Dexmedetomidine or midazolam in combination with propofol for sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized double blind prospective study

被引:15
|
作者
Koruk, Senem [1 ]
Koruk, Irfan [2 ]
Arslan, Ayse Mizrak [3 ]
Bilgi, Murat [4 ]
Gul, Rauf [5 ]
Bozgeyik, Semsettin [6 ]
机构
[1] Istanbul Medeniyet Univ, Fac Med, Dept Anesthesiol & Reanimat, Istanbul, Turkey
[2] Demiroglu Bilim Univ, Fac Med, Dept Gastroenterol, Istanbul, Turkey
[3] Gaziantep Univ, Dept Anesthesiol & Reanimat, Fac Med, Gaziantep, Turkey
[4] Abant Izzet Baysal Univ, Dept Anesthesiol & Reanimat, Bolu, Turkey
[5] NCR Int Hosp, Dept Anesthesiol & Reanimat, Gaziantep, Turkey
[6] Defa Life Hosp, Dept Anesthesiol & Reanimat, Gaziantep, Turkey
关键词
dexmedetomidine; sedation; bispectral index; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; recovery time; CONSCIOUS SEDATION; ANESTHESIA; RECOVERY;
D O I
10.5114/wiitm.2020.95066
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction: Interventional endoscopic procedures, such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), often require sedation during the procedure. The most commonly used drugs for this purpose are midazolam and propofol, which are used as sedative and hypnotic agents with minimal analgesic potential. Aim: To compare the analgesic sedative effects of midazolam-propofol and dexmedetomidine-propofol combinations and their influence on hemodynamic and respiratory variables in patients undergoing ERCP. Material and methods: Forty adult patients aged 20-78 and undergoing ERCP were randomized to two groups. Patients were premedicated with midazolam (0.05 mg/kg 10 min before the procedure) in group M and with dexmedetomidine (1 mu g/kg for 10 min) in group D. Propofol was used for maintenance. The sedation level was monitored using the bispectral index (BIS) to maintain a score between 70 and 80. Hemodynamic and respiratory variables, recovery time and adverse events were recorded. Results: The hemodynamic and respiratory variables were similar in both groups. Total propofol consumption was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group (208.5 +/- 80.0 vs. 154.5 +/- 66.7 mg; p = 0.011). The recovery period was shorter in group D (time to achieve the Aldrete score 9 was 9.4 +/- 2.1 vs. 6.6 +/- 1.1 min; p < 0.001). Changes in hemodynamic and respiratory variables and adverse events were not different between the two groups. Conclusions: We found a shorter recovery time and comparable sedative and adverse effects with the dexmedetomidine-propofol combination compared with the midazolam-propofol combination. Dexmedetomidine in combination with propofol may be a safe and useful alternative for sedation for ERCP patients.
引用
收藏
页码:526 / 532
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] 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
  • [2] Conscious Sedation for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam
    Kilic, Neslihan
    Sahin, Sukran
    Aksu, Hale
    Yavascaoglu, Belgin
    Gurbet, Alp
    Turker, Gurkan
    Kadioglu, Asli Guler
    EURASIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2011, 43 (01): : 13 - 17
  • [3] Addition of dexmedetomidine and nalbuphine as an adjuvant to ketofol for deep sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study
    Alka, Chhabra
    Sharma, Karuna
    Chaudhary, Neelam
    Dave, Milan
    Pandey, Neha
    Gupta, Sunanda
    INDIAN ANAESTHETISTS FORUM, 2022, 23 (01): : 31 - 37
  • [4] A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
    Zhang, Wenyou
    Wang, Liangrong
    Zhu, Na
    Wu, Wenzhi
    Liu, Haiyan
    BMC ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2024, 24 (01):
  • [5] Comparison between Midazolam Used Alone and in Combination with Propofol for Sedation during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
    Kim, Yu Seok
    Kim, Myung-Hwan
    Jeong, Seung Uk
    Lee, Byung Uk
    Lee, Sang Soo
    Park, Do Hyun
    Seo, Dong-Wan
    Lee, Sung Koo
    CLINICAL ENDOSCOPY, 2014, 47 (01) : 94 - 100
  • [6] Comparison of Recovery Time of Propofol and Midazolam with Propofol Alone for Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
    Samreen, Asma
    Waseem, Aamir
    Azam, Muhammad
    Kazmi, Itrat Hussain
    Bashir, Aamir
    Masud, Sarmad
    PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL & HEALTH SCIENCES, 2021, 15 (05): : 1024 - 1027
  • [7] 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
  • [8] Effectiveness of single loading dose of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol for deep sedation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in elderly patients: a prospective randomized study
    Chen, Mo
    Sun, Yi
    Li, Xueyan
    Zhang, Chun
    Huang, Xiaochen
    Xu, Yiming
    Gu, Chengyong
    BMC ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2022, 22 (01)
  • [9] Effectiveness of single loading dose of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol for deep sedation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in elderly patients: a prospective randomized study
    Mo Chen
    Yi Sun
    Xueyan Li
    Chun Zhang
    Xiaochen Huang
    Yiming Xu
    Chengyong Gu
    BMC Anesthesiology, 22
  • [10] Sedation and use of analgesics in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a double-blind comparison study of meperidine/midazolam, remifentanil/midazolam, and remifentanil alone
    Zhang, Jinhua
    Huang, Yong
    Li, Zhao
    Li, Jian
    Liu, Kunpeng
    Li, Chenghui
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY AND THERAPEUTICS, 2016, 54 (11) : 872 - 879