mean blood pressure in group V from the time of 5 minutes after occlusion decreased more than in group N (P lt; 0.05) and than in group A from the time of 10 minutes after occlusion(P lt; 0.05). The mean blood pressure in group N increased more than in group A from 15 minutes after occlusion (P lt; 0.05). The heart rate increased more in group V from 10 minutes after occlusion than in group N and A (P lt; 0.05) in which no difference was observed. The propofol concentration in L4-6 of group A (26 950.5 ± 30 242.3) ng/g was higher than that in T6-8 of group A (3 587.4 ± 2 479.3) ng/g and both L4-6 (3 045.9 ± 2 252.9) ng/g and T6-8 (3 181.1 ± 1 720.9) ng/g of group V(P lt; 0.05). The paraplegia incidence was lower (30%) and the median of normal neurons was higher (8.4) in group A than in group N (80%, 2.2) and group V(100%, 1.9), (P lt; 0.05). There was no significant difference in group N and V in paraplegia incidenceand the median of normal neurons (P gt; 0.05). Conclusion Intra-aortic infusion shows a better neurological outcome than intravenous infusion and could contribute to higher concentration of propofol in the ischemia spinal cord.
ObjectiveTo explore the efficacy and safety of different sedative and analgesic methods in emergent endotracheal intubations in RICU. Methods110 cases of tracheal intubation in critically ill patients were divided into 5 groups randomly: ① control group(given no sedative or analgesic drug before intubation); ② fentanyl group(given intravenous fentanyl 2 μg/kg before intubation,followed by fentanyl 2 μg·kg-1·h-1 maintenance); ③ dexmedetomidine hydrochloride+fentanyl group(given dexmedetomidine hydrochloride 1 μg/kg+fentanyl 2 μg/kg before intubation,followed by dexmedetomidine hydrochloride 0.5 μg·kg-1·h-1+fentanyl 2 μg·kg-1·h-1 maintenance); ④ midazolam+fentanyl group(given midazolam 0.05 mg/kg+fentanyl 2 μg/kg before intubation,followed by midazolam 0.05 mg·kg-1·h-1+fentanyl 2 μg·kg-1·h-1 maintenance); ⑤ Propofol+fentanyl group(given propofol 1 mg/kg+fentanyl 2 μg/kg before intubation,followed by propofol 0.4 mg·kg-1·h-1+fentanyl 2 μg·kg-1·h-1 maintenance).The mean arterial pressure(MAP),heart rate(HR),respiratory frequency(RR),PaO2/FiO2,Riker sedation score and agitation were monitored before,during and after intubations.The one-time success rate of intubation and severe arrhythmia (sinus bradycardia,frequent ventricular premature,ventricular fibrillation,and cardiac arrest) incidence rate were recorded. ResultsThe one-time success rates of intubations of the propofol+fentanyl group (95.4%) and the midazolam+fentanyl group (90.9%) were higher than that in the dexmedetomidine hydrochloride+fentanyl group (86.4%,P<0.05),while one-time intubation success rate of three groups were higher than that of the fentanyl group (45.4%) and the control group (31.8%,P<0.05).5 minutes after intubation,the PaO2/FiO2 index of 5 groups of patients were higher than those before intubation,but the PaO2/FiO2 index of the control group and the fentanyl group were lower than those in the other three groups(P<0.05).The occurrence of serious arrhythmia rate in the dexmedetomidine hydrochloride+fentanyl group (0%),the midazolam+fentanyl group (9%) and the propofol+fentanyl group (9%) were lower than that in the control group (13.6%) and the fentanyl group (18.2%).The MAP during intubation and 2 minutes after intubation of the propofol+fentanyl group and the midazolam+fentanyl group were lower than that in the other three groups(P<0.05).The proportion of patients with Riker sedation and agitation score≤4 at intubation in the dexmedetomidine hydrochloride+fentanyl group (68.2%) was lower than that in the propofol+fentanyl group(90.9%) and the midazolam+fentanyl group (86.4%,P<0.05),but higher than those in the fentanyl group(22.7%)and the control group(18.2%,P<0.05). ConclusionPropofol,midazolam or dexmedetomidine hydrochloride with fentanyl are all effective and safe methods of sedation and analgesia in emergent endotracheal intubation in RICU.Dexmedetomidine hydrochloride with fentanyl is an ideal sedative relatively with less influence on cardiovascular system and less myocardial oxygen consumption.
To investigate the protective effect of propofol on ischemia/reperfusion induced spinal cord injury in rabbits and its influence on excitatory amino acid (EAA). Methods Sixty New Zealand white rabbits weighing 2.0-2.5 kg, half males and half females, were selected. The infrarenal circumaortic clamping model was used. And 6 mL/kg different fluids were continuously infused through a catheter into the aorta distal to the clamping site at a speed of 12 mL/(kg?h) during the 30 minutes ischemia period. According to the different infusing l iquids, the rabbits were randomized into 6 groups(n=10 per group): group A, normal sal ine; group B, 10% intral ipid; group C, propofol 30 mg/kg; group D, propofol 40 mg/kg; group E, propofol 50 mg/kg; group F, propofol 60 mg/kg. At 0, 6, 24, and 48 hours after reperfusion, neurologic outcomes were scored on a Tarlov scale system. At 48 hours after reperfusion, the number of normal neurons in the anterior spinal cord was counted, and concentration of EAA in the lumbar spinal cord was measured by high performance l iquid chromatography. Results The neuroethological score was better in groups C, D, E and F than that of groups A and B (P lt; 0.05), the score of group E was the highest (P lt; 0.05), and there was no significant difference between group A and group B (P gt; 0.05). The number of normal neurons in the anterior spinal cord of groups C, D, E and F was greater than that of groups A and B (P lt; 0.05), and group E was greater than groups C, D and F (P lt; 0.05). The concentration of EAA in groups A, B, C, D, E and F was greater than that of normal tissue, the group E was the lowest (P lt; 0.05), the groups A and B were the highest (P lt; 0.05), and there was no significant difference between group A and group B (P gt; 0.05). Concentrations of glutamate and aspartic acid were negatively correlated to normal neuron numbers in the anterior spinal cord and neuroethological scores 48 hours after reperfusion, and the corresponding correlation coefficient was — 0.613, — 0.536, — 0.874 and — 0.813, respectively (P lt; 0.01). Conclusion Propofol can significantly inhibit the accumulation of EAA in spinal cord and provide a protective effect against the ischemia/reperfusion injury induced spinal cord in rabbits.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility and efficiency of patient-controlled analgesia and sedation (PCAS) with propofol and remifentanil for colonoscopy in elderly patients. MethodsSixty elderly patients preparing for painless colonoscopy between May and September 2015 were randomly allocated into PCAS group and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) group with 30 patients in each. In the PCAS group, the mixture of remifentanil and propofol at 0.6 mL/(kg·h) was pumped continuously after an initial bolus of 0.05 mL/kg mixture. The examination began three minutes after the infusion was finished. Patients could press the self-control button. Each bolus delivered 1 mL and the lockout time was 1 minute. In the TIVA group, patients received fentanyl at 1 μg/kg and midazolam at 0.02 mg/kg intravenously, and accepted intravenous propofol at 0.8-1.0 mg/kg two minutes later. The examination began when the patients lost consciousness. ResultsA significant decline of mean arterial blood pressure was detected within each group after anesthesia (P < 0.05). The decrease of mean blood pressure in the TIVA group was more significant than that in the PCAS group (P < 0.05). The heart rate, pulse oxygen saturation and respiratory rate decreased significantly after anesthesia in both the two groups (P < 0.05), while end-tidal CO2 increased after anesthesia without any significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The induction time, time to insert the colonoscope to ileocecus, and total examination time were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). As for the time from the end of examination to OAA/S score of 5 and to Aldrete score of 9, the PCAS group was significantly shorter than the TIVA group (P < 0.05). ConclusionPCAS with remifentanil and propofol can provide sufficient analgesia, better hemodynamic stability, lighter sedation, and faster recovery compared with TIVA.
Objective To investigate clinical application and safety evaluation of sedative demulcent anesthesia in therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).Methods Totally 1660 patients underwent ERCP at the First Hospital of Lanzhou University were prospectively divided into two groups: venous sedative demulcent group (n=800, using sufentanil and midazolam and propofol continuing infusion) and conventional sedative demulcent group (n=860, using common medicine). The heart rate (HR), respiration (R), blood pressure (BP) and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) of pre-anesthesia, post-anesthesia, during operation and after analepsia in every group were detected. The narcotism was evaluated by Ramsaymin grading method and the related adverse reactions such as cough, restlessness, harmful memory, and abdominal pain after operation were recorded. Results Compared with conventional sedative demulcent group, vital signs of patients in venous sedative demulcent group were more stable. For postoperative adverse reactions, abdominal pain, abdominal distension and nausea and vomiting were respectively 4.4%(35/800), 2.6%(21/800) and 3.6%(29/800) in venous sedative demulcent group, which were respectively higher of the incidence of 36.3%(312/860), 49.0%(421/860) and 53.0%(456/860) in conventional sedative demulcent group (P＜0.01). The postoperative satisfaction and adverse reactions recall between venous sedative demulcent group and conventional sedative demulcent group was respectively significant different (96.9% vs. 2.9%, 4.8% vs. 97.9%, P＜0.01). Conclusion Sufentanil and midazolam and propofol continuing infusion have good effect of sedative demulcent anesthesia, which can be widely used.
ObjectiveTo study the feasibility of using propofol and remifentanil for tracheal intubation in patients who are awake, and investigate the influence of tracheal intubation on such vital signs as blood pressure and heart rates. MethodsEighty ASA I-Ⅱ patients who underwent general anesthesia in our hospital between December 2012 and April 2013 were randomly divided into two groups. Patients in group A received fentanyl-propofol, while patients in group B received remifentanyl-propofol-lidocaine. There was no significant difference between the two groups in gender, age, and body weight (P>0.05). Conventional intubation induction method was used for group A:0.05-0.10 mg/kg midazolam, 4 μg/kg fentanyl, 1.0-1.5 mg/kg propofol, and 0.6-0.9 mg/kg atracurium were given and tracheal intubation was performed after muscle relaxation. Group B patients were treated with remifentanyl propofol-lidocaine compound liquid slow intravenous injection, and compound cricothyroid membrane puncture method before endotracheal intubation. We observed the two groups of patients for vital signs before and after induction, and choking cough reactions. ResultsPatients in both the two groups were all able to complete tracheal intubation. Circulation change and incidence of tachycardia in patients of group A were significantly higher than those in group B (P<0.05). The rates of bradycardia, hypoxemia, and choking cough response were low in both groups with no statistically significant difference (P>0.05). ConclusionRemifentanyl propofol-lidocaine compound liquid can be safely used for implementation of endotracheal intubation in patients who are awake, and the hemodynamic stability can be maintained.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the safety of propofol versus sevoflurane for pediatric surgery. MethodsEMbase, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CSCD, CNKI, WanFang Data were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about propofol versus sevoflurane for pediatric surgery from inception to January 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then metaanalysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsFifteen RCTs involving 1 065 children were included finally. Meta-analysis results showed that, compared with the sevoflurane group, the propofol group could reduce the incidence of emergence agitation (OR=0.23, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.34, P<0.000 01) and the incidence of postoperative vomiting (OR=0.32, 95%CI 0.20 to 0.51, P<0.000 01). There were no significant differences between the two groups in extubation time (MD=0.98, 95%CI -0.26 to 2.21, P=0.12), eye-opening time (MD=3.32, 95%CI -2.65 to 9.29, P=0.28) and postoperative analgesic requirements (OR=0.60, 95%CI 0.30 to 1.23, P=0.16). ConclusionIn reducing the incidence of emergence agitation and postoperative vomiting, propofol is superior to sevoflurane, so propofol is safer than sevoflurane for children's surgery.