简介：Propofolcaninhibittheinflammatoryresponseandreducethesecretionandharmfuleffectsofastrocyte-derivedproinflammatorycytokines.Inthisstudy,afterpropofolwasinjectedintotheinjuredsciaticnerveofmice,nuclearfactorkappaBexpressionintheL4-6segmentsofthespinalcordintheinjuredsidewasreduced,apoptosiswasdecreased,nervemyelindefectswerealleviated,andthenerveconductionblockwaslessened.Theexperimentalfindingsindicatethatpropofolinhibitstheinflammatoryandimmuneresponses,decreasestheexpressionofnuclearfactorkappaB,andreducesapoptosis.Theseeffectsofpropofolpromoteregenerationfollowingsciaticnerveinjury.

简介：Propofolpreconditioninghasbeenshowntoprovideneuroprotectionagainstspinalischemia/reperfusioninjury.Inthisstudy,spinalcordischemia/reperfusioninjurywasinducedbyblockingtheabdominalaortainrabbitsfor40minutes.Resultsshowedthattheco-applicationofpropofolpreconditioningandpostconditioningregimenamelioratedpathologicalinjuryoftheischemicspinalcordandsuppressedtheelevationofmalondialdehydelevelsandincreasedsuperoxidedismutaseactivitiesinthespinalcordtissues.Co-applicationofpropofolpreconditioningandpostconditioningresultedinpotentprotectiveeffectsagainstspinalcordischemia/reperfusioninjuryandprolongedthespinalcord'stolerancetoischemia.Thisprotectionwasassociatedwiththeanti-lipidperoxidationcapacityofthespinalcordtissues.

简介：

简介：AbstractBackground:Intravertebral and general anesthesia (GA) are two main anesthesia approaches but both have defects. This study was aimed to evaluate the effect of subarachnoid anesthesia combined with propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) on blood loss and transfusion for total hip arthroplasty (THA) in elderly patients in comparison with combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) or GA.Methods:Totally, 240 patients (aged ≥65 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] I-III) scheduled for posterior THA were enrolled from September 1st, 2017 to March 1st, 2018. All cases were randomly divided into three groups to receive CSEA (group C, n = 80), GA (group G, n = 80), or subarachnoid anesthesia and propofol TCI (group T, n= 80), respectively. Primary outcomes measured were intra-operative blood loss, autologous and allogeneic blood transfusion, mean arterial pressure at different time points, length of stay in post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), length of hospital stay, and patient satisfaction degree. Furthermore, post-operative pain scores and complications were also observed. The difference of quantitative index between groups were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance, repeated measurement generalized linear model, Student-Newman-Keuls test or rank-sum test, while ratio index was analyzed by Chi-square test or Fisher exact test.Results:Basic characteristics were comparable among the three groups. Intra-operative blood loss in group T (331.53 ± 64.33 mL) and group G (308.03 ± 64.90 mL) were significantly less than group C (455.40 ± 120.48 mL, F = 65.80, P < 0.001). Similarly, the autologous transfusion of group T (130.99 ± 30.36 mL) and group G (124.09 ± 24.34 mL) were also markedly less than group C (178.31 ± 48.68 mL, F= 52.99, P < 0.001). The allogenetic blood transfusion of group C (0 [0, 100.00]) was also significantly larger than group T (0) and group G (0) (Z = 2.47, P = 0.047). Except for the baseline, there were significant differences in mean arterial blood pressures before operation (F= 496.84, P < 0.001), 10-min after the beginning of operation (F = 351.43, P < 0.001), 30-min after the beginning of operation (F = 559.89, P < 0.001), 50-min after the beginning of operation (F = 374.74, P < 0.001), and at the end of operation (F= 26.14, P < 0.001) among the three groups. Length of stay in PACU of group T (9.41 ± 1.19 min) was comparable with group C (8.83 ± 1.26 min), and both were significantly shorter than group G (16.55 ± 3.10 min, F = 352.50, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences among the three groups in terms of length of hospitalization and post-operative visual analog scale scores. Patient satisfaction degree of group T (77/80) was significantly higher than group C (66/80, χ2= 7.96, P = 0.004) and G (69/80, χ2 = 5.01, P = 0.025). One patient complained of post-dural puncture headache and two complained of low back pain in group C, while none in group T. Incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting in group G (10/80) was significantly higher than group T (3/80, χ2 = 4.10, P = 0.043) and group C (2/80, χ2 = 5.76, P = 0.016). No deep vein thrombosis or delayed post-operative functional exercise was detected.Conclusions:Single subarachnoid anesthesia combined with propofol TCI seems to perform better than CSEA and GA for posterior THA in elderly patients, with less blood loss and peri-operative transfusion, higher patient satisfaction degree and fewer complications.

简介：AbstractBackground:Ciprofol (HSK3486; Haisco Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd., Chengdu, China), developed as a novel 2,6-disubstituted phenol derivative showed similar tolerability and efficacy characteristics as propofol when applicated as continuous intravenous infusion for 12 h maintenance sedation in a previous phase 1 trial. The phase 2 trial was designed to investigate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic characteristics of ciprofol for sedation of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation.Methods:In this multicenter, open label, randomized, propofol positive-controlled, phase 2 trial, 39 Chinese intensive care unit patients receiving mechanical ventilation were enrolled and randomly assigned to a ciprofol or propofol group in a 2:1 ratio. The ciprofol infusion was started with a loading infusion of 0.1-0.2 mg/kg for 0.5-5.0 min, followed by an initial maintenance infusion rate of 0.30 mg·kg-1·h-1, which could be adjusted to an infusion rate of 0.06 to 0.80 mg·kg-1·h-1, whereas for propofol the loading infusion dose was 0.5-1.0 mg/kg for 0.5-5.0 min, followed by an initial maintenance infusion rate of 1.50 mg·kg-1·h-1, which could be adjusted to 0.30-4.00 mg·kg-1·h-1 to achieve -2 to +1 Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale sedation within 6-24 h of drug administration.Results:Of the 39 enrolled patients, 36 completed the trial. The median (min, max) of the average time to sedation compliance values for ciprofol and propofol were 60.0 (52.6, 60.0) min and 60.0 (55.2, 60.0) min, with median difference of 0.00 (95% confidence interval: 0.00, 0.00). In total, 29 (74.4%) patients comprising 18 (69.2%) in the ciprofol and 11 (84.6%) in the propofol group experienced 86 treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs), the majority being of severity grade 1 or 2. Drug- and sedation-related TEAEs were hypotension (7.7% vs. 23.1%, P = 0.310) and sinus bradycardia (3.8% vs. 7.7%, P = 1.000) in the ciprofol and propofol groups, respectively. The plasma concentration-time curves for ciprofol and propofol were similar.Conclusions:ciprofol is comparable to propofol with good tolerance and efficacy for sedation of Chinese intensive care unit patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the present study setting.Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04147416.