Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34767130›Full record

Observational studyJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2022

Breathing variability during propofol/remifentanil procedural sedation with a single additional dose of midazolam or s-ketamine: a prospective observational study.

O F C van den Bosch, R Alvarez-Jimenez, S G Schet, K Delfsma, S A Loer

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. [Comparison of clinical effects and safety of remidazolam and esketamine for preoperative sedation in children].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2023
    Trial
  3. Anaesthetic Techniques for Cardiac Ablation-A Scoping Review.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

O F C van den BoschDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, VUMC, De Boelelaan 1117, ZH 6F 003, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. o.vandenbosch@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-1653-4029
R Alvarez-JimenezDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, VUMC, De Boelelaan 1117, ZH 6F 003, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S G SchetDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, VUMC, De Boelelaan 1117, ZH 6F 003, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
K DelfsmaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, VUMC, De Boelelaan 1117, ZH 6F 003, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S A LoerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, VUMC, De Boelelaan 1117, ZH 6F 003, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLAmsterdam Neuroscience · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRegulation of spontaneous breathing is highly complex and may be influenced by drugs administered during the perioperative period. Because of their different pharmacological properties we hypothesized that midazolam and s-ketamine exert different effects on the variability of minute ventilation (MV), tidal volume (TV) and respiratory rate (RR).

methodsPatients undergoing procedural sedation (PSA) with propofol and remifentanil received a single dose of midazolam (1-3 mg, n = 10) or s-ketamine (10-25 mg, n = 10). We used non-invasive impedance-based respiratory volume monitoring to record RR as well as changes in TV and MV. Variability of these three parameters was calculated as coefficients of variation.

resultsTV and MV decreased during PSA to a comparable extent in both groups, whereas there was no significant change in RR. In line with our hypothesis we observed marked differences in breathing variability. The variability of MV (- 47.5% ± 24.8%, p = 0.011), TV (- 42.1% ± 30.2%, p = 0.003), and RR (- 28.5% ± 29.3%, p = 0.011) was significantly reduced in patients receiving midazolam. In contrast, variability remained unchanged in patients receiving s-ketamine (MV + 16% ± 45.2%, p = 0.182; TV +12% ± 47.7%, p = 0.390; RR +39% ± 65.2%, p = 0.129). After termination of PSA breathing variables returned to baseline values.

conclusionsWhile midazolam reduces respiratory variability in spontaneously breathing patients undergoing procedural sedation, s-ketamine preserves variability suggesting different effects on the regulation of spontaneous breathing.

Indexed as

MidazolamPropofolHumansHypnotics and SedativesKetamineProcedural SedationRemifentanilEsketamineHypnotics and SedativesKetamineMidazolamPropofolRemifentanilBreathing variabilityMidazolamProcedural sedationRespiratory volume monitorings-Ketamine

Identifiers

PMID34767130
PMCPMC9293797
OpenAlexW3212448692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.