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 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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.