Esketamine Combined with Propofol TCI versus Propofol TCI for Deep Sedation during Endobronchial Ultrasound-Guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration: A Prospective, Randomized, and Controlled Trial

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL International Journal of Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2023-12-11 DOI:10.1155/2023/1155126
Sichen Cui, Peiying Huang, Zhanxiong Wei, Ting Guo, Aiyan Zhang, Lining Huang
{"title":"Esketamine Combined with Propofol TCI versus Propofol TCI for Deep Sedation during Endobronchial Ultrasound-Guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration: A Prospective, Randomized, and Controlled Trial","authors":"Sichen Cui, Peiying Huang, Zhanxiong Wei, Ting Guo, Aiyan Zhang, Lining Huang","doi":"10.1155/2023/1155126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<i>Background</i>. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is an invasive procedure that required deep sedation to suppress coughing and body movements. Deep sedation, on the other hand, has been shown to cause respiratory and circulatory depression, especially when the airway is shared with the endoscopist. Esketamine is a novel sedative and analgesic with little respiratory inhibition that appears to be an appropriate adjuvant in propofol sedation for EBUS-TBNA. We compared the efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) and propofol TCI for deep sedation in EBUS-TBNA. <i>Methods</i>. The study included 135 patients with ASA II-III undergoing EBUS-TBNA. They were randomly divided into two groups (group E and group P). Both groups received midazolam (0.01–0.03 mg/kg) and oxycodone (0.07–0.08 mg/kg). Then, patients in group E received 0.3 mg/kg esketamine, propofol TCI, and 0.2 mg·kg<sup>−1</sup>·h<sup>−1</sup> esketamine for sedative maintenance. Patients in group P received only propofol TCI. The primary outcome was the dose of 1% lidocaine administrated by the endoscopist and the times of lidocaine sprays. Secondary outcome indicators were cough score, propofol dosage, patient satisfaction, endoscopist satisfaction, the incidence of sedation-related adverse effects and side effects, and recovery time. <i>Results</i>. Patients in group E were given significantly less lidocaine (4.36 ml/h (2.67–6.00) vs 6.00 ml/h (4.36–7.20), <span><svg height=\"9.2729pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.6359 19.289 9.2729\" width=\"19.289pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"></path></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.658,0)\"></path></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"9.2729pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.8711838 -8.6359 28.182 9.2729\" width=\"28.182pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.921,0)\"></path></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,29.161,0)\"></path></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,32.125,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.365,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.605,0)\"></path></g></svg>)</span></span> and less spraying frequency (2.18 times/h (1.33–3.00) vs 3.00 times/h (2.18–3.60), <span><svg height=\"9.2729pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.6359 19.289 9.2729\" width=\"19.289pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-81\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.658,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g117-91\"></use></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"9.2729pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.8711838 -8.6359 28.182 9.2729\" width=\"28.182pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.921,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,29.161,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-47\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,32.125,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.365,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.605,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-50\"></use></g></svg>)</span></span> than group P. There was a statistically significant difference in cough score between the two groups (group E 2 (0–4) vs group P 3 (2–4), <span><svg height=\"8.8423pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-0.2064009pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.6359 19.289 8.8423\" width=\"19.289pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-81\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.658,0)\"></path></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"8.8423pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-0.2064009pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.8711838 -8.6359 21.918 8.8423\" width=\"21.918pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.921,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,29.161,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-47\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,32.125,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.365,0)\"></path></g></svg>).</span></span> Also, mean arterial pressure (MAP) was higher in group E in the 30<sup>th</sup> min (T5, 84.10 ± 12.91 mmHg versus 79.04 ± 10.01 mmHg, <span><svg height=\"8.8423pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-0.2064009pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.6359 19.289 8.8423\" width=\"19.289pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-81\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.658,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g117-34\"></use></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"8.8423pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-0.2064009pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.8711838 -8.6359 28.182 8.8423\" width=\"28.182pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.921,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,29.161,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-47\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,32.125,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.365,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-50\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.605,0)\"></path></g></svg>)</span></span> and 40<sup>th</sup> min (T6, 87.72 ± 15.55 mmHg versus 82.14 ± 10.51 mmHg, <span><svg height=\"8.8423pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-0.2064009pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.6359 19.289 8.8423\" width=\"19.289pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-81\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.658,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g117-34\"></use></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"8.8423pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-0.2064009pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.8711838 -8.6359 28.182 8.8423\" width=\"28.182pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.921,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,29.161,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-47\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,32.125,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.365,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-51\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.605,0)\"></path></g></svg>).</span></span> There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of sedation-related adverse events and side effects, recovery time, endoscopist satisfaction, and patient satisfaction. <i>Conclusions</i>. In patients with ASA II-III, esketamine as an adjuvant in combination with propofol TCI deep sedation for EBUS-TBNA can improve the sedation effect, reduce coughing reaction during the procedure, and obtain more stable blood pressure. No reduction in the occurrence of sedation-related side effects was observed. This trial is registered with ChiCTR2200061124.","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/1155126","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is an invasive procedure that required deep sedation to suppress coughing and body movements. Deep sedation, on the other hand, has been shown to cause respiratory and circulatory depression, especially when the airway is shared with the endoscopist. Esketamine is a novel sedative and analgesic with little respiratory inhibition that appears to be an appropriate adjuvant in propofol sedation for EBUS-TBNA. We compared the efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) and propofol TCI for deep sedation in EBUS-TBNA. Methods. The study included 135 patients with ASA II-III undergoing EBUS-TBNA. They were randomly divided into two groups (group E and group P). Both groups received midazolam (0.01–0.03 mg/kg) and oxycodone (0.07–0.08 mg/kg). Then, patients in group E received 0.3 mg/kg esketamine, propofol TCI, and 0.2 mg·kg−1·h−1 esketamine for sedative maintenance. Patients in group P received only propofol TCI. The primary outcome was the dose of 1% lidocaine administrated by the endoscopist and the times of lidocaine sprays. Secondary outcome indicators were cough score, propofol dosage, patient satisfaction, endoscopist satisfaction, the incidence of sedation-related adverse effects and side effects, and recovery time. Results. Patients in group E were given significantly less lidocaine (4.36 ml/h (2.67–6.00) vs 6.00 ml/h (4.36–7.20), ) and less spraying frequency (2.18 times/h (1.33–3.00) vs 3.00 times/h (2.18–3.60), ) than group P. There was a statistically significant difference in cough score between the two groups (group E 2 (0–4) vs group P 3 (2–4), ). Also, mean arterial pressure (MAP) was higher in group E in the 30th min (T5, 84.10 ± 12.91 mmHg versus 79.04 ± 10.01 mmHg, ) and 40th min (T6, 87.72 ± 15.55 mmHg versus 82.14 ± 10.51 mmHg, ). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of sedation-related adverse events and side effects, recovery time, endoscopist satisfaction, and patient satisfaction. Conclusions. In patients with ASA II-III, esketamine as an adjuvant in combination with propofol TCI deep sedation for EBUS-TBNA can improve the sedation effect, reduce coughing reaction during the procedure, and obtain more stable blood pressure. No reduction in the occurrence of sedation-related side effects was observed. This trial is registered with ChiCTR2200061124.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
支气管内超声引导下经支气管针抽吸术中深度镇静的依西他敏联合丙泊酚 TCI 与丙泊酚 TCI 比较:前瞻性随机对照试验
背景。支气管内超声引导下经支气管针吸术(EBUS-TBNA)是一种侵入性手术,需要使用深度镇静剂来抑制咳嗽和身体运动。另一方面,深度镇静已被证明会导致呼吸和循环抑制,尤其是在与内镜医师共用气道的情况下。艾司他敏是一种新型镇静镇痛药,对呼吸抑制很小,似乎是异丙酚镇静用于 EBUS-TBNA 的合适辅助药物。我们比较了艾司卡胺联合异丙酚靶控输注(TCI)和异丙酚 TCI 用于 EBUS-TBNA 深度镇静的有效性和安全性。方法。研究纳入了 135 名接受 EBUS-TBNA 的 ASA II-III 级患者。他们被随机分为两组(E 组和 P 组)。两组患者均接受咪达唑仑(0.01-0.03 毫克/千克)和羟考酮(0.07-0.08 毫克/千克)治疗。然后,E 组患者接受 0.3 mg/kg 艾司卡胺、丙泊酚 TCI 和 0.2 mg-kg-1-h-1 艾司卡胺的镇静维持治疗。P 组患者只接受异丙酚 TCI。主要结果是内镜医师使用的1%利多卡因剂量和利多卡因喷洒次数。次要结果指标为咳嗽评分、异丙酚用量、患者满意度、内镜医师满意度、镇静相关不良反应和副作用发生率以及恢复时间。结果。E 组患者的利多卡因用量(4.36 毫升/小时(2.67-6.00)对 6.00 毫升/小时(4.36-7.20))和喷洒次数(2.18 次/小时(1.33-3.00)对 3.00 次/小时(2.18-3.60))明显少于 P 组。此外,E 组在第 30 分钟(T5,84.10 ± 12.91 mmHg 对 79.04 ± 10.01 mmHg,)和第 40 分钟(T6,87.72 ± 15.55 mmHg 对 82.14 ± 10.51 mmHg,)的平均动脉压(MAP)较高。在镇静相关不良事件和副作用、恢复时间、内镜医师满意度和患者满意度方面,两组之间没有明显差异。结论。对于 ASA II-III 级的患者,埃司卡胺作为辅助用药与异丙酚 TCI 深度镇静联合用于 EBUS-TBNA 可以改善镇静效果,减少术中的咳嗽反应,并获得更稳定的血压。但镇静相关的副作用并未减少。该试验的注册号为ChiCTR2200061124。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
274
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal. IJCP publishes: Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] ''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed] Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] International scope IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.
期刊最新文献
A Cross-Sectional Study on Nurse-Parent Partnership in the Pediatric Intensive Care Units Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy Reduces Pain and Improves Internal Rotation after Arthroscopic Capsular Release: A Randomized Clinical Trial Why Some People Did Not Want to be Vaccinated against COVID-19? Analysis of Some Psychological Factors Connected with a Decision about Vaccination Predicting the Risk of Fundus Lesions in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Nomogram Model Health Experts’ Perspectives on Barriers, Facilitators, and Needs for Improvement of Hospital Care in the Dying Phase
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1