Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39161682›Full record

Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2024

Comparison Between Esketamine and Alfentanil for Hysteroscopy: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Mengcao Weng, Dongdong Wang, Jia Zhong, Minyue Qian, Kai Zhang, Yue Jin

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Ciprofol-Esketamine Versus Ciprofol-Remifentanil in Hysteroscopic Endometrial Polypectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Comparison of the EDDrug design, development and therapy · 2026
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors.

Mengcao Weng *Department of Anesthesiology, Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Dongdong Wang *Department of Anesthesiology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Jia ZhongDepartment of Anesthesiology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Minyue QianDepartment of Anesthesiology, Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Kai ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Yue JinDepartment of Anesthesiology, Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0009-0004-1021-910X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to establish the 95% effective dose (ED95) of esketamine in combination with propofol for hysteroscopy and then to evaluate its efficacy and safety profile. Patients and Methods: This prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial consisted of two cohorts. In cohort 1, 45 women aged 18-65 years undergoing hysteroscopy were randomly assigned to either group E (esketamine + propofol) or group A (alfentanil + propofol). Dixon's up-and-down method was used to determine the ED95 of esketamine and alfentanil. In cohort 2, 86 patients were randomized to group E and group A, with the calculated ED95 dose of the study drugs used for induction. The success rate of anesthesia using the ED95% dose, along with parameters related to anesthesia induction, recovery, and adverse events were also recorded. Results: The ED95 of esketamine was 0.254 mg/kg (95% CI: 0.214-1.004), while that of alfentanil was 9.121 μg/kg (95% CI: 8.479-13.364). The anesthesia success rate was 93.0% in group E and 95.2% in group A (p = 0.664). After resuscitation, both groups achieved a 100% success rate. The induction time was significantly shorter in group E (60.0 [55.0-70.0] s) compared to group A (67.0 [61.0-79.3] s) (p = 0.006). Group E had lower rates of respiratory depression (p < 0.001), hypoxia (p = 0.006), minimum perioperative SpO Conclusion: This study determined the ED 95 dose of esketamine for intravenous general anesthesia during hysteroscopy. Esketamine showed less respiratory and hemodynamic depression, as well as fewer adverse effects compared to alfentanil. Esketamine is an ideal anesthetic agent compared to alfentanil for hysteroscopic anesthesia. Trial Registration: www.chictr.org.cn, (ChiCTR2300077283); registered November 3, 2023.

Indexed as

AlfentanilHysteroscopyKetaminePropofolAdolescentAdultAgedAnesthetics, IntravenousDose-Response Relationship, DrugDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMiddle AgedProspective StudiesYoung AdultAlfentanilAnesthetics, IntravenousEsketamineKetaminePropofol95% effective doseesketaminehysteroscopypropofol

Identifiers

PMID39161682
PMCPMC11330861

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.