Li Teng, Zhang Jin, Liu Zhouliang, Lu Yao, Gong Chuhao, Han Dan, Wu Ying, Gao Kailun, Heng Lei, Wang Liwei, Peng Peng
XuZhou Clinical School of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Department of Anesthesiology, Xuzhou Renci Hospital, Xuzhou, China.
Heliyon. 2024 Apr 25;10(9):e30378. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30378. eCollection 2024 May 15.
To explore the effects of propofol and ciprofol on patient euphoric reactions during sedation in patients undergoing gastroscopy and to investigate potential factors that may influence euphoric reactions in patients.
A total of 217 patients were randomly divided into two groups: the propofol group (P group, n = 109) and the ciprofol group (C group, n = 108). The patients in the P group were given 2 mg/kg propofol, and those in the C group were given 0.5 mg/kg ciprofol. The patients were assessed using the Addiction Research Center Inventory-Chinese Version (ARCI-CV) to measure euphoric reactions at three time points: preexamination, 30 min after awakening, and 1 week after examination. Anxiety, depression, and sleep status were evaluated using appropriate scales at admission and 1 week after the examination. The dream rate, sedative effects, vital sign dynamics, and adverse reactions were documented during the sedation process.
After 30 min of awakening, the P group and C group showed no statistically significant differences in the mean morphine-benzedrine group (MBG) score (8.84 vs. 9.09, > 0.05), dream rate (42.2 % vs. 40.7 %, > 0.05), or MBG score one week after the examination (7.04 vs. 7.05, > 0.05). The regression analysis revealed that sex, dream status, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score, and examination time had notable impacts on the MBG-30 min score. No statistically significant differences were observed in sedative effects, anxiety, depression, or sleep status between the two groups ( > 0.05). The incidence of injection pain and severe hypotension was significantly lower in the C group ( < 0.05), and hemodynamics and SpO were more stable during sedation ( < 0.05).
There was no significant difference between propofol and ciprofol in terms of euphoria experienced by patients after sedation in patients undergoing gastroscopy. Ciprofol has demonstrated addictive potential similar to that of propofol, warranting careful attention to its addictive potential during clinical application.
探讨丙泊酚与环泊酚对胃镜检查患者镇静期间欣快感反应的影响，并研究可能影响患者欣快感反应的潜在因素。
将217例患者随机分为两组：丙泊酚组（P组，n = 109）和环泊酚组（C组，n = 108）。P组患者给予2mg/kg丙泊酚，C组患者给予0.5mg/kg环泊酚。采用中文版成瘾研究中心量表（ARCI-CV）在三个时间点评估患者的欣快感反应：检查前、苏醒后30分钟和检查后1周。在入院时和检查后1周使用适当的量表评估焦虑、抑郁和睡眠状况。记录镇静过程中的做梦率、镇静效果、生命体征动态及不良反应。
苏醒30分钟后，P组和C组在平均吗啡-苯丙胺组（MBG）评分（8.84 vs. 9.09，P>0.05）、做梦率（42.2% vs. 40.7%，P>0.05）或检查后1周的MBG评分（7.04 vs. 7.05，P>0.05）方面无统计学显著差异。回归分析显示，性别、做梦状态、酒精使用障碍识别测试（AUDIT）评分和检查时间对MBG-30分钟评分有显著影响。两组在镇静效果、焦虑、抑郁或睡眠状况方面未观察到统计学显著差异（P>0.05）。C组注射痛和严重低血压的发生率显著较低（P<0.05），且镇静期间血流动力学和SpO更稳定（P<0.05）。
在胃镜检查患者中，丙泊酚和环泊酚在镇静后患者欣快感方面无显著差异。环泊酚已显示出与丙泊酚相似的成瘾潜力，在临床应用中需谨慎关注其成瘾潜力。
