静脉注射纳布啡和舒芬太尼对异丙酚减轻宫腔镜宫颈扩张反应的中位有效效应位点浓度的比较:一项双盲剂量反应研究。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Shu-Xi Li, Yan-Hong Zhou, Ying-Jie Yang, Qian Wang, Wan Lei, Jian-Jun Shen, Xin-Zhong Chen, Li-Li Xu
{"title":"静脉注射纳布啡和舒芬太尼对异丙酚减轻宫腔镜宫颈扩张反应的中位有效效应位点浓度的比较:一项双盲剂量反应研究。","authors":"Shu-Xi Li, Yan-Hong Zhou, Ying-Jie Yang, Qian Wang, Wan Lei, Jian-Jun Shen, Xin-Zhong Chen, Li-Li Xu","doi":"10.1186/s12871-025-03208-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nalbuphine, a synthetic opioid receptor agonist, exhibits comparable analgesic activity to morphine while demonstrating superior safety. Recent reports suggest that it is more effective than sufentanil in relieving uterine contraction pain. The objective of our study was to investigate the role of nalbuphine in reducing effect-site propofol concentration (Ce<sub>prop</sub>) required to suppress response to cervical dilation in 50% of patients (EC<sub>50</sub>) undergoing hysteroscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety patients having monitored anesthesia care for hysteroscopy were randomized to receive 0.15 mg·kg<sup>-1</sup>, 0.2 mg·kg<sup>-1</sup> intravenous nalbuphine or 0.15 μg·kg<sup>-1</sup> intravenous sufentanil, followed by a target controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol. The initial target effect-site propofol concentration (Ce<sub>prop</sub>) was 3.5 μg·ml<sup>-1</sup> which was increased or decreased in subsequent patients by steps of 0.5 μg·ml<sup>-1</sup> according to whether there was loss of response to cervical dilation in the previous patient. We used up-down sequential analysis to determine values of Ce<sub>prop</sub> that produced an effective response in 50% of patients (EC<sub>50</sub>). Probit analysis was applied as a backup and sensitivity test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The calculated EC<sub>50</sub> of propofol in nalbuphine Group of 0.2 mg·kg<sup>-1</sup> (3.57 [95% CI 3.36 to 3.79] μg·ml<sup>-1</sup>) were lower compared to propofol in nalbuphine Group of 0.15 mg·kg<sup>-1</sup> (4.04 [95% CI 3.85 to 4.22] μg·ml<sup>-1</sup>) and sufentanil Group of 0.15 μg·kg<sup>-1</sup> (4.07 [95% CI 3.88 to 4.25] μg·ml<sup>-1</sup>) (P = 0.002). Differences between EC<sub>50</sub> values for propofol in nalbuphine Group of 0.15 mg·kg<sup>-1</sup> and sufentanil Group of 0.15 μg·kg<sup>-1</sup> were not statistically significant. Minutely propofol requirement was also lower in 0.2 mg·kg<sup>-1</sup> nalbuphine Group (0.22 [0.19 to 0.27] mg·kg<sup>-1</sup>·min<sup>-1</sup>) compared with 0.15 mg·kg<sup>-1</sup> nalbuphine Group (0.30 [0.25 to 0.33] mg·kg<sup>-1</sup>·min<sup>-1</sup>) and 0.15 μg·kg<sup>-1</sup> sufentanil Group (0.27 [0.24 to 0.37] mg·kg<sup>-1</sup>·min<sup>-1</sup>) (P = 0.020).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>During hysteroscopic surgery, when compared with sufentanil, 0.2 mg·kg<sup>-1</sup> nalbuphine significantly reduced the EC<sub>50</sub> for propofol to inhibit cervical dilation response and the propofol requirement, and did not delay the emergence from anesthesia. Whether 0.2 mg·kg<sup>-1</sup> nalbuphine could improve perioperative prognosis is worthy of further studies.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The study was then registered on August 9th, 2023 at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry which participates in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (Identifier: ChiCTR2300074513) before enrolling the first participant and written informed consent was obtained by each patient.</p>","PeriodicalId":9190,"journal":{"name":"BMC Anesthesiology","volume":"25 1","pages":"342"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12232795/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of intravenous nalbuphine and sufentanil on the median effective effect-site concentration of propofol to attenuate the response to cervical dilation during hysteroscopy: a double-blind, dose-response study.\",\"authors\":\"Shu-Xi Li, Yan-Hong Zhou, Ying-Jie Yang, Qian Wang, Wan Lei, Jian-Jun Shen, Xin-Zhong Chen, Li-Li Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12871-025-03208-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nalbuphine, a synthetic opioid receptor agonist, exhibits comparable analgesic activity to morphine while demonstrating superior safety. Recent reports suggest that it is more effective than sufentanil in relieving uterine contraction pain. The objective of our study was to investigate the role of nalbuphine in reducing effect-site propofol concentration (Ce<sub>prop</sub>) required to suppress response to cervical dilation in 50% of patients (EC<sub>50</sub>) undergoing hysteroscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety patients having monitored anesthesia care for hysteroscopy were randomized to receive 0.15 mg·kg<sup>-1</sup>, 0.2 mg·kg<sup>-1</sup> intravenous nalbuphine or 0.15 μg·kg<sup>-1</sup> intravenous sufentanil, followed by a target controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol. The initial target effect-site propofol concentration (Ce<sub>prop</sub>) was 3.5 μg·ml<sup>-1</sup> which was increased or decreased in subsequent patients by steps of 0.5 μg·ml<sup>-1</sup> according to whether there was loss of response to cervical dilation in the previous patient. We used up-down sequential analysis to determine values of Ce<sub>prop</sub> that produced an effective response in 50% of patients (EC<sub>50</sub>). Probit analysis was applied as a backup and sensitivity test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The calculated EC<sub>50</sub> of propofol in nalbuphine Group of 0.2 mg·kg<sup>-1</sup> (3.57 [95% CI 3.36 to 3.79] μg·ml<sup>-1</sup>) were lower compared to propofol in nalbuphine Group of 0.15 mg·kg<sup>-1</sup> (4.04 [95% CI 3.85 to 4.22] μg·ml<sup>-1</sup>) and sufentanil Group of 0.15 μg·kg<sup>-1</sup> (4.07 [95% CI 3.88 to 4.25] μg·ml<sup>-1</sup>) (P = 0.002). Differences between EC<sub>50</sub> values for propofol in nalbuphine Group of 0.15 mg·kg<sup>-1</sup> and sufentanil Group of 0.15 μg·kg<sup>-1</sup> were not statistically significant. Minutely propofol requirement was also lower in 0.2 mg·kg<sup>-1</sup> nalbuphine Group (0.22 [0.19 to 0.27] mg·kg<sup>-1</sup>·min<sup>-1</sup>) compared with 0.15 mg·kg<sup>-1</sup> nalbuphine Group (0.30 [0.25 to 0.33] mg·kg<sup>-1</sup>·min<sup>-1</sup>) and 0.15 μg·kg<sup>-1</sup> sufentanil Group (0.27 [0.24 to 0.37] mg·kg<sup>-1</sup>·min<sup>-1</sup>) (P = 0.020).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>During hysteroscopic surgery, when compared with sufentanil, 0.2 mg·kg<sup>-1</sup> nalbuphine significantly reduced the EC<sub>50</sub> for propofol to inhibit cervical dilation response and the propofol requirement, and did not delay the emergence from anesthesia. Whether 0.2 mg·kg<sup>-1</sup> nalbuphine could improve perioperative prognosis is worthy of further studies.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The study was then registered on August 9th, 2023 at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry which participates in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (Identifier: ChiCTR2300074513) before enrolling the first participant and written informed consent was obtained by each patient.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"342\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12232795/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-025-03208-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-025-03208-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:纳布啡是一种合成阿片受体激动剂,具有与吗啡相当的镇痛活性,同时具有更高的安全性。最近的报道表明,在缓解子宫收缩疼痛方面,它比舒芬太尼更有效。本研究的目的是探讨纳布啡在降低50%宫腔镜患者(EC50)抑制宫颈扩张反应所需的效应位点异丙酚浓度(Ceprop)中的作用。方法:90例宫腔镜麻醉监护患者随机接受0.15 mg·kg-1、0.2 mg·kg-1静脉纳布啡或0.15 mg·kg-1静脉舒芬太尼治疗,然后靶控输注异丙酚。初始靶效应部位异丙酚浓度(Ceprop)为3.5 μg·ml-1,后续患者根据既往患者宫颈扩张是否丧失反应,按0.5 μg·ml-1递增或递减。我们使用上下序贯分析来确定在50%的患者(EC50)中产生有效反应的Ceprop的值。采用概率分析作为备份和敏感性检验。结果:0.2 mg·kg-1纳布啡组丙泊酚EC50计算值(3.57 [95% CI 3.36 ~ 3.79] μg·ml-1)低于0.15 mg·kg-1纳布啡组(4.04 [95% CI 3.85 ~ 4.22] μg·ml-1)和舒芬太尼组(4.07 [95% CI 3.88 ~ 4.25] μg·ml-1) (P = 0.002)。纳布啡组0.15 mg·kg-1与舒芬太尼组0.15 mg·kg-1异丙酚EC50值差异无统计学意义。0.2 mg·kg-1纳布啡组(0.22 [0.19 ~ 0.27]mg·kg-1·min-1)与0.15 mg·kg-1纳布啡组(0.30 [0.25 ~ 0.33]mg·kg-1·min-1)和0.15 μg·kg-1舒芬太尼组(0.27 [0.24 ~ 0.37]mg·kg-1·min-1)相比,异丙酚分钟需取量也较低(P = 0.020)。结论:宫腔镜手术时,与舒芬太尼相比,0.2 mg·kg-1纳布啡可显著降低异丙酚抑制宫颈扩张反应和异丙酚需用量的EC50,且不延迟麻醉苏醒。0.2 mg·kg-1纳布啡是否能改善围手术期预后值得进一步研究。试验注册:该研究于2023年8月9日在参与世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台的中国临床试验注册中心(标识符:ChiCTR2300074513)注册,然后招募第一名参与者,每位患者获得书面知情同意书。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of intravenous nalbuphine and sufentanil on the median effective effect-site concentration of propofol to attenuate the response to cervical dilation during hysteroscopy: a double-blind, dose-response study.

Background: Nalbuphine, a synthetic opioid receptor agonist, exhibits comparable analgesic activity to morphine while demonstrating superior safety. Recent reports suggest that it is more effective than sufentanil in relieving uterine contraction pain. The objective of our study was to investigate the role of nalbuphine in reducing effect-site propofol concentration (Ceprop) required to suppress response to cervical dilation in 50% of patients (EC50) undergoing hysteroscopy.

Methods: Ninety patients having monitored anesthesia care for hysteroscopy were randomized to receive 0.15 mg·kg-1, 0.2 mg·kg-1 intravenous nalbuphine or 0.15 μg·kg-1 intravenous sufentanil, followed by a target controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol. The initial target effect-site propofol concentration (Ceprop) was 3.5 μg·ml-1 which was increased or decreased in subsequent patients by steps of 0.5 μg·ml-1 according to whether there was loss of response to cervical dilation in the previous patient. We used up-down sequential analysis to determine values of Ceprop that produced an effective response in 50% of patients (EC50). Probit analysis was applied as a backup and sensitivity test.

Results: The calculated EC50 of propofol in nalbuphine Group of 0.2 mg·kg-1 (3.57 [95% CI 3.36 to 3.79] μg·ml-1) were lower compared to propofol in nalbuphine Group of 0.15 mg·kg-1 (4.04 [95% CI 3.85 to 4.22] μg·ml-1) and sufentanil Group of 0.15 μg·kg-1 (4.07 [95% CI 3.88 to 4.25] μg·ml-1) (P = 0.002). Differences between EC50 values for propofol in nalbuphine Group of 0.15 mg·kg-1 and sufentanil Group of 0.15 μg·kg-1 were not statistically significant. Minutely propofol requirement was also lower in 0.2 mg·kg-1 nalbuphine Group (0.22 [0.19 to 0.27] mg·kg-1·min-1) compared with 0.15 mg·kg-1 nalbuphine Group (0.30 [0.25 to 0.33] mg·kg-1·min-1) and 0.15 μg·kg-1 sufentanil Group (0.27 [0.24 to 0.37] mg·kg-1·min-1) (P = 0.020).

Conclusions: During hysteroscopic surgery, when compared with sufentanil, 0.2 mg·kg-1 nalbuphine significantly reduced the EC50 for propofol to inhibit cervical dilation response and the propofol requirement, and did not delay the emergence from anesthesia. Whether 0.2 mg·kg-1 nalbuphine could improve perioperative prognosis is worthy of further studies.

Trial registration: The study was then registered on August 9th, 2023 at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry which participates in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (Identifier: ChiCTR2300074513) before enrolling the first participant and written informed consent was obtained by each patient.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Anesthesiology
BMC Anesthesiology ANESTHESIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
349
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Anesthesiology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of anesthesiology, critical care, perioperative care and pain management, including clinical and experimental research into anesthetic mechanisms, administration and efficacy, technology and monitoring, and associated economic issues.
×
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