Propofol dexmedetomidine versus propofol ketamine for anesthesia of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (A randomized 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.

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.

Effectiveness of single loading dose of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol for deep sedation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in elderly patients: a prospective randomized study

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an advanced endoscopic procedure and requires deep sedation. Deep sedation with dexmedetomidine for the respiratory drive preserved has become popular in recent years. However, the use of dexmedetomidine in elderly patients is controversial because its adverse events are more common. The objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of a single loading dose of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol for deep sedation of ERCP in elderly patients.

Methods

In this prospective randomized trial, 49 elderly patients undergoing ERCP were randomly allocated to the dexmedetomidine (DEX) or propofol (PRO) groups. The single loading dose of dexmedetomidine was set at 0.5 μg/kg at the start of anesthesia induction and loading for 10 min. The primary outcome was the cumulative dose of propofol. Secondary outcomes included time to awake, the frequency of airway interventions, and hemodynamics.

Results

The intraoperative cumulative dose of propofol was lower in the DEX group (111.0 ± 12.6 μg/kg/min) than the PRO group (143.7 ± 23.4 μg/kg/min) (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the time to awake between the two groups. The incidence of artificial airway interventions and hypotension in the PRO group (36%, 60%) were significantly higher than those in the DEX group (4.2%, 16.7%) (P = 0.011, P = 0.003, respectively). In addition, the occurrence of bradycardia increased significantly in the DEX group (58.3%) compared with the PRO group (12%) (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The single loading dose of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol can reduce propofol consumption and artificial airway intervention and provide better hemodynamic stability than propofol for deep sedation in elderly patients during ERCP.

Trial registration

www.chictr.org.cn (Registration number ChiCTR1900028069, Registration date 10/12/2019).

The Effects of Dexmedetomidine on Perioperative Neurocognitive Outcomes After Noncardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

The purpose of this review is to examine the effect of dexmedetomidine on delayed neurocognitive recovery (dNCR; cognitive dysfunction ≥1 week postoperative) after major noncardiac surgery.

Background

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) effectively reduces delirium in the intensive care unit and reportedly attenuates cognitive decline following major noncardiac surgery. Ascertaining the true effect on postoperative cognition is difficult because studies are limited by suboptimal selection of cognitive assessment tools, timing of testing, and criteria for defining significant cognitive decline.

Methods

Prospective randomized trials comparing perioperative DEX to placebo for major noncardiac surgery assessing cognitive function ≥1 week postoperative were included. Pediatric, nonhuman, and non-English trials, and those where executive function was not assessed were excluded. Data were abstracted by 3 reviewers independently and in parallel according to PRISMA guidelines. The a priori binary primary outcome is dNCR defined as cognitive function declining by the minimal clinically important difference or accepted alternate measure (eg, Reliable Change Index ≥1.96). Bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Data were pooled using a random effects model.

Results

Among 287 citations identified, 26 (9%) met criteria for full-text retrieval. Eleven randomized trials (1233 participants) were included for qualitative analysis, and 7 trials (616 participants) were included for meta-analysis of dNCR. Dexmedetomidine did not reduce the incidence of dNCR significantly (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.30-1.10, P = 0.09) compared with placebo. There was no difference in the incidence of delirium (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.55-1.63, P = 0.83) and a higher incidence of hemodynamic instability (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.22-3.65, P = 0.008).

Conclusions

Dexmedetomidine does not reduce dNCR 1 week after major noncardiac surgery. This meta-analysis does not yet support the use of perioperative DEX to improve short term cognitive outcomes at this time; trials underway may yet change this conclusion while larger trials are needed to refine the point estimate of effect and examine long-term cognitive outcomes.

The therapeutic antiemetic and hemodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine, ephedrine, and dexamethasone in combination with midazolam on laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients: A randomised clinical trial

Objective:

The objective was to compare the hemodynamic and antiemetic effects of the combination of midazolam with ephedrine, dexamethasone, and dexmedetomidine in laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgical patients.

Materials and Methods:

This randomised, parallel-group, double-blind clinical trial was conducted by enrollment of 96 patients who were referred for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients assigned into three equal-sized intervention arms having received anaesthesia induction with midazolam-ephedrine, midazolam-dexamethasone, and midazolam-dexmedetomidine using a block randomisation method. Frequency and severity of nausea and vomiting were observed from recovery to 24 h later, adverse events, and sedation on Ramsay sedation scale at recovery, 1, 2, and 4 h postoperatively. Data were recorded and analysed at a significance level lower than 0.05 in SPSS software.

Results:

The clinical parameters including mean blood pressure at all times and heart rate in 60–90 min were lower in the dexmedetomidine group when compared with other groups. The lowest severity of postsurgery nausea occurrence was observed in the midazolam-dexamethasone group and those receiving midazolam-dexmedetomidine from 4 to 24 h. In addition, vomiting scores were lower throughout recovery up to postoperative 4 h in the dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine groups (all P < 0.05). The highest sedation score was observed in the dexmedetomidine group during recovery up to 2 h (P = 0.001), reflecting a more clinically superior effect than dexamethasone (P = 0.01).

Conclusions:

A positive implication of dexmedetomidine was observed in attenuating postoperative nausea and vomiting and potentiating sedation. Nevertheless, it is providing a drop in the blood pressure and heart rate. Lending support to the potent adjuvant efficacy of dexamethasone following dexmedetomidine, consequently, a hypothesis can be put forward, stating that the dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone as adjuvants to midazolam are expected to bring the advantages of avoiding the adverse events and improving postoperative sedation.

Comparison of Intra and Post-operative Sedation efficacy of Dexmedetomidine-Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine-Propofol for Major Abdominal Surgery

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and side effects of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in combination with midazolam and propofol have not been comparatively studied in a single clinical trial as sedative agents to general anesthesia before.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to compare intra and post-operative sedation between DEX-Midazolam and DEX-Propofol in patients who underwent major abdominal surgery on the duration of general anesthesia, hemodynamic and sedation effect.

METHOD

This prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial included 50 patients who were 20 to 60 years of age and admitted for major abdominal surgery. The patients were randomly assigned by a computer-generated random numbers table to sedation with DEX plus midazolam (DM group) (n=25) or DEX plus propofol (DP group) (n=25). In the DM group, patients received a bolus dose of 0.1 mg/kg of midazolam and immediately initiated the intravenous (i.v.) infusion of DEX 1 µg/kg over a 10 min and 0.5 µg/kg/hr by continuous i.v. infusion within operation period. In the DP group, patients received pre-anesthetic i.v. DEX 1 µg/kg over 15 min before anesthesia induction and 0.2-1 µg/kg/hr by continuous i.v. infusion during the operative period. After preoxygenation for at least 2 min, during the surgery, patients received propofol infusion dose of 250 μg/kg/min for 15 min then a basal infusion dose of 50 μg/kg/min. The bispectral index (BIS) value, as well as mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SaO2), percutaneous arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2) and end-tidal carbon dioxide tension (ETCO2) were recorded before anesthesia (T0), during anesthesia (at 15-min intervals throughout the surgical procedure), by a blinded observer. Evidence of apnea, hypotension, hypertension and hypoxemia were recorded during surgery.

RESULTS

The hemodynamic changes, including HR, MAP, BIS, VT, SaO2, and RR had a downward tendency with time, but no significant difference was observed between the groups (P>0.05). However, the two groups showed no significant differences in ETCO2 and SPO2 values in any of the assessed interval (P>0.05). In this study, the two groups showed no significant differences in the incidence of nausea, vomiting, coughing, apnea, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia and hypoxemia (P>0.05). Respiratory depression and serious adverse events were not reported in either group. Extubation time after surgery was respectively 6.3 ± 1.7 and 5.8 ± 1.4 hr. in the DM and DP groups and the difference was not statistically significant (P= 0.46).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed no significant differences between the groups in hemodynamic and respiratory changes in each of the time intervals. There were also no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of complication intra and post-operative. Further investigations are required to specify the optimum doses of using drugs which provide safety in cardiovascular and respiratory system without adverse disturbance during surgery.

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.

Effect of Ketamine/Propofol Admixture on Peri-Induction Hemodynamics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To evaluate the effectiveness of an admixture of ketamine and propofol on peri-induction hemodynamics during airway manipulation, we searched electronic databases of randomized controlled trials from January 1, 2000, to October 17, 2018. Trial screening, selection, and data extraction were done independently by two reviewers with outcomes pooled across included trials using the random-effects model. We included 10 randomized trials (722 patients, mean age of 53.99 years, 39.96% female). American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status was reported in 9 trials with classes I and II representing the majority. Ketamine/propofol admixture was associated with a nonsignificant increase in heart rate (weighted mean difference, 3.36 beats per minute (95% CI, -0.88, 7.60), I 2 = 88.6%), a statistically significant increase in systolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference, 9.67 mmHg (95% CI, 1.48, 17.86), I 2 = 87.2%), a nonsignificant increase in diastolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference, 2.18 mmHg (95% CI, -2.82, 7.19), I 2 = 73.1%), and a nonsignificant increase in mean arterial pressure (weighted mean difference, 3.28 mmHg (95% CI, -0.94, 7.49), I 2 = 69.9%) compared to other agents. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was low. In conclusion, among patients undergoing airway manipulation and needing sedation, the use of a ketamine/propofol admixture may be associated with better hemodynamics compared to nonketamine/propofol sedation. This trial is registered with CRD42019125725.

Evaluation of Different Sedatives for Colonoscopy

Background & Aims:

Sedation and analgesia are important elements of endoscopic examinations; sedation for colonoscopy aims to relieve patient discomfort and anxiety, improve the outcome of the examination, diminish the patient’s memory of the event and achieve comfortable and technically successful endoscopic procedure.

Methods:

Our prospective study was carried out on 150 patients who were referred for colonoscopy; they were divided into two groups based on the pre-endoscopic sedation given for them: propofol fentanyl or propofol ketamine. Detailed histories, thorough physical examinations, and routine laboratory investigations were performed for all patients, along with monitoring of their vital signs and oxygen saturation levels (before, during and after colonoscopy), to assess safety, efficacy, recovery times, complications of the sedative drugs, comfort of the patients and endoscopists.

Results:

There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, sex and Body Mass Indexes (BMI). With respect to their Mean Arterial Blood Pressures (MAPs) and heart rates, there was high hemodynamic stability in the propofol ketamine group, and both the groups were efficacious, although the propofol fentanyl group had shorter recovery times than the propofol ketamine group (3±1.7 minutes and 4±2.8 minutes, respectively). However, nausea, vomiting and hypoxia were common in the propofol fentanyl group, while hallucinations were common in the propofol ketamine group. In propofol fentanyl group; there was a significant decrease in the heart rate more common in females (with age range 39-58 years) during and after colonoscopy [p value 0.01].

Conclusion:

Sedation with propofol ketamine during colonoscopy was found to be safe and efficacious to achieve hemodynamic stability with fewer complications than propofol fentanyl.

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.

Sedative and Analgesic Effects of Propofol-Fentanyl Versus Propofol-Ketamine During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a painful procedure that requires analgesia and sedation.

Objectives

In this study, we compared the analgesic and sedative effects of propofol-ketamine versus propofol-fentanyl in patients undergoing ERCP.

Methods

In this clinical trial, 72 patients, aged 30 - 70 years old, who were candidates for ERCP were randomly divided into two groups. Before the start of ERCP, both groups received midazolam 0.5 - 1 mg. The intervention group (PK) received ketamine 0.5 mg/kg, and the control group (PF) received fentanyl 50 - 100 micrograms. All patients received propofol 0.5 mg/kg in a loading dose followed by 75 mcg/kg/minute in an infusion. The patients, the anesthesiologist, and the endoscopist were unaware of the medication regimen. Sedation and analgesia quality (based on a VAS), blood pressure, respiratory rate, heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, recovery time (based on Aldrete scores), and endoscopist and patient satisfation were recorded.

Results

The sedative effects were equal in the two groups (P > 0.05), but the analgesic effects were higher in the PF group than in the PK group (P < 0.05). The PK group had higher blood pressure levels in the eighth minute. Respiratory rate, heart rate, and arterial oxygen saturation showed no significant differences between the groups (P > 0.05). Endoscopist satisfaction, patient satisfaction, and recovery time showed no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

The results showed that the sedative effect of propofol-ketamine was equal to the propofol-fentanyl combination during ERCP. To prevent respiratory and hemodynamic complications during ERCP, the propofol-ketamine combination should be used in patients with underlying disease.

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.