Sedation and analgesia during gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy increase procedural quality, contributing at the same time to greater patient satisfaction and willingness to undergo the procedure. Although sedation use has been optimized by the advent of efficacious and safe medications, data regarding the minimal criteria for discharge after outpatient endoscopy remain scant. Moreover, the time of discharge after endoscopy can be highly variable, depending not only on the type of procedure and anesthesia administered, but also on postprocedural complications and the patient\'s comorbidities. To make things even more conflicting, there is neither consensus among various endoscopic societies, concerning the most appropriate discharge strategy, nor a universally established tool that could be incorporated into everyday clinical practice, allowing patients\' safe discharge as well as ability to drive. In this context, we conducted a systematic review, aiming to summarize the evidence regarding the available discharge scoring systems after outpatient GI endoscopy with sedation and analgesia administration.

Sedation management in critically ill patients is a critical component of intensive care, aiming to balance the need for comfort and immobilization with preserving vital physiological functions. Ketamine, known for its dissociative anesthetic properties, has emerged as a promising alternative to traditional sedatives due to its unique pharmacological profile. This review explores the pharmacodynamics, clinical applications, benefits, challenges, and current evidence surrounding ketamine as a sedative agent in intensive care settings. Key advantages of ketamine include its ability to maintain respiratory drive and hemodynamic stability, making it particularly suitable for patients requiring continuous monitoring and intervention. The review discusses its role in sedation protocols, compares its effectiveness with other sedatives, and highlights potential areas for further research and optimization. By elucidating the complexities and advancements in ketamine sedation, this review aims to inform clinical practice and contribute to improved outcomes for critically ill patients.

The global burden of infertility is significant and the evidence suggests it is increasing in prevalence worldwide. Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are fertility related treatments used to achieve pregnancy which involve the manipulation of both oocytes and sperm. The specialty is rapidly growing and anaesthesia may be required for several stages in the ART cycle. Anaesthesiologists should appreciate the processes involved and how anaesthesia care can influence safe and effective treatment outcomes. In this review article we explain the key steps of the ART cycle and the role of anaesthesiologists in this process. We also highlight key patient considerations, the implications of remote site anaesthesia and the safety concerns with provision of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists. Finally we outline a typical anaesthetic technique used in our institution for transvaginal oocyte retrieval.

BACKGROUND: Down syndrome (DS), or Trisomy 21, is defined by the existence of an additional chromosome 21. Various physiological considerations in DS patients might lead to challenges in adequate pain management and sedation after surgery. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the variations of the requirement needed for pain management and sedation in patients with DS who have undergone surgery compared to patients without DS.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies were conducted, focusing on critically ill patients with DS who were admitted to Intensive care units (ICUs) post-surgery and received opioids and/or benzodiazepines. Searches were conducted in four databases from their inception to November 18, 2023 (Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science). The primary outcome measured was the dosage of Oral Morphine Equivalent (OME) administered in the days following surgery. Fixed-effect models were used, an approach advisable when only a limited number of studies are available.
RESULTS: Out of the 992 studies initially screened, the systematic review included ten studies, encompassing 730 patients, while the meta-analysis consisted of seven studies, encompassing 533 patients. Of the seven studies included in the analysis, 298 patients were identified to have DS, and 235 patients served as controls. Patients with DS showed a slight increase in OME needs on the first day, but this increase was not statistically significant (mean difference [MD] = 0.09; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: [-0.02, 0.20]; P = 0.11). There was also no significant difference in the requirement for Midazolam on the first day among DS patients (MD = 0.01; CI [-0.16, 0.19]; P = 0.88). In addition, the duration of mechanical ventilation was not statistically significant in patients with DS compared with the control group (MD = -1.46 hours; 95% CI [-9.74, 6.82]; P = 0.73).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Down syndrome did not require more sedation or analgesia in the first three days after surgery than patients without Down syndrome. Additionally, the two groups showed no significant difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation.

Worldwide, a majority of routine endoscopic procedures are performed under some form of sedation to maximize patient comfort. Propofol, benzodiazepines and opioids continue to be widely used. However, in recent years, Remimazolam is gaining immense popularity for procedural sedation in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. It is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in July 2020 for use in procedural sedation. Remimazolam has shown a favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile in terms of its non-specific metabolism by tissue esterase, volume of distribution, total body clearance, and negligible drug-drug interactions. It also has satisfactory efficacy and has achieved high rates of successful sedation in GI endoscopy. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that the efficacy of Remimazolam is non-inferior to Propofol, which is currently a gold standard for procedural sedation in most parts of the world. However, the use of Propofol is associated with hemodynamic instability and respiratory depression. In contrast, Remimazolam has lower incidence of these adverse effects intra-procedurally and hence, may provide a safer alternative to Propofol in procedural sedation. In this comprehensive narrative review, highlight the pharmacologic characteristics, efficacy, and safety of Remimazolam for procedural sedation. We also discuss the potential of Remimazolam as a suitable alternative and how it can shape the future of procedural sedation in gastroenterology.

Background: Patients in intensive care units experience high symptom burden during mechanical ventilation (MV). Pharmacologic symptom management is associated with side effects and increased morbidity. Music-based interventions (MBIs) have been associated with reductions in both anxiety in MV adults and pain for critically ill adults, yet their use for the management of other burdensome symptoms has not been evaluated. The purpose of this scoping review is to map the state of evidence for the use of prerecorded music listening MBIs for symptom management in MV adults. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted across four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science) for experimental designed studies that measured the efficacy of MBIs for the management of physical and psychological symptoms including anxiety, sedation/agitation, dyspnea, distress, delirium, sleep, stress, fear, loneliness, or depression in critically ill, MV adults between January 1, 1998, and April 18, 2023. Results: A total of 643 abstracts and 29 clinical trials were included. Overall, the risk of bias, assessed using the Evidence Project tool, was moderate. MBIs were mostly delivered with headphones using music selected either by investigators or from a limited selection. MBIs were associated with reduced pain, agitation, dyspnea, distress and anxiety, and improved tolerance of MV and sedative weaning. Outcomes of delirium were mixed. No studies explored sleep disturbances, fear, or loneliness. Conclusions: Use of MBIs improved symptom experience for critically ill adults during MV. Future studies employing unrestricted patient-preferred music selections and exploring outcomes of sleep quality, psychological distress, and delirium are needed in this highly symptomatic patient population.

UNASSIGNED: Fexofenadine is a second-generation inverse agonist of H1-receptor of histamine which is highly selective with proven efficacy in relieving symptoms associated with allergic conditions. It has an additional benefit of not penetrating the blood-brain barrier and therefore do not induce sedation and not impair the cognitive function/psychomotor performance. This review aimed at providing evidence based on available controlled studies to reinforce the non-sedative property of fexofenadine for treating patients with allergic rhinitis and urticaria.
UNASSIGNED: We performed an electronic literature search using keywords such as fexofenadine, drowsiness, somnolence, sedation, fatigue, cognitive, impairment, psychomotor, driving performances, sleep, rapid eye movement, alertness, clinical study, in vitro study, in vivo study, and pharmacodynamics in the Embase search engine. The review included randomized controlled trials, review articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, together with post-marketing analysis conducted in healthy subjects and patients with allergy and were focused on comparing the antihistaminic potential or safety of fexofenadine with other antihistamines or placebo.
UNASSIGNED: Positron emission tomography (PET) and proportional impairment ratio (PIR) data along with other objective tests from various studies confirmed the non-sedative property of fexofenadine. Results of brain H1-receptor occupancy (H1RO) obtained from PET showed no H1RO by fexofenadine, the receptor which is known to cause sedation of H1 antihistamines. Most studies calculating PIR value as 0 showed fexofenadine to be a non-impairing oral antihistamine regardless of dose. Clinical trials in adults and children showed fexofenadine to be well tolerated without sedative effect or impairment of cognitive/psychomotor function even at higher than recommended doses.
UNASSIGNED: Published literature based on various parameters and clinical trials conducted for evaluating the effect of fexofenadine on sedation and central nervous system shows fexofenadine is both clinically effective and non-sedating.

Compared to intravenous anesthetics, intranasal medication for sedation is a less invasive approach. Intranasal ketamine (IK) is a widely used medication for procedural sedation. Hence, a systematic review was conducted with the aim of evaluating the safety and efficacy of IK among pediatric patients used for procedural sedation. For this purpose, a literature search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, and MEDLINE. A total of 247 search results appeared after running the developed query and eight articles passed through the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the study. Most of the studies used 4 to 7 mg/kg dose of IK for pediatric patients. It was found that there was a moderate correlation between the age and dose of IK. Similarly, the dose of IK also had a direct and moderate correlation with the onset of sedation. Regarding the reported side effects, most of the studies reported nausea and vomiting as side effects of IK. Hence, it could be concluded from the study findings that effective sedation can be achieved by using 4 to 7 mg/kg dose of IK. The reported side effects of IK were minor while parental satisfaction with the drug was very high. Therefore, it can be concluded that the use of IK for procedural sedation among pediatric patients is safe and effective.

UNASSIGNED: This study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous esketamine as an adjuvant for sedation or analgesia outside the operating room in adults and children.
UNASSIGNED: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for potential randomized controlled studies randomized controlled trials comparing drug combinations of esketamine to any other single or combination drug regimens for sedation or analgesia outside the operating room.
UNASSIGNED: Twenty-five studies with a total of 3,455 participants were included in this review. The pooled results of adults showed that compared with drug regimens of the control group, intravenous esketamine combinations were significantly associated with decreased risk of oxygen desaturation (RR = 0.49, 95% CI = [0.34, 0.70]); hypotension (RR = 0.38, 95% CI = [0.31, 0.46]); bradycardia (RR = 0.23, 95% CI = [0.12, 0.43]); injection pain (RR = 0.37, 95% CI = [0.25, 0.53]); body movement (RR = 0.60, 95% CI = [0.41, 0.88]); and propofol consumption (SMD = -1.38, 95% CI = [-2.64, -0.11]), but an increased risk of psychiatric symptoms (RR = 3.10, 95% CI = [2.11, 4.54]) (RR = relative risk; CI = confidence intervals; SMD = standardized mean difference). Subgroup analysis showed that only the combination of esketamine and propofol significantly reduced the above incidence of respiratory and cardiovascular adverse events in adults. In addition, the pooled results of children showed that compared with drug regimens of the control group, esketamine and propofol co-administration significantly reduced the risk of hypotension (RR = 0.59, 95% CI = [0.37, 0.95]) but increased the risk of visual disturbance (RR = 6.62, 95% CI = [2.18, 20.13]) and dizziness (RR = 1.99, 95% CI = [1.17, 3,37]). Subgroup analysis indicated that esketamine>0.5 mg/kg significantly reduced the incidence of hypotension, but increased the risk of dizziness in children.
UNASSIGNED: Intravenous use of esketamine, particularly in combination with propofol, may improve the safety and efficacy of sedation and analgesia outside the operating room, although the potential for psychiatric side effects warrants attention. Future research is recommended to investigate the role of esketamine with agents other than propofol.

BACKGROUND: As a new type of intravenous anesthetic, ciprofol has the advantages of fast onset of action, fast recovery and high clearance rate. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of ciprofol versus traditional propofol for anesthesia and sedation in and out of the operating room.
METHODS: We searched the literature in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases from January 2021 to December 2023. All clinical studies comparing the sedative effects of propofol and ciprofol, both inside and outside the operating room, were included in our trial. The main outcome measures were induction time and incidence of injection-site pain. Data are merged using risk ratio and standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval. Subgroup analysis, meta-regression, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were performed. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023447747).
RESULTS: A total of 15 randomized, controlled trials involving 2002 patients were included in this study. Compared with propofol, ciprofol has a longer induction time in the operating room but a shorter induction time in non-operating room settings. Ciprofol can effectively reduce the risk of injection-site pain and respiratory depression both inside and outside the operating room. In addition, the risk of drug-related hypotension induced with ciprofol in the operating room is lower, but the awakening time is also longer. Meta-regression analysis showed that neither age nor BMI were potential sources of heterogeneity. Funnel plot, egger and begg tests showed no significant publication bias. Sensitivity analyzes indicate that our results are robust and reliable.
CONCLUSIONS: Ciprofol has absolute advantages in reducing the risk of injection-site pain and respiratory depression, both in and outside operating room. Intraoperative use of ciprofol reduces the risk of drug-related hypotension and may also reduce the risk of intraoperative physical movements. However, ciprofol may have longer induction and awakening time than propofol.