Effects of a fentanyl-propofol mixture on propofol injection pain: a randomized clinical trial

Esketamine prevents propofol-induced injection pain: Randomized controlled trial

Background: Propofol is widely used during anesthesia. However, propofol-induced injection pain (PIP) is considered an unpleasant perioperative outcome. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of a mixture of esketamine and propofol in preventing propofol injection pain in patients undergoing general anesthesia.

Methods: This was a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, and randomized controlled trial. We included 252 adult patients with the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I to II who underwent surgery under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to four groups (n = 63 per group). Group NS received a mixture of 1% propofol (20 ml) and 0.9% normal saline (1 ml), group ESK-4 received a mixture of 1% propofol (20 ml) and esketamine 4 mg (diluted with 0.9% normal saline, 1 ml), group ESK-12 received a mixture of 1% propofol (20 ml) and esketamine 12 mg (diluted with 0.9% normal saline, 1 ml), and group ESK-20 received a mixture of 1% propofol (20 ml) and esketamine 20 mg (diluted with 0.9% normal saline, 1 ml) as sedative drugs during anesthesia. The primary outcome was the incidence and distribution of different degrees of PIP. The secondary outcomes were vital signs, characteristics of surgery and anesthesia, and adverse events.

Results: The incidence of PIP in group ESK-20 (33.3%) was significantly lower than that in groups NS, ESK-4, and ESK-12 (63.3%, 62.2%, and 49.1%, respectively; p < 0.01). The incidence of moderate PIP in group NS (33.3%) and group ESK-4 (22.6%) was higher than that in groups ESK-12 (7.5%) and ESK-20 (6.7%). The incidence of severe PIP in group NS (6.7%) and group ESK-4 (9.4%) was higher than that in groups ESK-12 (1.9%) and ESK-20 (0%). There were no differences in the vital signs, characteristics of surgery and anesthesia, or adverse events between the groups.

Conclusion: Our results indicated that the esketamine–propofol admixture reduced the incidence of PIP in patients undergoing general anesthesia without severe side effects.

Comparison of Pain Scale, Hemodynamics, and Side Effects of Percutaneous and Intravenous Fentanyl in Post Sectio Caesaria Patients at Bunda Hospital

This is novel research about comparison pain scale, hemodynamics, and side effects of percutaneous and intravenous fentanyl in post sectio cesarean patients. Sectio cesarean is a method of delivering a fetus through an incision in the abdominal wall (laparotomy) and the uterus wall. This method induces pain in the incision, so patients feel complicated or afraid to mobilize. Fentanyl is one of the opioid analgesics, which is the main choice in section caesarian surgery because safe for breastfeeding, is more potent than morphine, and acts as balanced anesthesia—comparing the use of percutaneous fentanyl with intravenous fentanyl with pain scale parameters, hemodynamics, and side effects in sectio caesarian patients at Bunda Mother and Child Hospital Jakarta. Before conducting this research, an observational study first makes an ethical approval. Data were taken prospectively and collected simultaneously to compare percutaneous and intravenous fentanyl performed on post sectio cesarean patients with the physical status of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I–II at Bunda Mother and Child Hospital Jakarta from September to November 2020. Comparative data observed were pain scale parameters, hemodynamics, and side effects after percutaneous fentanyl therapy or intravenous fentanyl therapy. Data were processed using SPSS 22 version and Microsoft Excell 2016. In conclusion, intravenous fentanyl is more effective in reducing pain scale and has more minor side effects than percutaneous fentanyl. There is no significant difference in hemodynamic parameters (p-value >0.05).

Efficacy of Pre-Treatment with Remimazolam on Prevention of Propofol-Induced Injection Pain in Patients Undergoing Abortion or Curettage: A Prospective, Double-Blinded, Randomized and Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

Background

Propofol-induced injection pain (PIP) is a well-known problem in general anesthesia. We hypothesized that pre-treatment with remimazolam prevents PIP in patients undergoing abortion or curettage.

Materials and Methods

In this prospective, single-center, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial, adult patients aged 18 to 60 undergoing abortion or curettage were randomly assigned to three groups. Group Lido received system lidocaine (a bolus of 0.5 mg kg⁻¹, iv). Group Remi received remimazolam (a bolus of 0.1 mg kg⁻¹, iv). Group NS received identical volumes of 0.9% normal saline. Sixty seconds after the injection of lidocaine, remimazolam or saline, patients were injected with propofol at a rate of 12 mL/min until the loss of consciousness. The primary outcome was the incidence of PIP at the time of induction using 4-point scale. Secondary outcomes included propofol-induced injection pain, vital signs, the characteristics of anesthesia and surgery, and adverse events.

Results

The incidence of patients with PIP was higher in group NS than that in group Lido and group Remi (75.7, 44.3, and 42.9%, respectively, p < 0.001). The percentages of patients with moderate PIP were higher in group NS than that in group Lido and group Remi (20.0, 2.9, and 1.4%, respectively, p < 0.001). Moreover, the consumption of propofol and the incidence of adverse event (hypoxemia and chin lifting) in group Remi were lower than that in group NS and Lido, and less patients got physical movement and cough in group Remi. The recovery time in group NS was longer than that in group Lido and Remi.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that pre-treatment with remimazolam reduced the incidence and intensity of PIP in abortion or curettage patients, equivalent to that of lidocaine without severe adverse effects.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (identifier: ChiCTR2100041805).

Pharmacological control of pain during propofol injection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A research was performed to review the effect of pharmacological interventions to control the propofol injection pain.

METHODS

A search of databases was performed. Randomized clinical trials comparing pharmacological interventions with placebo or active compound to reduce of propofol injection pain were selected. The outcome was the frequency of pain. Data were analyzed in three subgroups according to type of control. Random effect model was used to calculate relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Fifty-two articles with 105 studies on 7315 adults were included. The incidence of pain in intervention and control group was 40.91% and 66.27%. Combination therapy with two drugs (RR = 0.29 95% CI = (0.11, 0.75)), opioids (RR = 0.39 95% CI = (0.28, 0.54)) and 5 HT3 antagonists (RR = 0.39 95% CI = (0.30, 0.50)) were the most effective interventions compared to placebo. Combination therapy was the most effective intervention compared to lidocaine as control (RR = 0.51 95% CI = (0.46, 0.55)). Opioids were the most effective intervention compared to long chain triglyceride propofol as control (RR = 0.27 95% CI = (0.15, 0.49)).

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment with two different drugs, opioids and surprisingly 5 HT3 antagonists were the most effective interventions compared to placebo. Combination therapy was the most effective versus lidocaine as control.

Premedication with oral paracetamol for reduction of propofol injection pain: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

Background

To compare the effect of premedication with 2 different doses of oral paracetamol to prevent pain at propofol intravenous injection.

Methods

We conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial in which patients scheduled for induction of general anesthesia with intravenous propofol received either a placebo, 500 mg or 1000 mg of oral paracetamol (P500 and P1000, respectively) 1 h prior to induction. Two mg/kg of propofol was injected at a rate of 600 ml/hr. After 1/4 of the full dose had been injected, the syringe pump was paused, and patients were asked to rate pain at the injection site using a verbal numerical rating score (VNRS) from 0 to 10.

Results

Three hundred and twenty-four patients were included. Pain intensity was lower in both P500 and P1000 groups (median VNRS [interquartile range] = 2 [0–3] and 4 [2–5], respectively) than in the placebo group (8 [7–10]; P < 0.001)*. The rate of pain was lower in the P1000 group (70.4%) than in both the P500 and the placebo group (86.1 and 99.1%, respectively; P < 0.001)*. The respective rates of mild (VNRS 1–3), moderate (VNRS 4–6) and severe pain (VNRS 7–10) were 47.2, 23.2 and 0% in the P1000 group, 28.7, 50 and 7.4% in the P500 group, and 0, 22.2 and 76.9% in the placebo group (P < 0.001* for between group comparisons). Tolerance was similar in the 3 groups.

Conclusions

A premedication with oral paracetamol can dose-dependently reduce pain at propofol intravenous injection. To avoid this common uncomfortable concern for the patients, this well-tolerated, available and cheap treatment appears as an option to be implemented in the current practice.

Trial registration

TCTR20150224002. Prospectively registered on 24 February 2015.

Comparison of Fentanyl, Remifentanil, Sufentanil and Alfentanil in Combination with Propofol for General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Opioid analgesics are commonly used along with propofol during general anesthesia. Due to the dearth of data on the quality of anesthesia achieved with this combination, the present meta-analysis was carried out.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for appropriate studies using a suitable search strategy. Randomized clinical trials comparing the combination of remifentanil/sufentanil/alfentanil with propofol with fentanyl and propofol, were included. The outcome measures were as follows: total propofol dose to achieve the desired general anesthesia; time of onset and duration of general anesthesia; depth of general anesthesia; and recovery time (time for eye-opening and time taken for extubation). Risk of bias was assessed and Forest plots were generated for eligible outcomes. The weighted mean difference [95% confidence intervals] was used as the effect estimate.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review and 13 were included in the metaanalysis. Statistically significant differences were observed for remifentanil in comparison to fentanyl when combined with propofol: Propofol dose (in mg) -76.18 [-94.72, -57.64]; time of onset of anesthesia (min) -0.44 [-0.74, -0.15]; time taken for eye-opening (min) -3.95 [-4.8, -3.1]; and time for extubation (min) -3.53 [-4.37, -2.7]. No significant differences were observed for either sufentanil or alfentanil about the dose of propofol required and due to scanty data, pooling of the data could not be attempted for other outcome measures for either sufentanil or alfentanil.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, we found that remifentanil has a statistically significant anesthetic profile than fentanyl when combined with propofol. Scanty evidence for both alfentanil and sufentanil precludes any such confirmation.

Hypercapnia does not shorten emergence time from propofol anesthesia: a pilot randomized clinical study

Background

The elimination of anesthetic agents is a decisive factor in the emergence from general anesthesia. In this pilot study, we hypothesized that hypercapnia would decrease the emergence time from propofol anesthesia by increasing cardiac output and cerebral blood flow.

Methods

A total of 32 patients were randomly divided into two groups based on the end-tidal carbon dioxide values: 30 mmHg (the hypocapnia group) and 50 mmHg (the hypercapnia group). Propofol and remifentanil were infused to maintain a bispectral index of 40–50. Remifentanil infusion was stopped 10 min before the discontinuation of propofol. After cessation of propofol infusion, ventilation settings in the hypocapnia group were maintained constant; a rebreathing tube was connected to the respiratory circuit in the hypercapnia group. The time to spontaneous respiration, eye opening (primary endpoint), mouth opening, and tracheal extubation was recorded and analyzed.

Results

Time to eye opening was 9.7 (1.3) min in the hypocapnia group and 9.0 (1.0) min in the hypercapnia group. The difference in the mean times to eye opening between groups was −0.7 min (95% CI, −4.0 to 2.7, P = 0.688). On multiple regression analysis, there was a significant difference in the mean time to eye opening between males and females. Females recovered about 3.6 min faster than males (95% CI, −6.1 to −1.1, P = 0.009).

Conclusions

We could not detect a beneficial effect of hypercapnia on propofol emergence time. Irrespective of hypercapnia, females seemed to recover faster than males.

Comparison of simultaneous and sequential administration of fentanyl-propofol for surgical abortion: a randomized single-blinded controlled trial

Propofol lipid emulsion (PLE) is a nanosized sedative, and it is used with a combination of salted antalgic prodrug, fentanyl citrate (FC). To illustrate the synergistic effect of mixing, we compared the sedation/analgesia resulting from simultaneous and sequential administration in surgically induced abortion (No. ChiCTR-IPC-15006153). Simultaneous group showed lower bispectral index, blood pressure, and heart rate, when cannula was inserted into the uterus. It also showed less frequency of hypertension, sinus tachycardia, movement, pain at the injection site, and additional FC. Therefore, premixing of PLE and FC enhanced the sedation and analgesia; stabilized the hemodynamics; lessened the incidence of movement and injection pain; and reduced the requirement of drugs.