Objective: To compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine, esketamine or combined intranasal administration on the induction of inhalation anaesthesia in children.Methods: Ninety children aged 1–6 years were randomly allocated into three equal groups to be premedicated with either intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 μg/kg (Group D), esketamine 1 mg/kg (Group S), or dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg combined with esketamine 0.5 mg/kg (Group DS). The primary endpoint was the Induction Compliance Checklist (ICC) Scale. Secondary outcomes included the sedation success rate; the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale score; the time of reaching up to two points on the University of Michigan Sedation Scale (UMSS); Parental Separation Anxiety Scale; anaesthesiologist satisfaction with induction based on the visual analogue scale; emergence agitation scale score; and adverse effects.Results: The children in the DS group showed a high degree of cooperation with inhalation anaesthesia induction, and their ICC score was significantly lower than that of the D and S groups (p = 0.001), but there was no difference between the D and S groups. The success rate of sedation was higher in Group DS (90%) than in Group D (70%) and Group S (53.3%) (p = 0.007). Anaesthesiologist satisfaction with induction was significantly higher in Group DS than in Groups D and S (p = 0.001). The incidence of emergence agitation and the Paediatric Anaesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) score in the DS group were lower than those in the D and S groups.Conclusions: Preoperative intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine combined with esketamine can significantly improve the cooperation of children with inhalation anaesthesia masks. It is a sedation method that has a high success rate and reduces the incidence and degree of emergence agitation.

Ciprofol is a newly developed intravenous anesthetic agent with improved pharmacokinetic properties. Compared to propofol, ciprofol exhibits stronger binding to the GABAA receptor and elicits a greater enhancement of GABAA receptor‐mediated neuronal currents in vitro. The aims of the present clinical trials were to examine the safety and efficacy of different doses of ciprofol for induction of general anesthesia in elderly patients. A total of 105 elderly patients undergoing elective surgery were randomized, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive one of three sedation regimens: (1) the C1 group (0.2 mg/kg ciprofol), (2) the C2 group (0.3 mg/kg ciprofol), (3) the C3 group (0.4 mg/kg ciprofol). The primary outcome was the incidence of various adverse events, including hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, hypoxemia, and injection pain. The secondary outcomes of efficacy were the success rate of general anesthesia induction, the time to anesthesia induction, and the frequency of remedial sedation was recorded in each group. Adverse events occurred in 13 patients (37%) in group C1, 8 patients (22%) in group C2, and 24 patients (68%) in group C3. Compared with group C2, the total incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in group C1 and group C3 ( p < .001).The success rate of general anesthesia induction in the three groups was 100%. Compared with group C1, the frequency of remedial sedation was significantly lower in group C2 and group C3. The outcomes demonstrated that ciprofol at a dose of 0.3 mg/kg has good safety and efficacy in the induction of general anesthesia in elderly patients. Overall, ciprofol is a new and viable option for the induction of general anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing elective surgery.

To compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for sedation during hysteroscopy. Methods: A total of 149 patients undergoing hysteroscopy were randomly assigned to a ciprofol (Group C) or propofol group (Group P). All cases received intravenous sufentanil 0.1 µg/kg for analgesic preconditioning. Group C received an induction dose of ciprofol 0.4 mg/kg and a maintenance dosage of 0.6-1.2 mg/kg/h to maintain BIS value between 40-60. In Group P, propofol was started at 2.0 mg/kg and then maintained at 3.0-6.0 mg/kg/h. The primary outcome was the successful rate of hysteroscopy. Secondary outcomes included the change of hemodynamic, respiratory adverse events, injection pain, body movement, recovery time, anesthetist's satisfaction, time of disappearance of the eyelash reflex and the incidence of nausea and vomiting. Results: The success rate of hysteroscopy in each group was 100%. After drug administration, the incidence of hypotension in Group C was much lower than that in Group P (P< 0.05). The incidence of respiratory adverse events in Group C (4.0%) was much lower than that in Group P (31.1%) (P< 0.05). The incidence of injection pain and body movement in Group C was significantly lower than that in Group P (P< 0.05). The mean eyelash reflex disappearance time was less than 3 minutes in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in awakening times, anesthetist's satisfaction and the incidence of nausea and vomiting. No serious adverse events occurred in any patients. Conclusion: Ciprofol proved to be a safer alternative to propofol for anesthesia during hysteroscopy. In comparison to propofol, ciprofol does not cause injection pain, exerts less impact on hemodynamics, and results in less respiratory depression.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.