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.
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 clinical effectiveness and safety of sufentanil-propofol versus remifentanil-propofol during total intravenous anesthesia for neurosurgery. Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2013), the database of the Cochrane Anesthesia Group, MEDLINE, EMbase, PubMed, Ovid, Springer, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were electronically searched from inception to May 2013 for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of sufentanil-propofol versus remifentanil-propofol during total intravenous anesthesia for neurosurgery. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results Thirteen trials involving 647 patients were finally included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: a) for hemodynamic changes, MAP decreased in the remifentanil-propofol group after induction and decreased 5 minutes after intubation, but no significant difference was found between the two groups; the two groups were alike in MAP changes during craniotomy and extubation, and in HR changes after induction, 5 minutes after intubation, during craniotomy and extubation, with no significant difference. b) The result of intra-operative wake-up test showed that, there was no significant difference in the sedative effect and the time of awaking between the two groups. c) For emergence time and extubation time, compared with the sufentanil-propofol group, emergence time and extubation time were significantly shorter than those in the remifentanil-propofol group. d) For side effects, there was no significant difference in side effects (such as post-operative nausea, vomiting, respiratory depression, restlessness, chills and hypotension) between the two groups. And e) for post-operative pain, compared with the remifentanil-propofol group, post-operative 1-h and 2-h VAS were lower and the number of who need additional analgesic drugs within 24 h after operation was less in the sufentanil-propofol group, with significant differences. Both groups used the similar dosage of propofol with no significant difference. Conclusion Compared with the remifentanil-propofol group, hemodynamics changes in the sufentanil-propofol group is steadier after induction and during intubation. Patients in the sufentanil-propofol group are better in postoperative awakening quality. But they are alike in the incidence of side effects and propofol dosage.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of sevoflurane and propofol on preoperative implicit and explicit memories in general anaesthesia patients of elective surgery. MethodsThe surgical inpatients in Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital were enrolled from December 2013 to May 2014, and were randomly divided into three groups (S, P, M). In Group S, anesthesia was induced and maintained with sevoflurane. In Group P, anesthesia was induced and maintained with propofol. Midazolam was not utilized throughout the whole anaesthesia for the above groups. Patients in Group S and Group P were given a list of test materials to remember and listen before the anesthesia. Within 12 to 36 hours after operation, memory was assessed, based on the Buchner's model applied on the process dissociation procedure (PDP) using a phrases task. The Group M was given the same test materials, and received test with the PDP in 12 to 36 hours before surgery. Value A and value R were used to represent the implicit memory score and the explicit memory score, respectively. ResultsA total of 150 patients were included, and 50 cases were included in each group. During testing, 2 cases were excluded, 3 cases were loss to follow-up, so finally 49 cases were included in the Group S, 47 cases in the Group P and 49 cases in the Group M. The results showed that there were significant differences in the implicit memory score (A) and the explicit memory score (R) among the three groups (all P values <0.05). The explicit memory score (R) of the Group M was higher than those of the Group P and Group S (all P values <0.05), the implicit memory score (A) in the Group M was higher than those of the Group S and Group P (all P values <0.05), and the implicit memory score (A) in the Group S was higher than that of the Group P (P<0.05). ConclusionPropofol and sevoflurane can decrease the score of explicit memory after anesthesia within 12 to 36 hours, and there are no significant differences in explicit memory between the two drugs. Both propofol and sevoflurane can decrease the score of implicit memory, but the influence of sevoflurane on the implicit memory is less than propofol within 12 to 36 hours.
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.
ObjectiveTo explore the influence of propofol as well as sevoflurane on the histamine release induced by mivacurium chloride. MethodsForty patients with American Sociaty of Anesthesiologists stage Ⅰ-Ⅱ scheduled to receive ear-nose-throat surgery between March and October 2012 were recruited and were randomly assigned into two groups:propofol group and sevoflurane group. Patients in the propofol group were induced with targeted intravenous infusion with propofol. Patients in the sevoflurane group was induced with sevoflurane. The blood specimen was prepared before mivacurium chloride (0.16 mg/kg) infusion (T0), 1 minute (T1), 3 minutes (T2), and 5 minutes (T3) after the infusion. Mean blood pressure (MBP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded at corresponding time points. In addition, we recorded the symptoms of anaphylactic reaction such as skin erythema or bronchospasm. ResultsBoth MBP and HR decreased after anesthesia induction. However, there was no significant difference from that before the induction in both groups, and no difference was found between the two groups (P>0.05). The concentration of histamine in both groups at T1 and T2 was significantly higher than that at T0 (P<0.05). The concentration of histamine in both groups at T4 was significantly higher than that at T0 (P<0.05). The concentration of histamine in the propofol group was higher than that in the sevoflurane group. No skin erythema or bronchospasm was found in any of the two groups. ConclusionMivacurium chloride at a dose of 0.16 mg/kg can be safely used in propofol anesthesia, as well as sevofluane anesthesia, with no clinically significant histamine release or adverse hemodynamic fluctuation.
Objective To assess the safety and efficacy of sufentanil combined with propofol for painless fiberbronchoscopy. Methods A total of 120 patients undergoing fiberbronchoscopy were divided into two groups according to their admission sequence: group S (sufentanil + propofol, n=60) and group F (fentanil + propofol, n=60). Parameters including heart rate (HR), systol ic blood pressure (SBP), diastol ic blood pressure (DBP), saturation of blood oxygen (SPO2), dose of propofol, duration of the procedure, waking time and score of Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scale were recorded. Results The HR increased significantly 3 minutes after drug administration in both groups (Plt;0.05). The SPO2 decreased significantly 3 minutes after drug administration in both groups (Plt;0.05). The average dose of propofol and OAA/a score were similar between the two groups (Pgt;0.05). The waking time was significantly shorter in group S than in group F (Plt;0.05). Conclusion Sufentanil combined with propofol could offer a good sedative/analgesic effect during painless fiberbronchoscopy.
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.
Objective To systematically review the effects of lidocaine for preventing pain on injection of propofol. Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2012), PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid, HighWire, EMbase, CBM and CNKI were searched electronically to collect literature published from January, 1985 to December, 2012. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were indentified about lidocaine for preventing injection pain of propofol. References of the included studies were also retrieved. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assess the quality of the included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results Fifteen trials involved 1 332 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis indicated that, adding lidocaine into propofol lowered the incidence of pain on injection compared with blank control, with a significant difference (RR=0.36, 95%CI 0.30 to 0.44, Plt;0.000 01); using different doses of lidocaine before injection lowered the incidence of pain on injection compared with blank control, with a significant difference (RR=0.59, 95%CI 0.47 to 0.75, Plt;0.000 1); using different doses of lidocaine after venous occlusion lowered the incidence of pain on injection compared with blank control, with a significant difference (RR=0.44, 95%CI 0.37 to 0.52, Plt;0.000 01). Conclusion Lidocaine could reduce the pain on injection of propofol. Using lidocaine 40 mg after venous occlusion is a relatively effective method to lower the incidence of pain on injection which is more suitable for outpatient who receive intravenous anesthesia without preoperation medication.
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.