Dexmedetomidine is an α₂-adrenoceptor agonist with sedative, anxiolytic, sympatholytic, and analgesic-sparing effects, and minimal depression of respiratory function. It is potent and highly selective for α₂-receptors with an α₂:α₁ ratio of 1620:1. Hemodynamic effects, which include transient hypertension, bradycardia, and hypotension, result from the drug’s peripheral vasoconstrictive and sympatholytic properties. Dexmedetomidine exerts its hypnotic action through activation of central pre- and postsynaptic α₂-receptors in the locus coeruleus, thereby inducting a state of unconsciousness similar to natural sleep, with the unique aspect that patients remain easily rousable and cooperative. Dexmedetomidine is rapidly distributed and is mainly hepatically metabolized into inactive metabolites by glucuronidation and hydroxylation. A high inter-individual variability in dexmedetomidine pharmacokinetics has been described, especially in the intensive care unit population. In recent years, multiple pharmacokinetic non-compartmental analyses as well as population pharmacokinetic studies have been performed. Body size, hepatic impairment, and presumably plasma albumin and cardiac output have a significant impact on dexmedetomidine pharmacokinetics. Results regarding other covariates remain inconclusive and warrant further research. Although initially approved for intravenous use for up to 24 h in the adult intensive care unit population only, applications of dexmedetomidine in clinical practice have been widened over the past few years. Procedural sedation with dexmedetomidine was additionally approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2003 and dexmedetomidine has appeared useful in multiple off-label applications such as pediatric sedation, intranasal or buccal administration, and use as an adjuvant to local analgesia techniques.

Propofol is an intravenous hypnotic drug that is used for induction and maintenance of sedation and general anaesthesia. It exerts its effects through potentiation of the inhibitory neurotransmitter γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) at the GABA_A receptor, and has gained widespread use due to its favourable drug effect profile. The main adverse effects are disturbances in cardiopulmonary physiology. Due to its narrow therapeutic margin, propofol should only be administered by practitioners trained and experienced in providing general anaesthesia. Many pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) models for propofol exist. Some are used to inform drug dosing guidelines, and some are also implemented in so-called target-controlled infusion devices, to calculate the infusion rates required for user-defined target plasma or effect-site concentrations. Most of the models were designed for use in a specific and well-defined patient category. However, models applicable in a more general population have recently been developed and published. The most recent example is the general purpose propofol model developed by Eleveld and colleagues. Retrospective predictive performance evaluations show that this model performs as well as, or even better than, PK models developed for specific populations, such as adults, children or the obese; however, prospective evaluation of the model is still required. Propofol undergoes extensive PK and PD interactions with both other hypnotic drugs and opioids. PD interactions are the most clinically significant, and, with other hypnotics, tend to be additive, whereas interactions with opioids tend to be highly synergistic. Response surface modelling provides a tool to gain understanding and explore these complex interactions. Visual displays illustrating the effect of these interactions in real time can aid clinicians in optimal drug dosing while minimizing adverse effects. In this review, we provide an overview of the PK and PD of propofol in order to refresh readers’ knowledge of its clinical applications, while discussing the main avenues of research where significant recent advances have been made.

Ischemia and reperfusion injury (IRI) is a complex pathophysiological phenomenon, inevitable in kidney transplantation and one of the most important mechanisms for non- or delayed function immediately after transplantation. Long term, it is associated with acute rejection and chronic graft dysfunction due to interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy. Recently, more insight has been gained in the underlying molecular pathways and signalling cascades involved, which opens the door to new therapeutic opportunities aiming to reduce IRI and improve graft survival. This review systemically discusses the specific molecular pathways involved in the pathophysiology of IRI and highlights new therapeutic strategies targeting these pathways.

Etomidate is a hypnotic agent that is used for the induction of anesthesia. It produces its effect by acting as a positive allosteric modulator on the γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptor and thus enhancing the effect of the inhibitory neurotransmitter γ-aminobutyric acid. Etomidate stands out among other anesthetic agents by having a remarkably stable cardiorespiratory profile, producing no cardiovascular or respiratory depression. However, etomidate suppresses the adrenocortical axis by the inhibition of the enzyme 11β-hydroxylase. This makes the drug unsuitable for administration by a prolonged infusion. It also makes the drug unsuitable for administration to critically ill patients. Etomidate has relatively large volumes of distributions and is rapidly metabolized by hepatic esterases into an inactive carboxylic acid through hydrolyzation. Because of the decrease in popularity of etomidate, few modern extensive pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic studies exist. Over the last decade, several analogs of etomidate have been developed, with the aim of retaining its stable cardiorespiratory profile, whilst eliminating its suppressive effect on the adrenocortical axis. One of these molecules, ABP-700, was studied in extensive phase I clinical trials. These found that ABP-700 is characterized by small volumes of distribution and rapid clearance. ABP-700 is metabolized similarly to etomidate, by hydrolyzation into an inactive carboxylic acid. Furthermore, ABP-700 showed a rapid onset and offset of clinical effect. One side effect observed with both etomidate and ABP-700 is the occurrence of involuntary muscle movements. The origin of these movements is unclear and warrants further research.

A direct comparison of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive patients with a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 negative control group undergoing an operative intervention during the current pandemic is lacking, and a reliable estimate of the assumed difference in morbidity and mortality between both patient categories remains unknown. We included all consecutive patients with a confirmed pre- or postoperative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive status (operated in 27 hospitals) and negative control patients (operated in 4 hospitals) undergoing emergency or elective operations. A propensity score-matched comparison of clinical outcomes was performed between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive and negative tested patients (control group). Primary outcome was overall 30-day mortality rate between both groups. Main secondary outcomes were overall, pulmonary, and thromboembolic complications. In total, 161 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive and 342 control severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 negative patients were included in this study. The 30-day overall postoperative mortality rate was greater in the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive cohort compared with the negative control group (16% vs 4% respectively; P = .007). After propensity score matching, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive group consisted of 123 patients (median 70 years of age [interquartile range 59–77] and 55% male) were compared with 196 patients in the matched control group (median 69 years (interquartile range 58–75] and 53% male). The 30-day mortality rate and risk were greater in the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive group compared with the matched control group (12% vs 4%; P = .009 and odds ratio 3.4 [95% confidence interval 1.5–8.5]; P = .005, respectively). Overall, pulmonary and thromboembolic complications occurred more often in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive patients (P < .01). Patients diagnosed with perioperative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have an increased risk of 30-day mortality, pulmonary complications, and thromboembolic events. These findings serve as an evidence-based argument to postpone elective surgery and selected emergency cases.

Summary: Remimazolam, a short‐acting benzodiazepine, may be used for induction and maintenance of total intravenous anaesthesia, but its role in the management of patients with multiple comorbidities remains unclear. In this phase 3 randomised controlled trial, we compared the anaesthetic efficacy and the incidence of postinduction hypotension during total intravenous anaesthesia with remimazolam vs. propofol. A total of 365 patients (ASA physical status 3 or 4) scheduled for elective surgery were assigned randomly to receive total intravenous anaesthesia with remimazolam (n = 270) or propofol (n = 95). Primary outcome was anaesthetic effect, quantified as the percentage of time with Narcotrend® Index values ≤ 60, during surgery (skin incision to last skin suture), with a non‐inferiority margin of ‐10%. Secondary outcome was the incidence of postinduction hypotensive events. Mean (SD) percentage of time with Narcotrend Index values ≤ 60 during surgery across all patients receiving remimazolam (93% (20.7)) was non‐inferior to propofol (99% (4.2)), mean difference (97.5%CI) ‐6.28% (‐8.89–infinite); p = 0.003. Mean (SD) number of postinduction hypotension events was 62 (38.1) and 71 (41.1) for patients allocated to the remimazolam and propofol groups, respectively; p = 0.015. Noradrenaline administration events (requirement for a bolus and/or infusion) were also lower in patients allocated to remimazolam compared with propofol (14 (13.5) vs. 20 (14.6), respectively; p < 0.001). In conclusion, in patients who were ASA physical status 3 or 4, the anaesthetic effect of remimazolam was non‐inferior to propofol.