Comparison of the Effects of Target-Controlled Versus Conventional Infusion Sedation on Recovery in Geriatric Patients Undergoing Diagnostic Cystoscopy

IF 0.9 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Nesibe Sena Bayburt, Fatma Nur Duruk Erkent, Ayşegül Güven, Neslihan Alkış
{"title":"Comparison of the Effects of Target-Controlled Versus Conventional Infusion Sedation on Recovery in Geriatric Patients Undergoing Diagnostic Cystoscopy","authors":"Nesibe Sena Bayburt, Fatma Nur Duruk Erkent, Ayşegül Güven, Neslihan Alkış","doi":"10.4274/TJAR.2025.252107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Procedural sedation management in geriatric patients undergoing cystoscopy requires careful monitoring due to age-related physiological changes and increased sensitivity to anaesthetic agents. Although both target-controlled infusion (TCI) and conventional total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) techniques with propofol are commonly used methods for sedation, their comparative effectiveness and safety in this population remain subjects of ongoing investigation. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of the two techniques in terms of time to induction, recovery time, hemodynamic stability, airway intervention requirements, and propofol consumption.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, randomized study enrolled 60 male patients aged 65 years and older who were scheduled to undergo elective cystoscopy. Participants were randomly assigned to either the TCI group (n = 30) or the TIVA group (n = 30). The two groups were compared in terms of induction time, recovery time, hemodynamic parameters, airway interventions, and total propofol consumption.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with the TCI group, the TIVA group presented significantly shorter induction-to-surgery initiation and recovery times (<i>P</i>=0.009 and <i>P</i>=0.016, respectively). However, systolic blood pressure was more stable in the TCI group compared to the TIVA group (<i>P</i>=0.014). Propofol consumption per unit time was greater in the TIVA group (<i>P</i>=0.048), although total propofol usage did not differ significantly. Airway intervention was more common in the TIVA group, particularly in the early phase; however, this difference was not significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both TCI and TIVA are effective sedation techniques for geriatric cystoscopy. While TIVA provides faster induction and recovery, TCI offers better hemodynamic stability and may reduce propofol requirements. Further studies are recommended to confirm these findings in broader patient populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":23353,"journal":{"name":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/TJAR.2025.252107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Procedural sedation management in geriatric patients undergoing cystoscopy requires careful monitoring due to age-related physiological changes and increased sensitivity to anaesthetic agents. Although both target-controlled infusion (TCI) and conventional total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) techniques with propofol are commonly used methods for sedation, their comparative effectiveness and safety in this population remain subjects of ongoing investigation. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of the two techniques in terms of time to induction, recovery time, hemodynamic stability, airway intervention requirements, and propofol consumption.

Methods: This prospective, randomized study enrolled 60 male patients aged 65 years and older who were scheduled to undergo elective cystoscopy. Participants were randomly assigned to either the TCI group (n = 30) or the TIVA group (n = 30). The two groups were compared in terms of induction time, recovery time, hemodynamic parameters, airway interventions, and total propofol consumption.

Results: Compared with the TCI group, the TIVA group presented significantly shorter induction-to-surgery initiation and recovery times (P=0.009 and P=0.016, respectively). However, systolic blood pressure was more stable in the TCI group compared to the TIVA group (P=0.014). Propofol consumption per unit time was greater in the TIVA group (P=0.048), although total propofol usage did not differ significantly. Airway intervention was more common in the TIVA group, particularly in the early phase; however, this difference was not significant.

Conclusion: Both TCI and TIVA are effective sedation techniques for geriatric cystoscopy. While TIVA provides faster induction and recovery, TCI offers better hemodynamic stability and may reduce propofol requirements. Further studies are recommended to confirm these findings in broader patient populations.

目标控制镇静与常规输液镇静对诊断性膀胱镜检查老年患者恢复的影响比较。
目的:由于年龄相关的生理变化和对麻醉药的敏感性增加,在进行膀胱镜检查的老年患者中,手术镇静管理需要仔细监测。虽然靶控输注(TCI)和常规全静脉麻醉(TIVA)技术与异丙酚都是常用的镇静方法,但它们在该人群中的相对有效性和安全性仍然是正在进行的研究的主题。本研究旨在比较两种技术在诱导时间、恢复时间、血流动力学稳定性、气道干预要求和异丙酚消耗方面的有效性。方法:这项前瞻性、随机研究纳入了60名年龄在65岁及以上的男性患者,他们计划接受选择性膀胱镜检查。参与者被随机分配到TCI组(n = 30)或TIVA组(n = 30)。比较两组患者的诱导时间、恢复时间、血流动力学参数、气道干预措施和丙泊酚总用量。结果:与TCI组相比,TIVA组诱导至手术起始时间和恢复时间均显著缩短(P=0.009和P=0.016)。然而,与TIVA组相比,TCI组收缩压更稳定(P=0.014)。单位时间异丙酚用量在TIVA组较高(P=0.048),但总异丙酚用量无显著差异。气道干预在TIVA组中更为常见,尤其是在早期;然而,这种差异并不显著。结论:TCI和TIVA均是老年膀胱镜下有效的镇静技术。虽然TIVA提供更快的诱导和恢复,TCI提供更好的血流动力学稳定性,并可能减少异丙酚的需求。建议进一步研究以在更广泛的患者群体中证实这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信