1
|
Babu TR, Kumar MRA, Anup NR, Shetty SM. Dexmedetomidine as an Adjunct to Propofol in Patients Undergoing Elective Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreaticography - A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Study. JOURNAL OF PHARMACY AND BIOALLIED SCIENCES 2024; 16:S399-S402. [PMID: 38595396 PMCID: PMC11001155 DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_617_23] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2023] [Revised: 08/19/2023] [Accepted: 08/29/2023] [Indexed: 04/11/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- T. Raghavendra Babu
- Department of Anesthesiology, Jagadguru Shri Shivarathreshwara Academy of Higher Education and Research, Mysuru, Karnataka, India
| | - M. R. Anil Kumar
- Department of Anesthesiology, Jagadguru Shri Shivarathreshwara Academy of Higher Education and Research, Mysuru, Karnataka, India
| | - N. R. Anup
- Department of Anesthesiology, Jagadguru Shri Shivarathreshwara Academy of Higher Education and Research, Mysuru, Karnataka, India
| | - Sarika M. Shetty
- Department of Anesthesiology, Jagadguru Shri Shivarathreshwara Academy of Higher Education and Research, Mysuru, Karnataka, India
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tang R, Huang Y, Zhang Y, Ma X, Yu H, Song K, Ren L, Zhao B, Wang L, Zheng W. Efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Pharmacol 2023; 14:1241714. [PMID: 38034988 PMCID: PMC10684920 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1241714] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2023] [Accepted: 11/02/2023] [Indexed: 12/02/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rou Tang
- Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
- Department of Pharmacy, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Yaqun Huang
- Department of Pharmacy, Hospital of Honghe State Affiliated to Kunming Medical University, Southern Central Hospital of Yunnan Province, Mengzi, China
| | - Yujia Zhang
- Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Xiaolei Ma
- Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Haoyang Yu
- Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Kaichao Song
- Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Ling Ren
- Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Bin Zhao
- Department of Pharmacy, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Lulu Wang
- Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Wensheng Zheng
- Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fonseca FJ, Ferreira L, Rouxinol-Dias AL, Mourão J. Effects of dexmedetomidine in non-operating room anesthesia in adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis. BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIOLOGY (ELSEVIER) 2023; 73:641-664. [PMID: 34933035 PMCID: PMC10533981 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2021.12.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2021] [Revised: 11/26/2021] [Accepted: 12/05/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Leonardo Ferreira
- São João University Hospital Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Porto, Portugal.
| | - Ana Lídia Rouxinol-Dias
- São João University Hospital Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Porto, Portugal; Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Department of Community Medicine, Information and Decision in Health, MEDCIDS, Porto, Portugal; Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Center for Health Technology and Services Research, CINTESIS, Porto, Portugal
| | - Joana Mourão
- Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; São João University Hospital Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Porto, Portugal
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kakarla A, Senapati LK, Das A, Acharya M, Sukanya S, Pradhan A. Intravenous Dexmedetomidine-Ketamine Versus Ketamine-Propofol for Procedural Sedation in Adults Undergoing Short Surgical Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Cureus 2023; 15:e40676. [PMID: 37485154 PMCID: PMC10357391 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.40676] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/20/2023] [Indexed: 07/25/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anusha Kakarla
- Anaesthesia, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, IND
| | - Laxman K Senapati
- Anaesthesia, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, IND
| | - Asima Das
- Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, IND
| | - Mousumi Acharya
- Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, IND
| | - Sailaja Sukanya
- Anaesthesia, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, IND
| | - Amit Pradhan
- Anaesthesia, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, IND
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Singh J, Pathania J, Bodh V, Sharma R, Kumar R, Sharma B. Etomidate-ketamine versus dexmedetomidine-ketamine for entropy-guided procedural sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures: A randomized single blind study. Indian J Gastroenterol 2023; 42:177-184. [PMID: 37103752 DOI: 10.1007/s12664-022-01326-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2020] [Accepted: 12/18/2022] [Indexed: 04/28/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jagroop Singh
- Department of Anesthesia, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Ridge Sanjauli Road, Shimla, 171 001, India
| | - Jyoti Pathania
- Department of Anesthesia, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Ridge Sanjauli Road, Shimla, 171 001, India
| | - Vishal Bodh
- Department of Gastroenterology, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Ridge Sanjauli Road, Shimla, 171 001, India
| | - Rajesh Sharma
- Department of Gastroenterology, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Ridge Sanjauli Road, Shimla, 171 001, India
| | - Rajesh Kumar
- Department of Gastroenterology, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Ridge Sanjauli Road, Shimla, 171 001, India
| | - Brij Sharma
- Department of Gastroenterology, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Ridge Sanjauli Road, Shimla, 171 001, India.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Algharabawy WS, Abusinna RG, AbdElrahman TN. Dexmedetomidine-ketamine versus propofol-ketamine for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in hepatic patients (a comparative randomized study). EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA 2021. [DOI: 10.1080/11101849.2021.1961428] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Wael Sayed Algharabawy
- Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Management, Faculty of Medicine, Ain-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Rasha Gamal Abusinna
- Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Management, Faculty of Medicine, Ain-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Tamer Nabil AbdElrahman
- Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Management, Faculty of Medicine, Ain-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Tekeli AE, Oğuz AK, Tunçdemir YE, Almali N. Comparison of dexmedetomidine-propofol and ketamine-propofol administration during sedation-guided upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99:e23317. [PMID: 33285707 PMCID: PMC7717792 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000023317] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arzu Esen Tekeli
- Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Van Yuzuncu Yil University School of Medicine
| | - Ali Kendal Oğuz
- Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Van Yuzuncu Yil University School of Medicine
| | - Yunus Emre Tunçdemir
- Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Van Yuzuncu Yil University School of Medicine
| | - Necat Almali
- Department of General Surgery, Van Yuzuncu Yil University School of Medicine, Van, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
El Mourad MB, Shaaban AE, El Sharkawy SI, Afandy ME. Effects of Propofol, Dexmedetomidine, or Ketofol on Respiratory and Hemodynamic Profiles in Cardiac Patients Undergoing Transesophageal Echocardiography: A Prospective Randomized Study. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2020; 35:2743-2750. [PMID: 33262033 DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2020.11.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2020] [Revised: 11/04/2020] [Accepted: 11/06/2020] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
9
|
Elkalla RS, El Mourad MB. Respiratory and hemodynamic effects of three different sedative regimens for drug induced sleep endoscopy in sleep apnea patients. A prospective randomized study. Minerva Anestesiol 2020; 86:132-140. [DOI: 10.23736/s0375-9393.19.13875-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
|
10
|
El Mourad MB, Elghamry MR, Mansour RF, Afandy ME. Comparison of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine-Propofol Versus Ketofol for Sedation During Awake Fiberoptic Intubation: A Prospective, Randomized Study. Anesth Pain Med 2019; 9:e86442. [PMID: 30881913 PMCID: PMC6412910 DOI: 10.5812/aapm.86442] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2018] [Revised: 02/06/2019] [Accepted: 02/10/2019] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mona Blough El Mourad
- Department of Anesthesia and Surgical Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
- Corresponding Author: Department of Anesthesia and Surgical Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Postal Code: 31527, Tanta, Egypt. Tel: +20-506364441,
| | - Mona Raafat Elghamry
- Department of Anesthesia and Surgical Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
| | - Radwa Fathy Mansour
- Department of Anesthesia and Surgical Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
| | - Mohamed Elsayed Afandy
- Department of Anesthesia and Surgical Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Amornyotin S. Dexmedetomidine in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. World J Anesthesiol 2016; 5:1-14. [DOI: 10.5313/wja.v5.i1.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2015] [Revised: 10/07/2015] [Accepted: 12/08/2015] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|