Prevention of Propofol-Induced Injection Pain by Sufentanil

Feasibility and Safety of Remazolam versus Propofol When Inserting Laryngeal Masks Without Muscle Relaxants During Hysteroscopy

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remazolam compared with propofol in patients who underwent laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion without the use of muscle relaxant agents during hysteroscopic surgery.

Patients and Methods

A total of 72 patients undergoing hysteroscopy with LMA insertion were assigned to two groups. The patients in the remazolam group received 0.3 μg/kg sufentanil, 0.3 mg/kg remazolam and 1.2 mg/kg remifentanil, whereas the patients in the propofol group received 0.3 μg/kg sufentanil, 2.0 mg/kg propofol and 1.2 mg/kg remifentanil for insertion of the LMA. The primary endpoint was the summed score of the insertion conditions. The secondary endpoints included hemodynamics, the duration of induction, the duration of insertion, tidal volume, plateau pressure and adverse events.

Results

No difference was identified between the propofol group and remazolam group in the median summed score [18.0 (18.0, 18.0), 18.0 (17.0, 18.0), respectively, P > 0.05]. The induction duration was significantly longer (P < 0.05) in the remazolam group than propofol group. The cost of dopamine (P < 0.05) was significantly lower in the remazolam group compared with the patients in the propofol group, while the plateau pressure (P < 0.05) and the incidence of transient mild laryngospasm (P < 0.05) were significantly higher in the remazolam group. No differences were identified between the two groups in terms of heart rate, tidal volume, injection pain or hiccups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Remazolam provided similar insertion conditions and better hemodynamic stability than propofol during LMA insertion without the use of muscle relaxant agents. However, a higher incidence of transient mild laryngospasm was found in the remazolam group, which should be considered.

Comparison of Analgesic Effects between Nalbuphine and Sufentanil in First-Trimester Surgical Abortion: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial

Introduction

Surgical abortion is one of the commonly conducted procedures worldwide. Nevertheless, pregnant women still complain of procedural and postoperative pain despite the use of advanced anesthesia. It is vital to women’s reproductive healthcare to improve postsurgical pain management to achieve the lowest level of pain.

Methods

This randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled clinical trial compared the analgesic effects between nalbuphine and sufentanil in patients who underwent first-trimester surgical abortion. In total, 224 patients were allocated randomly into (a) the sufentanil group that received sufentanil (0.1 ug/kg) combined propofol, and (b) the nalbuphine group that received nalbuphine (0.1 mg/kg) combined propofol. Postoperative pain scores, propofol injection pain, intraoperative analgesic effect, adverse events, and degree of satisfaction were recorded as outcome measures.

Results

The pain scores in the nalbuphine group were lower than those in the sufentanil group at 15 min, 30 min, 1 h, and 6 h after surgical abortion. In addition, the incidence and intensity of propofol injection pain were lower in the nalbuphine group. The degree of satisfaction of the patients in the nalbuphine group was higher than that in the sufentanil group. The intraoperative analgesic effect, hemodynamic fluctuation, and adverse events were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusions

Nalbuphine combined with propofol is superior to sufentanil combined with propofol for first-trimester abortion surgeries.

Clinical Trial Registration

The trial was registered at www.chictr.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR2000040243.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-021-00334-0.

Comparison Between Intravenous Nalbuphine and Lidocaine in Reducing Propofol-Induced Injection Pain During Gastroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction

Intravenous propofol anesthesia is widely used in painless endoscopy. However, propofol injection pain is a common adverse effect. This study investigated the effects of nalbuphine and lidocaine in reducing propofol-induced injection pain.

Methods

In this double-blind, randomized study, 330 patients were randomly divided into three groups by using a random number table: the nalbuphine group (N), lidocaine group (L), and control group (C). The N, L, and C groups received either 0.1 mg/kg nalbuphine, 0.5 mg/kg lidocaine, or an equivalent volume of normal saline, respectively, as pretreatment drug. Then propofol was manually injected. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of propofol-induced injection pain, and secondary outcomes included the severity of propofol-induced injection pain, vital signs, and adverse events, including hypotension, bradycardia (< 50 beats/min), hypoxemia (SpO₂ < 90%), drowsiness, physical movement, and cough.

Results

The percentages of patients with propofol injection pain were higher in group C than in group N and group L (64, 34, and 27%, respectively, p < 0.05). The percentage of patients with severe pain after propofol injection was significantly higher in group C than in group N and group L (12, 1, and 0%, respectively, p < 0.05). The doses of propofol in group C and group L were significantly higher than that in group N. More patients suffered hypoxemia in group N than in group C and group L. Then, less patients got physical movement and cough in group N.

Conclusions

Pretreatment with nalbuphine 0.1 mg/kg was effective in reducing propofol-induced injection pain and propofol consumption. Propofol combined with nalbuphine can be safely and effectively used during gastroscopy.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; ChiCTR1900025438.

Is propofol injection pain really important to patients?

Background

Propofol injection pain (PIP) has been adequately studied during the past decades. However, patients’ opinion on this problem and the incidence of patients’ recall of this brief discomfort are still unknown. Thus, we conducted this study to know the patients’ perspectives on PIP and provide useful information about the incidence of recall of PIP under our routine general anesthesia.

Methods

Five hundred preoperative questionnaires were distributed to patients who were scheduled for elective open thyroidectomy under general anesthesia from May 2016 to July 2016. They were asked to rank ten possible adverse effects associated with general anesthesia from their most undesirable to their least undesirable effect. Patients who completed the preoperative questionnaires were asked whether they could recall PIP and to grade the severity of PIP on the first postoperative day.

Results

A total of 448 preoperative questionnaires were returned and analyzed with an efficient rate of 89.6%. Incisional pain was ranked as most undesirable, followed (in order) by vomiting, gagging on the tracheal tube, nausea, sore throat, propofol injection pain, shivering, intravenous puncture pain, and anxiety. The majority (91.5%) of surveyed patients could not recall any discomfort or pain during anesthetics injection. Of those who could recall PIP, 89.5% grade it as mild pain, 7.9% moderate pain, and 2.6% severe pain.

Conclusions

Most of patients undergoing elective open thyroidectomy in our hospital viewed PIP as a relatively minor problem. The incidence of recall of PIP was low and the majority of those who recalled regarded it as mild, temporary and acceptable pain. However, further investigations into propofol injection pain may be warranted as patients’ perspectives on propofol injection pain and its severity may differ between patient populations.

Anaesthetic interventions for prevention of awareness during surgery

BACKGROUND

General anaesthesia is usually associated with unconsciousness. 'Awareness' is when patients have postoperative recall of events or experiences during surgery. 'Wakefulness' is when patients become conscious during surgery, but have no postoperative recollection of the period of consciousness.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of two types of anaesthetic interventions in reducing clinically significant awareness:- anaesthetic drug regimens; and- intraoperative anaesthetic depth monitors.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, ISSUE 4 2016); PubMed from 1950 to April 2016; MEDLINE from 1950 to April 2016; and Embase from 1980 to April 2016. We contacted experts to identify additional studies. We performed a handsearch of the citations in the review. We did not search trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of either anaesthetic regimens or anaesthetic depth monitors. We excluded volunteer studies, studies of patients prior to skin incision, intensive care unit studies, and studies that only randomized different word presentations for memory tests (not anaesthetic interventions).Anaesthetic drug regimens included studies of induction or maintenance, or both. Anaesthetic depth monitors included the Bispectral Index monitor, M-Entropy, Narcotrend monitor, cerebral function monitor, cerebral state monitor, patient state index, and lower oesophageal contractility monitor. The use of anaesthetic depth monitors allows the titration of anaesthetic drugs to maintain unconsciousness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two authors independently scanned abstracts, extracted data from the studies, and evaluated studies for risk of bias. We made attempts to contact all authors for additional clarification. We performed meta-analysis statistics in packages of the R language.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 160 studies with 54,109 enrolled participants; 53,713 participants started the studies and 50,034 completed the studies or data analysis (or both). We could not use 115 RCTs in meta-analytic comparisons because they had zero awareness events. We did not merge 27 of the remaining 45 studies because they had excessive clinical and methodological heterogeneity. We pooled the remaining 18 eligible RCTs in meta-analysis. There are 10 studies awaiting classification which we will process when we update the review.The meta-analyses included 18 trials with 36,034 participants. In the analysis of anaesthetic depth monitoring (either Bispectral Index or M-entropy) versus standard clinical and electronic monitoring, there were nine trials with 34,744 participants. The overall event rate was 0.5%. The effect favoured neither anaesthetic depth monitoring nor standard clinical and electronic monitoring, with little precision in the odds ratio (OR) estimate (OR 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.62).In a five-study subset of Bispectral Index monitoring versus standard clinical and electronic monitoring, with 34,181 participants, 503 participants gave awareness reports to a blinded, expert panel who adjudicated or judged the outcome for each patient after reviewing the questionnaires: no awareness, possible awareness, or definite awareness. Experts judged 351 patient awareness reports to have no awareness, 87 to have possible awareness, and 65 to have definite awareness. The effect size favoured neither Bispectral Index monitoring nor standard clinical and electronic monitoring, with little precision in the OR estimate for the combination of definite and possible awareness (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.65). The effect size favoured Bispectral Index monitoring for definite awareness, but with little precision in the OR estimate (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.75).We performed three smaller meta-analyses of anaesthetic drugs. There were nine studies with 1290 participants. Wakefulness was reduced by ketamine and etomidate compared to thiopental. Wakefulness was more frequent than awareness. Benzodiazepines reduces awareness compared to thiopental, ketamine, and placebo., Also, higher doses of inhaled anaesthetics versus lower doses reduced the risk of awareness.We graded the quality of the evidence as low or very low in the 'Summary of findings' tables for the five comparisons.Most of the secondary outcomes in this review were not reported in the included RCTs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Anaesthetic depth monitors may have similar effects to standard clinical and electrical monitoring on the risk of awareness during surgery. In older studies comparing anaesthetics in a smaller portion of the patient sample, wakefulness occurred more frequently than awareness. Use of etomidate and ketamine lowered the risk of wakefulness compared to thiopental. Benzodiazepines compared to thiopental and ketamine, or higher doses of inhaled anaesthetics versus lower doses, reduced the risk of awareness.

The optimal effect-site concentration of sufentanil for laryngeal mask insertion during induction with target-controlled propofol infusion at 4.0 μg/mL

Objective:

The objective of this study is to determine the optimal effect-site concentration (Ce) of sufentanil for satisfactory insertion of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) when administered with a target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol at 4.0 μg/mL.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 25 adult patients scheduled for minor elective surgery were enrolled in this study. All patients received induction with a combination of propofol and sufentanil TCI. The TCI of sufentanil was started at a target Ce of 0.1 ng/mL. After equilibrium with the plasma concentration, the TCI of propofol was initiated, targeting a preset Ce of 4.0 μg/mL. After the loss of consciousness, LMA was inserted and assessed by an experienced Anesthesiologist. The Ce of sufentanil for the next patient was guided by modified Dixon's up-and-down method using 0.05 ng/mL as a step size. The Ce of sufentanil required for successful LMA insertion in 50% of adults (EC50) was determined by calculating the midpoint concentration of all independent pairs of patients after at least seven crossover points.

Results:

The optimal Ce (EC50) of sufentanil for LMA insertion during propofol induction using target Ce of 4 μg/mL was 0.16 ng/mL (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.12-0.20). There was a significant reduction in propofol induced pain score P = 0.0275 and insignificant hemodynamic changes.

Conclusion:

Ce of sufentanil required for successful LMA insertion in 50% of patients (EC50) using propofol target Ce of 4.0 μg/mL was 0.16 ng/mL (95% CI = 0.12-0.20) with a significant reduction in the propofol induced pain and hemodynamic stability.

The effect of gender on EC(50) of remifentanil to prevent pain during injection of microemulsion propofol

Background

Propofol injection pain is an unpleasant experience to patients and its prevalence can be influenced by age and gender. We determined the half maximal effective concentration (EC₅₀) of remifentanil for preventing the microemulsion propofol injection pain in the male and female adult groups.

Methods

After institutional review board approval, a total of 60 patients were assigned into 2 groups depending on their gender: group M (male, 20-65 yr) and group F (female, 20-65 yr). Anesthesia was induced with propofol and remifentanil, by a target-controlled infusion. Target effect-site concentration (Ce) of propofol and remifentanil for the first patient started at 4.0 ug/ml and 4.0 ng/ml. Ce of remifentanil for each subsequent patient was determined by the response of the previous patient by the Dixon's up-and-down method (DUDM) with an interval of 0.2 ng/ml. After equilibration of plasma and effect site remifentanil concentration, propofol was administered, and the pain responses were observed.

Results

The remifentanil EC₅₀ was 3.8 ± 0.2 and 2.7 ± 0.2 ng/ml in groups M and F, respectively, by DUDM. From Probit regression model, the remifentanil EC₅₀ was 3.7 (3.0-4.3) and 2.7 (1.8-2.9) ng/ml in groups M and F, respectively.

Conclusions

The remifentanil EC₅₀ for preventing the moderate to severe injection pain of propofol was higher in males than in females.

The optimal effect-site concentration of remifentanil to attenuate the pain caused by propofol

Background

The injection pain of propofol is a frequent and well-known adverse effect. This study was designed to determine the optimal effect-site concentration of remifentanil for minimizing injection pain during induction with propofol.

Methods

A total intravenous anesthetic technique was used for patients undergoing general anesthesia and remifentanil was pretreated to reach a certain target concentration before propofol injection. Using Dixon's up-and-down method, the degree of pain described by the patient was used to adjust the target concentration of remifentanil for the next patient. Ten success-failure curves (crossovers) were sought to find the effect-site concentration (EC) of remifentanil for minimizing injection pain of propofol.

Results

The EC of remifentanil in 50% and 95% of adult female population (EC₅₀ and EC₉₅) for minimizing injection pain of propofol were 3.09 ng/ml (95% confidence limits [CI] 2.92-3.30 ng/ml) and 3.78 ng/ml (95% CI 3.45-3.95 ng/ml), respectively. Clinically significant hemodynamic compromise or respiratory complications were not found during remifentanil infusion.

Conclusions

Maintaining 3.78 ng/ml EC of remifentanil during induction with propofol attenuate propofol injection pain without serious adverse events in female patients undergoing general anesthesia and this method may provide the patient's comfort without preparing other drugs for pain relief.

The effect and optimal dose of sufentanil in reducing injection pain of microemulsion propofol

Background

Propofol is used as an induction and maintenance agent for general anesthesia but it can cause adverse reactions like hyperlipidemia, growth of microorganisms, and pulmonary embolisms. Microemulsion propofol was developed to avoid these side effects but incidence and severity of pain on injection is higher than with lipid emulsion propofol. We aimed to compare the effects of sufentanil in analgesic doses for reducing the injection pain of microemulsion propofol.

Methods

The candidates included eighty patients, 19-60 years old and ASA I-II. They were randomly classified into four groups and pretreated with normal saline, sufentanil 0.1 µg/kg, 0.2 µg/kg or 0.3 µg/kg before injection of microemulsion propofol. Five minutes after receiving pretreatment drug, 2 mg/kg of microemulsion propofol was injected and VAS was recorded.

Results

There were no significant differences in the incidence of injection pain among the groups. Severity of injection pain was significantly lower in the sufentanil 0.3 µg/kg group than normal saline and sufentanil 0.1 µg/kg group. Significant differences in blood pressure and heart rate were observed in sufentanil groups only after endotracheal intubation. One patient each in sufentanil 0.1 µg/kg and 0.3 µg/kg group experienced mild cough, one from sufentanil 0.3 µg/kg group experienced dizziness and another showed signs of hypoxia. One patient each in normal saline and sufentanil 0.1 µg/kg group showed clinical symptoms of phlebitis in the injection area.

Conclusions

Pretreatment with sufentanil 0.3 µg/kg reduced the severity of microemulsion propofol injection pain without increasing arterial blood pressure and heart rate after endotracheal intubation.

The effect of pretreatment with two different concentrations of remifentanil on propofol injection pain

BACKGROUND

Propofol produces anesthesia with rapid recovery but also causes pain on injection. This study was designed to evaluate the effects of two different concentrations of remifentanil for minimizing the pain caused by propofol and to compare the hemodynamic changes during propofol-remifentanil infusion.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind study of 80 patients, we compared the severity of the injection pain of propofol between two groups of patients. The initial effect-site target concentration of remifentanil was set at 4 ng/ml (the R4 group, n = 40) or 8 ng/ml (the R8 group, n = 40). After the effect-site concentration of remifentanil was achieved, the infusion of propofol was started with the concentration of 4 microgram/ml. The remifentanil-related complications were evaluated and the severity of the pain caused by propofol was compared by using a four-point scale during the propofol infusion. The heart rate and arterial blood pressure were measured at pre-induction, just before intubation and at 1 minute after intubation.

RESULTS

The severity of injection pain of propofol was significantly lower in the R8 group than in the R4. There was no significant difference in the incidence of remifentanil-related complications between the two groups. Compared with the pre-induction values, the heart rate and arterial blood pressure were significantly lower at pre-intubation and at 1 minute after intubation in the R4 and R8 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment with an effect-site concentration of 8 ng/ml remifentanil may be useful for minimizing the propofol injection pain compared with 4 ng/ml remifentanil.