The Journal of Practical Medicine ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (3): 525-530.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2026.03.022

• Treatise: Clinical Practice • Previous Articles    

Effects of fospropofol disodium and propofol on hemodynamic responses during anesthesia induction in painless endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration

Mengrong HU,Ruwen HUANG,Rui LI,Xiaofen LIN,Qing WAN()   

  1. Department of Anesthesiology,the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Guizhou Medical University,Guiyang 550001,Guizhou,China
  • Received:2025-10-14 Online:2026-02-10 Published:2026-02-09
  • Contact: Qing WAN E-mail:34219463@qq.com

Abstract:

Objective To compare the hemodynamic changes and safety of fospropofol disodium and propofol during anesthesia induction in patients undergoing painless endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA). Methods Sixty-eight patients scheduled for elective painless EBUS-TBNA, aged 40 ~ 65 years with ASA physical status Ⅰ - Ⅲ, were enrolled and randomly allocated (1∶1) to the fospropofol disodium group (F group, n = 34) or the propofol group (P group, n = 34) using a random number table. Anesthesia induction was performed with intravenous sufentanil (0.3 μg/kg), followed by fospropofol disodium (12.5 mg/kg, F group) or propofol (2 mg/kg, P group) within 1 min. Rocuronium (0.6 mg/kg) was administered when the modified observer′s assessment of alertness/sedation scale (MOAA/S) score was ied observerd observerhen the modified observerd transbronchial needle aventilation. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and bispectral index (BIS) were recorded at six time points: entering the operating room (T0), 1 min after induction (T1), immediately after laryngeal mask insertion (T2), bronchoscope passing through the glottis (T3), at the end of the EBUS-TBNA procedure (T4), and 3 min after extubation (T5). Intraoperative sedative and vasoactive drug consumption, sedation success rate, and incidence of adverse events were also assessed. Results Compared with the P group, the F group showed significantly higher MAP at T1 and T4P < 0.05), a lower incidence of intraoperative hypotension (P < 0.05), and reduced total ephedrine use (P < 0.05). The F group had a significantly longer time to loss of consciousness (P < 0.05), higher incidence of paresthesia (P < 0.05), and lower incidence of injection pain (P < 0.01). No significant differences were observed between groups in BIS,HR, sedation success rate, recovery time, or incidence of bradycardia and tachycardia (all P > 0.05). Conclusion Compared with propofol, fospropofol disodium provides more stable hemodynamics during general anesthesia for EBUS-TBNA, significantly reducing the incidence of hypotension and injection pain; however, it has a longer induction time and is associated with risks such as skin pruritus and paresthesia.

Key words: fospropofol disodium, endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration, general anesthesia, hemodynamics

CLC Number: