OBJECTIVE:Midazolam and dexmedetomidine, which are used for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, were compared to evaluate the differences in efficacy, hemodynamics, and side effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients aged between 18 and 80 were randomly assigned to two groups according to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification: Group M received midazolam with an initial bolus infusion of 0.04 mg/kg intravenously (i.v.), followed by additional doses of 0.5 mg i.v. midazolam, titrated to achieve a Ramsay sedation scale score of 3-4. Group D received dexmedetomidine with an initial bolus infusion of 1 mcg/kg/hr i.v. over 10 minutes, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.2-0.7 mcg/kg/hr, titrated to achieve an RSS of 3-4. A Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE) was performed prior to sedation and in the recovery room once the Modified Aldrete Score (MAS) reached 9-10. Patient heart rates, arterial pressure and pain were evaluated. RESULTS: Patients in Group D had lower heart rates at 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 minutes following the initiation of sedation (p<0.05). There was no statistical difference in arterial pressure, RSS, MMSE or respiratory rate between the two groups. Coughing, nausea and vomiting occurred in 3 patients in Group M (12%), whereas no patient in Group D experienced these symptoms. The procedure elicited a gag response in 7 patients in Group M (28%) and in 4 patients in Group D (16%), with no significant difference between groups (p>0.05). When patient and surgeon satisfaction was compared between the two groups, Group D showed higher surgeon satisfaction scores (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of dexmedetomidine for conscious sedation during short, invasive procedures, such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, could be a superior alternative to the use of midazolam.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE:Midazolam and dexmedetomidine, which are used for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, were compared to evaluate the differences in efficacy, hemodynamics, and side effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients aged between 18 and 80 were randomly assigned to two groups according to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification: Group M received midazolam with an initial bolus infusion of 0.04 mg/kg intravenously (i.v.), followed by additional doses of 0.5 mg i.v. midazolam, titrated to achieve a Ramsay sedation scale score of 3-4. Group D received dexmedetomidine with an initial bolus infusion of 1 mcg/kg/hr i.v. over 10 minutes, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.2-0.7 mcg/kg/hr, titrated to achieve an RSS of 3-4. A Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE) was performed prior to sedation and in the recovery room once the Modified Aldrete Score (MAS) reached 9-10. Patient heart rates, arterial pressure and pain were evaluated. RESULTS:Patients in Group D had lower heart rates at 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 minutes following the initiation of sedation (p<0.05). There was no statistical difference in arterial pressure, RSS, MMSE or respiratory rate between the two groups. Coughing, nausea and vomiting occurred in 3 patients in Group M (12%), whereas no patient in Group D experienced these symptoms. The procedure elicited a gag response in 7 patients in Group M (28%) and in 4 patients in Group D (16%), with no significant difference between groups (p>0.05). When patient and surgeon satisfaction was compared between the two groups, Group D showed higher surgeon satisfaction scores (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of dexmedetomidine for conscious sedation during short, invasive procedures, such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, could be a superior alternative to the use of midazolam.