Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Search Search PubMed

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Intravenous lidocaine reduces the propofol EC50 for loss of consciousness and intraoperative anesthetic consumption in gynecological laparoscopy: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous lidocaine reduces propofol requirements and procedure-related adverse events. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to test whether intravenous lidocaine would reduce the effect-site concentration of propofol required to achieve loss of consciousness and decrease propofol consumption during total intravenous anesthesia in gynecological laparoscopy. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Sixty patients were randomly allocated to receive either intravenous lidocaine (1.5 mg·kg-¹ bolus) followed by continuous infusion or an equal volume of saline. Propofol was administered via target-controlled infusion starting at an effect-site concentration of 3.5 μg/mL. The concentration was then adjusted in steps of 0.5 μg/mLaccording to Dixon's up-and-down sequential method: decreased if loss of consciousness was achieved, or increased if not. Loss of consciousness was defined as loss of response to verbal commands. The median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol for inducing loss of consciousness was calculated using the Dixon's up-and-down method. General anesthesia was maintained with propofol and remifentanil, guided by state entropy (target 40-60) and surgical pleth index (target 20-50). Drug consumption was normalized to anesthesia duration and body weight. RESULTS: The estimated EC50 of propofol for inducing loss of consciousness was significantly lower in the lidocaine group than in the saline group (3.32 μg/mL, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 3.04-3.59 vs. 3.89 μg/mL, 95% CI: 3.50-4.28). Under the study protocol, the lidocaine group also required less propofol (8.62 mg·kg-1·h-1, 95% CI: 8.10-9.15 vs. 9.89 mg·kg-1·h-1, 95% CI: 9.05-10.73) and less remifentanil (0.23 μg·kg-1·min-1, 95% CI: 0.21-0.24 vs. 0.27 μg·kg-1·min-1, 95% CI: 0.24-0.30) compared with the saline group. CONCLUSION: Intravenous lidocaine reduced the propofol EC50 for Loss of Consciousness (LOC) and decreased intraoperative propofol and remifentanil consumptions in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy. These findings suggest a propofol- and opioid-sparing effect of intravenous lidocaine in this setting, although confirmation in larger multicenter trials is needed.

Humans

Esketamine vs. sufentanil for quality of recovery after outpatient gynecological surgery: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative administration of esketamine has been reported to improve early quality of recovery (QoR). However, data on its effects in outpatient surgery are limited. This study aimed to assess the impact of esketamine on QoR in patients undergoing outpatient gynecological procedures. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomized clinical trial, patients aged 18-65&#x2009;years scheduled for outpatient gynecological surgery under sedation were allocated to receive esketamine (0.2&#x2009;mg/kg) or sufentanil (0.1&#x2009;&#x3bc;g/kg) combined with propofol (1.5-3&#x2009;mg/kg). The primary outcome was quality of recovery on postoperative day (POD) 1. Secondary outcomes included quality of recovery on POD2, sedation success rate, length of post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, injection pain, postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, patient and clinician satisfaction, sleep quality, and anxiety and depression. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were randomized, with 63 assigned to the esketamine group and 63 to the sufentanil group. Of these, 125 patients were included in the final analysis (62 in the esketamine group and 63 in the sufentanil group), as one patient lacked follow-up data. The mean (SD) QoR-15 score on POD1 was 137.9 (14.5) in the esketamine group and 137.8 (10.7) in the sufentanil group, with no significant difference between groups (absolute difference, 0.2; 95% CI, -4.2 to 4.6; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.93). For secondary outcomes, the esketamine group had a longer PACU stay (median, 28.0 vs. 23.0&#x2009;min; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001), a lower incidence of severe injection pain (22.6% vs. 50.8%; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.002), a higher proportion of patients with pain scores &#x2265; 4 at 30&#x2009;min postoperatively (30.6% vs. 6.3%; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.001), and higher fatigue scores (median, 3.0 vs. 2.0; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.01). Other secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing sedation for outpatient gynecological procedures, esketamine did not significantly improve quality of recovery on POD1 compared to sufentanil. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2500098466.

Humans

Oliceridine used for patient-controlled analgesia on postoperative quality of recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological tumour resection: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Oliceridine, a novel biased &#x3bc;-opioid receptor agonist, is widely used perioperatively, yet limited data exists regarding its impact on postoperative quality of recovery. This study investigated the effect of oliceridine-based&#xa0;patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) on postoperative quality of recovery among patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological tumour resection. METHODS: Ninety&#x2011;four female patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic gynecological tumour resection were included. Patients were randomized to two groups: oliceridine group (loading dose 1.5&#x2009;mg, PCIA 0.55&#x2009;mg/kg) or sufentanil group (loading dose 10&#x2009;&#x3bc;g, PCIA 3&#x2009;&#x3bc;g/kg). The primary outcome was the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) score on postoperative day 1. The secondary outcomes included the QoR-40 score, the numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (HADS-A) score, the Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illness and Loss of weight (FRAIL) index and adverse events within 3 postoperative days. RESULTS: Higher QoR-40 scores were found in the oliceridine group on postoperative day 1 (182.9&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;3.1 versus 177.5&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;3.9, p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001). Compared with the sufentanil group, the oliceridine group showed better QoR-40 scores within 3&#x2009;days after operation. No significant differences were observed in NRS pain scores or HADS-A scores between the two groups (all p&#x2009;>&#x2009;0.05). However, the median FRAIL score in the oliceridine group was lower on postoperative day 2 (p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.018). CONCLUSION: Oliceridine used in PCIA improves early postoperative recovery quality of patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological tumour resection. It provides analgesic effect comparable to sufentanil and lowers incidences of postoperative frailty, nausea and vomiting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR.org.cn, identifier: ChiCTR2400094271.

Humans