Y Matsuki1, T Ichinohe, Y Kaneko. 1. Department of Dental Anesthesiology, Tokyo Dental College, Chiba, Japan. ymatsuki@tdc.ac.jp
Abstract
AIM: To compare the amnesic effect of propofol and midazolam to electric dental pulp stimulation (invasive) and picture recall test (non-invasive) at two sedation levels with the aid of bispectral index (BIS) monitoring. METHODS: The subjects were 10 male volunteers (24-34 years) classified as ASA physical status I. Propofol was administered to achieve a sedation score of three with a target-controlled infusion technique; it was then regulated to give a sedation score of two (P group). Midazolam was administered by a titration dosage to achieve a sedation score of three (M group). It then gradually decreased to give a sedation score of two. The BIS score, sedation score, plasma/serum concentration of propofol and midazolam, blood pressure, pulse rate, respiratory rate, end-tidal CO(2) tension and arterial oxygen saturation were observed at each sedation level in both groups. Amnesic effects were evaluated using a picture recall test and electric dental pulp stimulation. RESULT: No difference was observed in the amnesic effect evaluated by picture recall test at the two sedation levels. Likewise, there was no difference at a sedation score of three when the amnesic effect was evaluated by electric dental pulp stimulation. In contrast, a significant difference was observed at a sedation score of two; midazolam produced amnesia in more subjects than did propofol. CONCLUSION:Propofol and midazolam did not show any significant difference in amnesic effects to non-invasive stimuli. For invasive stimuli, midazolam showed a stronger amnesic effect at the moderate sedation level, but not at the deeper sedation level.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare the amnesic effect of propofol and midazolam to electric dental pulp stimulation (invasive) and picture recall test (non-invasive) at two sedation levels with the aid of bispectral index (BIS) monitoring. METHODS: The subjects were 10 male volunteers (24-34 years) classified as ASA physical status I. Propofol was administered to achieve a sedation score of three with a target-controlled infusion technique; it was then regulated to give a sedation score of two (P group). Midazolam was administered by a titration dosage to achieve a sedation score of three (M group). It then gradually decreased to give a sedation score of two. The BIS score, sedation score, plasma/serum concentration of propofol and midazolam, blood pressure, pulse rate, respiratory rate, end-tidal CO(2) tension and arterial oxygen saturation were observed at each sedation level in both groups. Amnesic effects were evaluated using a picture recall test and electric dental pulp stimulation. RESULT: No difference was observed in the amnesic effect evaluated by picture recall test at the two sedation levels. Likewise, there was no difference at a sedation score of three when the amnesic effect was evaluated by electric dental pulp stimulation. In contrast, a significant difference was observed at a sedation score of two; midazolam produced amnesia in more subjects than did propofol. CONCLUSION:Propofol and midazolam did not show any significant difference in amnesic effects to non-invasive stimuli. For invasive stimuli, midazolam showed a stronger amnesic effect at the moderate sedation level, but not at the deeper sedation level.