SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Propofol”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

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↗

PubMed2026

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 years scheduled for outpatient gynecological surgery under sedation were allocated to receive esketamine (0.2 mg/kg) or sufentanil (0.1 μg/kg) combined with propofol (1.5-3 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 = 0.93). For secondary outcomes, the esketamine group had a longer PACU stay (median, 28.0 vs. 23.0 min; p < 0.001), a lower incidence of severe injection pain (22.6% vs. 50.8%; p = 0.002), a higher proportion of patients with pain scores ≥ 4 at 30 min postoperatively (30.6% vs. 6.3%; p = 0.001), and higher fatigue scores (median, 3.0 vs. 2.0; p = 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↗

PubMed2026

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↗

PubMed2026

High-flow nasal cannula oxygenation in sedated endoscopy for high-risk obstructive sleep apnea patients: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypoxemia is the most common adverse event during sedated gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients with high obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) risk (STOP-Bang ≥5) are susceptible due to sedation-induced loss of upper airway tone exacerbating airway collapsibility. Although high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) benefits general at-risk populations, its efficacy in this specific cohort remains uncertain, as its mild positive pressure falls far below therapeutic continuous positive airway pressure levels for moderate-to-severe OSA, questioning its ability to stent the collapsible airway. Our prior proof-of-concept study in this cohort observed a 5% incidence of hypoxemia with HFNC, confirming feasibility and safety and justifying this confirmatory trial. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled single-blind trial will enroll 600 adults (STOP-Bang score ≥5) undergoing elective sedated gastroenteroscopy across three centers. Participants will be 1:1 randomized (stratified by center) to HFNC (30 L/min pre-oxygenation, 60 L/min post-induction) or conventional nasal cannula (6 L/min). Both groups receive standardized propofol-alfentanil sedation. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with at least one episode of hypoxemia (SpO2 75%-90% <60 s). Secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients with at least one episode of severe hypoxemia (SpO2 <75% or 75%≤SpO2<90% ≥60 s), the proportion with subclinical respiratory depression (90%≤SpO2<95%), and the frequency of other adverse events. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide definitive evidence on HFNC's efficacy in high-risk OSA patients, addressing whether it can overcome pressure limitations to prevent hypoxemia. Results are expected to inform sedation management guidelines, establish a new standard of care for this subgroup, and enhance procedural safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at the ClinicalTrials.gov on 14 December 2025 (NCT07307560).

Humans↗