To investigate the protective effect of propofol on ischemia/reperfusion induced spinal cord injury in rabbits and its influence on excitatory amino acid (EAA). Methods Sixty New Zealand white rabbits weighing 2.0-2.5 kg, half males and half females, were selected. The infrarenal circumaortic clamping model was used. And 6 mL/kg different fluids were continuously infused through a catheter into the aorta distal to the clamping site at a speed of 12 mL/(kg?h) during the 30 minutes ischemia period. According to the different infusing l iquids, the rabbits were randomized into 6 groups(n=10 per group): group A, normal sal ine; group B, 10% intral ipid; group C, propofol 30 mg/kg; group D, propofol 40 mg/kg; group E, propofol 50 mg/kg; group F, propofol 60 mg/kg. At 0, 6, 24, and 48 hours after reperfusion, neurologic outcomes were scored on a Tarlov scale system. At 48 hours after reperfusion, the number of normal neurons in the anterior spinal cord was counted, and concentration of EAA in the lumbar spinal cord was measured by high performance l iquid chromatography. Results The neuroethological score was better in groups C, D, E and F than that of groups A and B (P lt; 0.05), the score of group E was the highest (P lt; 0.05), and there was no significant difference between group A and group B (P gt; 0.05). The number of normal neurons in the anterior spinal cord of groups C, D, E and F was greater than that of groups A and B (P lt; 0.05), and group E was greater than groups C, D and F (P lt; 0.05). The concentration of EAA in groups A, B, C, D, E and F was greater than that of normal tissue, the group E was the lowest (P lt; 0.05), the groups A and B were the highest (P lt; 0.05), and there was no significant difference between group A and group B (P gt; 0.05). Concentrations of glutamate and aspartic acid were negatively correlated to normal neuron numbers in the anterior spinal cord and neuroethological scores 48 hours after reperfusion, and the corresponding correlation coefficient was — 0.613, — 0.536, — 0.874 and — 0.813, respectively (P lt; 0.01). Conclusion Propofol can significantly inhibit the accumulation of EAA in spinal cord and provide a protective effect against the ischemia/reperfusion injury induced spinal cord in rabbits.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility and efficiency of patient-controlled analgesia and sedation (PCAS) with propofol and remifentanil for colonoscopy in elderly patients. MethodsSixty elderly patients preparing for painless colonoscopy between May and September 2015 were randomly allocated into PCAS group and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) group with 30 patients in each. In the PCAS group, the mixture of remifentanil and propofol at 0.6 mL/(kg·h) was pumped continuously after an initial bolus of 0.05 mL/kg mixture. The examination began three minutes after the infusion was finished. Patients could press the self-control button. Each bolus delivered 1 mL and the lockout time was 1 minute. In the TIVA group, patients received fentanyl at 1 μg/kg and midazolam at 0.02 mg/kg intravenously, and accepted intravenous propofol at 0.8-1.0 mg/kg two minutes later. The examination began when the patients lost consciousness. ResultsA significant decline of mean arterial blood pressure was detected within each group after anesthesia (P < 0.05). The decrease of mean blood pressure in the TIVA group was more significant than that in the PCAS group (P < 0.05). The heart rate, pulse oxygen saturation and respiratory rate decreased significantly after anesthesia in both the two groups (P < 0.05), while end-tidal CO2 increased after anesthesia without any significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The induction time, time to insert the colonoscope to ileocecus, and total examination time were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). As for the time from the end of examination to OAA/S score of 5 and to Aldrete score of 9, the PCAS group was significantly shorter than the TIVA group (P < 0.05). ConclusionPCAS with remifentanil and propofol can provide sufficient analgesia, better hemodynamic stability, lighter sedation, and faster recovery compared with TIVA.
Objective To investigate the changes of interleukin-17 ( IL-17) and the effects of propofol in rats with acute lung injury ( ALI) . Methods ALI model was established by hydrochloric acid ( HCl) inhalation in a dose of 2 mL/kg. 35 adultmale SD rats were randomly divided into seven groups, ie.a control group, a HCl group, and five propofol groups ( T24b , T12b , T0 , T1a , T3a groups, respectively) . The T0 ,T24b and T12b groups were pretreated with intraperitoneal propofol injection 0, 24 and 12 hours respectively before HCl inhalation. The T1a and T3a groups were managed by intraperitoneal propofol injection 1 and 3 hours respectively after HCl inhalation. Immunohistochemistry was used to determine the expression of IL-17 in lung tissue. ELISA was adopted to detect the levels of IL-17 and IL-8 in lung tissue homogenate as well as in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid ( BALF) , meanwhile arterial partial pressure of oxygen ( PaO2 ) and myeloperoxidase ( MPO) were measured. Results Those rats in the HCl group appeared respiratory distress, cyanosis, pulmonary edema, and inflammatory cells infiltration in lung tissues after HCl inhalation.The IL-17 levels in lung tissue homogenate as well as in BALF were higher in the HCl group than those in the control group( all P lt; 0. 01) . IL-17 was mainly expressed in alveolar epithelial cells and mononuclear cells in the ALI rats and its expression level was higher than that in the control group. IL-17 concentration in lung tissue homogenate was both correlated with IL-8 concentration in lung tissue homogenate ( r=0. 98, P =0.003) and with the activity of MPO in lung tissue( r=0. 981, P =0. 003) in the HCl group. Mainwhile, a same significant correlation was found between IL-8 level in lung tissue homogenate and the MPO activity in the HCl group( r =0. 961, P =0. 009) . Propofol attenuated lung injury induced by HCl inhalation, especially in T24b group. The concentrations of IL-17 in lung tissue homogenate and in BALF were lower in T24b group when compared with the HCl group( P = 0. 011, P =0. 003, respectively) . Conclusions The expression of IL-17 increases in ALI rats. Pretreatment with propofol by 24 hours has obvious inhibiting effects on inflammatory reaction. Inhibiting IL-17 expression may be one of the mechanisms through which propofol inhibits the inflammatory reaction of ALI.
To investigate the effect of propofol intra-aortic and intravenous infusion on the concentration of propofol for an ischemia-reperfusion spinal cord injury in rabbits. Methods Forty-six healthy adult New Zealand white rabbits were randomly divided into 3 groups: sal ine infusion group (group N, n=10), propofol intra-aortic infusion group (group A, n=16) and propofol intravenous infusion group (group V, n=16). The infrarenal abdominal aorta was occluded for 30 min during which propofol 50 mg/kg was infused continuously intra-aortic or intravenous with a pump in group A and V. In group N, the same volume of normal sal ine was infused in the same way and at the same rate as in group A. Upon reperfusion, propofol concentration of the spinal segments of L4-6 and T6-8 was examined in group A and V. At 48 hoursafter reperfusion, the neurological outcomes were recorded in each group. Results Mean blood pressure in group V from the time of 5 minutes after occlusion decreased more than in group N (P lt; 0.05) and than in group A from the time of 10 minutes after occlusion(P lt; 0.05). The mean blood pressure in group N increased more than in group A from 15 minutes after occlusion (P lt; 0.05). The heart rate increased more in group V from 10 minutes after occlusion than in group N and A (P lt; 0.05) in which no difference was observed. The propofol concentration in L4-6 of group A (26 950.5 ± 30 242.3) ng/g was higher than that in T6-8 of group A (3 587.4 ± 2 479.3) ng/g and both L4-6 (3 045.9 ± 2 252.9) ng/g and T6-8 (3 181.1 ± 1 720.9) ng/g of group V(P lt; 0.05). The paraplegia incidence was lower (30%) and the median of normal neurons was higher (8.4) in group A than in group N (80%, 2.2) and group V(100%, 1.9), (P lt; 0.05). There was no significant difference in group N and V in paraplegia incidenceand the median of normal neurons (P gt; 0.05). Conclusion Intra-aortic infusion shows a better neurological outcome than intravenous infusion and could contribute to higher concentration of propofol in the ischemia spinal cord.
Objective To systematically review the impacts of general anesthesia using sevoflurane versus propofol on the incidence of emergence agitation in pediatric patients. Methods Such databases as PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2012), CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data and VIP were electronically searched from inception to December 2012, for comprehensively collecting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the impacts of general anesthesia using sevoflurane versus propofol on the incidence of emergence agitation in pediatric patients. References of included studies were also retrieved. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results A total of 9 RCTs involving 692 children were included, of which, six were pooled in the meta-analysis. The results of meta-analysis showed that: a) after anesthesia induction using sevoflurane, intravenous propofol maintenance was associated with a lower incidence of emergence agitation compared with sevoflurane maintenance (RR=0.57, 95%CI 0.39 to 0.84, P=0.004); and b) patients anesthetized with total intravenous propofol had a lower incidence of emergence agitation compared with total inhalation of sevoflurane (RR=0.16, 95%CI 0.06 to 0.39, Plt;0.000 1). Conclusion The incidence of emergence agitation after general anesthesia using sevoflurane is higher than that using propofol. Due to the limited quantity and quality, the application of sevoflurane should be chosen based on full consideration into patients’ conditions in clinic.
ObjectiveTo explore the efficacy and safety of different sedative and analgesic methods in emergent endotracheal intubations in RICU. Methods110 cases of tracheal intubation in critically ill patients were divided into 5 groups randomly: ① control group(given no sedative or analgesic drug before intubation); ② fentanyl group(given intravenous fentanyl 2 μg/kg before intubation,followed by fentanyl 2 μg·kg-1·h-1 maintenance); ③ dexmedetomidine hydrochloride+fentanyl group(given dexmedetomidine hydrochloride 1 μg/kg+fentanyl 2 μg/kg before intubation,followed by dexmedetomidine hydrochloride 0.5 μg·kg-1·h-1+fentanyl 2 μg·kg-1·h-1 maintenance); ④ midazolam+fentanyl group(given midazolam 0.05 mg/kg+fentanyl 2 μg/kg before intubation,followed by midazolam 0.05 mg·kg-1·h-1+fentanyl 2 μg·kg-1·h-1 maintenance); ⑤ Propofol+fentanyl group(given propofol 1 mg/kg+fentanyl 2 μg/kg before intubation,followed by propofol 0.4 mg·kg-1·h-1+fentanyl 2 μg·kg-1·h-1 maintenance).The mean arterial pressure(MAP),heart rate(HR),respiratory frequency(RR),PaO2/FiO2,Riker sedation score and agitation were monitored before,during and after intubations.The one-time success rate of intubation and severe arrhythmia (sinus bradycardia,frequent ventricular premature,ventricular fibrillation,and cardiac arrest) incidence rate were recorded. ResultsThe one-time success rates of intubations of the propofol+fentanyl group (95.4%) and the midazolam+fentanyl group (90.9%) were higher than that in the dexmedetomidine hydrochloride+fentanyl group (86.4%,P<0.05),while one-time intubation success rate of three groups were higher than that of the fentanyl group (45.4%) and the control group (31.8%,P<0.05).5 minutes after intubation,the PaO2/FiO2 index of 5 groups of patients were higher than those before intubation,but the PaO2/FiO2 index of the control group and the fentanyl group were lower than those in the other three groups(P<0.05).The occurrence of serious arrhythmia rate in the dexmedetomidine hydrochloride+fentanyl group (0%),the midazolam+fentanyl group (9%) and the propofol+fentanyl group (9%) were lower than that in the control group (13.6%) and the fentanyl group (18.2%).The MAP during intubation and 2 minutes after intubation of the propofol+fentanyl group and the midazolam+fentanyl group were lower than that in the other three groups(P<0.05).The proportion of patients with Riker sedation and agitation score≤4 at intubation in the dexmedetomidine hydrochloride+fentanyl group (68.2%) was lower than that in the propofol+fentanyl group(90.9%) and the midazolam+fentanyl group (86.4%,P<0.05),but higher than those in the fentanyl group(22.7%)and the control group(18.2%,P<0.05). ConclusionPropofol,midazolam or dexmedetomidine hydrochloride with fentanyl are all effective and safe methods of sedation and analgesia in emergent endotracheal intubation in RICU.Dexmedetomidine hydrochloride with fentanyl is an ideal sedative relatively with less influence on cardiovascular system and less myocardial oxygen consumption.
Objective To assess the safety and efficacy of sufentanil combined with propofol for painless fiberbronchoscopy. Methods A total of 120 patients undergoing fiberbronchoscopy were divided into two groups according to their admission sequence: group S (sufentanil + propofol, n=60) and group F (fentanil + propofol, n=60). Parameters including heart rate (HR), systol ic blood pressure (SBP), diastol ic blood pressure (DBP), saturation of blood oxygen (SPO2), dose of propofol, duration of the procedure, waking time and score of Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scale were recorded. Results The HR increased significantly 3 minutes after drug administration in both groups (Plt;0.05). The SPO2 decreased significantly 3 minutes after drug administration in both groups (Plt;0.05). The average dose of propofol and OAA/a score were similar between the two groups (Pgt;0.05). The waking time was significantly shorter in group S than in group F (Plt;0.05). Conclusion Sufentanil combined with propofol could offer a good sedative/analgesic effect during painless fiberbronchoscopy.
Objective To systematically review the clinical effectiveness and safety of sufentanil-propofol versus remifentanil-propofol during total intravenous anesthesia for neurosurgery. Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2013), the database of the Cochrane Anesthesia Group, MEDLINE, EMbase, PubMed, Ovid, Springer, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were electronically searched from inception to May 2013 for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of sufentanil-propofol versus remifentanil-propofol during total intravenous anesthesia for neurosurgery. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results Thirteen trials involving 647 patients were finally included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: a) for hemodynamic changes, MAP decreased in the remifentanil-propofol group after induction and decreased 5 minutes after intubation, but no significant difference was found between the two groups; the two groups were alike in MAP changes during craniotomy and extubation, and in HR changes after induction, 5 minutes after intubation, during craniotomy and extubation, with no significant difference. b) The result of intra-operative wake-up test showed that, there was no significant difference in the sedative effect and the time of awaking between the two groups. c) For emergence time and extubation time, compared with the sufentanil-propofol group, emergence time and extubation time were significantly shorter than those in the remifentanil-propofol group. d) For side effects, there was no significant difference in side effects (such as post-operative nausea, vomiting, respiratory depression, restlessness, chills and hypotension) between the two groups. And e) for post-operative pain, compared with the remifentanil-propofol group, post-operative 1-h and 2-h VAS were lower and the number of who need additional analgesic drugs within 24 h after operation was less in the sufentanil-propofol group, with significant differences. Both groups used the similar dosage of propofol with no significant difference. Conclusion Compared with the remifentanil-propofol group, hemodynamics changes in the sufentanil-propofol group is steadier after induction and during intubation. Patients in the sufentanil-propofol group are better in postoperative awakening quality. But they are alike in the incidence of side effects and propofol dosage.
ObjectiveTo study the feasibility of using propofol and remifentanil for tracheal intubation in patients who are awake, and investigate the influence of tracheal intubation on such vital signs as blood pressure and heart rates. MethodsEighty ASA I-Ⅱ patients who underwent general anesthesia in our hospital between December 2012 and April 2013 were randomly divided into two groups. Patients in group A received fentanyl-propofol, while patients in group B received remifentanyl-propofol-lidocaine. There was no significant difference between the two groups in gender, age, and body weight (P>0.05). Conventional intubation induction method was used for group A:0.05-0.10 mg/kg midazolam, 4 μg/kg fentanyl, 1.0-1.5 mg/kg propofol, and 0.6-0.9 mg/kg atracurium were given and tracheal intubation was performed after muscle relaxation. Group B patients were treated with remifentanyl propofol-lidocaine compound liquid slow intravenous injection, and compound cricothyroid membrane puncture method before endotracheal intubation. We observed the two groups of patients for vital signs before and after induction, and choking cough reactions. ResultsPatients in both the two groups were all able to complete tracheal intubation. Circulation change and incidence of tachycardia in patients of group A were significantly higher than those in group B (P<0.05). The rates of bradycardia, hypoxemia, and choking cough response were low in both groups with no statistically significant difference (P>0.05). ConclusionRemifentanyl propofol-lidocaine compound liquid can be safely used for implementation of endotracheal intubation in patients who are awake, and the hemodynamic stability can be maintained.
ObjectiveTo explore the influence of propofol as well as sevoflurane on the histamine release induced by mivacurium chloride. MethodsForty patients with American Sociaty of Anesthesiologists stage Ⅰ-Ⅱ scheduled to receive ear-nose-throat surgery between March and October 2012 were recruited and were randomly assigned into two groups:propofol group and sevoflurane group. Patients in the propofol group were induced with targeted intravenous infusion with propofol. Patients in the sevoflurane group was induced with sevoflurane. The blood specimen was prepared before mivacurium chloride (0.16 mg/kg) infusion (T0), 1 minute (T1), 3 minutes (T2), and 5 minutes (T3) after the infusion. Mean blood pressure (MBP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded at corresponding time points. In addition, we recorded the symptoms of anaphylactic reaction such as skin erythema or bronchospasm. ResultsBoth MBP and HR decreased after anesthesia induction. However, there was no significant difference from that before the induction in both groups, and no difference was found between the two groups (P>0.05). The concentration of histamine in both groups at T1 and T2 was significantly higher than that at T0 (P<0.05). The concentration of histamine in both groups at T4 was significantly higher than that at T0 (P<0.05). The concentration of histamine in the propofol group was higher than that in the sevoflurane group. No skin erythema or bronchospasm was found in any of the two groups. ConclusionMivacurium chloride at a dose of 0.16 mg/kg can be safely used in propofol anesthesia, as well as sevofluane anesthesia, with no clinically significant histamine release or adverse hemodynamic fluctuation.