Eriko Togawa1, Hiroshi Hanamoto2, Hiroharu Maegawa3, Chizuko Yokoe4, Hitoshi Niwa5. 1. Postgraduate Student, Department of Dental Anesthesiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Osaka, Japan. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Dental Anesthesiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Osaka, Japan. Electronic address: hanamoto@dent.osaka-u.ac.jp. 3. Clinical Fellow, Department of Dental Anesthesiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Osaka, Japan. 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Oral Physiology; formerly, Department of Dental Anesthesiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Osaka, Japan. 5. Professor, Department of Dental Anesthesiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Osaka, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Owing to its unpredictability, unexpected patient movement is one of the most important problems during surgery while under monitored anesthesia care with sedation. The purpose of this study was to compare unexpected patient movement during dental surgery while under dexmedetomidine and propofol sedation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors designed and implemented a prospective randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing dental surgery requiring intravenous sedation were randomly assigned to dexmedetomidine and midazolam (dexmedetomidine group) or propofol and midazolam (propofol group) sedation. In each group, midazolam 0.02 mg/kg was administered in conjunction with continuous administration of dexmedetomidine or propofol to maintain a bispectral index value of 70 to 80. Unexpected patient movement interfering with the procedure was defined as acceptable, defined as no body movement or only 1 controllable movement, or unacceptable, defined as at least 2 controllable movements or any uncontrollable movement. The primary outcome was unexpected patient movement, and the secondary outcome was defined as snoring and cough reflex. Other variables included demographic and procedural characteristics. Continuous or ordinal variables were analyzed using the Student t test or Mann-Whitney test. Dichotomous or categorical variables were analyzed using the χ2 test or Fisher exact test. A P value less than.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS:Eighty-eight patients were enrolled in the study (dexmedetomidine group, n = 44; propofol group, n = 44). There were no relevant differences between groups for demographics and baseline variables. Intraoperative unacceptable patient movement occurred more commonly in the propofol group (n = 13; 30%) than in the dexmedetomidine group (n = 4; 9%; P = .015). Intraoperative snoring occurred more commonly in the dexmedetomidine than in the propofol group (P = .045). Incidence and number of cough reflexes were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION:Dexmedetomidine and midazolam sedation decreases unexpected patient movement during dental surgery compared with propofol and midazolam sedation.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Owing to its unpredictability, unexpected patient movement is one of the most important problems during surgery while under monitored anesthesia care with sedation. The purpose of this study was to compare unexpected patient movement during dental surgery while under dexmedetomidine and propofol sedation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors designed and implemented a prospective randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing dental surgery requiring intravenous sedation were randomly assigned to dexmedetomidine and midazolam (dexmedetomidine group) or propofol and midazolam (propofol group) sedation. In each group, midazolam 0.02 mg/kg was administered in conjunction with continuous administration of dexmedetomidine or propofol to maintain a bispectral index value of 70 to 80. Unexpected patient movement interfering with the procedure was defined as acceptable, defined as no body movement or only 1 controllable movement, or unacceptable, defined as at least 2 controllable movements or any uncontrollable movement. The primary outcome was unexpected patient movement, and the secondary outcome was defined as snoring and cough reflex. Other variables included demographic and procedural characteristics. Continuous or ordinal variables were analyzed using the Student t test or Mann-Whitney test. Dichotomous or categorical variables were analyzed using the χ2 test or Fisher exact test. A P value less than.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients were enrolled in the study (dexmedetomidine group, n = 44; propofol group, n = 44). There were no relevant differences between groups for demographics and baseline variables. Intraoperative unacceptable patient movement occurred more commonly in the propofol group (n = 13; 30%) than in the dexmedetomidine group (n = 4; 9%; P = .015). Intraoperative snoring occurred more commonly in the dexmedetomidine than in the propofol group (P = .045). Incidence and number of cough reflexes were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION:Dexmedetomidine and midazolam sedation decreases unexpected patient movement during dental surgery compared with propofol and midazolam sedation.
Authors: Bi Lian Li; Hao Luo; Jun Xiang Huang; Huan Huan Zhang; Joanna R Paquin; Vivian M Yuen; Xing Rong Song Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 3.569