Efficacy and safety of propofol versus midazolam in fiberoptic endotracheal intubation

BACKGROUND: Fiberoptic intubation is a technique commonly used for difficult airways. Conscious sedation is desirable to make this procedure tolerable, and it is essential that patients are cooperative, relaxed, and comfortable especially when difficult airway anatomy or pathology is encountered. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of propofol versus midazolam in oral fiberoptic endotracheal intubation in terms of hemodynamic changes, level of sedation, ease of intubation, and patient comfort and complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective randomized study, 60 patients of age group 18–60 years and American Society of Anesthesiologists health classification of I and II with anticipated difficult intubation were randomly allocated into two groups. Both the groups were premedicated with injection glycopyrrolate 0.005 mg/kg and injection butorphanol 1 mg and nebulized with 4 ml of 4% lignocaine starting 20 min before the surgery. After that patients in Group I received intravenous propofol 1–2 mg/kg to a maximum of 2 mg/kg followed by 20 mg increments if needed and Group II received 0.05 mg/kg midazolam followed by 2 mg increments till the adequate level of sedation was reached. Patients were monitored for hemodynamic parameters, sedation according to observer's assessment of alertness score, intubation score, intubation time, patient comfort, satisfaction score, and complications, if any. Results were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The mean sedation score, patient comfort score, and patient satisfaction were greater in propofol group (P < 0.05) but there were no significant differences in hemodynamics, intubating conditions, and complications. CONCLUSION: We conclude that compared with midazolam, propofol provides better sedation for fiberoptic endotracheal intubation and better patient comfort and satisfaction.