宫腔镜检查中 Esketamine 和 Alfentanil 的比较:一项前瞻性、双盲、随机对照试验。

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL Drug Design, Development and Therapy Pub Date : 2024-08-14 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/DDDT.S472651
Mengcao Weng, Dongdong Wang, Jia Zhong, Minyue Qian, Kai Zhang, Yue Jin
{"title":"宫腔镜检查中 Esketamine 和 Alfentanil 的比较:一项前瞻性、双盲、随机对照试验。","authors":"Mengcao Weng, Dongdong Wang, Jia Zhong, Minyue Qian, Kai Zhang, Yue Jin","doi":"10.2147/DDDT.S472651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to establish the 95% effective dose (ED95) of esketamine in combination with propofol for hysteroscopy and then to evaluate its efficacy and safety profile.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial consisted of two cohorts. In cohort 1, 45 women aged 18-65 years undergoing hysteroscopy were randomly assigned to either group E (esketamine + propofol) or group A (alfentanil + propofol). Dixon's up-and-down method was used to determine the ED95 of esketamine and alfentanil. In cohort 2, 86 patients were randomized to group E and group A, with the calculated ED95 dose of the study drugs used for induction. The success rate of anesthesia using the ED95% dose, along with parameters related to anesthesia induction, recovery, and adverse events were also recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ED95 of esketamine was 0.254 mg/kg (95% CI: 0.214-1.004), while that of alfentanil was 9.121 μg/kg (95% CI: 8.479-13.364). The anesthesia success rate was 93.0% in group E and 95.2% in group A (p = 0.664). After resuscitation, both groups achieved a 100% success rate. The induction time was significantly shorter in group E (60.0 [55.0-70.0] s) compared to group A (67.0 [61.0-79.3] s) (p = 0.006). Group E had lower rates of respiratory depression (p < 0.001), hypoxia (p = 0.006), minimum perioperative SpO<sub>2</sub> (p = 0.010), and hypotension (p = 0.001). Esketamine had less effect on respiratory rate, heart rate, mean blood pressure, and end-tidal carbon dioxide compared to alfentanil (all p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in postoperative pain between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study determined the ED 95 dose of esketamine for intravenous general anesthesia during hysteroscopy. Esketamine showed less respiratory and hemodynamic depression, as well as fewer adverse effects compared to alfentanil. Esketamine is an ideal anesthetic agent compared to alfentanil for hysteroscopic anesthesia.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>www.chictr.org.cn, (ChiCTR2300077283); registered November 3, 2023.</p>","PeriodicalId":11290,"journal":{"name":"Drug Design, Development and Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11330861/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison Between Esketamine and Alfentanil for Hysteroscopy: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Mengcao Weng, Dongdong Wang, Jia Zhong, Minyue Qian, Kai Zhang, Yue Jin\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/DDDT.S472651\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to establish the 95% effective dose (ED95) of esketamine in combination with propofol for hysteroscopy and then to evaluate its efficacy and safety profile.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial consisted of two cohorts. In cohort 1, 45 women aged 18-65 years undergoing hysteroscopy were randomly assigned to either group E (esketamine + propofol) or group A (alfentanil + propofol). Dixon's up-and-down method was used to determine the ED95 of esketamine and alfentanil. In cohort 2, 86 patients were randomized to group E and group A, with the calculated ED95 dose of the study drugs used for induction. The success rate of anesthesia using the ED95% dose, along with parameters related to anesthesia induction, recovery, and adverse events were also recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ED95 of esketamine was 0.254 mg/kg (95% CI: 0.214-1.004), while that of alfentanil was 9.121 μg/kg (95% CI: 8.479-13.364). The anesthesia success rate was 93.0% in group E and 95.2% in group A (p = 0.664). After resuscitation, both groups achieved a 100% success rate. The induction time was significantly shorter in group E (60.0 [55.0-70.0] s) compared to group A (67.0 [61.0-79.3] s) (p = 0.006). Group E had lower rates of respiratory depression (p < 0.001), hypoxia (p = 0.006), minimum perioperative SpO<sub>2</sub> (p = 0.010), and hypotension (p = 0.001). Esketamine had less effect on respiratory rate, heart rate, mean blood pressure, and end-tidal carbon dioxide compared to alfentanil (all p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in postoperative pain between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study determined the ED 95 dose of esketamine for intravenous general anesthesia during hysteroscopy. Esketamine showed less respiratory and hemodynamic depression, as well as fewer adverse effects compared to alfentanil. Esketamine is an ideal anesthetic agent compared to alfentanil for hysteroscopic anesthesia.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>www.chictr.org.cn, (ChiCTR2300077283); registered November 3, 2023.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drug Design, Development and Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11330861/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drug Design, Development and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S472651\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug Design, Development and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S472651","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在确定艾司卡胺与异丙酚联合用于宫腔镜检查的95%有效剂量(ED95),然后评估其疗效和安全性:这项前瞻性、双盲、随机对照试验由两组患者组成。在第一组中,45名年龄在18-65岁之间接受宫腔镜检查的女性被随机分配到E组(艾司卡胺+异丙酚)或A组(阿芬太尼+异丙酚)。采用迪克森上下法确定埃斯卡胺和阿芬太尼的 ED95。在队列 2 中,86 名患者被随机分为 E 组和 A 组,诱导时使用计算出的 ED95 药物剂量。同时还记录了使用ED95%剂量的麻醉成功率,以及与麻醉诱导、恢复和不良反应相关的参数:艾司卡胺的ED95为0.254毫克/千克(95% CI:0.214-1.004),阿芬太尼的ED95为9.121微克/千克(95% CI:8.479-13.364)。E 组的麻醉成功率为 93.0%,A 组为 95.2%(P = 0.664)。复苏后,两组的成功率均为 100%。E 组的诱导时间(60.0 [55.0-70.0] 秒)明显短于 A 组(67.0 [61.0-79.3] 秒)(p = 0.006)。E 组的呼吸抑制(p < 0.001)、缺氧(p = 0.006)、围手术期最低 SpO2(p = 0.010)和低血压(p = 0.001)发生率较低。与阿芬太尼相比,依沙坦胺对呼吸频率、心率、平均血压和潮气末二氧化碳的影响较小(均 p < 0.001)。两组患者的术后疼痛无明显差异:本研究确定了宫腔镜手术静脉全身麻醉中艾司卡胺的ED 95剂量。与阿芬太尼相比,艾司卡胺对呼吸和血流动力学的抑制较小,不良反应也较少。与阿芬太尼相比,艾司卡胺是宫腔镜麻醉的理想麻醉剂。试验注册:www.chictr.org.cn,(ChiCTR2300077283);注册日期:2023年11月3日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison Between Esketamine and Alfentanil for Hysteroscopy: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Purpose: This study aimed to establish the 95% effective dose (ED95) of esketamine in combination with propofol for hysteroscopy and then to evaluate its efficacy and safety profile.

Patients and methods: This prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial consisted of two cohorts. In cohort 1, 45 women aged 18-65 years undergoing hysteroscopy were randomly assigned to either group E (esketamine + propofol) or group A (alfentanil + propofol). Dixon's up-and-down method was used to determine the ED95 of esketamine and alfentanil. In cohort 2, 86 patients were randomized to group E and group A, with the calculated ED95 dose of the study drugs used for induction. The success rate of anesthesia using the ED95% dose, along with parameters related to anesthesia induction, recovery, and adverse events were also recorded.

Results: The ED95 of esketamine was 0.254 mg/kg (95% CI: 0.214-1.004), while that of alfentanil was 9.121 μg/kg (95% CI: 8.479-13.364). The anesthesia success rate was 93.0% in group E and 95.2% in group A (p = 0.664). After resuscitation, both groups achieved a 100% success rate. The induction time was significantly shorter in group E (60.0 [55.0-70.0] s) compared to group A (67.0 [61.0-79.3] s) (p = 0.006). Group E had lower rates of respiratory depression (p < 0.001), hypoxia (p = 0.006), minimum perioperative SpO2 (p = 0.010), and hypotension (p = 0.001). Esketamine had less effect on respiratory rate, heart rate, mean blood pressure, and end-tidal carbon dioxide compared to alfentanil (all p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in postoperative pain between the two groups.

Conclusion: This study determined the ED 95 dose of esketamine for intravenous general anesthesia during hysteroscopy. Esketamine showed less respiratory and hemodynamic depression, as well as fewer adverse effects compared to alfentanil. Esketamine is an ideal anesthetic agent compared to alfentanil for hysteroscopic anesthesia.

Trial registration: www.chictr.org.cn, (ChiCTR2300077283); registered November 3, 2023.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Drug Design, Development and Therapy
Drug Design, Development and Therapy CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
382
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Drug Design, Development and Therapy is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that spans the spectrum of drug design, discovery and development through to clinical applications. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of high-quality original research, reviews, expert opinions, commentary and clinical studies in all therapeutic areas. Specific topics covered by the journal include: Drug target identification and validation Phenotypic screening and target deconvolution Biochemical analyses of drug targets and their pathways New methods or relevant applications in molecular/drug design and computer-aided drug discovery* Design, synthesis, and biological evaluation of novel biologically active compounds (including diagnostics or chemical probes) Structural or molecular biological studies elucidating molecular recognition processes Fragment-based drug discovery Pharmaceutical/red biotechnology Isolation, structural characterization, (bio)synthesis, bioengineering and pharmacological evaluation of natural products** Distribution, pharmacokinetics and metabolic transformations of drugs or biologically active compounds in drug development Drug delivery and formulation (design and characterization of dosage forms, release mechanisms and in vivo testing) Preclinical development studies Translational animal models Mechanisms of action and signalling pathways Toxicology Gene therapy, cell therapy and immunotherapy Personalized medicine and pharmacogenomics Clinical drug evaluation Patient safety and sustained use of medicines.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Remimazolam and Propofol in Recovery of Elderly Outpatients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized, Non-Inferiority Trial. Dauricine: Review of Pharmacological Activity. Copolymerized Polymers Based on Cyclodextrins and Cationic Groups Enhance Therapeutic Effect of Rebamipide in the N-Acetylcysteine-Treated Dry Eye Model. Deciphering the Dynamics of EGFR-TKI Resistance in Lung Cancer: Insights from Bibliometric Analysis. Follitropin Alpha versus Follitropin Beta in IVF/ICSI Cycle: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
×
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