Dexmedetomidine versus ketofol for moderate sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) comparative study

Dexmedetomidine as an Adjunct to Propofol in Patients Undergoing Elective Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreaticography - A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Study

Background

Propofol is the drug of choice for procedural sedation. The addition of α2 agonist dexmedetomidine may improve the safety profile of the procedure by providing stable hemodynamics, better sedation quality, and decreasing the side effects of each drug during elective endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreaticography (ERCP).

Materials and Methods

Eighty patients aged between 18 and 60 years were distributed randomly into two groups. The dexmedetomidine + propofol group (group DP) received an injection of dexmedetomidine at the dose of 1 mcg/kg in 100 mLsaline, and the propofol group (group P) received plain 100 mL normal saline over 10 min. Subsequently, both groups received a bolus dose of injection propofol 1 mg/kg as sedation, and a modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score (MOASS) score was assessed, followed by infusion at the rate of 50 mcg/kg/min during the procedure. A rescue bolus dose (20 mg) of propofol was administered when the patient showed signs of inadequate sedation or analgesia in both groups. Cardiovascular and respiratory parameters were recorded every 10 min throughout the procedure. Post-procedure modified Aldrete score was evaluated for 30 min, and the endoscopist's score was noted at the end of the procedure.

Results

There was a significant difference (P = 0.001) in the additional number of rescue doses of propofol administered in group DP (3.47 ± 0.77) as compared to group P (8.78 ± 1.11). The total dose of propofol was lower in group DP (316.59 ± 43.29 mg) than in group P (443 ± 41.1 mg) with P value = 0.001. Statistically significant differences in the hemodynamic values were observed in group DP during infusion (P value < 0.05) of dexmedetomidine and throughout the procedure (P < 0.05) when compared with group P. Endoscopists graded the satisfaction score as very high (3.477 ± 0.77) in group DP.

Conclusion

The addition of dexmedetomidine to propofol during ERCP provided better and safer sedation.

Efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of sedation with DEX during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with a view to providing evidence-based references for clinical decision-making. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DEX with different sedatives comparators (such as propofol, midazolam, and ketamine) for sedation in a variety of adult gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 1 July 2022. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI were used for continuous outcomes or dichotomous outcomes, respectively, and a random-effect model was selected regardless of the significance of the heterogeneity. Results: Forty studies with 2,955 patients were assessed, of which 1,333 patients were in the DEX group and 1,622 patients were in the control (without DEX) group. The results suggested that the primary outcomes of sedation level of DEX are comparable to other sedatives, with similar RSS score and patient satisfaction level, and better in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of body movements or gagging (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.97; p = 0.04; I2 = 68%), and a reduced additional requirement for other sedatives, and increased endoscopist satisfaction level (SMD: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.77; p = 0.03; I2 = 86%). In terms of secondary outcomes of adverse events, DEX may benefit patients in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of hypoxia (RR:0.34; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.55; p < 0.0001; I2 = 52%) and cough (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54; p = 0.0004; I2 = 0%), no significant difference in the risk of hypotension, while an increased risk of bradycardia (RR: 3.08; 95% CI: 2.12 to 4.48; p < 0.00001; I2 = 6%). Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that DEX is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy because of its benefits for patients in some clinical outcomes. Remarkably, DEX is comparable to midazolam and propofol in terms of sedation level. In conclusion, DEX provides an additional option in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced.

Effects of dexmedetomidine in non-operating room anesthesia in adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for its sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic effects. Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) is a modality of anesthesia that can be done under general anesthesia or procedural sedation or/and analgesia. In this particular setting, a level-2 sedation, such as the one provided by DEX, is beneficial. We aimed to study the effects and safety of DEX in the different NORA settings in the adult population.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Interventions using DEX only or DEX associated with other sedative agents, in adults (18 years old or more), were included. Procedures outside the NORA setting and/or without a control group without DEX were excluded. MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, LILACS, and SciELO were searched. The primary outcome was time until full recovery. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and respiratory complications and other adverse events, among others.

RESULTS

A total of 97 studies were included with a total of 6,706 participants. The meta-analysis demonstrated that DEX had a higher time until full recovery (95% CI = [0.34, 3.13] minutes, a higher incidence of hypotension (OR = 1.95 [1.25, 3.05], p = 0.003, I2 = 39%) and bradycardia (OR = 3.60 [2.29, 5.67], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%), and a lower incidence of desaturation (OR = 0.40 [0.25, 0.66], p = 0.0003, I² = 60%).

CONCLUSION

DEX in NORA procedures in adults was associated with a lower incidence of amnesia and respiratory effects but had a long time to recovery and more hemodynamic complications.

Intravenous Dexmedetomidine-Ketamine Versus Ketamine-Propofol for Procedural Sedation in Adults Undergoing Short Surgical Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and objective Moderate to deep sedation is a prerequisite during total intravenous anesthesia for short-duration surgeries, and it can be achieved by using individual drugs or in combination. Our study compared dexmedetomidine-ketamine (DK) versus ketamine-propofol (KP) in terms of sedation, procedural interference, hemodynamics, and incidence of side effects in patients undergoing short surgical procedures. Methods A total of 194 patients scheduled for short-duration elective surgeries were randomly allocated into two groups. Group DK received a loading dose of 1 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine and 1 mg/kg of ketamine followed by a maintenance infusion of dexmedetomidine at 0.3 µg/kg/h. Group KP received a loading dose of 1 mg/kg of ketamine and 1 mg/kg of propofol followed by a maintenance infusion of propofol at 25 µg/kg/h. For procedural interference, a rescue ketamine bolus was administered at 0.25 mg/kg. Patients were monitored for the requirement of rescue ketamine bolus, procedural interference, hemodynamics, sedation, recovery time, and adverse effects. Results The procedural interference was higher in group KP than in group DK and the difference was statistically significant (P=0.001). The time to the first rescue bolus was 8.72 ± 4.47 minutes in group KP and 10.82 ± 4.01 minutes in group DK, with a difference of 2.1 minutes (p=0.026). There was no statistically significant difference in the sedation scores between both groups except at time points of six minutes and 15 minutes. Conclusion For short-duration procedures, the DK combination is superior to the KP combination in terms of procedural interference and time to the first rescue bolus, while both groups were comparable with regard to safety and hemodynamics.

Etomidate-ketamine versus dexmedetomidine-ketamine for entropy-guided procedural sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures: A randomized single blind study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The major challenge for the anesthetist in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures is to provide moderate to deep levels of sedation in prone position with preservation of spontaneous respiratory efforts in shared airway scenario with an endoscopist. These patients have other comorbidities, making them vulnerable to complications during the routinely used sedation with propofol. We compared the entropy-guided efficacy of combination of etomidate-ketamine to dexmedetomidine-ketamine in patients undergoing ERCP.

METHODS

This prospective single blind randomized entropy-guided trial was conducted on 60 patients with etomidate-ketamine in group I (n = 30) and dexmedetomidine-ketamine in group II (n = 30). The purpose was to compare etomidate-ketamine versus dexmedetomidine-ketamine for ERCP in terms of intraprocedural hemodynamics with desaturation, onset of sedation, recovery time and endoscopist's satisfaction.

RESULTS

Hypotension was observed only in six (20%) patients of group II (p < 0.009). Two patients of group I and three in group II desaturated (Spo2 < 90) briefly during the procedure, but none of the patient required intubation (p > 0.05). The mean time in minutes of onset of sedation was 1.15 in group I and 5.6 in group II (p < 0.001). Endoscopists' satisfaction was better in group I (p ≤ 0.001) and length of recovery room stay was shorter in group I as compared to that in group II (p ≤ 0.007).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that entropy-guided intravenous procedural sedation with etomidate-ketamine combination provides faster onset of sedation, stable periprocedural hemodynamics, rapid recovery and fair to excellent endoscopist satisfaction compared to dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination for ERCP.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine-propofol and ketamine-propofol administration during sedation-guided upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine and ketamine popular sedative agents that result in minimal respiratory depression and the presence of analgesic activity. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of a dexmedetomidine-propofol combination and a ketamine-propofol combination during upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy.

METHODS

The study commenced after receiving approval from the local ethics committee. Patients between 18 and 60 years in the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I and II groups were included. Patients who had severe organ disease, who had allergies to the study drugs, and who refused to participate were excluded. Cases were randomized into a dexmedetomidine-propofol group (Group D, n = 30) and a ketamine-propofol group (Group K, n = 30). Cardiac monitoring, peripheral oxygen saturation, and bispectral index (BIS) monitoring were performed. Group D received 1 mg/kg dexmedetomidine + 0.5 mg/kg propofol intravenous (IV) bolus, 0.5 μg/kg/h dexmedetomidine + 0.5 mg/kg/h propfol infusion. Group K received 1 mg/kg ketamine + 0.125 mL/kg propofol iv bolus, 0.25 mg/kg/h ketamine + 0.125 mL/kg/h propfol infusion. Patients were followed up with a Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) of ≥4. Means, standard deviations, lowest and highest frequency values, and ratio values were used for descriptive statistics, and the SPSS 22.0 program was used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

In Group K, recovery time and mean blood pressure (MBP) values were significantly shorter. Furthermore, coughing rate, pulse, and BIS values were higher than in Group D (P < .05). Although there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of endoscopic tolerance and endoscopist satisfaction, we observed that the dexmedetomidine group experienced more comfortable levels of sedation.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine-propofol and ketamine-propofol combinations may be suitable and safe for endoscopy sedation due to their different properties. It was observed that the dexmedetomidine-propfol combination was superior in terms of sedation depth and that the ketamine-propofol combination was superior in terms of early recovery. As a result, we suggest the dexmedetomidine-propofol combination for upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy sedation due to hemodynamic stability and minimal adverse effects.

Effects of Propofol, Dexmedetomidine, or Ketofol on Respiratory and Hemodynamic Profiles in Cardiac Patients Undergoing Transesophageal Echocardiography: A Prospective Randomized Study

OBJECTIVES

The authors aimed to evaluate sedation characteristics, as well as cardiorespiratory effects, of propofol, dexmedetomidine, and ketofol used for conscious sedation during transesophageal echocardiography (TEE).

DESIGN

Prospective double-blind randomized study.

SETTINGS

Tanta University hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy-five participants with left-to-right shunt requiring diagnostic TEE interventions. Patients were randomized into three groups-P, Dex, and K-to receive propofol, dexmedetomidine, or ketofol, respectively.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Time to reach targeted sedation level, duration of the procedure, recovery time, hemodynamic parameters, incidence of oxygen desaturation <90%, as well as the cardiologist's satisfaction were recorded. The time onset and offset of sedation, duration of TEE procedure, and the need for rescue propofol were significantly less in the P and K groups compared with group Dex (p value 0.000*, 0.003*, 0.000*, and 0.000* and effect size 0.39, 0.15, 0.21, and 0.34, respectively). Mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and cardiac output significantly decreased in groups P and Dex compared with either baseline or group K. Hypoxic events were more manifest in group P; whereas group K had better cardiologist's satisfaction than the other two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the TEE settings, the three agents were capable of attaining the targeted sedation levels , with propofol and ketofol having a faster onset and recovery times compared with dexmedetomidine. Even though dexmedetomidine and ketofol provided a more stable respiratory profile than propofol, ketofol was favorable in providing fewer hemodynamic alterations with better satisfaction scores than both propofol and dexmedetomidine.

Comparison of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine-Propofol Versus Ketofol for Sedation During Awake Fiberoptic Intubation: A Prospective, Randomized Study

Background

Management of difficult airway due to laryngeal mass is a major challenge to the anesthesiologists, and awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI) would be the technique of choice.

Objectives

The current study aimed at comparing the effects of administration of dexmedetomidine-propofol or ketofol for sedation during AFOI in terms of intubation conditions, hemodynamic stability, and patients and anesthesiologist’s satisfaction.

Methods

Eighty adult patients, 18 - 60 years old, ASA (the American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status I-III, with difficult airway due to laryngeal mass and planned for AFOI were enrolled. Sedation was randomly given to the patients according to their assigned group by either dexmedetomidine-propofol (group D; n = 40) or ketofol (group K; n = 40). Outcome variables included time to reach Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) ≥ 3, intubation time, number of patients in need of rescue propofol, patient’s discomfort score, tolerance to endoscopy and intubation, hemodynamic parameters, patients and anesthesiologist’s satisfaction, and occurrence of side effects.

Results

Time to reach RSS ≥ 3 and intubation time were significantly shorter, and fewer patients required rescue propofol in the K group as compared to the D group (P = 0.000*, and 0.035*, respectively). Higher discomfort score and better tolerance to endoscopy and intubation were noticed in group K than group D, but with no statistical significance (P = 0.132, 0.137, and 0.211, respectively). Patients in group D had significantly lower mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) after the loading dose till five minutes after intubation (P = 0.000*). There was no significant difference in patients’ satisfaction between the two groups (P = 0.687), while anesthesiologist’s satisfaction was higher in group K compared with that of group D (P = 0.013*). Cough score as well as incidence of unfavorable respiratory outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.611, 0.348, respectively).

Conclusions

Ketofol and dexmedetomidine-propofol combination were suitable and satisfactory for AFOI. However, ketofol was more advantageous in offering faster onset of sedation, shorter intubation time, stable hemodynamic profile, as well as higher anesthesiologist’s satisfaction when compared to dexmedetomidine-propofol.

Dexmedetomidine in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is the gold standard in the examination and the treatment of the diseases of gastrointestinal system, but the disadvantage of being painful process. At this point the sedative and analgesic agents may be important. Dexmedetomidine is a new sedoanalgesic agent which is alternative to benzodiazepines and opioids. It has analgesia, amnesia, sedative and anxiolytic properties. The use of dexmedetomidine as the sole anesthetic agent and as the adjuvant analgesic agent has been published but has not been approved because of the inconsistency of efficacy and safety. The author has been collected the published papers in the literature. This article is aimed to describe the use of dexmedetomidine in various gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.