Dexmedetomidine versus propofol in dilatation and curettage: An open-label pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Traditionally propofol has been used for providing sedation in dilatation and curettage (D and C). Recently, dexmedetomidine has been tried, but very little evidence exists to support its use. AIMS: The aim was to compare hemodynamic and recovery profile of both the drugs along with a degree of comfort experienced by patients and the usefulness of the drug to surgeons. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Tertiary care center and open-label randomized controlled trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients posted for D and C were enrolled in two groups (25 each). Both groups received fentanyl 1 μg/kg intravenous (IV) at the beginning of the procedure. Group P received IV propofol in dose of 1.5 mg/kg over 10-15 min and Group D received dexmedetomidine at a loading dose of 1 μg/kg over 10 min, followed by 0.5 μg/kg/h infusion until Ramsay sedation score reached 3-4. Hemodynamic vitals were compared during and after the procedure. In the recovery room time to reach modified Aldrete score (MAS) of 9-10 and patient's and surgeon's satisfaction scores were also recorded and compared. RESULTS: In Group D, patients had statistically significant lower heart rate at 2, 5, 10 and 15 min as compared to Group P. Hypotension was present in 52% in Group P and 4% in Group D (P < 0.05). MAS of 9-10 was achieved in 4.4 min in subjects in Group D in contrast to 16.2 min in Group P (P < 0.05). Group D showed higher patient and surgeon satisfaction scores (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine provide better hemodynamic and recovery profile than propofol. It can be a superior alternative for short surgical day care procedures.