SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Esketamine”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Effects of sub-anesthetic doses of esketamine on immune function and postoperative negative emotions in acoustic neuroma patients: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing acoustic neuroma (AN) surgery often experience postoperative negative emotions, including anxiety, depression, and immune function suppression. This trial evaluated whether perioperative sub-anesthetic esketamine improves early postoperative negative emotions and immune function. METHODS: In this single-center, double-blind, randomized trial, 84 patients scheduled for AN surgery were assigned to esketamine (n = 42) or placebo (n = 42). The esketamine cohort received a continuous intravenous infusion of esketamine at 0.2 mg·kg-1·h-1 during anesthesia, followed by 1 mg·kg-1 esketamine as an adjuvant in patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). The placebo group received saline. The primary outcome was the incidence of depression on postoperative day (POD1), defined as a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression subscale (HADS-D) score > 7. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients completed the study (39 in the esketamine group, 38 in the placebo group). Esketamine significantly reduced the incidence of depression at POD1 (7.7% versus 31.6%; relative risk 0.24, 95% CI: 0.08-0.80, p = 0.008) and POD3 (0.0% versus 15.8%, relative risk 0.00, 95% CI: 0.00-0.47, p = 0.031) compared with placebo. The incidences of anxiety on POD1 and 3 and sleep disturbances on POD1 were also significantly reduced (p < 0.05). Notably, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of immune function, postoperative pain scores, or intraoperative morphine equivalent. Adverse events did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: Perioperative sub-anesthetic esketamine reduced postoperative depression and anxiety, and improve sleep quality after AN surgery, without significant effects on early immune function or acute postoperative analgesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2400084537.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effects of low-dose esketamine on early quality of recovery following minimally invasive esophagectomy: a multicenter, randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) frequently experience moderate-to-severe postoperative pain and anxiety-depressive symptoms, compromising postoperative quality of recovery (QoR). Esketamine is a promising adjunct for analgesia and anxiolysis; however, the effect of low-dose esketamine on patient-centered recovery outcomes in MIE remains unclear. METHODS: In this double-blinded, multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for elective McKeown esophagectomy were allocated to esketamine (0.25 mg/kg loading dose and 0.125 mg/kg/h continuous infusion during surgery) or placebo (equivalent volume and rate of saline). The primary outcome was the QoR-15 score on postoperative day (POD) 2. Secondary outcomes included QoR-15 scores on POD 1, 3, 7 and 30. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Anxiety Subscale (HADS-A) and Depression Subscale (HADS-D) scores, numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores, and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) scores on POD 1 to 3, and safety evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients were analyzed (esketamine, n = 98; placebo, n = 100). Intraoperative esketamine significantly improved QoR-15 scores on POD 2 (116.9 ± 9.4 vs. 110.2 ± 9.8, p < 0.001) and POD 3 (123.6 ± 7.2 vs. 116.8 ± 8.4, p < 0.001) compared with placebo. HADS-A and HADS-D scores were lower in the esketamine group on POD 1 to 3 (all p < 0.001). Additionally, esketamine recipients reported significantly lower NRS scores at rest and during movement and BPI scores for pain severity and pain interference items (all p < 0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative low-dose esketamine improved early, patient-reported recovery after MIE by enhancing analgesia and reducing postoperative anxiety and depression without increasing adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Register (identifier: ChiCTR2400088916).

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Esketamine vs. sufentanil for quality of recovery after outpatient gynecological surgery: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative administration of esketamine has been reported to improve early quality of recovery (QoR). However, data on its effects in outpatient surgery are limited. This study aimed to assess the impact of esketamine on QoR in patients undergoing outpatient gynecological procedures. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomized clinical trial, patients aged 18-65 years scheduled for outpatient gynecological surgery under sedation were allocated to receive esketamine (0.2 mg/kg) or sufentanil (0.1 μg/kg) combined with propofol (1.5-3 mg/kg). The primary outcome was quality of recovery on postoperative day (POD) 1. Secondary outcomes included quality of recovery on POD2, sedation success rate, length of post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, injection pain, postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, patient and clinician satisfaction, sleep quality, and anxiety and depression. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were randomized, with 63 assigned to the esketamine group and 63 to the sufentanil group. Of these, 125 patients were included in the final analysis (62 in the esketamine group and 63 in the sufentanil group), as one patient lacked follow-up data. The mean (SD) QoR-15 score on POD1 was 137.9 (14.5) in the esketamine group and 137.8 (10.7) in the sufentanil group, with no significant difference between groups (absolute difference, 0.2; 95% CI, -4.2 to 4.6; p = 0.93). For secondary outcomes, the esketamine group had a longer PACU stay (median, 28.0 vs. 23.0 min; p < 0.001), a lower incidence of severe injection pain (22.6% vs. 50.8%; p = 0.002), a higher proportion of patients with pain scores ≥ 4 at 30 min postoperatively (30.6% vs. 6.3%; p = 0.001), and higher fatigue scores (median, 3.0 vs. 2.0; p = 0.01). Other secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing sedation for outpatient gynecological procedures, esketamine did not significantly improve quality of recovery on POD1 compared to sufentanil. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2500098466.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effects of Esketamine on Postoperative Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Scores in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Radical Resection for Colorectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of intravenous esketamine on postoperative Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study, adult patients for elective laparoscopic radical resection were randomly assigned (1:1) to a control group (group C) or an esketamine group (group PE). Group C received conventional general anesthesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). In group PE, esketamine 0.5 mg/kg was injected during induction of anesthesia, with esketamine 1 mg/kg added to PCIA. Primary outcome was HADS score on postoperative day 1. Secondary outcomes included HADS scores on postoperative days 3 and 7, sleep quality scores, postoperative level of consciousness, complication rate, length of hospital stay, 24 h inflammatory factors, and satisfaction scores. RESULTS: Group PE showed significantly lower HADS-A and HADS-D scores on postoperative days 1 and 3 , reduced 24 h interleukin-6 (IL-6) leveland higher patient satisfaction compared with group C (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Esketamine given during induction and in PCIA reduced early-stage postoperative HADS scores and improved patient satisfaction in colorectal cancer patients.

Humans↗

PubMed2025

Efficacy of esketamine in reducing nausea and vomiting after anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are significant perioperative challenges. This study evaluated the efficacy of perioperative esketamine in preventing PONV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to August 2025 for randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of perioperative esketamine on PONV. The primary outcome was PONV incidence. Secondary outcomes included time to first flatus, postoperative pain degree, anxiety scores, agitation, anesthesia recovery time, and post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay duration. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4 and STATA 15.0 software. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to assess result stability and explore potential sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Thirty-eight randomized trials (3,425 patients) were included. Esketamine reduced the risk of nausea (RR=0.69, 95% CI: 0.53-0.90) and vomiting (RR=0.75, 95% CI: 0.57-0.98), shortened time to first flatus (SMD=-0.81, 95% CI: -1.48 to -0.15), and decreased rescue analgesic needs within 2 days (SMD=0.32, 95% CI: 0.2-0.5). However, it prolonged anesthesia recovery time (SMD=0.97, 95% CI: 0.28-1.67) and PACU stay (SMD=0.76, 95% CI: 0.27-1.26). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative esketamine may reduce PONV and aid gastrointestinal recovery, but its potential to delay anesthesia recovery and PACU discharge requires consideration. Further studies are needed to clarify its risk-benefit profile. DATE OF FIRST SUBMISSION TO PROSPERO: 10 March 2024. DATE OF THE START OF STUDY SCREENING AGAINST ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: 21 March 2024.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Esketamine multi-omic biomarker evaluation in major depressive disorder (EMBER-MDD): concept, objectives and methodologies of a non-clinical investigator-initiated study.

Treatment resistance (TR) in major depressive disorder (MDD) affects a substantial minority of patients and is hard to recognize early, delaying intensified care. The Esketamine multi-omic biomarker evaluation in MDD (EMBER-MDD) is a non-interventional, investigator-initiated, in-vitro study within the EU Psych-STRATA programme, analyzing biospecimens collected in the randomized INTENSIFY study and the mirror OBS-TR cohort after participants complete treatment. EMBER-MDD aims to discover individual-omic and integrated multi-omic (hypothesis-free) biomarkers and signatures associated with TR risk, and molecular correlates of clinical response to esketamine nasal spray versus treatment as usual (TAU). Biomaterials will derive from approximately 420 adults with MDD (estimated n = 210 esketamine; n = 210 TAU) and include whole blood, RNA-stabilized whole blood, plasma and serum, sampled at baseline and, when feasible, during and after treatment (up to ~ 5,040 aliquots stored at - 80 °C). Genomics will use baseline DNA genotyping on Illumina Infinium GSA v3.0+MD arrays; epigenomics will profile genome-wide DNA methylation across time points using MethylationEPIC v2.0; transcriptomics will employ mRNA-seq (NovaSeq X/ X Plus); and proteomics/ metabolomics will be generated using high-throughput Olink and/ or Biocrates platforms. Each layer will undergo state-of-the-art preprocessing and analyses (e.g., GWAS/ PRS, EWAS, differential expression, WGCNA, pathway and network analyses), followed by integrative strategies including QTL mapping (meQTL/ eQTL/ pQTL/ mQTL) and intermediate-fusion machine learning with nested cross-validation, explainable AI (SHAP/ LIME) and treatment-effect modelling. All outputs are research-only and will not support individual efficacy, tolerability, or clinical decision-making. The study will deliver robust biosignatures and mechanistic hypotheses to guide future validation and inform stratified, molecularly guided intervention strategies in subsequent prospective trials. Trial registration number: 2023-506617-21-00 and 2025-178-f-S.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Opioid-sparing anesthesia based on opioid-free principles for early recovery after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether an opioid-sparing anesthesia strategy (OSA), based on opioid-free anesthesia (OFA), improves early postoperative recovery quality and optimizes functional outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), compared with conventional opioid-based anesthesia (OBA). DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial with blinding of patients, surgeons, and outcome assessors. SETTING: Single center, July 2025 to February 2026. PATIENTS: 98 adult patients scheduled for elective unilateral TKA. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to the OSA or OBA group. The OSA regimen used esketamine and dexmedetomidine as the primary analgesic backbone, whereas the OBA regimen was opioid-based. Both groups received preoperative femoral nerve block and were administered oxycodone at skin incision and closure. Postoperatively, both groups received the same multimodal analgesia and patient-controlled analgesia. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the 24-h postoperative Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score. Secondary outcomes included 48-h QoR-15; Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EQ-5D-3L at 1 and 3 months; high pain at 1 month and chronic postsurgical pain at 3 months. Exploratory outcomes included postoperative C-reactive protein (CRP), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), among others. RESULTS: At 24 h postoperatively, QoR-15 was higher in the OSA group than in the OBA group (118.4 ± 11.5 vs 113.3 ± 12.2; adjusted difference 5.12, 95% CI 0.51-9.74; P = 0.029), and this advantage persisted at 48 h (adjusted difference 5.54, 95% CI 1.57-9.52; P = 0.007). The OSA group had a lower incidence of PONV (P = 0.025) and lower postoperative CRP levels (P = 0.001). At 1 month, OKS was higher in the OSA group (adjusted difference 2.31, 95% CI 0.34-4.27; P = 0.022), with no significant differences in other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: In TKA, this OFA-based OSA strategy improved early postoperative QoR-15 scores. However, the QoR-15 difference did not reach the minimal clinically important difference, so its clinical relevance remains uncertain.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Evaluation of intravenous sedation in dental implant surgeries: A prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of intravenous sedation on patient-centered outcomes during implant and bone augmentation surgeries. METHOD: A prospective observational cohort study included 40 patients undergoing placement of ≥3 implants, with or without bone augmentation. Patients underwent surgery under either intravenous sedation (n = 20) or local anesthesia alone (n = 20), according to routine clinical decision-making and patient preference. The sedation group received intravenous sedation with a multimodal regimen comprising remimazolam, dexmedetomidine, alfentanil, and low-dose esketamine, whereas the control group received local anesthesia only. Patient-reported outcome measures, hemodynamic parameters (SBP, DBP, HR, SpO2), postoperative pain (0-10 scale), and OHRQoL (OHIP-14) were recorded from baseline through 7 days post-surgery. RESULTS: Intravenous sedation was associated with significantly lower intraoperative pain (0.5 [IQR: 0∼2.75] vs. 3.25 ± 2.40, p = 0.003), anxiety (1 [IQR: 0∼2.75] vs. 4 [IQR: 3∼6], p = 0.001), and experienced discomfort (2 [IQR: 1∼3.75] vs. 4.15 ± 2.16, p = 0.016), and shortened perceived treatment duration (2.90 ± 2.34 vs. 5 [IQR: 4∼5], p = 0.020). Early postoperative pain was lower in the sedation group from Days 1-4 (p = 0.003-0.010). Hemodynamic parameters were more stable under sedation, with lower SBP (116.42 ± 13.32 vs. 144.11 ± 17.42 mmHg, p < 0.001), DBP (73.21 ± 10.28 vs. 82.37 ± 11.03 mmHg, p = 0.012), and HR (71.00 [IQR: 62.50∼79.25] vs. 85.00 ± 10.72 bpm, p = 0.021). OHRQoL scores favored the sedation group in swallowing, diet, malaise, and daily activities, particularly during the first three postoperative days (p=0.006-0.040). CONCLUSION: Intravenous sedation may enhance the patient experience during implant and/or bone augmentation procedures by reducing intraoperative pain and anxiety, improving hemodynamic stability, and promoting better early-postoperative recovery and OHRQoL. These findings suggest that intravenous sedation provides a safe and effective alternative for implant dentistry surgery, particularly for anxious or pain-sensitive individuals.

Humans↗