Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Fentanyl”

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.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Effect of ketofol versus Fentanyl-Midazolam sedation on neurological recovery in traumatic brain Injury: A randomised study.

Neurological recovery after traumatic brain injury (TBI) is multifactorial, and sedation is a cornerstone of neurocritical care because of its neuroprotective role. Although ketofol is widely used for anaesthesia, its effectiveness as a sedative regimen in the intensive care unit (ICU) has not been well studied. This preliminary exploratory double-blind, randomised study compared ketofol (KP) with fentanyl-midazolam (FM) sedation in adults with moderate-to-severe TBI. Sedation was administered for 72 h and titrated to a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score ≤  - 3. The primary outcome was the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included GOSE at 90 days, incidence of propofol infusion syndrome (PRIS), duration of mechanical ventilation, haemodynamic stability, and ICU and hospital length of stay. Of 120 enrolled patients, 111 were included in the final analysis (57 FM, 54 KP). Baseline characteristics, including injury severity and Marshall CT scores, were comparable. At 30 days, good neurological recovery (GOSE 7-8) was more frequent in the KP group than the FM group (26% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.03). At 90 days, recovery remained higher with KP (44.4% vs. 33.3%), though the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.16). Multivariate analysis confirmed ketofol as an independent predictor of good recovery at 30 days (adjusted OR 3.63, 95% CI 1.11-11.85, p = 0.033). No PRIS occurred, and secondary outcomes were similar. Ketofol-based sedation was safe and may be associated with improved early neurological recovery compared with fentanyl-midazolam, with a favourable trend toward improved long-term neurological recovery.

Humans

Comparing the efficacy and safety of unilateral versus bilateral spinal anesthesia: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Unilateral spinal anesthesia has gained increasing attention in recent years. Emerging evidence suggests that it provides comparable analgesia to conventional bilateral spinal anesthesia while reducing adverse effects, and its efficacy and safety compared to bilateral spinal anesthesia remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of unilateral versus bilateral spinal anesthesia. DESIGN: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception to December 10, 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Included studies were randomized controlled trials involving adult patients (&#x2265;18&#x2009;years) undergoing surgery under spinal anesthesia, comparing unilateral versus bilateral spinal anesthesia for efficacy and adverse effects. Studies that focused exclusively on either unilateral or bilateral spinal anesthesia were excluded. The comparator group used the same local anesthetic as the experimental group, with no restrictions on adjuncts (e.g. fentanyl, morphine). RESULTS: Nineteen randomized controlled trials including 1191 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with bilateral spinal anesthesia, unilateral spinal anesthesia has a longer onset of sensory blockade (MD = 2.58, 95% CI: 0.93 to 4.22, p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.002), a shorter duration of sensory blockade (MD&#x2009;=&#x2009;-27.83, 95% CI: -39.25 to -16.42, p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.00001). In addition, unilateral spinal anesthesia significantly reduced the incidence of hypotension (RR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.52, p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.0001), nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.56, p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.002), and post-dural puncture headache (RR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.81, p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.009). No statistically significant differences were observed in bradycardia and urinary retention. Collectively, these findings support unilateral spinal anesthesia as a strategy that may enhance perioperative safety while maintaining adequate anesthetic efficacy in appropriately selected patients. CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral spinal anesthesia may offer a favorable balance between anesthetic efficacy and safety compared with bilateral spinal anesthesia, although its clinical utility may depend on surgical duration and patient characteristics.

Humans