SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Sedation”

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.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Evaluation of intravenous sedation in dental implant surgeries: A prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of intravenous sedation on patient-centered outcomes during implant and bone augmentation surgeries. METHOD: A prospective observational cohort study included 40 patients undergoing placement of ≥3 implants, with or without bone augmentation. Patients underwent surgery under either intravenous sedation (n = 20) or local anesthesia alone (n = 20), according to routine clinical decision-making and patient preference. The sedation group received intravenous sedation with a multimodal regimen comprising remimazolam, dexmedetomidine, alfentanil, and low-dose esketamine, whereas the control group received local anesthesia only. Patient-reported outcome measures, hemodynamic parameters (SBP, DBP, HR, SpO2), postoperative pain (0-10 scale), and OHRQoL (OHIP-14) were recorded from baseline through 7 days post-surgery. RESULTS: Intravenous sedation was associated with significantly lower intraoperative pain (0.5 [IQR: 0∼2.75] vs. 3.25 ± 2.40, p = 0.003), anxiety (1 [IQR: 0∼2.75] vs. 4 [IQR: 3∼6], p = 0.001), and experienced discomfort (2 [IQR: 1∼3.75] vs. 4.15 ± 2.16, p = 0.016), and shortened perceived treatment duration (2.90 ± 2.34 vs. 5 [IQR: 4∼5], p = 0.020). Early postoperative pain was lower in the sedation group from Days 1-4 (p = 0.003-0.010). Hemodynamic parameters were more stable under sedation, with lower SBP (116.42 ± 13.32 vs. 144.11 ± 17.42 mmHg, p < 0.001), DBP (73.21 ± 10.28 vs. 82.37 ± 11.03 mmHg, p = 0.012), and HR (71.00 [IQR: 62.50∼79.25] vs. 85.00 ± 10.72 bpm, p = 0.021). OHRQoL scores favored the sedation group in swallowing, diet, malaise, and daily activities, particularly during the first three postoperative days (p=0.006-0.040). CONCLUSION: Intravenous sedation may enhance the patient experience during implant and/or bone augmentation procedures by reducing intraoperative pain and anxiety, improving hemodynamic stability, and promoting better early-postoperative recovery and OHRQoL. These findings suggest that intravenous sedation provides a safe and effective alternative for implant dentistry surgery, particularly for anxious or pain-sensitive individuals.

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↗

PubMed2026

Effects of detomidine alone or combined with butorphanol on oxygenation status, F-shunt and sedation level in healthy sheep.

This study evaluated the effects of detomidine alone or combined with butorphanol on arterial oxygenation, gas exchange indices, estimated shunt fraction (F-shunt) and sedation level in healthy sheep. A prospective, randomized, blinded, experimental study was conducted on twenty-seven Merino sheep allocated to three groups (9 sheep/group): 5 μg/kg detomidine +200 μg/kg butorphanol (Deto5But), 10 μg/kg detomidine + 200 μg/kg butorphanol (Deto10But), or 10 μg/kg detomidine (Deto10) administered intravenously. Following arterial and venous catheter placement, arterial blood samples were collected to determine oxygenation status and F-shunt at baseline (fraction of inspired oxygen, FiO₂: 21%), 5 min after sedation (FiO₂: 21%), and at 5 and 30 min after propofol induction (FiO₂: 100%). Sedation was evaluated by a blinded observer at 5, 10, and 15 min after drug administration using two numerical scales. Sedation produced a significant deterioration in oxygenation parameters, gas exchange indices, and F-shunt (15.36%: 95% CI 10.07-20.65; p = 0.001) compared with baseline, without significant differences between treatment groups. However, five minutes after induction of anaesthesia, the Deto5But group presented better oxygenation, gas exchange efficency, and F-shunt values compared with Deto10But (10.30%: 95% CI 0.86-19.76; p = 0.029) and Deto10 (13.93%: 95% CI 2.94-24.92%; p = 0.008). Sedation scores did not differ significantly between treatment groups or across time points. Combination of detomidine at 5 μg/kg with 200 μg/kg of butorphanol provided adequate sedation and was associated with a milder impact on oxygenation and F-shunt at 5 min post-induction.

Animals↗

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

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

The effect of dexmedetomidine in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis and septic shock: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a central sympatholytic with sedative properties widely used in critically ill patients. However, its effects in patients with sepsis and septic shock remain controversial. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of DEX compared to other sedatives in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis and septic shock. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library from inception through May 1, 2025 for randomized controlled trials comparing DEX with other sedatives or placebo in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis and septic shock. Primary outcomes included overall mortality and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores. Secondary outcomes encompassed duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), length of stay in Intensive Care Unit (ICU), incidence of hypotension and bradycardia. RESULTS: Fifteen studies involving 3,882 patients (1,945 in the DEX group, 1,937 in the control group) were included. DEX was demonstrated no significant differences compared to other sedatives or placebo in overall mortality (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.98, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.90 to 1.07, p = 0.71, I2 = 0%), SOFA scores (Mean Difference [MD] - 0.14, 95% CI -0.81 to 0.52, p = 0.67, I2 = 0%), length of stay in ICU (MD -0.32, 95% CI -1.69 to 1.06, p = 0.65, I2 = 77%), or incidence of hypotension (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.62, p = 0.44, I2 = 14%). However, DEX significantly reduced the duration of MV (MD -0.54, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.10, p = 0.02, I2 = 25%) but was associated with an increased incidence of bradycardia (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.28, p = 0.001, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis and septic shock, DEX shortened duration of MV but was associated increased bradycardia risk. No mortality or organ dysfunction benefits were observed. These findings suggest DEX is a reasonable therapeutic option to facilitate earlier ventilator weaning in selected patients (particularly those without shock), but careful monitoring for cardiovascular adverse effects is warranted.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Digital healthcare solutions in preoperative care: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Active participation in preoperative anesthesia preparation is crucial to ensure safe and efficient care. Compliance with preoperative instructions improves clinical outcomes, enhances patient satisfaction and optimizes use of healthcare resources. As digital communication becomes increasingly integrated into healthcare, interactive digital tools such as smartphone applications and Short Message Service (SMS) reminders may offer a valuable means of engaging patients in their own care. In this review, we evaluated the role of digital tools in guiding patients during their preoperative care pathway for anesthesia. METHODS: Following registration (CRD420250655119), we conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating the use of smartphone applications or SMS reminders designed to support preoperative preparation for anesthesia or procedural sedation in adult patients undergoing elective procedures. The primary outcome was compliance with preoperative instructions. Secondary outcomes included rate of late cancellations, patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness. Studies were eligible if they reported at least one of these outcomes. RESULTS: Ten studies (1 RCT and 9 observational studies), including 11501 participants, were identified. Compliance with preoperative instructions was assessed in 8 studies, most of which reported higher compliance in patients receiving digital interventions across multiple instruction domains, although statistical significance was not consistently observed. Evidence suggested a beneficial effect on reducing late cancellations and improving patient satisfaction. However, results varied across study designs, and data on cost-effectiveness were limited. CONCLUSIONS: Digital tools for preoperative anesthesia guidance were associated with higher compliance and showed potential reduction of late cancellations and increase of patient satisfaction. However, the current evidence is predominantly observational and heterogeneous, limiting the strength of conclusions. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: With healthcare systems under pressure, digital technologies may offer a scalable and patient-centered care solution to support preoperative anesthesia preparation. Nonetheless, further high-quality research is needed to evaluate their long-term clinical, economic and equity implications.

Humans↗