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.
Objective To systematically evaluate effectiveness, dosage and adverse reaction of sufentanil versus fentanyl for postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), so as to provide evidence for rational drug use in clinic. Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library, the special trials registered in the Cochrane anesthesia group, MEDLINE, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched by the end of 2012, and the relevant periodicals were also manually searched to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on sufentanil versus fentanyl for postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia. According to the Cochrane Handbook 5.0, literature was screened, data were extracted, and quality of the included studies was critically assessed. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results A total of 25 RCTs involving 1 944 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that: a) as for visual analog scale (VAS), compared with the fentanyl group, the postoperative VAS at 2-hour, 4-hour, 8-hour, 12-hour, 24-hour and 48-hour was decreased in the sufentanil group; b) as for sedation scale, the fentanyl group, the postoperative sedation at 12-hour and 24-hour was lower in the sufentanil group when adopting 0 to 3 points scoring method, but there were no significant differences at other time points; c) as for drug dosage, compared with the fentanyl group, the postoperative drug consumption at 24-hour and 48-hour was less in the sufentanil group; d) as for adverse reaction, the incidence of postoperative nausea, vomiting, dizziness and somnolence in the sufentanil group was lower than those in the fentanyl group. But there was no significant difference in other adverse reactions such as skin itching, limbs numbness and motor disturbance between the two groups; and e) as for the demands of additional analgesic drugs, compared with the fentanyl group, the incidence of demanding additional analgesic drugs was lower in the sufentanil group. Conclusion Compared with fentanyl, sufentanil has better effects of analgesia and sedation for PCEA; Its dosage and incidence of adverse reactions are lower, so sufentanil is safer in clinic.
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 investigate clinical application and safety evaluation of sedative demulcent anesthesia in therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).Methods Totally 1660 patients underwent ERCP at the First Hospital of Lanzhou University were prospectively divided into two groups: venous sedative demulcent group (n=800, using sufentanil and midazolam and propofol continuing infusion) and conventional sedative demulcent group (n=860, using common medicine). The heart rate (HR), respiration (R), blood pressure (BP) and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) of pre-anesthesia, post-anesthesia, during operation and after analepsia in every group were detected. The narcotism was evaluated by Ramsaymin grading method and the related adverse reactions such as cough, restlessness, harmful memory, and abdominal pain after operation were recorded. Results Compared with conventional sedative demulcent group, vital signs of patients in venous sedative demulcent group were more stable. For postoperative adverse reactions, abdominal pain, abdominal distension and nausea and vomiting were respectively 4.4%(35/800), 2.6%(21/800) and 3.6%(29/800) in venous sedative demulcent group, which were respectively higher of the incidence of 36.3%(312/860), 49.0%(421/860) and 53.0%(456/860) in conventional sedative demulcent group (P＜0.01). The postoperative satisfaction and adverse reactions recall between venous sedative demulcent group and conventional sedative demulcent group was respectively significant different (96.9% vs. 2.9%, 4.8% vs. 97.9%, P＜0.01). Conclusion Sufentanil and midazolam and propofol continuing infusion have good effect of sedative demulcent anesthesia, which can be widely used.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine combined with dezocine for patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) in patients after radical operation for abdominal tumor. MethodsBetween September 2012 and May 2013, 60 patients (aged 40-60, American Sociaty of Anesthesiologists physical statusⅠ-Ⅱ) undergoing abdominal tumor surgery and asking for PCIA pumps voluntarily were randomly divided into two groups (group D and group DF) with 30 in each group. Patients in group D were given sufentanil 0.25 μg/kg+ dezocine 0.4 mg/kg, which were added into 100 mL 0.9% normal saline, while in group DF, the patients received dexmedetomidine 1.5 μg/kg+ sufentanil 0.15 μg/kg+ dezocine 0.4 mg/kg, which were added into 100 mL 0.9% normal saline. The changes of mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), the visual analog scale (VAS), Ramsay sedation scale, Bruggrmann analgesia scale (BCS), the efficacy of postoperative analgesia and adverse effects were observed and recorded at the preoperative time (T0), and 2 (T1), 4 (T2), 8 (T3), 24 (T4) and 48 hours (T5) postoperatively. ResultsHemodynamics in group DF was more stable than that in group D (P<0.05). There were no statically significant differences in terms of VAS and BCS between the two groups at each time point (P>0.05). The Ramsay sedation scale of group DF was better than group D, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The efficient number of pressing within 48 hours in the two groups was not significantly different (P>0.05). The incidence of nausea, vomiting and drowsiness in group D was more than that of group DF (P<0.05). ConclusionDexmedetomidine combined with dezocine can provide effective postoperative analgesia with less adverse effects for patients after radical surgery of abdominal tumor, which provides higher satisfaction to the abdominal surgery patients.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of sufentanil versus fentanyl used in patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) after cesarean section.MethodsAn online search of computerized searches of the database of MEDLINE (OVID), Web of Science, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and SinoMed were conducted. Randomized controlled trials published since the inceptions of these databases until April 1st 2018, involving the comparison of sufentanil versus fentanyl for PCIA after cesarean section were included. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan 5.1 software.ResultsA total of 19 studies were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with the fentanyl group, the sufentanil group had statistically significant lower VAS scores at 4-hour (MD=–0.99, 95%CI –1.03 to –0.95, P<0.001), 8-hour (MD=–0.30, 95%CI –0.40 to –0.21, P<0.001), 12-hour (MD=–0.54, 95%CI –0.62 to –0.46, P<0.001) and 24-hour (MD=–0.35, 95%CI –0.41 to –0.28, P<0.001); statistically significant higher Ramsay scores at 4-hour (MD=0.72, 95%CI 0.66 to 0.78, P<0.001), 8-hour (MD=0.93, 95%CI 0.86 to 1.00, P<0.001), 12-hour (MD=0.98, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.05, P<0.001), 24-hour (MD=0.07, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.11, P=0.000 5), 48-hour (MD=0.05, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.08, P<0.000 1). As for the adverse reactions, sufentanil group had lower risks of having nausea and vomiting (RR=0.25, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.31, P<0.001), pruritus (RR=0.41, 95%CI 0.30 to 0.57, P<0.001), dizziness (RR=0.27, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.44, P<0.001) and urinary retention (RR=0.35, 95%CI (0.15, 0.82), P=0.02).ConclusionsThe current evidence shows that, sufentanil has better analgesia and sedative effects, and less risks of adverse reactions for safer clinical use.
ObjectivesTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of dezocine combine with sufentanil (DS) versus sufentanil (S) for postoperative analgesia.MethodsCNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, PubMed, Wiley Online Library and ScienceDirect databases were searched online to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DS versus S for postoperative analgesia from January 2011 to July 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, meta-analysis was performed by using Stata13.0 software.ResultsA total of 39 RCTs were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: DS group had higher scores on VAS at 2 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h and 48 h points than S group at the dezocine level of 0.2 mg/kg. At the dezocine level of 0.3 mg/kg, there were no significant differences in scores on VAS at 2 h and 4 h. However, DS group had higher scores at 6 h, 12 h, 24 h and 48 h points. At the dezocine level of 10 mg/kg, there were no significant differences in scores on VAS at each time point in both groups. DS group was superior to S group in " excellent rate” and " good rate” of the analgesic satisfaction of patients. For safety, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting of DS group was lower than S group.ConclusionsThe current evidence shows that dezocine combine with sufentanil have more effects of postoperative analgesia than sufentanil alone, and its incidence of adverse reactions is lower. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to verify above conclusions.