Literature DB >> 26950082

Satisfaction and safety using dexmedetomidine or propofol sedation during endoscopic oesophageal procedures: A randomised controlled trial.

Susanne Eberl1, Benedikt Preckel, Jacques J Bergman, Susan van Dieren, Markus W Hollmann.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine possesses anxiolytic and hypnotic properties without respiratory side-effects, making it theoretically an ideal sedative agent for endoscopic procedures.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare satisfaction and safety among outpatients receiving sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol for endoscopic oesophageal procedures.
DESIGN: A randomised controlled study.
SETTING: Endoscopic intervention suite at the Academic Medical Centre in Amsterdam, Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged at least 18 years, and American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status 1 to 3. INTERVENTION: Total 63 patients were randomised to receive either dexmedetomidine (D) or propofol (P). Pain was treated with alfentanil in both groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction levels measured by validated questionnaires (1 = very dissatisfied; 7 = highly satisfied). A secondary outcome was safety, determined by blood pressure, heart rate and oxygen saturation during and after the procedure, and respiratory rate and noninvasive cardiac output during the procedure.
RESULTS: Satisfaction of patients [median (IQR); group D, 5.0 (3.75 to 5.75) vs. group P, 6.25 (5.3 to 6.5)] and satisfaction of gastroenterologists [group D, 5.0 (4.4 to 5.8) vs. group P, 6.0 (5.4 to 6.0)] were lower in group D (both P < 0.001). More patients in group D would not recommend this form of sedation to one of their friends (group D, 15 of 32 vs. group P, 1 of 31; P < 0.001). Total 30 min after the procedure, heart rate [group D, 60 bpm (52 to 69) vs. group P, 70 bpm (60 to 81), P = 0.031] and SBP group D, 112 mmHg (92 to 132) vs. group P, 120 mmHg (108 to 132); P = 0.013] were significantly lower after dexmedetomidine sedation. There were no other differences in safety between groups.
CONCLUSION: Compared with propofol, sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in less satisfaction, and caused prolonged haemodynamic depression after endoscopic oesophageal procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Register (ISRCTN 68599804).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26950082     DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000438

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol        ISSN: 0265-0215            Impact factor:   4.330


  4 in total

1.  Use of a home positive airway pressure device during intraoperative monitored anesthesia care for outpatient surgery.

Authors:  Lindsay Borg; Tessa L Walters; Lawrence C Siegel; John Dazols; Edward R Mariano
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 2.078

2.  Effect of intravenous lidocaine on propofol consumption in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy: a double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Meizhen Li; Weiqi Ke; Shaohui Zhuang
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 2.217

3.  Dexmedetomidine versus propofol sedation in flexible bronchoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Barak Pertzov; Boris Krasulya; Karam Azem; Yael Shostak; Shimon Izhakian; Dror Rosengarten; Svetlana Kharchenko; Mordechai R Kramer
Journal:  BMC Pulm Med       Date:  2022-03-15       Impact factor: 3.317

4.  MicroRNA‑214 suppresses propofol‑induced neuroapoptosis through activation of phosphoinositide 3‑kinase/protein kinase B signaling by targeting phosphatase and tensin homolog expression.

Authors:  Xukeng Guo; Minghua Cheng; Weiqi Ke; Yuting Wang; Xuan Ji
Journal:  Int J Mol Med       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 4.101

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.