Effects of propofol combined with sufentanil on painless gastroscopy and hemodynamics in children under general anesthesia.

Propofol anesthetic effect hemodynamics painless gastroscopy under general anesthesia sufentanil

Journal

American journal of translational research
ISSN: 1943-8141
Titre abrégé: Am J Transl Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101493030

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2023
Historique:
received: 27 03 2023
accepted: 04 07 2023
medline: 10 8 2023
pubmed: 10 8 2023
entrez: 10 8 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

To determine the effects of propofol combined with sufentanil on painless gastroscopy and hemodynamics in children under general anesthesia. The data of 98 children who received painless gastroscopy in the Children's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from May 2022 and November 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. Patients anesthetized with propofol (1.5-2 mg/kg) combined with sufentanil (0.03-0.05 μg/kg) were assigned to a study group (n=52), and patients anesthetized with propofol (1.5-2 mg/kg) combined with fentanyl (0.3-0.5 µg/kg) were included in a control group (n=46). The changes in hemodynamic levels (mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2) at T0 (before anesthesia), T1 (1 min after anesthesia induction), T2 (start of examination), T3 (2 min after the start of examination), and T4 (end of examination) in the two groups were analyzed and compared. The Ramsay sedation score was adopted to evaluate the sedation of the two groups at the anesthesia recovery and at 1 h and 2 h after the anesthesia recovery. The anesthetic effects (time to loss of consciousness, eye opening, and recovery of orientations) of the two groups were analyzed and compared. The excellent and good anesthesia outcomes, hospitalization time and dosage of propofol were compared between the two groups, and the adverse reactions in the two groups during and after the examination were analyzed. At T0, the two groups were not significantly different in the levels of MAP, HR and SpO2 (P>0.05), but at T1, T2, T3, and T4, the study group showed a significantly higher MAP level than the control group (P<0.05). At T1 and T3, the study group exhibited a significantly higher HR level than the control group (P<0.05), and at T2 and T4, the HR level of the two groups was not greatly different (P>0.05). The SpO2 levels at T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4 were not greatly different between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in Ramsay score between the two groups at anesthesia recovery and at 1 h and 2 h after the anesthesia recovery (P>0.05). Additionally, the study group experienced significantly earlier time to loss of consciousness, eye opening, and recovery of orientations than the control group (P<0.05). The number of patients with excellent anesthetic outcome in the study group was notably higher than that in the control group (P<0.05). Compared with the control group, the study group consumed less propofol, experienced shorter hospitalization time, and showed a notably lower incidence of adverse reactions (P<0.05). For children undergoing painless gastroscopy under general anesthesia, sufentanil combined with propofol can deliver better anesthetic effect than propofol combined with fentanyl, with less effect on hemodynamics and fewer gastroscopy-related adverse reactions.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37560244
pmc: PMC10408531

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

4942-4950

Informations de copyright

AJTR Copyright © 2023.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

None.

Références

Oncol Lett. 2018 Mar;15(3):3558-3561
pubmed: 29467876
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Jun;96(26):e7212
pubmed: 28658112
Minerva Med. 2021 Jun 11;:
pubmed: 34114442
Br J Anaesth. 2018 May;120(5):942-959
pubmed: 29661412
Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2019 Sep;111(9):699-709
pubmed: 31190549
Ann Pharmacother. 2019 Dec;53(12):1220-1226
pubmed: 31280585
Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2019 Mar/Apr;38(2):90-95
pubmed: 30702478
Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2022 Sep 22;2022:7102293
pubmed: 36263002
J Clin Med. 2022 Aug 05;11(15):
pubmed: 35956202
Acta Gastroenterol Belg. 2018 Oct-Dec;81(4):520-524
pubmed: 30645922
Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2008 May;55(5):282-8
pubmed: 18661687
Drug Des Devel Ther. 2021 May 18;15:2143-2149
pubmed: 34040352
Anesth Analg. 2018 Apr;126(4):1102-1104
pubmed: 29547413
Cell. 2018 Sep 20;175(1):10-13
pubmed: 30217361
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jul 01;7:CD006059
pubmed: 27367754
Technol Health Care. 2023;31(4):1245-1251
pubmed: 36847030
Cas Lek Cesk. 1976 Jan 23;115(2-3):84-6
pubmed: 1253207
Dis Markers. 2022 Aug 5;2022:7294358
pubmed: 35968501
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Nov 6;99(45):e23061
pubmed: 33157963
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2011 Feb;60(2):83-9
pubmed: 21390162
Paediatr Anaesth. 2006 Oct;16(10):1032-5
pubmed: 16972831
Endoscopy. 2021 Sep;53(9):914-919
pubmed: 33580488
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2012 Jan-Mar;44(1):35-41
pubmed: 23801512
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2022 Apr;31(4):496-504
pubmed: 33630714
J Cancer Res Ther. 2016 Dec;12(Supplement):C271-C273
pubmed: 28230034

Auteurs

Yujue Wang (Y)

Department of Anesthesiology, Children's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University Nanjing 210011, Jiangsu, China.

Haiyang Yang (H)

Department of Anesthesiology, Children's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University Nanjing 210011, Jiangsu, China.

Weiwei Cai (W)

Department of Anesthesiology, Children's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University Nanjing 210011, Jiangsu, China.

Huanhuan Ni (H)

Department of Anesthesiology, Children's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University Nanjing 210011, Jiangsu, China.

Classifications MeSH