Comparing the pain of propofol via different combinations of fentanyl, sufentanil or remifentanil in gastrointestinal endoscopy

A novel ultrasensitive derivatization-free synchronous fluorescence approach for the simultaneous analysis of propofol and nalbuphine in human plasma and dosage forms: Compliance with greenness and blueness metrics

This study presents a very sensitive and eco-friendly synchronous spectrofluorimetric method for the simultaneous quantification of propofol (PRP) and nalbuphine (NAL) for the first time. The technique used the intrinsic fluorescence characteristics of the two drugs, providing enhanced sensitivity and specificity. The two drugs were assessed simultaneously at 217 nm and 281 nm for PRP and NAL, respectively, with a synchronous wavelength difference (Δλ) of 80 nm. The proposed method was validated according to ICH Q2 (R2) requirements, exhibiting satisfactory accuracy, precision, linearity, and selectivity within the designated concentration ranges. The concentrations exhibited linearity within the ranges of 15.0-300.0 ng/mL and 0.5-16.0 µg/mL, with detection limits of 2.67 ng/mL and 0.15 µg/mL for PRP and NAL, respectively. The developed approach, owing to its great sensitivity, was utilized to assess the examined drugs in human plasma samples. The results demonstrated good bioanalytical applicability, exhibiting high recovery percentages (98.40-101.70) and low relative standard deviation (%RSD) values (<1.66). The proposed method was applied to accurately analyze the cited drugs in their ampoule dosage forms with great selectivity. The MoGAPI and AGREE metricsdemonstrated the method's exceptional eco-friendliness and sustainability. Additionally, the BAGI tool was employed to assess the method's economic viability, applicability, and practicality. The three tools demonstrated the sustainability and feasibility of the developedapproach, as well as its appropriateness for the routine analysis of the examined drugs. The developed method represents the first analytical technique for the concurrent estimation of PRP and NAL without the necessity for toxic reagents, excessive organic solvents, or complicated instruments. The method is derivatization-free and does not require complicated sample treatment or lengthy extraction procedures. The suggested method's excellent sensitivity, simplicity, speed, environmental friendliness, and cost-effectiveness make it appropriate for therapeutic drug monitoring of the studied drugs.

Comparative Efficacy of Esketamine vs Sufentanil with Propofol for Sedation in EUS: A Randomized, Controlled Study

Purpose

This randomized, controlled trial aimed to assess the sedative effects of esketamine and sufentanil combined with propofol during EUS.

Patients and Methods

Three hundred and forty patients undergone EUS were randomly divided into two groups to receive esketamine 0.25 mg/kg combined with propofol (esketamine group) or sufentanil 0.1 μg/kg combined with propofol (sufentanil group). The primary outcome measure was respiratory depression incidence. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of body movements, propofol dosage, lowest SPO2 during the operation, and management of airway obstruction. In addition, other procedures and anesthesia-related outcomes, and postoperative complications were recorded.

Results

A total of 340 patients underwent randomization. Of these, 172 were assigned to the esketamine group and 168 were assigned to the sufentanil group. 1 patient in the esketamine group was lost in the follow-up. During the EUS, 9 patients (5.3%) in the esketamine group and 26 (15.5%) in the sufentanil group developed respiratory depression; this difference was statistically significant (P = 0.002). Regarding secondary outcomes, the incidence of body movements, induction dosage, supplemental times, and total dosage of propofol were much higher in the sufentanil group than in the esketamine group (P < 0.05). In addition, the lowest SPO2 during the operation, occurrence rate of airway intervention, and management of airway obstruction were significantly different (P < 0.05). Compared to the sufentanil group, the induction time of sedation in the esketamine group was shorter, and the hemodynamics were more stable (P < 0.05). In addition, there were significant differences in the PACU incidence rates of nausea or vomiting between the two groups (P < 0.05), whereas the following day's complications showed no statistical difference.

Conclusion

Esketamine combined with propofol for sedation during EUS can decrease respiratory depression, reduce the dosage of propofol and PONV, and provide a more stable hemodynamic state. Consequently, esketamine could be considered as a potential alternative to sufentanil for sedation during EUS.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of equivalent doses of remimazolam versus propofol for gastroscopy anesthesia in elderly patients

Remimazolam, a novel intravenous anesthetic, has been proven to be safe and efficacious in the gastroscopy setting among the elderly. However, reports comparing the effectiveness and safety of using equivalent doses of remimazolam with propofol have not been seen. The aim of this study was to compare the sedation efficacy and safety of the 95% effective doses (ED95) of remimazolam versus propofol combined with sufentanil in the gastroscopy setting among the elderly. In the first step of this two-step study, a modified up-and-down method was used to calculate the ED95 of remimazolam and propofol when combined with 0.1 µg/kg sufentanil in inhibiting body movement of elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy. In the second step, ED95 of both agents calculated in the first step were administered, endpoints of efficacy, safety, and incidence of adverse events were compared. A total of 46 individuals completed the first step. The ED95 of remimazolam was 0.163 mg/kg (95% CI 0.160-0.170 mg/kg), and that of propofol was 1.042 mg/kg (95% CI 1.007-1.112 mg/kg). In the second step, 240 patients completed the trial. The anesthetic effective rates of the remimazolam group and the propofol group were 78% and 83%, respectively, with no statistical difference (P = 0.312). Patients in the remimazolam group had more stable circulatory functions (P < 0.0001) and a lower incidence of pain on injection (3.3% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.0001). The incidence of hypotension was low in the remimazolam versus propofol group (15.6% vs. 39.0%, P < 0.0001). Overall adverse event was low in the remimazolam versus propofol group (21.3% vs. 62.7%, P < 0.0001).In this study, we found that when anesthesia was administered to elderly gastroscopy patients based on 95% effective doses of remimazolam and propofol, remimazolam was as effective as propofol, but was safer with a lower incidence of adverse events.Study registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000034234. Registered 29/06/2020, https://www.chictr.org.cn .

Comparison of the effects of esketamine, sufentanil, or lidocaine combined with propofol on tussis reflection during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: study protocol for a randomised, two centre, three-blind, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Tussis, which increases the incidence of airway spasm, aspiration, nausea, and vomiting, is a common complication faced during upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. However, sedatives and analgesics exhibit inhibitory actions against airway reflexes to different degrees. Our assumption is a combination of propofol and small doses of sufentanil, esketamine, or lidocaine, especially the combination of propofol and esketamine, might reduce tussis incidence.

METHOD

The study will be performed as a randomised controlled three-blind, two-centre trial. Patients undergoing upper GI endoscopy, ≥ 18 years old, with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification I-III will be randomised to four groups: P group (single administration of propofol), P + S group (administration of propofol and sufentanil in combination), P + K group (administration of propofol and esketamine in combination), and P + L group (administration of propofol and lidocaine in combination) (N = 100 per group). The primary endpoints include the frequency of tussis, nausea and vomiting, and/or body movements observed at the insertion of the endoscope into the pharyngeal cavity or within 5 min of endoscope insertion. Secondary outcomes are recovery assessment, patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction with the procedure, MMSE scores, MET scores, sleep condition, and the number of sedation-related events. Data on sedation-related events are collected by recording of vital signs. Satisfaction parameters and mental states are collected by means of questionnaires and evaluation scales before and after the procedure and on different following days.

DISCUSSION

Esketamine can reduce tussis occurrence with good tolerability and relax the bronchus and also provides high clearance rates and low possibility of adverse reactions. We aim to demonstrate that the combination of esketamine with propofol for sedation in patients subjected to upper GI procedure is nevertheless superior to only administration of propofol or a combination of propofol with other anaesthetics, such as opioids or lidocaine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT05497492 , Registered 09 August 2022.

Operational outcomes of propofol sedation versus fentanyl, midazolam and diphenhydramine sedation for endoscopies and colonoscopies at an academic medical center

BACKGROUND

On July 1st, 2021, the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH) implemented new sedation protocols in the luminal gastrointestinal (GI) suite. GI proceduralist supervised, Nurse Administered Sedation with fentanyl, midazolam, and diphenhydramine (NAS) sedation was transitioned to Monitored Anesthesia Care with propofol under physician anesthesiologist supervision (MAC).

OBJECTIVE

To determine if there are statistically significant reductions in Sedation-Start to Scope-In time (SSSI) when using Monitored Anesthesia Care with propofol (MAC) versus Nurse Administered Sedation with fentanyl, midazolam, and diphenhydramine (NAS). Secondary objectives were to determine if statistically significant improvements to other operational times, quality measures, and satisfaction metrics were present.

METHOD

This study was a retrospective analysis of a natural experiment resultant of a change from NAS to MAC sedation protocols. Outcomes for NAS protocols from 1/1/21-6/30/21 were compared to outcomes of MAC protocols from the dates 8/1/21-10/31/21. Results were analyzed using Quasi-Poisson regression analysis and stratified based on upper GI, lower GI, and combined procedures. Patient demographic data including age, biological sex, comorbidities, and BMI, were adjusted for in the analysis. ASA matching was not performed as nursing sedation does not use ASA classifications. Pre-anesthesia co-morbidities were assessed via evaluation of a strict set of comorbidities abstracted from the electronic medical record. Perioperative operational outcomes include Sedation Start to Scope-In (SSSI), In-Room to Scope-In Time (IRSI), Scope Out to Out of Room (SOOR), Total Case Length (TCL), and Post Anesthesia Care Unit Length of Stay (PACU LOS). Quality outcomes include PACU Administered Medications (PAM), and Clinician Satisfaction Scores (CSS).

RESULTS

A total of 5,582 gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic cases (upper, lower, and combined endoscopies) were observed. Statistically significant decreases in SSSI of 2.5, 2.1, and 2.2 minutes for upper, lower, and dual GI procedures were observed when using MAC protocols. A statistically significant increase in satisfaction scores of 47.0 and 19.6 points were observed for nurses and proceduralists, respectively, when using MAC.

CONCLUSION

MAC protocols for endoscopic GI procedures at UCH led to statistically significant decreases in the time required to complete procedures thus increasing operational efficiency.

Effect of butorphanol on visceral pain in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Butorphanol slightly influences the respiratory and circulatory systems, has a better effect on relieving the discomfort caused by mechanical traction, and has a low incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Combined butorphanol and propofol may suppress postoperative visceral pain, which is avoidable in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Thus, we hypothesized that butorphanol could decrease the incidence of postoperative visceral pain in patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, and double-blinded trial. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomized to intravenously receive either butorphanol (Group I) or normal saline (Group II). The primary outcome was visceral pain after the procedure 10 min after recovery. The secondary outcomes included the rate of safety outcomes and adverse events. Postoperative visceral pain was defined as a visual analog scale (VAS) score ≥ 1.

RESULTS

A total of 206 patients were enrolled in the trial. Ultimately, 203 patients were randomly assigned to Group I (n = 102) or Group II (n = 101). In total, 194 patients were included in the analysis: 95 in Group I and 99 in Group II. The incidence of visceral pain at 10 min after recovery was found to be statistically lower with butorphanol than with the placebo (31.5% vs. 68.5%, respectively; RR: 2.738, 95% CI [1.409-5.319], P = 0.002), and the notable difference was in pain level or distribution of visceral pain (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The trial indicated that adding butorphanol to propofol results in a lower incidence of visceral pain after surgery without noticeable fluctuations in circulatory and respiratory functions for gastrointestinal endoscopy patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04477733 (PI: Ruquan Han; date of registration: 20/07/2020).

Evaluating the effect of an artificial intelligence system on the anesthesia quality control during gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Sedative gastrointestinal endoscopy is extensively used worldwide. An appropriate degree of sedation leads to more acceptability and satisfaction. Artificial intelligence has rapidly developed in the field of digestive endoscopy in recent years and we have constructed a mature computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system. This system can identify the remaining parts to be examined in real-time endoscopic procedures, which may help anesthetists use anesthetics properly to keep patients in an appropriate degree of sedation.

AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the CAD system on anesthesia quality control during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

We recruited 154 consecutive patients at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, including 76 patients in the CAD group and 78 in the control group. Anesthetists in the CAD group were able to see the CAD system's indications, while anesthetists in the control group could not. The primary outcomes included emergence time (from examination completion to spontaneous eye opening when doctors called the patients' names), recovery time (from examination completion to achievement of the primary recovery endpoints) and patient satisfaction scores. The secondary outcomes included anesthesia induction time (from sedative administration to successful sedation), procedure time (from scope insertion to scope withdrawal), total dose of propofol, vital signs, etc. This trial was registered in the Primary Registries of the WHO Registry Network, with registration number ChiCTR2100042621.

RESULTS

Emergence time in the CAD group was significantly shorter than that in the control group (p < 0.01). The recovery time was also significantly shorter in the CAD group (p < 0.01). Patients in the CAD group were significantly more satisfied with their sedation than those in control group (p < 0.01). Vital signs were stable during the examinations in both groups. Propofol doses during the examinations were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This CAD system possesses great potential for anesthesia quality control. It can improve patient satisfaction during endoscopic examinations with sedation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2100042621.

The median effective doses of propofol combined with two different doses of nalbuphine for adult patients during painless gastroscopy

Objective: Propofol is the most widely administered intravenous anesthetic to induce deep sedation for gastroscopy procedures. Coadministration of nalbuphine can provide analgesia and sedation to patients experiencing visceral pain, thereby decreasing the amount of propofol needed and reducing the risk of propofol-induced adverse events. We carried out this study to determine the median effective dose (ED50) of propofol in combination with different dosages of nalbuphine and the optimal dosage of nalbuphine during painless gastroscopy.

Methods: We recruited sixty-five patients aged 18–60 years who underwent elective painless gastroscopy. A total of sixty-one patients were allocated randomly to the N1 group (nalbuphine 0.1 mg/kg) or N2 group (nalbuphine 0.15 mg/kg). Three minutes after administration of nalbuphine, patients received a preset dose of propofol at 2.0 mg/kg with a dose gradient of 0.2 mg/kg according to Dixon’s “up-and-down” method. The primary outcome was the ED50 of propofol in combination with nalbuphine. Hemodynamic parameters, recovery time, pain score, and adverse events were recorded as secondary outcomes.

Results: The ED50 of propofol in the N2 group was significantly lower than that observed in the N1 group (p < 0.01). Using probit analysis, the ED50 and ED95 of propofol were 1.632 mg/kg and 2.759 mg/kg in the N1 group and 1.111 mg/kg and 2.243 mg/kg in the N2 group, respectively. The incidence of hypotension in the N2 group was lower than that in the N1 group (p < 0.05), and the recovery time was shorter than that of the N1 group (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: In adult patients, 0.15 mg/kg nalbuphine led to a significant reduction in the ED50 and ED95 of propofol during gastroscopy. This dose of nalbuphine also reduced the incidence of hypotension and shortened the recovery time. Therefore, nalbuphine (0.15 mg/kg) combined with propofol is a safe option for enhancing recovery after painless gastroscopy in adult patients.

Clinical Trial Registration: [https://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=126699&htm=4], identifier [ChiCTR2100053204].

Effective Doses of Nalbuphine Combined With Propofol for Painless Gastroscopy in Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: This prospective study evaluated the 50% effective dose (ED₅₀) and 95% effective dose (ED₉₅) of nalbuphine combined with propofol during painless gastroscopy.

Methods: Seventy-five patients who underwent painless gastroscopy were randomly divided into five groups (group N₀, N_0.05, N_0.1, N_0.15, and N_0.2), with doses of 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, or 0.2 mg/kg nalbuphine in each group. Propofol was given to all groups as the sedative. The bispectral index (BIS) value, propofol dose, examination time, and awakening time were recorded. The number of patients with intolerance indexes (coughing, retching, swallowing, or limb movement) was recorded in each group. The ED₅₀/ED₉₅ of nalbuphine combined with propofol for gastroscopy were calculated.

Results: Compared with those of groups N₀, N_0.05, or N_0.1, the propofol dose and awakening time were significantly reduced in group N_0.15 or N_0.2 (p < 0.05). The successful rate of painless gastroscopy in group N_0.15 or N_0.2 significantly increased compared to that of group N₀ or N_0.05 (p < 0.05). When combined with propofol, nalbuphine had an ED₅₀ and ED₉₅ for painless gastroscopy of 0.078 mg/kg (95% CI, 0.056–0.098 mg/kg) and 0.162 mg/kg (95% CI, 0.134–0.217 mg/kg), respectively.

Conclusion: The ED₅₀/ED₉₅ of nalbuphine combined with propofol are 0.078 and 0.162 mg/kg, respectively, for painless gastroscopy. Nalbuphine at 0.162 mg/kg combined with propofol is effective and safe for painless gastroscopy in adults.

Anesthetic effect of different doses of butorphanol in patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy

Background

This study aimed to investigate the anesthetic effect of butorphanol with different doses in patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy.

Methods

480 patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy were recruited and randomly divided into four groups to receive different doses of butorphanol (Group A = 2.5 μg/kg, Group B = 5 μg/kg, Group C = 7.5 μg/kg and Group D = 10 μg/kg). Butorphanol was administered 5 min before propofol infusion. The primary outcome was the incidence of body movement. Secondary outcomes were postoperative recovery time, length of stay in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU), the total dose of propofol, and the incidence of intraoperative hypoxemia, propofol injection pain, cough, postoperative nausea and vomiting, drowsiness, and dizziness.

Results

The incidence of body movement and the dose of propofol in Group C and D were lower than those in Group A and B (P < 0.05). The incidence and intensity of propofol injection pain and the incidence of cough in Group B, C, and D were lower than those in Group A (P < 0.05). The length of stay in PACU and the incidence of postoperative drowsiness and dizziness were higher in Group D than in Group A, B, and C (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Intravenous pre-injection of 7.5 μg/kg butorphanol with propofol can be the optimal dosage for patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy.

Trial registration: Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000031506. Registered 3 April 2020—Retrospectively registered, http://www.medresman.org.cn.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01262-8.

Comparison of the Analgesic and Sedative Effects of Midazolam-Ketamine and Propofol-Sufentanil Combinations in Painful Procedures of Children with Haematologic Malignancy

OBJECTIVE

Bone marrow aspiration and lumbar puncture play essential roles in the diagnosis and treatment of haematological disorders. These repeated invasive procedures lead to considerable pain and stress in children, which is emotionally stressful for their parents. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and outcomes of two combinations of midazolam-ketamine (MK) and propofol-sufentanil (PS) in painful procedures of children with haematologic malignancy.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomised, double-blind clinical trial, we enrolled 80 eligible patients with haematologic malignancy aged 2-14 years. We randomly allocated them to the MK and PS groups. We recorded and compared the level of sedation, pain severity, hemodynamic indices, the onset of effect, duration of recovery and complications during and after procedure in the two groups. We analysed the data using the SPSS software. We used Mann-Whitney U, independent t-test, chi-square and Fisher's exact tests to compare continuous and categorical variables.

RESULTS

From initially enrolled patients, 68 patients completed the study (38 in PS and 30 in MK group). The levels of sedation and the mean score of pain intensity were significantly lower in the MK group than those in the PS group (p<0.05). Movements and the needs to repeat the dose were significantly lower in the MK group than those in the PS group (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

During bone marrow aspiration and lumbar puncture procedures in children with haematologic malignancy, the findings of this trial suggest that MK combination therapy provides better sedation and analgesia than PS.

Doxapram alleviates low SpO2 induced by the combination of propofol and fentanyl during painless gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Painless gastrointestinal endoscopy under intravenous propofol anesthesia is widely applied in the clinical scenario. Despite the good sedation and elimination of anxiety that propofol provides, low SpO2 may also result. Doxapram is a respiratory stimulant with a short half-life. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effects of doxapram on alleviating low SpO2 induced by the combination of propofol and fentanyl during painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

In this prospective study, patients scheduled for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly assigned to group D or S with 55 patients per group. Initially, both groups received a combination of propofol and fentanyl. Patients in group D received 50 mg doxapram after propofol injection, while patients in group S received an equal volume of saline. Vital signs of the patients, propofol dose, examination duration, and incidences of low SpO2 were recorded.

RESULTS

There were no statistical differences in propofol consumption and examination duration between the two groups. Twenty-six patients in group S experienced low SpO2 versus 10 in group D (P = 0.001). Nineteen patients in group S underwent oxygenation with a face mask in contrast to 8 in group D (P = 0.015). Eighteen patients in group S were treated with jaw lifting compared to 5 in group D (P = 0.002). Four patients in group S underwent assisted respiration compared to 2 in group D (without statistical difference). The average oxygen saturation in group S was significantly lower than that in group D at 1, 2 and 3 min after propofol injection (P < 0.001, P = 0.001 and P = 0.020, respectively). There were no statistical differences in oxygen saturation at other time points. There were no statistical differences in MAP and HR (except for the time point of 1 min after the induction) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Low dose of doxapram can effectively alleviate low SpO2 in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy with intravenous propofol, without affecting propofol consumption, examination duration, MAP, or HR.

TRAIL REGISTRATION

The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Clinical and New Technology of Wuxi People's Hospital on 20th July, 2018 (KYLLH2018029) and registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Register on 16th August, 2018 (ChiCTR1800017832).

Effect of propofol combined with opioids on cough reflex suppression in gastroscopy: study protocol for a double-blind randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The 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 ANALYSIS

This 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 μg/kg fentanyl (fentanyl group), 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.05-0.08 μg/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 DISSEMINATION

This 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 REGISTRATION

This study has been registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Register (No. ChiCTR-ICR-15006952).

TRIAL STATUS

At the time of manuscript submission, the study was in the recruitment phase.

Prevention of anesthesia-induced injection pain of propofol in pediatric anesthesia

Objective:

Propofol is a new anesthetic agent in clinical practice, but randomized double-blinded prospective studies on its role in pediatric anesthesia remain limited. We aimed to compare the preventive effects of pre-injected lidocaine or ketamine and its pre-mixture on the anesthesia-induced injection pain of propofol using a randomized double-blinded prospective method, and to compare the outcomes with those of medium-/long-chain propofol (M/LCT).

Methods:

A total of 360 pediatric patients (aged 5-12 years old) who received elective surgery were randomly divided into six groups (n= 60) as follows. S group: control group; L group: lidocaine group; L + P group: lidocaine + propofol group; K group: ketamine group; K + P group: ketamine + propofol group; M group: M/LCT group. After the drug fluid completely entered the cubital vein, the venous access was closed. During propofol injection, the injection pain was scored using the VRS 4-point scale. Meanwhile, the heart rates before and during injection were recorded, the adverse reactions during and after injection were observed, and the incidence rate and degree of pain were evaluated.

Results:

The VRS 4-point scale showed that the incidence rates of injection pain of S group, L group, L + P group, K group, K + P group and M group were 78.3%, 66.67%, 51.66%, 43.33%, 48.33% and 45% respectively. The incidence rates of injection pain of all experimental groups were significantly lower than that of S group (P<0.01). The incidence rates of injection pain of L + P group, K group, K + P group and M group were significantly lower than that of L group (P<0.05). The differences among the other groups were not statistically significant.

Conclusions:

Intravenous pre-injection of lidocaine, ketamine or those mixed with propofol can all significantly reduce the incidence rate of injection pain of propofol.