Efficacy of combination therapy with dexmedetomidine for benzodiazepines-induced disinhibition during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Balanced propofol sedation is extensively used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) are common. In various clinical settings, the combination of dexmedetomidine with opioids and benzodiazepines has provided effective sedation with increased safety. The aim of this investigation was to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during ERCP.

METHODS

Forty-one patients were randomly divided into two groups: the dexmedetomidine (DEX) group and the propofol (PRO) group. Patients in the DEX group received an additional bolus of 0.6 μg kg-1 dexmedetomidine followed by a dexmedetomidine infusion at 1.2 μg kg-1 h-1, whereas the PRO group received 1-2 mg kg-1 of propofol bolus followed by a propofol infusion at 2-3 mg kg-1 h-1. During ERCP, the primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90% for > 10 s). Other intraoperative adverse events were also recorded as secondary outcomes, including respiratory depression (respiratory rate of < 10 bpm min-1), hypotension (MAP < 65 mmHg), and bradycardia (HR < 45 beats min-1).

RESULTS

The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly reduced in the DEX group compared to the PRO group (0% versus 28.6%, respectively; P = 0.032). Patients in the PRO group exhibited respiratory depression more frequently than patients in the DEX group (35% versus 81%, respectively; P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in terms of hypotension and bradycardia episodes between groups. During the procedures, the satisfaction scores of endoscopists and patients, as well as the pain and procedure memory scores of patients were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

In comparison with propofol, dexmedetomidine provided adequate sedation safety with no adverse effects on sedation efficacy during ERCP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200061468, 25/06/2022.

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).

Prevalence and characteristics of disinhibition during bronchoscopy with midazolam

BACKGROUND

Disinhibition is sometimes experienced during bronchoscopy with sedation. However, data on disinhibition during bronchoscopy are scarce. We examined the prevalence and characteristics of disinhibition during bronchoscopy with midazolam.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed consecutive patients who underwent bronchoscopy between November 2019 and December 2020. The severity of disinhibition was defined as follows: mild, disinhibition sometimes requiring restraints by assistants; moderate, disinhibition always requiring restraints by assistants; and severe, disinhibition requiring antagonization of sedation by flumazenil to continue bronchoscopy.

RESULTS

Among 251 eligible patients who were sedated using midazolam, 36 (14.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.5%-19.2%), 42 (16.7%; 95% CI, 12.6%-21.8%), and 7 (2.8%; 95% CI, 1.4%-5.6%) experienced mild, moderate, and severe disinhibition, respectively. Depression (odds ratio [OR] 2.77; 95% CI, 1.20-6.41), endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) (OR 10.23; 95% CI, 1.02-103.01, referred to brushing/bronchial washing/observation), and increased administration of midazolam (OR 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42, per 1-mg increase) were independently associated with moderate-to-severe disinhibition. Patients experiencing moderate disinhibition reported significantly better scores for discomfort during bronchoscopy. Besides the maximum systolic and diastolic blood pressures during bronchoscopy, the changes in hemodynamic and respiratory statuses during bronchoscopy or complications did not significantly differ between patients experiencing moderate-to-severe disinhibition and those experiencing none-to-mild disinhibition.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-to-severe disinhibition occurred in 19.5% of patients during bronchoscopy with midazolam. We should focus on disinhibition when patients have depression or are planning to undergo EBUS-TBNA, and sparing the administration of midazolam might reduce the occurrence of disinhibition.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000038571.