Özgür Yağan1, Refika Hande Karakahya2, Nilay Taş1, Ahmet Küçük3. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Ordu University Faculty of Medicine, Ordu, Turkey. 2. Department of Eye Diseases, Ordu University Faculty of Medicine, Ordu, Turkey. 3. Department of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Harran University Faculty of Medicine, Şanlıurfa, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the sedative properties and haemodynamic and respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine and a ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol), which are expected to have minimal effects on spontaneous breathing. METHODS:Sixty patients were enrolled in this prospective randomised study. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the administration of dexmedetomidine (Group D) and ketofol (Group K). Target sedation level was determined as a Ramsay Sedation Score of 3. In Group D, 0.5 mcg kg(-1) dexmedetomidine was administered via intravenous route in 10 minutes versus 0.125 mL kg(-1) of a solution containing 200 mg propofol and 100 mg ketamine in Group K. Haemodynamic and respiratory effects, postoperative awakening time, analgesic properties and satisfaction levels of the patients and surgeon were assessed. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant decrease in mean arterial pressures following drug administration compared to initial measurements in both groups. However, there was a statistically significant decrease in heart rate only in Group D. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding respiratory rate and protection of spontaneous respiration. Although the time for Aldrete score to be 9 was 16.1 minutes for Group K, it was 24.9 minutes for Group D, and this difference was statistically significant (p<0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding adverse effects, pain scores and satisfaction levels of the patients and surgeon. CONCLUSION: Compared to dexmedetomidine, at similar sedation levels, sedation provided by ketofol enables satisfactory analgesia. Moreover, ketofol has a more rapid onset of action and a shorter recovery period from anaesthesia without causing significant haemodynamic or respiratory adverse effects.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the sedative properties and haemodynamic and respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine and a ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol), which are expected to have minimal effects on spontaneous breathing. METHODS: Sixty patients were enrolled in this prospective randomised study. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the administration of dexmedetomidine (Group D) and ketofol (Group K). Target sedation level was determined as a Ramsay Sedation Score of 3. In Group D, 0.5 mcg kg(-1) dexmedetomidine was administered via intravenous route in 10 minutes versus 0.125 mL kg(-1) of a solution containing 200 mg propofol and 100 mg ketamine in Group K. Haemodynamic and respiratory effects, postoperative awakening time, analgesic properties and satisfaction levels of the patients and surgeon were assessed. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant decrease in mean arterial pressures following drug administration compared to initial measurements in both groups. However, there was a statistically significant decrease in heart rate only in Group D. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding respiratory rate and protection of spontaneous respiration. Although the time for Aldrete score to be 9 was 16.1 minutes for Group K, it was 24.9 minutes for Group D, and this difference was statistically significant (p<0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding adverse effects, pain scores and satisfaction levels of the patients and surgeon. CONCLUSION: Compared to dexmedetomidine, at similar sedation levels, sedation provided by ketofol enables satisfactory analgesia. Moreover, ketofol has a more rapid onset of action and a shorter recovery period from anaesthesia without causing significant haemodynamic or respiratory adverse effects.
Authors: P Talke; R Chen; B Thomas; A Aggarwall; A Gottlieb; P Thorborg; S Heard; A Cheung; S L Son; A Kallio Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: David W Messenger; Heather E Murray; Paul E Dungey; Janet van Vlymen; Marco L A Sivilotti Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2008-08-27 Impact factor: 3.451