Literature DB >> 24423419

A comparison of fospropofol to midazolam for moderate sedation during outpatient dental procedures.

Philip Yen1, Simon Prior, Cara Riley, William Johnston, Megann Smiley, Sarat Thikkurissy.   

Abstract

Moderate intravenous (IV) sedation combined with local anesthesia is common for outpatient oral surgery procedures. An ideal sedative agent must be safe and well tolerated by patients and practitioners. This study evaluated fospropofol, a relatively new sedative/hypnotic, in comparison to midazolam, a commonly used benzodiazepine, for IV moderate sedation during oral and maxillofacial surgery. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to either the fospropofol or the midazolam group. Each participant received 1 μg/kg of fentanyl prior to administration of the selected sedative. Those in the fospropofol group received an initial dose of 6.5 mg/kg, with 1.6 mg/kg supplemental doses as needed. Those in the midazolam group received initial doses of 0.05 mg/kg, followed by 0.02 mg/kg supplemental doses. The quality of sedation in each patient was evaluated with regard to (a) onset of sedation, maintenance, and recovery profile; (b) patient and surgeon satisfaction; and (c) hemodynamic stability and adverse effects. The fospropofol group demonstrated shorter physical recovery times than midazolam patients, taking a mean of 11.6 minutes versus 18.4 minutes for physical recovery (P = .007). Cognitive recovery comparison did not find any difference with a mean of 7.5 minutes versus 8.8 minutes between the 2 drug groups (P = .123). The fospropofol group had a higher rate of local anesthetic injection recall (90.5 vs 44.4%, P = .004). Other parameters of recall were comparable. Two adverse effects demonstrated significance, with more patients in the midazolam group experiencing tachycardia (48.2 vs 9.4%, P = .001), and more patients in the fospropofol group experiencing perineal discomfort (40.6 vs 0, P < .001). No significant difference was found in any other measures of sedation safety, maintenance, or satisfaction. Fospropofol, when administered intravenously by a dentist anesthesiologist at the indicated dose in this study, appears to be a safe, well-tolerated alternative to midazolam for intravenous moderate sedation during minor oral surgery procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24423419      PMCID: PMC3891457          DOI: 10.2344/0003-3006-60.4.162

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesth Prog        ISSN: 0003-3006


  16 in total

1.  Demand in pediatric dentistry for sedation and general anesthesia by dentist anesthesiologists: a survey of directors of dentist anesthesiologist and pediatric dentistry residencies.

Authors:  C Gray Hicks; James E Jones; Mark A Saxen; Gerardo Maupome; Brian J Sanders; Laquia A Walker; James A Weddell; Angela Tomlin
Journal:  Anesth Prog       Date:  2012

2.  Safety evaluation of fospropofol for sedation during minor surgical procedures.

Authors:  Tong J Gan; Bradley D Berry; Evan F Ekman; Richard C Muckerman; Neal Shore; Robert Hardi
Journal:  J Clin Anesth       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 9.452

3.  Relation of sedation and amnesia to plasma concentrations of midazolam in surgical patients.

Authors:  M P Persson; A Nilsson; P Hartvig
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 6.875

4.  Paradoxical reaction following intravenous midazolam premedication in pediatric patients - a randomized placebo controlled trial of ketamine for rapid tranquilization.

Authors:  Mohammad Golparvar; Mahmood Saghaei; Parvin Sajedi; Seid Sajad Razavi
Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.556

5.  Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Richard R Riker; Yahya Shehabi; Paula M Bokesch; Daniel Ceraso; Wayne Wisemandle; Firas Koura; Patrick Whitten; Benjamin D Margolis; Daniel W Byrne; E Wesley Ely; Marcelo G Rocha
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-02-02       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 6.  Fospropofol: a new sedative-hypnotic agent for monitored anesthesia care.

Authors:  Gina D Moore; Alyssa M Walker; Robert MacLaren
Journal:  Ann Pharmacother       Date:  2009-10-13       Impact factor: 3.154

7.  Clinical trial: a dose-response study of fospropofol disodium for moderate sedation during colonoscopy.

Authors:  L B Cohen
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 8.171

8.  A phase 3, randomized, double-blind study to assess the efficacy and safety of fospropofol disodium injection for moderate sedation in patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy.

Authors:  Gerard A Silvestri; Brad D Vincent; Momen M Wahidi; Emory Robinette; James R Hansbrough; Gordon H Downie
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2008-07-18       Impact factor: 9.410

9.  Fospropofol: clinical pharmacology.

Authors:  Girish M Bengalorkar; K Bhuvana; N Sarala; Tn Kumar
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2011-01

10.  Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) sedation: clinical utility of fospropofol.

Authors:  Eric A Harris; David A Lubarsky; Keith A Candiotti
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2009-12-29       Impact factor: 2.423

View more
  1 in total

1.  Sedation in hypoalbuminemic geriatric patients under spinal anesthesia in hip surgery. Midazolam or Propofol?

Authors:  Ayşın Ersoy; Deniz Kara; Zekeriya Ervatan; Mensure Çakırgöz; Özlem Kıran
Journal:  Saudi Med J       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 1.484

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.