Objective To systematically assess the effectiveness and safety of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in preventing propofol injection induced pain. Methods Databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2012), CNKI, CBM, VIP and WanFang Data were searched from their inception to September, 2012 to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in preventing propofol injection induced pain. Two reviewers independently screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the data, and assessed the quality of methodology. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. Results A total of 15 RCTs involving 1 413 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: a) the incidence of propofol injection induced pain in the 5-HT3 group was obviously lower than the control group (RR=0.14, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.21, Plt;0.000 01); b) as to the severity of pain, there was no statistical difference between the two groups (RR=0.84, 95%CI 0.56 to 1.26, P=0.39); the 5-HT3 group was obviously lower that the control group in the incidence of both moderate pain (RR=0.25, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.34, Plt;0.000 01) and severe pain (RR=0.16, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.24, Plt;0.000 01); and c) as to the incidence of postoperative adverse reaction: the 5-HT3 group was obviously lower that the control group in the incidence of nausea and vomiting (RR=0.19, 95%CI 0.11 to 0.34, Plt;0.000 01) and shivering (RR=0.20, 95%CI 0.12 to 0.33, Plt;0.000 01) as well. Conclusion 5-HT3 receptor antagonists can effectively prevent the propofol injection induced pain, alleviate its severity, and reduce the postoperative adverse reactions. For the quantity and quality limitation of the included studies, this conclusion still needs to be further proved by performing more high quality studies.
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.
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 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.
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.
Objective To systematically review the impacts of general anesthesia using sevoflurane versus propofol on the incidence of emergence agitation in pediatric patients. Methods Such databases as PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2012), CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data and VIP were electronically searched from inception to December 2012, for comprehensively collecting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the impacts of general anesthesia using sevoflurane versus propofol on the incidence of emergence agitation in pediatric patients. References of included studies were also retrieved. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results A total of 9 RCTs involving 692 children were included, of which, six were pooled in the meta-analysis. The results of meta-analysis showed that: a) after anesthesia induction using sevoflurane, intravenous propofol maintenance was associated with a lower incidence of emergence agitation compared with sevoflurane maintenance (RR=0.57, 95%CI 0.39 to 0.84, P=0.004); and b) patients anesthetized with total intravenous propofol had a lower incidence of emergence agitation compared with total inhalation of sevoflurane (RR=0.16, 95%CI 0.06 to 0.39, Plt;0.000 1). Conclusion The incidence of emergence agitation after general anesthesia using sevoflurane is higher than that using propofol. Due to the limited quantity and quality, the application of sevoflurane should be chosen based on full consideration into patients’ conditions in clinic.
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.
Objective To investigate the changes of interleukin-17 ( IL-17) and the effects of propofol in rats with acute lung injury ( ALI) . Methods ALI model was established by hydrochloric acid ( HCl) inhalation in a dose of 2 mL/kg. 35 adultmale SD rats were randomly divided into seven groups, ie.a control group, a HCl group, and five propofol groups ( T24b , T12b , T0 , T1a , T3a groups, respectively) . The T0 ,T24b and T12b groups were pretreated with intraperitoneal propofol injection 0, 24 and 12 hours respectively before HCl inhalation. The T1a and T3a groups were managed by intraperitoneal propofol injection 1 and 3 hours respectively after HCl inhalation. Immunohistochemistry was used to determine the expression of IL-17 in lung tissue. ELISA was adopted to detect the levels of IL-17 and IL-8 in lung tissue homogenate as well as in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid ( BALF) , meanwhile arterial partial pressure of oxygen ( PaO2 ) and myeloperoxidase ( MPO) were measured. Results Those rats in the HCl group appeared respiratory distress, cyanosis, pulmonary edema, and inflammatory cells infiltration in lung tissues after HCl inhalation.The IL-17 levels in lung tissue homogenate as well as in BALF were higher in the HCl group than those in the control group( all P lt; 0. 01) . IL-17 was mainly expressed in alveolar epithelial cells and mononuclear cells in the ALI rats and its expression level was higher than that in the control group. IL-17 concentration in lung tissue homogenate was both correlated with IL-8 concentration in lung tissue homogenate ( r=0. 98, P =0.003) and with the activity of MPO in lung tissue( r=0. 981, P =0. 003) in the HCl group. Mainwhile, a same significant correlation was found between IL-8 level in lung tissue homogenate and the MPO activity in the HCl group( r =0. 961, P =0. 009) . Propofol attenuated lung injury induced by HCl inhalation, especially in T24b group. The concentrations of IL-17 in lung tissue homogenate and in BALF were lower in T24b group when compared with the HCl group( P = 0. 011, P =0. 003, respectively) . Conclusions The expression of IL-17 increases in ALI rats. Pretreatment with propofol by 24 hours has obvious inhibiting effects on inflammatory reaction. Inhibiting IL-17 expression may be one of the mechanisms through which propofol inhibits the inflammatory reaction of ALI.
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.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of etomidate and propofol on inflammatory cytokines and cortisol for patients with lung adenocarcinoma.
MethodSixty patients scheduled for lung cancer surgery under general anesthesia were studied. All patients were randomly divided into an etomidate total intravenous anesthesia group (group E, 30 patients, 16 males and 14 females at age of 58.0±5.0 years) and a propofol total intravenous anesthesia group (group P, 30 patients, 17 males and 13 females at age of 55.0±5.0 years), with 30 patients in each group.
ResultsThe concentration of IL-6 in serum of patients in the two groups at time points T1, T2 and T3 was significantly higher than those at time point T0 (P < 0.01). The concentration of IL-10 and TNF-α in serum of patients at time points T1 and T2 was significantly higher than those at time point T0 (P < 0.01). And the difference of the concentration of TNF-α in serum of patients at time points T0 and T3 was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The level of Cor of patients in the group E at time point T0 was slightly higher than those at time point T1, but lower than that at time points T2 and T3. There was no statistical difference in the concentration of IL-6 and TNF-α in serum of patients between the two groups. The level of IL-10 of patients in the group E at time points T2 and T3 was lower than those in the group P (P < 0.05), but no significant difference was observed at the other time points. The concentration of Cor in the patients in the group E at time point T1 was lower than that in the group P (P < 0.01), but no significant difference was observed either at the other time points.
ConclusionThe effect of etomidate used for maintenance of general anesthesia on the inflammatory factors is essentially similar to that of propofol.
