Background: An increase in the frequency of surgeries among older individuals is observed in some countries. Hypotension is common and exaggerated in older patients and can lead to increased morbidity and mortality. Total intravenous anesthesia is commonly administered with propofol, while remimazolam has been suggested as an alternative to propofol because of advantages such as a more stable hemodynamic profile and less respiratory suppression. We conducted a single-blind, parallel-group randomized controlled trial to compare the incidence of intraoperative hypotension between patients administered with remimazolam and propofol. Methods: A total of 132 patients, aged between 65 to 80 years and undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy or transurethral resection of bladder tumors were randomly assigned to the propofol or remimazolam group with a permuted block system while being blinded to the hypnotic agent. Remifentanil was administered via target-controlled infusion in both groups, with an initial effect-site concentration of 3.0 ng/mL and titration range of 1.5 to 4.0 ng/mL intraoperatively. The primary outcome of this study was the overall incidence of hypotension during general anesthesia. Results: Patients in the propofol group experienced higher intraoperative hypotension than those in the remimazolam group (59.7% vs 33.3%, P = .006). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that remimazolam administration was associated with reduced hypotension (adjusted odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.16–0.73). Secondary outcomes such as recovery time, delirium, and postoperative nausea and vomiting were comparable in both groups. Conclusion: Total intravenous anesthesia with remimazolam was associated with less intraoperative hypotension than propofol in older patients, with a comparable recovery profile.

This monocentric, single-blinded, randomized controlled noninferiority trial investigated the analgesic efficacy of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) combined with intercostal nerve block (ICNB) compared to that of thoracic paravertebral block (PVB) with ICNB in 52 patients undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS). The endpoints included the difference in visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain (0–10, where 10 = worst imaginable pain) in the postanesthetic care unit (PACU) and 24 and 48 h postoperatively between the ESPB and PVB groups. The secondary endpoints included patient satisfaction (1–5, where 5 = extremely satisfied) and total analgesic requirement in morphine milligram equivalents (MME). Median VAS scores were not significantly different between the groups (PACU: 2.0 (1.8, 5.3) vs. 2.0 (2.0, 4.0), p = 0.970; 24 h: 2.0 (0.8, 3.0) vs. 2.0 (1.0, 3.5), p = 0.993; 48 h: 1.0 (0.0, 3.5) vs. 1.0 (0.0, 5.0), p = 0.985). The upper limit of the 95% CI for the differences (PACU: 1.428, 24 h: 1.052, 48 h: 1.176) was within the predefined noninferiority margin of 2. Total doses of rescue analgesics (110.24 ± 103.64 vs. 118.40 ± 93.52 MME, p = 0.767) and satisfaction scores (3.5 (3.0, 4.0) vs. 4.0 (3.0, 5.0), p = 0.227) were similar. Thus, the ESPB combined with ICNB may be an efficacious option after VATS.

Dexmedetomidine is used for sedation during spinal anesthesia. The sympatholytic effect of dexmedetomidine may exacerbate hypotension and bradycardia with spinal anesthesia. This study investigated the effects of prophylactic intramuscular injection of ephedrine in preventing hypotension and bradycardia occurring through combined use of spinal anesthesia and dexmedetomidine. One hundred sixteen patients scheduled for lower extremity orthopedic surgery were randomized into two groups receiving either ephedrine 20 mg intramuscularly or equivalent amount of 0.9% NaCl, both with dexmedetomidine and spinal anesthesia. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hemodynamic perturbations (hypotension or bradycardia event). The secondary endpoint was a rescue doses of ephedrine and atropine. The incidence of hemodynamic perturbations was significantly lower in the ephedrine group compared with to the saline group (26.3% versus 55.9%, p = 0.001). The rescue doses of atropine (0.09 ± 0.21 versus 0.28 ± 0.41, p = 0.001) and ephedrine (1.04 ± 2.89 versus 2.03 ± 3.25, p = 0.007) were also significantly lower in the ephedrine group. There was no differences in number of patients with hypertensive (7.0% versus 11.9%, p = 0.375) or tachycardia (1.8% versus 3.4% p = 0.581) episodes. The use of ephedrine intramuscular injections may be a safe and efficacious option in preventing hemodynamic perturbations in patients who received spinal anesthesia and sedation using dexmedetomidine.

Anesthesia for percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) involves a high-risk population having a broad spectrum of pain character and intensity. This study delved the anesthetic efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam, when used with remifentanil. Seventy patients scheduled for femoropopliteal PTA were randomized into two groups receiving either intermittent midazolam boluses (0.03–0.05 mg/kg) (MR group) or dexmedetomidine 0.2–0.7 μg/kg/h after a loading dose of 1.0 μg/kg for 10 min (DR group), both with remifentanil. The primary endpoint was the patients’ satisfaction (1–5, 5; extremely satisfied). Secondary endpoints included postprocedural pain scores (0–10, 10; worst imaginable pain) and adverse events. The satisfaction level of patients was significantly greater in the DR group compared with the MR group (4.0 [3.0, 5.0] versus 4.0 [2.0, 5.0] p = 0.021). The number of patients having a postprocedural pain score of at least 3 was significantly greater in the MR group compared with the DR group (10 [29%] versus 2 [6%], p = 0.013). The number of patients with hypotensive episodes was higher in the DR group (5 [14.7%] versus 0, p = 0.025), which could all be restored with ephedrine. The use of dexmedetomidine in conjunction with remifentanil may be a safe option that provides excellent patient satisfaction while potentially attenuating postprocedural pain.

Background: Pain control after off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (OPCAB) facilitates mobilization and improves outcomes. The efficacy of the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) after cardiac surgery remains controversial. Methods: We aimed to investigate the analgesic effects of ESPB after OPCAB. Precisely 56 patients receiving OPCAB were randomly divided into ESPB and control groups. The primary outcome was visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were the dose of rescue analgesics in terms of oral morphine milligram equivalents, the dose of antiemetics, the length of intubation time, and the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). Results: The VAS scores were similar at all time points in both groups. The incidence of severe pain (VAS score > 7) was significantly lower in the ESPB group (50% vs. 15.4%; p = 0.008). The dose of rescue analgesics was also lower in the ESPB group (19.04 ± 18.76, 9.83 ± 12.84, p = 0.044) compared with the control group. The other secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusions: ESPB provides analgesic efficacy by reducing the incidence of severe pain and opioid use after OPCAB.