The Use of Propofol versus Dexmedetomidine for Patients Receiving Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Balanced propofol sedation is extensively used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) are common. In various clinical settings, the combination of dexmedetomidine with opioids and benzodiazepines has provided effective sedation with increased safety. The aim of this investigation was to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during ERCP.

METHODS

Forty-one patients were randomly divided into two groups: the dexmedetomidine (DEX) group and the propofol (PRO) group. Patients in the DEX group received an additional bolus of 0.6 μg kg-1 dexmedetomidine followed by a dexmedetomidine infusion at 1.2 μg kg-1 h-1, whereas the PRO group received 1-2 mg kg-1 of propofol bolus followed by a propofol infusion at 2-3 mg kg-1 h-1. During ERCP, the primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90% for > 10 s). Other intraoperative adverse events were also recorded as secondary outcomes, including respiratory depression (respiratory rate of < 10 bpm min-1), hypotension (MAP < 65 mmHg), and bradycardia (HR < 45 beats min-1).

RESULTS

The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly reduced in the DEX group compared to the PRO group (0% versus 28.6%, respectively; P = 0.032). Patients in the PRO group exhibited respiratory depression more frequently than patients in the DEX group (35% versus 81%, respectively; P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in terms of hypotension and bradycardia episodes between groups. During the procedures, the satisfaction scores of endoscopists and patients, as well as the pain and procedure memory scores of patients were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

In comparison with propofol, dexmedetomidine provided adequate sedation safety with no adverse effects on sedation efficacy during ERCP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200061468, 25/06/2022.

Surgical failure guided by DISE in patients with obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The failure rate and risk factors of upper airway surgery with drug induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) remain unknown in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). This review aims to analyze the failure rate of upper airway surgery with DISE and identify obstruction sites for surgical failure.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar until May 20th, 2023. We included studies that used DISE to assess obstructive sites before upper airway surgery and reported surgical failure rates and outcomes in patients with OSA.

RESULTS

25 studies with a total of 1522 patients were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Upper airway surgery guided by DISE had a relatively low failure rate of 37% (95% CI 0.31-0.44) in the random effects model (I2 = 85.97%, P < 0.001). According to the velum, oropharynx, tongue base, and epiglottis (VOTE) scoring system, major risk factors for surgical failure included circumferential collapse at the velum, lateral wall collapse and small tonsils at the oropharynx, anterior-posterior lingual collapse and complete collapse at the tongue base. High body mass index and large preoperative apnea hypopnea index were also risk factors for OSA surgical failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Upper airway surgery guided by DISE in patients with OSA had a low failure rate of 37%. DISE can identify obstruction sites associated with surgical failure and guide single-level and multi-level surgeries.

Comparison of Remimazolam and Propofol for Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam with those of propofol for drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS).

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, single-center, randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Xiangya Hospital of Central South University.

METHODS

Patients with OSAHS receiving DISE were randomly assigned to either the remimazolam or propofol group. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia (pulse oxygen saturation [SpO2 ] < 90%) during DISE. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of severe hypoxemia (SpO2  < 80%), the minimal value of SpO2 , sedation success rate (completion of DISE according to the medication regimen), and incidence of events of interest (including injection pain, bradycardia, and decreased respiratory rate).

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients were included in this study. The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly lower in the remimazolam than in the propofol group (25.00% vs 62.50%, respectively; relative risk, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.74; p < .01). There was no significant difference in the sedation success rate between the remimazolam and propofol groups (96.88% vs 81.25%, respectively; relative risk, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01-1.50; p = .10). The incidence of at least 1 event of interest was lower in the remimazolam than in the propofol group (43.75% vs 96.88%, respectively; relative risk, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.63; p < .01).

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam can present satisfactory sedative efficacy in DISE, with a lower incidence of hypoxemia and a higher safety profile than propofol.

Efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen during drug-induced sleep endoscopy in patients with obstructive sleep apnea

PURPOSE

High-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) can provide a low level of continuous positive airway pressure and alveolar recruitment. We aimed to compare the efficacy of pre-oxygenation with HFNO and low-flow nasal oxygenation (LFNO) during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE).

METHODS

In the LFNO group, preoxygenation was performed for 10 min at 3 L·min-1. In the HFNO group, preoxygenation was performed for 10 min at 30 L·min-1 at a fraction of inspired oxygen of 100% using the Optiflow device. From the start of sedative administration to the end of DISE, vital signs were monitored continuously. The primary outcome was the lowest oxygen saturation (SpO2) during DISE.

RESULTS

Of 24 patients enrolled, 12 were randomly assigned to the LFNO and 12 to the HFNO groups. The prevalence of hypoxia events was 75% in the LFNO group and 58% in the HFNO group. The difference in lowest oxygen saturation between the two groups was not significant between the two groups (P=0.665). The lowest SpO2 during all procedures was comparable between the two groups (86.8 ± 6.5% in the LFNO group and 87.2 ± 8.0% in the HFNO group; P=0.912).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that HFNO may not be superior to LFNO as a preoxygenation tool to prevent hypoxia during DISE.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of ciprofol (HSK3486) versus propofol for anesthetic induction and non-ICU sedation

Background: Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel intravenous anesthetic agent that bears structural similarity to propofol and displays favorable pharmacodynamic characteristics such as rapid onset and offset. The meta-analysis aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol in clinical practice. Methods: Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library were searched from inception to April 2023. The primary outcome was success rate of sedation/anesthetic induction and differences in sedation/induction time. The secondary outcomes included risks of hemodynamic instability, respiratory complications, and pain on injection, as well as recovery profiles, satisfaction score, and top-up dose requirement. Results: Twelve RCTs (sedation: n = 6, anesthetic induction, n = 6, all conducted in China) involving 1,793 patients (age: 34-58 years) published from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Pooled results revealed no differences in success rate [risk ratio (RR) = 1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99 to 1.01, I2 = 0%, 1,106 patients, p = 1] and time required for successful anesthetic induction/sedation [mean difference (MD) = 7.95 s, 95% CI: -1.09 to 16.99, I2 = 97%, 1,594 patients, p = 0.08]. The risks of top-up dose requirement (RR = 0.94, p = 0.48), cardiopulmonary complications [i.e., bradycardia (RR = 0.94, p = 0.67), tachycardia (RR = 0.83, p = 0.68), hypertension (RR = 1.28, p = 0.2), hypoxemia/pulmonary depression (RR = 0.78, p = 0.24)], and postoperative nausea/vomiting (RR = 0.85, p = 0.72), as well as discharge time (MD = 1.39 min, p = 0.14) and satisfaction score (standardized MD = 0.23, p = 0.16) did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the ciprofol group had lower risks of hypotension (RR = 0.85, p = 0.02) and pain on injection (RR = 0.17, p < 0.00001) than the propofol group. The time to full alertness was statistically shorter in the propofol group (i.e., 0.66 min), but without clinical significance. Conclusion: Our results demonstrated similar efficacy between ciprofol and propofol for sedation and anesthetic induction, while ciprofol was associated with lower risks of hypotension and pain on injection. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol in pediatric or the elderly populations. Systematic Review Registration: (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/), identifier (CRD42023421278).

The use of remimazolam versus propofol for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The primary objective of this study was to compare the risk of hypotension, as well as the induction and recovery characteristics between remimazolam and propofol in patients receiving surgery under general anesthesia. Methods: The Embase, Medline, Google scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to March 2022 for randomized controlled trials The primary outcome was the risk of post-induction hypotension between the two agents, while the secondary outcomes included anesthetic depth, induction efficacy, time to loss of consciousness (LOC), hemodynamic profiles, time to eye opening, extubation time as well as the incidence of injection pain and postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV). Results: Meta-analysis of eight studies published from 2020 to 2022 involving 738 patients revealed a significantly lower risk of post-induction hypotension with the use of remimazolam compared to that with propofol [risk ratio (RR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43 to 0.75, p < 0.0001, I2 = 12%, five studies, 564 patients]. After anesthetic induction, the anesthetic depth measured by bispectral index (BIS) was lighter in the remimazolam group than that in the propofol group (MD = 9.26, 95% confidence interval: 3.06 to 15.47, p = 0.003, I2 = 94%, five studies, 490 patients). The time to loss of consciousness was also longer in the former compared to the latter (MD = 15.49 s, 95%CI: 6.53 to 24.46, p = 0.0007, I2 = 61%, three studies, 331 patients). However, the use of remimazolam correlated with a lower risk of injection pain (RR = 0.03, 95%CI: 0.01 to 0.16, p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%, three studies, 407 patients) despite comparable efficacy of anesthetic induction (RR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.9 to 1.06, p = 0.57, I2 = 76%, two studies, 319 patients). Our results demonstrated no difference in time to eye opening, extubation time, and risk of PONV between the two groups. Conclusion: Remimazolam was associated with a lower risk of post-induction hypotension after anesthetic induction compared with propofol with similar recovery characteristics. Further studies are required to support our findings. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Identifier: CRD42022320658.

The clinical application progress and potential of drug-induced sleep endoscopy in obstructive sleep apnea

Background and Objective: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is characterized by nocturnal repetitive upper airway (UA) collapse. For sleep physicians, the recognition of UA collapse characteristics is critical for understanding OSA mechanisms and developing individualized treatment plans. Drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) is an exam during simulated sleep that allows the dynamic assessment of the UA of individuals with OSA. The initial recognition of DISE was to locate the sites of UA obstruction and direct the surgical selection of OSA since it was introduced in the 1990s. After approximately 30 years of studies, based on advances in endoscopic operative techniques and innovative treatments of OSA, DISE had been performed to explore mechanisms and comprehensive treatments related to UA collapse. Methods: This article reviewed contemporary DISE advances, including indications and contraindications, technique of induced sleep, endoscopic operation, UA characteristics classification.Results and Conclusions: Precise selection based on the association between collapse patterns and treatment modalities, such as continuous positive airway pressure, oral appliance, positional therapy, robotic surgery and neurostimulator implanting, is the future research prospect based on DISE.Key messagesDISE provides sleep physicians with valuable information about the upper airway collapse characteristics and dynamic changes during sleep.The studies based on DISE findings improve the selectivity and efficiency of treatment modalities, including classical therapies such as continuous positive airway pressure, oral appliance, positional therapy, and innovative therapies such as neurostimulator implanting and robotic surgery, promote the advancement of OSA precision medicine.

Midazolam versus Dexmedetomidine in Patients at Risk of Obstructive Sleep Apnea during Urology Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Benzodiazepines are the most commonly used sedatives for the reduction of patient anxiety. However, they have adverse intraoperative effects, especially in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients. This study aimed to compare dexmedetomidine (DEX) and midazolam (MDZ) sedation considering intraoperative complications during transurethral resections of the bladder and prostate regarding the risk for OSA. This study was a blinded randomized clinical trial, which included 115 adult patients with a mean age of 65 undergoing urological procedures. Patients were divided into four groups regarding OSA risk (low to medium and high) and choice of either MDZ or DEX. The doses were titrated to reach a Ramsay sedation scale score of 4/5. The intraoperative complications were recorded. Incidence rates of desaturations (44% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.0001), snoring (76% vs. 49%, p = 0.0008), restlessness (26.7% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.0044), and coughing (42.1% vs. 14.5%, p = 0.0001) were higher in the MDZ group compared with DEX, independently of OSA risk. Having a high risk for OSA increased the incidence rates of desaturation (51.2% vs. 15.7%, p < 0.0001) and snoring (90% vs. 47.1%, p < 0.0001), regardless of the sedative choice. DEX produced fewer intraoperative complications over MDZ during sedation in both low to medium risk and high-risk OSA patients.

New sedatives and analgesic drugs for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Procedural sedation has become increasingly common in endoscopy. Sedatives and analgesics induce anxiolysis and amnesia. In addition, an appropriate level of sedation is necessary for safe procedures including therapeutic endoscopy. Midazolam and propofol are the most commonly used drugs in sedative endoscopy. In recent years, the need to ascertain the safety and effectiveness of sedation has increased in practice. Therefore, new sedatives and analgesic drugs for optimal sedative endoscopy, have recently emerged. This article reviews the characteristics of sedatives and analgesics, and describes their clinical use in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol for Operator-Directed Nurse-Administered Procedural Sedation during Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: a Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Operator-directed nurse-administered (ODNA) sedation with propofol is the preferred sedation technique for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) in many centers.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate whether Dexmedetomidine, an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist, is superior to propofol.

METHODS

We randomized 160 consecutive patients undergoing first AF ablation to ODNA sedation by dexmedetomidine (DEX group) versus propofol (PRO group), according to a standardized protocol. Patients were unaware of treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was a composite of inefficient sedation, termination/change of sedation protocol or procedure abortion, hypercapnia (transcutaneous CO2 >55 mmHg), hypoxemia (SpO₂ <90%) or intubation, prolonged hypotension (systolic blood pressure <80 mmHg), and sustained bradycardia necessitating cardiac pacing. Secondary endpoints were the components of the primary endpoint and patient satisfaction with procedural sedation, as assessed by a standardized questionnaire the day following ablation.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint occurred in 15 DEX group and 25 PRO group patients (19% vs. 31%; p=0.068). Hypercapnia was significantly more frequent in PRO group patients (29% vs. 10%; p=0.003). There was no significant difference among the other components of the primary endpoint, no procedure was aborted. Patient satisfaction was significantly better in PRO group patients (visual analog scale 0-100; median 100 in PRO group vs. median 93 in DEX group; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Efficacy of ODNA sedation with dexmedetomidine was not different to propofol. Hypercapnia occurs less frequent with dexmedetomidine, but patient satisfaction is better with propofol sedation. In selected patients, dexmedetomidine may be used as an alternative to propofol for ODNA sedation during AF ablation. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT03844841).

The Practice of Deep Sedation in Electrophysiology and Cardiac Pacing Laboratories: Results of an Italian Survey Promoted by the AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing)

The aim of this survey, which was open to all Italian cardiologists involved in arrhythmia, was to assess common practice regarding sedation and analgesia in interventional electrophysiology procedures in Italy. The survey consisted of 28 questions regarding the approach to sedation used for elective direct-current cardioversion (DCC), subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation, atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation, and transvenous lead extraction procedures. A total of 105 cardiologists from 92 Italian centres took part in the survey. The rate of centres where DCC, S-ICD implantation, AF ablation, VT ablation and lead extraction procedures were performed without anaesthesiologic assistance was 60.9%, 23.6%, 51.2%, 37.3%, and 66.7%, respectively. When these procedures were performed without anaesthesiologic assistance, the drugs (in addition to local anaesthetics) commonly administered were benzodiazepines (from 64.3% to 79.6%), opioids (from 74.4% to 88.1%), and general anaesthetics (from 7.1% to 30.4%). Twenty-three (21.9%) of the 105 cardiologists declared that they routinely administered propofol, without the supervision of an anaesthesiologist, in at least one of the above-mentioned procedures. In current Italian clinical practice, there is a lack of uniformity in the sedation/analgesia approach used in interventional electrophysiology procedures.