A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

被引:3
|
作者
Zhang, Wenyou [1 ]
Wang, Liangrong [1 ]
Zhu, Na [1 ]
Wu, Wenzhi [2 ]
Liu, Haiyan [1 ]
机构
[1] Wenzhou Med Univ, Dept Anesthesiol, Affiliated Hosp 1, Shangcai Village,Nanbaixiang Town,Ouhai Dist, Wenzhou 325000, Peoples R China
[2] Wenzhou Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Gastroenterol, Wenzhou 325000, Peoples R China
来源
BMC ANESTHESIOLOGY | 2024年 / 24卷 / 01期
关键词
Dexmedetomidine; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; Propofol; Sedation-related adverse events; CONSCIOUS SEDATION; ERCP; MIDAZOLAM; REMIFENTANIL; COMBINATION; ANESTHESIA; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1186/s12871-024-02572-z
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background Balanced propofol sedation is extensively used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) are common. In various clinical settings, the combination of dexmedetomidine with opioids and benzodiazepines has provided effective sedation with increased safety. The aim of this investigation was to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during ERCP. Methods Forty-one patients were randomly divided into two groups: the dexmedetomidine (DEX) group and the propofol (PRO) group. Patients in the DEX group received an additional bolus of 0.6 mu g kg(-1) dexmedetomidine followed by a dexmedetomidine infusion at 1.2 mu g kg(-1) h(-1), whereas the PRO group received 1-2 mg kg(-1) of propofol bolus followed by a propofol infusion at 2-3 mg kg(-1) h(-1). During ERCP, the primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia (SpO(2) < 90% for > 10 s). Other intraoperative adverse events were also recorded as secondary outcomes, including respiratory depression (respiratory rate of < 10 bpm min(-1)), hypotension (MAP < 65 mmHg), and bradycardia (HR < 45 beats min(-1)). Results The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly reduced in the DEX group compared to the PRO group (0% versus 28.6%, respectively; P = 0.032). Patients in the PRO group exhibited respiratory depression more frequently than patients in the DEX group (35% versus 81%, respectively; P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in terms of hypotension and bradycardia episodes between groups. During the procedures, the satisfaction scores of endoscopists and patients, as well as the pain and procedure memory scores of patients were comparable between groups. Conclusion In comparison with propofol, dexmedetomidine provided adequate sedation safety with no adverse effects on sedation efficacy during ERCP.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine/Ketamine with Propofol/Fentanyl for Sedation in Colonoscopy Patients: A Double-blinded Randomized Clinical Trial
    Aminnejad, Reza
    Hormati, Ahmad
    Shafiee, Hamed
    Alemi, Faezeh
    Hormati, Maryam
    Saeidi, Mohammad
    Ahmadpour, Sajjad
    Sabouri, Seyed Mahdi
    Aghaali, Mohammad
    CNS & NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS-DRUG TARGETS, 2022, 21 (08) : 724 - 731
  • [22] EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF PROPOFOL SEDATION USING TARGET-CONTROLLED INFUSION PUMP FOR ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY
    Shimamoto, Yoshinori
    Maruyama, Hirotsugu
    Kurokawa, Tatsuya
    Maeda, Natsumi
    Ishikawa-Kakiya, Yuki
    Tanoue, Kojiro
    Higashimori, Akira
    Ominami, Masaki
    Nadatani, Yuji
    Fukunaga, Shusei
    Otani, Koji
    Hosomi, Shuhei
    Tanaka, Fumio
    Nagami, Yasuaki
    Taira, Koichi
    Fujiwara, Yasuhiro
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2024, 99 (06) : AB191 - AB192
  • [23] Balanced propofol sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and octogenarians: Can we achieve both safety and efficacy?
    Vargo, John
    DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY, 2017, 29 (03) : 297 - 298
  • [24] Propofol versus midazolam for conscious sedation guided by processed EEG during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study
    Krugliak, P
    Ziff, B
    Rusabrov, Y
    Rosenthal, A
    Fich, A
    Gurman, GM
    ENDOSCOPY, 2000, 32 (09) : 677 - 682
  • [25] Bispectral index monitoring of midazolam and propofol sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized clinical trial (the EndoBIS study)
    von Delius, S.
    Salletmaier, H.
    Meining, A.
    Wagenpfeil, S.
    Saur, D.
    Bajbouj, M.
    Schneider, G.
    Schmid, R. M.
    Huber, W.
    ENDOSCOPY, 2012, 44 (03) : 258 - 264
  • [26] The efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation in endoscopic ultrasonography: A comparative study
    Jumle, Apurva
    Mahajan, Vaibhav
    Phalgune, Deepak
    Ghongate, Ganesh
    Dubale, Nachiket
    INDIAN ANAESTHETISTS FORUM, 2020, 21 (01): : 38 - 43
  • [27] Safety and Efficacy of Deep Sedation for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: Propofol Versus Propofol Plus Midazolam, Randomized Prospective Study
    Kim, Kyoung-Oh
    Huh, Kyung Rim
    Park, Cheol Hee
    Hahn, Taeho
    Park, Sang Hoon
    Yoo, Kyo-Sang
    Kim, Jong Hyeok
    Park, Choong Kee
    Lee, Kyung-Hun
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2009, 69 (05) : AB228 - AB228
  • [28] Comparing sedation protocols for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): A retrospective study
    Zhang, Ning
    Li, Guanjun
    HELIYON, 2024, 10 (05)
  • [29] Safety of propofol for conscious sedation during endoscopic procedures: A prospective study
    Heuss, LT
    Schnieper, P
    Drewe, J
    Pflimlin, E
    Beglinger, C
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2002, 55 (05) : AB144 - AB144
  • [30] Comparing Efficacy of Propofol and Dexmedetomidine in Conscious Sedation During Stapedotomy Surgery
    Vida Ayatollahi
    Mahzad Mansourimanesh
    Maryam Hatami
    Saeid Atighechi
    Sedighe Vaziribozorg
    Nasir Saeidieslami
    Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, 2022, 74 : 3824 - 3831